The University of Pennsylvania has dropped charges against the student who posted photos of a pair of fellow students having sex up against a dormitory window. Here's to administrators who are willing to admit when they've made a mistake--or, to put things more circumspectly, who have the sense to back down when they are backed into a corner.

The Daily Pennsylvanian reports that the woman pictured in the telltale photos has retained a lawyer and will pursue all available options for legal redress. Meanwhile, Penn history professor Alan Charles Kors points out that it would be premature to assume that all is now well in Penn's Office of Student Conduct:

Alan Kors, a History professor and renowned defender of freedom of expression who had come to the photographer's defense, believes that the situation points to a larger problem on campus.

"If this Office of Student Conduct was willing to pursue this case with these facts, then what cases don't we know about?" he asked. "That is frightening because most [students] plea bargain."

Geier said that before he agreed to advise the student, the photographer was on the verge of agreeing to the OSC's initial proposal.

Kors called for a University investigation into the office and its definition of students' rights as well as what constitutes certain violations.

"We have got to know what criteria of student conduct this office is working with," he said, adding that the OSC is "clearly out of its mind and out of control."

I don't know either that these administrators "got it right" or that they're "willing to admit when they've made a mistake." These are administrators who were backed into a corner by media publicity and had to choose between bowing out ungracefully or exposing themselves to escalating national ridicule. In dropping the charges, they acted out of fear, not necessarily out of principle. Note that they're still asking (although not requiring) the student photographer to apologize for his actions....

Interesting to speculate about what kind of redress the woman could seek. Certainly, by the way, she could not seek redress without disclosing her identity. And won't her parents be proud then?

By the way, and I speak with my lawyer voice here, I have no idea what kind of redress she thinks she'd be entitled to persue nor what, if any, damages she may have suffered as a result?

I'm on the fence on this whole situation, in part because I'm not familiar with Penn's rules and regulations.

On the one hand, I think what the photographer did crosses the line into invasion of privacy. I would feel differently if the two students had been in a public place (classroom, library, etc). The photographer's actions in taking and distributing the photos bothers me from a privacy standpoint.

Now, this doesn't mean that he has, in fact, broken any rules. He may well not have. However, I think the university would be remiss if they did not at least investigate the situation. Personally, as a campus judicial officer, I would have investigated before I filed charges.

On the other hand, I would charge the couple in question. Most universities have a "disruptive behavior" policy, and I'd say this qualifies. While I think the photographer crossed the line, I can't work up a lot of sympathy for the couple, who appear to have done this three days in a row, and should know enough to KEEP THE BLINDS SHUT.

Prof. Kors' statement concerns me. It sounds just a wee bit paranoid ... he implies there's a serious problem and that there are a lot of cases that they don't know about. The burden of proof is on him to show that it's an issue, which will be challenging given FERPA regulations on student judicial records.

That said, I can't say I blame him ... charges in this case seem to have been premature (though not knowing the specific rules, I can't say if they weren't warranted). Given his previous involvement in the notorious water buffalo incident, it's logical he'd be skeptical. And just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're NOT out to get you!

To clarify my earlier post, my privacy concern stems from the fact that the students were in a residence room. While I recognize that the couple should have closed the blinds (and as I said I'd support filing charges against them), the photographer's decsion to photograph them AND distribute the picture concerns me. Had it been in a public area, I'd have no issue with the photographer's actions. Since it took place in a residence room, though, it strikes me as intrusive.

That said, I doubt I'd find him in violation given that the blinds were open and the couple was right up against the window.

Maybe they were so caught up in the moment that they forgot the blinds were even open. In any case, if the school has a disruptive behavior policy, then, as RP mentioned, this would probably qualify. I don't know if the photographer had any legal basis to use the photos...I would think not. I'm reminded of Cameron Diaz suing to prevent a photographer from publishing nude photos of her and winning. If the students can actually be identified from the pictures, then I think the photographer had no right to post them. Maybe the law says different, I don't know, but if he gained from it in any way, I think he should be held accountable. Or he should've been decent enough to not take the photos in the first place.

I sense a gender double standard in Penn's response. If a male student had repeatedly exposed himself from his dorm window, and female students had witnessed the display and taken pictures, the male would have been identified, accused of sexual harassment and public indecency (with the photos cited as helpful evidence), and probably kicked out of university housing as a clear and present danger to campus women. But when a female engages in public sexual intercourse, and males take pictures, the roles of victim and harasser are reversed. (In fact there was a naked, copulating male involved here, but university administrators are tellingly ignoring his presence because it doesn't fit with their ideological model of male harassers vs. female victims.)

Tom, I believe the recent Cameron Diaz lawsuit related to blackmail. A photographer who shot Diaz topless when she was unknown tried to sell the photos back to her for millions of dollars once she became famous, threatening to publish them if she refused to pay. She won the case.

Alan Charles Kors has advised a number of Penn students who got caught up in the campus judiciary machine, among them Eden Jacobowitz (of "water buffalo" fame). With Harvey Silverglate he is author of "The Shadow University" about widespread abuses in this area. If his comment were a reaction to just this one case, it might sound "just a wee bit paranoid" but he's seen far too many examples to believe they are rare and isolated.

Tom--

The students did this three days in a row.

Honey, you wouldn't need "redress" if you didn't UNDRESS before your whole neighborhood.

I'm assuming this is a rich Ivy League's kid whose parents are paying for her lawyer. Imagine the phone call home.... "Hi, Mom, it's me. Have you seen my ass on the evening news? I need you to get me a lawyer...."

Tait,

I would agree with your concerns if photos were taken INTO the dorm room, but these two did not simply leave the blinds open, they were up against the freakin' window. There is, to say the least, no reasonable expaectation of privacy in this situation.

Also, exactly how sturdy are these windows? Wouldn't you be worried about that at all?

Chris,

I can't believe I missed the safety issue! Very good point, and one that should be addressed with the students in the photo. Depending on the code of conduct, there could be additional charges arising out of that aspect.

The reason I'm still not comfortable letting the photographer off scott-free is that the couple was inside a residence. While I realize that they were against the window (and should face charges), the fact remains they were in a residence and the photographer distributed the photos. I think my issue is that I see behavior like this being allowed could make allowable almost any type of peeping tom-esque behavior, short of actually entering a room. Is it allowable for someone to peer through half-drawn curtains? 3/4 drawn? At what point is it NOT allowable for someone to take a picture of another person inside that person's residence without their knowledge or consent and distribute it? Perhaps case by case is the best way to handle issues like this.

That said, this particular case is probably not good for a "landmark" decision on privacy rights, given the specifics ... the couple should reasonably have known someone could see them. I'm not shedding any tears for these two, as they're seeing the consequences of their actions. The distribution aspect is probably what bugs me most, and my concerns don't mean that there's anything legally wrong with the action.

Once again, they had sex in the window THREE DAYS IN A ROW.

Tait, this simply isn't analogous to someone peering in to take pictures of innocuous residential activity. What they were doing was deliberately and specifically BROADCAST for others' consumption, out of the residence and into the public domain. Would I have a "right to privacy" in my statements if I took a megaphone and started saying things from my apartment window to random passers-by on the street? And if one of them happened to be recording what I was saying?