Institutional Collection and Use of Data

In the focus groups, the moderator asked students to differentiate among the types of data that they might be required to share with their institution, and whether it made a difference if that data were managed by their institution or third-party companies. For the most part, throughout all focus groups, there was consensus among all student participants that they had significantly more trust in colleges and much more limited trust in companies. One student said,

I would definitely say I'm less concerned about my institution collecting data. Because they generally don't ask for data a whole lot of the time, besides what they get from, like the basic application type stuff. And I think FERPA¹ just makes me feel better, because it's like federal law. And as a student in higher ed who has worked in very FERPA protected areas, it's very much like, FERPA is a big deal. Institutions are really, in my opinion, going the extra mile to protect student data.

Another student expressed similar feelings about institutions having and using student data. She seemed to see it as part of the trade-off for attending the institution, because she felt like she gave the institution her data when she applied. Conversely, she felt less secure about how corporations use her data. She indicated that knowing companies use her data does not stop her from doing what she wants to do, but it does concern her more than her institution’s use of her data. Another student agreed, expressing that she takes it for granted that institutions are collecting data on her, such as when she is on campus or when she is accessing campus Wi-Fi networks. Another student said that she simply does not think much about how her institution uses her data: “I don't think I'm necessarily concerned about my institution's use of data privacy; I haven't really thought a lot about it. Because it's really not in my face often.” This lack of concern may also be a sign that institutions could be more transparent in informing students about how they collect and use data.

Students were asked if they would be comfortable sharing their location data or even health data with their institutions in order to be compliant with COVID rules. Most students agreed that they would be much more comfortable sharing that information via an institution-created and managed application than one managed by a third-party or external company. “I would prefer an institution-based app,” one student said, continuing, “but I also wouldn't necessarily not use a third-party app. At the end of the day, I feel like desperate times call for desperate measures. And in order to stop the spread of COVID I would probably do what it takes to like be a part of that.” Another student expressed similar sentiments, saying that she would choose to use an institution-based app. She felt as though when she used third-party apps on campus, the name of the company is not recognizable, and as a result, she does not really know where her data is going. Another student agreed, saying that he would be more comfortable using an app if it is university-owned, but far less comfortable if the institution partnered with a third-party app, especially if it involved knowing his location on campus. Student distrust of third-party COVID-related applications have made headlines at some institutions. A COVID tracing application being used at one institution was found to have security flaws that could have resulted in students’ test results being exposed to the public. Concern over the security flaws led to a petition, signed by more than 1,600 students, to call for the institution to terminate its use.²

Some students expressed that while they were not necessarily comfortable with the third-party apps that their institutions are using, they did not feel like they had much choice in using them. One student said that she did not want to take part in some of the monitoring that was happening, but that she had already paid for housing for the year and she felt like she did not have the opportunity to opt out of using the app.

Beyond the privacy issues surrounding health data for COVID purposes, students demonstrated limited knowledge about how colleges work with third-party applications or external companies and the ways that institutions might already share student data with those companies. One student worried about how institutions could use third-party applications to infringe on student privacy rights: “I think like these location systems can definitely be used against students in a very negative way. If institutions are not being quite transparent of what they're using the data for and sort of the parameters around it, then I definitely think that should be an area of concern for all of us. Because I already know not to bring my phone to a protest. Particularly because not only can the school track it, but also the state as well. Or federal government and state government.”

The lack of trust in companies was top of mind for students throughout the focus groups. Many students mentioned being influenced by The Social Dilemma, a Netflix documentary focused on social platforms and the ways they trample user privacy. Students had a strong sense that social media and other internet companies are listening to users to serve them up to advertisers. One student said, “I'll say that I'm not as worried about my university taking my data. But I will say after watching The Social Dilemma on Netflix, I think that data usage is completely on my mind. Now. I still wouldn't say it's crippling. I don't, like, stay up every night thinking about it. But it's definitely more of [an] awakening of how much information is stored and how much is used on a daily basis.”

Students had mixed feelings about colleges using their location data. Many were okay with it as long as it was to combat COVID-19 outbreaks on campus. As one student put it, “I have been contact traced a ton because I am on campus and going to classes in person. I don't think that it's personally a security issue or a privacy issue for me, because the welfare and safety of our students is at risk.” But others—even during a pandemic—were wary of their college using or having access to their location and some were willing to avoid campus to prevent it. “It would sort of be very alarming to me [if my school traced my location]….I think in the era of COVID, we're asked that type of question on a daily [basis] of how much [privacy] are you willing to give away in order to maintain a sense of safety,” said another student.

Students were asked how they felt about institutions using their location data to provide them support services, without COVID in the picture. The reactions were very negative. One student described it as giving him “an authoritarian regime kind of vibe.” Another described feeling uneasy, because “now my school is tracking my every move and they…what else do they know? It's just kind of really weird.”

The student responses to the use of location data by their institutions have larger implications for colleges. Even those generally positive about using location data to fight the pandemic wanted to make sure colleges had clear rules about how they would stop using and destroy data when it was no longer needed. “There'd have to be a clear end. I wouldn't want that to continue after the pandemic so [there would need to be] transparency between the university and the students about when that data will stop being collected…and how they're getting rid of that information afterwards,” was how one student articulated it.

Another theme that emerged was that students are wary of ways that their universities might target them with this type of data. As one student said, “it really just creates an opportunity for those location services to be weaponized against students of color in particular.” Colleges have a long way to go to build trust with marginalized members of their communities. Students also noted that colleges fail to effectively coordinate their communications, making students less likely to trust them with sensitive information. One student who was generally positive about colleges using his location to help gave the caveat that students should be able to opt out of a reminder based on location because “considering the way information is sent and shared on a college campus, you don't want to get the same message…from four different sources.” Other students felt that a nudge to do something the college thought was important undermined their autonomy. “I know what a library is, I know that I can go there for resources. A text alert I don't think is necessary,” said one student, making it clear that she thought the nudge was paternalistic.

The topic of social media monitoring by institutions was one that drew significant interest from the student participants. Their responses varied widely, from grave concern about how social media was used during COVID to determine risk of exposure to no concern about the privacy of student social media accounts. Some students reacted very negatively to the idea of social media monitoring while others were resigned to it. Some students felt that if their peers choose to make their social media information public, it was fair for institutions to monitor it to make sure they were following the rules.

One student against social media monitoring stated, “I think that's a complete violation. Your private social media is your private social media.” Another student explained his feelings this way: “I think institutions are in a very sort of precarious space where they're trying to figure out what does it mean to be a community, particularly what it means to be a digital community….And they're basically targeting students in a way by using constant surveillance. Social media was already about visibility, but institutions are weaponizing it in a way to remove students from their campus.” He went on to say that students are now more cognizant of who is monitoring their social media and who has access to it, and that many students now wonder whether their posts will be seen either by other students who could report them for policy violations or the institution itself. He indicated that the sense of personal space versus what is now seen as public space has changed since the beginning of the COVID pandemic.

Another student said that her friends are now being extremely cautious about their social media use. She mentioned a friend who had been kicked off campus after the first week of school because someone reported her for posting something on social media that violated the social distancing rules. She indicated that many of her peers have limited their friends on Facebook and Instagram because they are worried about their accounts being used against them by their institution.

Although they were in the minority, other students seemed completely unconcerned about the institution monitoring student social media accounts. One said, “I mean, if your social media is public, and the university sees it, then that's sort of on you.” Another student said that he would prefer an institution monitor students’ locations through a third-party application rather than monitoring their social media accounts in order to maintain COVID safety protocols.

Other students seemed to make an exception about social media monitoring by institutions for public health reasons. One shared, “I don't think it makes sense for them to go on social media, unless they have a case that has like been confirmed….I think if there's a party, and there's an instance where you need to have proof [or] you need to know who else was there, it might make sense to go on someone's account and ask their permission to see their account, if it's private. Otherwise, I don't really see why they need to be lurking on social media." A different student indicated the struggle that students have in reconciling the desire for safety with the desire for privacy. She did not want her institution monitoring her social media account, but she knew that many students were still having parties at her campus. She said that she is comfortable with the institution monitoring social media accounts for that purpose, but only because she knew she was not engaging in that behavior herself and the monitoring would help to keep her safe.

Another common theme that came up for students was the peer-to-peer monitoring of social media. In some instances, they indicated that institutions were encouraging this peer monitoring, or a “snitch” system where students report their peers for violations of the COVID safety measures. One student indicated acceptance of this type of monitoring by peers:

I definitely don't love the idea of our universities monitoring our social media, but I know that right now, they kind of have a system in place where if you follow someone on social media and see a party happening, you can report it, which I feel like is a little bit better, because then it's like, student-to-student and you're putting it out to your followers [to see]….So I feel like you're already kind of exposing yourself, so it doesn't bother me as much if it comes from [a situation where] I follow my friend’s account, they're doing this, and I reported it, rather than…our universities…stalking our pages.

Other students felt strongly that this was a method for institutions to put the onus on students to monitor themselves, by weaponizing their social media accounts. One said that her institution created a specific web site called “[institution name] Snitch” where students can upload pictures of people hanging out with peers outside of their dorm and report peers who have violated the rules. She said her institution is using the website to kick students off campus and that over 20 students had been sent home based on pictures others had posted of them. Another expressed concern with this peer snitch approach, saying that she has also witnessed students reporting each other at her institution. These students have been sanctioned based on those reports.

Several students repeated this concern, referring to the negative impact these peer-to-peer reporting practices have had (or would hypothetically have) on campus climate. One student who is not currently on campus said that snitching would create such a bad climate that she would not have any fun and that it would not be worth going back to campus if that were the case. She envisioned an environment where she and her peers would all be so scared of being reported that they would just sit in their rooms and do nothing. Another student shared these concerns, saying, “I feel like people would begin to falsely [start] kind of a witch trial moment where everyone's kind of falsely accusing people at this point, just to cause trouble.” But she felt as though universities had managed to display some restraint by not immediately expelling or suspending anyone who was reported and investigating the incident first. She also indicated that she was not sure monitoring would be effective, since students could stay off of administrators’ radar easily by keeping Facebook event pages private.

Students mostly felt like institutions should not monitor students’ social media accounts for instances of COVID violations, but they did understand the privacy versus safety trade-off that that meant. Administrators should take heed, though, about the ways that campus climate can be impacted by encouraging snitch websites or processes where peers can report one another’s behavior. While safety may be maintained or heightened with active social media monitoring and the use of peer reporting structures, these approaches may backfire by creating a climate with which students no longer want to engage.

Another issue that was raised by several student participants was the invasiveness of proctoring practices and software. These practices are sometimes conducted by individual faculty members and sometimes outsourced by institutions, so that monitoring and proctoring is done by third-party companies. The use of online proctoring software by institutions was commonplace early in the pandemic. As of April 2020, 54 percent of institutions were using online or remote proctoring services, and another 23 percent indicated that they were planning on or considering using them.³

These practices impact students in different ways, as one student parent explained. She was told her exam would be proctored, and that a proctor would be watching her every move. She emailed her professor the following: “‘okay, letting you know, there might be some drawings or whatever in the background. It's not because I'm trying to solve an equation with that. I just have a four-year-old and she's in my room 24/7 with me.’” She said that other times when she has been preparing to take an exam, she has been asked by a proctor why she has a paper next to her on the desk. She has to tell them, “I’m about to take a test. So my four year old is about to practice doing her lettering, right next to me.” She has had to become accustomed to explaining her situation in recent classes, she told us.

Another student described her experience taking the LSAT exam virtually. “I'm not going to lie; it felt a little uncomfortable. Because they are extremely strict about it—like extremely strict about it. I had to show him my surroundings, I had to show him under my desk, I had to turn on my phone turned to selfie mode so that they can see that there's nothing on the screen itself. And then I had to be willing to do everything that the proctor said. So he said, ‘Can you please get up? Can you walk to this wall? Can you walk to that wall?’” She described the feeling as invasive, as the proctor was able to see her anti-Trump poster on the wall, as well as her books and all of her personal belongings.

Other students described the same feeling of having their personal space invaded by professors who insist that students have their cameras on during class. One student described it this way: “I think my concern comes where now that schools are basically allowed into our homes, there's a lot of monitoring with the testing that's happening. With making sure that your eyes stay onto the screen if you're doing a test….There's a sort of a constant surveillance state that's happening, where it wasn't there before, when we were going to classes or being advised or going to events in person.” Another student talked about proctoring processes in which students’ eye movements are tracked; if students look away from the computer screen, they can be accused of cheating. This student said that in one instance she was stopped from continuing an exam because the software program detected someone else using her Wi-Fi network to access an Amazon Fire Stick on a television in her house. She felt very insecure about how the program could detect that level of information about her home situation.

Many students could articulate that this sense of feeling as though their private spaces were being invaded was a trade-off for their ability to take classes virtually. And several students seemed resigned to the situation, expressing a “this is how it is now” sentiment. Other participants, however, expressed a desire for alternatives to this invasion of privacy. These students indicated that they preferred to have open-note or open-book exams that were more thoughtfully crafted to prevent students from cheating. Professors who used applied questions on their exams could still allow for open notes or open books while assessing student learning in the course. This student sentiment has been supported by faculty members who are also wary of using online proctoring companies in their classrooms. One informal poll by an adjunct professor found that 81 percent of professors said they would not use online proctoring software provided by their institution.⁴

Students had mixed reactions to questions about their comfort with institutional outreach informed by their demographic data. Hypothetical scenarios prompted students to consider ways institutions might suggest resources that seem relevant to them based on different types of demographic data, including first-generation status, Pell-eligibility, and race.

Some students said that they would appreciate receiving personalized messages about programs and supports based on demographic data. One student said that they would support institutions using racial demographic data to do targeted outreach to students about community events on campus, because disaggregating data here might help campuses to take a more critical look at how well they are supporting certain student identities. However, even among students who generally felt comfortable with institutions using their demographic data, most still voiced major caveats. Several shared that they would only feel comfortable with targeted outreach based on demographics if they had opted in to receiving those communications. Students do not want to feel surprised as to why an institution knows that they identify within certain demographic groups, and some level of consent to use their data is preferred. A few students proposed that institutions only use demographic data voluntarily shared by students for outreach, and that students be given the choice to opt in. One explained that supports may not always resonate with the intended students and that those messages can be disruptive. For example, “although I am first-gen, I might be doing really well and I don't need the additional support. So I would prefer that you not blow my phone up with notifications that aren't helpful.”

Students also had varying degrees of comfort depending on the ways in which institutions used the demographic data for different types of outreach. Several students had a negative reaction to the idea of institutions using student financial aid data to send an email with information about the availability of emergency aid and hours of an on-campus food bank. Outreach about food bank availability based on Pell-eligibility data was seen as assumptive and marginalizing, with one student flagging the fact that “not all low-income people are food insecure, and not all food insecure people are low-income.” A student in another focus group agreed, saying, “financial situations can change in an instant” and Pell-eligibility does not always accurately reflect level of food insecurity. Students were much more comfortable with demographics being used to send notifications about scholarships, based on a student’s Pell-eligibility, first-generation status, or race. Still, a couple of students from one focus group session argued that it would be more beneficial for students if information about all scholarship opportunities were available in a centralized location online.

Finally, several students said they were strongly against receiving personalized outreach about clubs and organizations specific to their demographic data. These students cited the idea that this practice could potentially limit their own process of exploring engagement opportunities and experiences on campus. “You don’t want to have it so it’s like, ‘go to these events because you’re Black,’ or ‘go to these events because you’re Christian,’ because then it can kind of limit the amount of growth that you can have and the types of people you’ll get to meet on campus,” explained one student. Students discussed how they value their independence and choice in this area, and that information about organizations and clubs should go out to all students rather than to certain groups.