The University of Pennsylvania investigated more than one student for posting photographs of the couple who had sex three days running against a dorm window earlier this fall. One of them was so angered by the hypocrisy displayed by the Office of Student Conduct that he filed a complaint of his own:

One senior who wished to remain anonymous said he filed an indecent exposure complaint against the couple in late October but that the Office of Student Conduct decided not to act on the grievance.

The student said OSC Associate Director Ed Rentezelas e-mailed him last week to say that there would be no investigation into his claim.

"Our office will not be taking any further action in your case," Rentezelas said in the e-mail, which the student forwarded to The Daily Pennsylvanian. OSC officials did not return calls to verify the authenticity of the e-mail.

History professor Alan Kors -- who served as an advocate for the Engineering junior initially charged by the University with sexual harassment for taking and distributing the sex-scene photos -- said he does not think that indecent-exposure charges are necessary.

"Let's put this behind everyone," he said. "I hope people will just leave [the couple] alone."

The student who lodged the indecent-exposure complaint said he filed it after the OSC investigated him for downloading and e-mailing the pictures and creating a group on facebook.com making light of them.

"At that moment, I got very angry. I was basically outraged," he said. "I was just trying to show [the OSC] how ridiculous it was" that they were investigating him and not the couple, he said.

The student said the investigation into his actions ended in late October. Though he was forced to remove the Facebook group, the student was never charged with any violations.

Today's Daily Pennsylvanian calls on the OSC to be accountable for its actions. Noting that bad publicity was the only thing that stopped Penn from unfairly pursuing baseless charges against a student last week, a staff editorial argues that Penn owes it to the university community to adopt more transparent procedures:

How many more cases are there like this?

In the 2001-02 school year, the OSC pursued 91 conduct-related disciplinary cases. There could be dozens of cases, similar to the photography incident, where students were being unfairly charged.

Do not think that most of the incidents were related to alcohol either; only 21 of them did.

The only information provided about these cases is that 23 incidents involved "disorderly conduct" and 31 cited "computer misuse or piracy." Making matters worse, the OSC has not made new statistics publicly available since 2002.

These cases are translating vague policies -- such as the prohibition of "harrassing communications" -- into action. Unless the public can actually see this happen, no one will have an idea of how the policies apply to real life.

The OSC's role is to decide if students are guilty of misconduct, and they should make the University community aware of the results of the proceedings. In the interest of student privacy, they can withhold names. But they shouldn't allow another incident like this to go under the radar.

Informing the public would make the OSC's actions more fair and accountable, and hopefully avoid another black eye for the University.

'Let's put this behind everyone?'

Begin snickering now.

The call for a more transparent process may not go anywhere, as FERPA prevents universities from disclosing the contents of student judicial records.

That said, it appears that Penn could stand a good review of their policies.

Penn's refusal to pursue the charge against the couple is a big mistake on their part. I can see no justification for filing charges against the photographer if they had no intention of charging the couple.

I find it disturbing that schools are so successful in insisting that students remove "offensive" Facebook.com groups. This is the third instance I know of in which school administrators successfully threatened students for engaging in speech the administration didn't like on that website. The fact that only one of these has had any measure of public controversy (notably because the student refused to accept the ridiculous punishment, but he did acquiesce to demands that he remove his Facebook.com activities) tells me that this is an area where (admittedly, probably legal, but also dangerous and possibly unethical) speech codes are being enforced with no public outcry.

If indecent exposure is in the Pennsylvania criminal code, then there's an issue here, especially if, as is alluded to above, these students were doing it not just once (and perhaps inadvertently), but for three days running. (Kinda takes away from the lady's case if she sues, it seems to me!)

If I'm a male student and choose to display my, er, assets in the window to passersby on the street below, what would the university's response be to a complaint? Some people may find this offensive -- as some people perhaps found public sex offensive. I'm not so much convinced that there's a double standard as that there's a complete abdication of responsibility here.

Reminds me of the comment about Dartmouth in the Animal House era versus now: back then, hanky panky could get you in big trouble, but the college looked the other way over booze. Now, booze will get you in big trouble, but the college looks the other way over hanky-panky.