# data[].attributes.body
After completing my Master's degree in Student Development and Leadership in Higher Education, I hope to become an academic advisor. As a student affairs professional, I believe a successful academic advising appointment is crucial to student success.

# data[].attributes.headline
Exploration Option 1: Discussion with an Academic Advising and Counseling Community College Director 

# data[].attributes.subject
Exploration Option 1: Discussion with an Academic Advising and Counseling Community College Director 

# data[].attributes.body
During the interview I had with Dr. Deidra Turner, director of advising and counseling, we discussed the various legal and ethical issues that occur within her position as well as the department of advising and counseling. The top five things I learned during our discussion are, house bill 2223 proposed from the state impacted how the department implements change. For example, developmental classes integrated with accredited classes. The key benefit of the integrated course allows for students to be able to complete their courses quicker. The second thing I learned, along with this initiative that stems from house bill 2223, a change that came with the bill revised TSI (Texas Success Initiative) testing scores. The placement of scores were changed to accommodate if students placed in college ready courses or developmental courses. Another thing we discussed were the legal requirements/compliance issues she is responsible to communicate to her team to then notify students. For example, should a student have a criminal record, it is up to advisors to notify the student that the career path they have chosen may not be possible because of their record. We then discussed student rights to keep in mind in relation to her work. Dr. Turner believes FERPA (Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act) is highly important. FERPA protects the privacy of a student’s personal information kept by the school as well as their educational records. Often times, we have parents come to campus for their child and inquiring about certain information. Unless the student is present with a state issued ID or signed a waiver form, we are not allowed to give out any of their information. Lastly, Dr. Turner specified that she stays current on legal issues through educational web journals as well as anything that comes down from the government or state to the district offices down to the institution to stay up to date on policies and procedures, as well as, changes that need to be implemented.

(personal communication, D. Turner, June 7, 2018)

# data[].attributes.headline
Option 3: The struggle to find to the balance between privacy issues and mental health involvements 

# data[].attributes.subject
Option 3: The struggle to find to the balance between privacy issues and mental health involvements 

# data[].attributes.body
With recent suicide reports in the headlines, and with statistics showing 18 to 25-year old's have the highest occurrence of experiencing a form of mental illness, industry leaders are recognizing that students' mental health needs greater attention, particularly as more instances of suicide and tragedy on campus come into the spotlight (Carter, 2018). In this article, the topic of discussion is whether academic advisors should intervene in a student’s personal life if they know they are struggling academically and should they be held accountable. To combat the statistics, it is suggested the academic advisors who are not trained as mental health professionals should take a training to spot the warning signs and refer them to an on-campus counselor for further assistance. The legal issue behind this debate is that colleges are limited to the amount of information they are at liberty to share about students with non-students as delegated by the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act. But there is a fine line between prohibiting dangerous behavior and maintaining student privacy; outside of an imminent threat to self and others, schools can mandate very little for students who show even clear signs of distress, and who are able to turn down offers for therapy, counseling, and other resources (Carter, 2018).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Dive Brief:

The New York Times profiled the 2016 suicide of a Hamilton College sophomore, whose academic advisors had known he had been struggling academically but failed to intervene, positing a question of whether colleges have a responsibility to prevent suicide or notify students' parents if there are signs of "complete crash and burn."

Colleges are limited in the type and amount of information they can share about students with non-students, as mandated by the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, and the Hamilton student's case follows a ruling from Massachusett's highest court last week that M.I.T could not be held responsible for the suicide of a graduate student in 2009. Some officials, who can share information in suicide is a stated possibility, say they hold back to avoid intrusive parenting of students who are legal adults.

While the numbers attached to suicidal ideation and deaths are stark at highly competitive places like the University of Pennsylvania, which has seen 14 student suicides in the last 5 years, campuses and systems are working to assist students in broader ways.

Dive Insight:

With statistics showing 18 to 25 year olds have the highest prevalence of experiencing a form of mental illness, industry leaders are recognizing that students' mental health needs greater attention, particularly as more instances of suicide and tragedy on campus come into the spotlight. In Great Britain, demand for increased mental health services has officials calling for partnerships between schools and government to increase resources.

But to what extent can academic advisers and others who are not trained as mental health professionals be held responsible for the mental well-being of students? In some institutions, leadership teams are turning to mental health triaging training to help faculty and staff at all levels identify warning signs and encourage them to write a referral for follow-up. But in many cases, the stigma associated with mental health struggles and other barriers, like simply not knowing what services are available on campus keep students from seeking help.

The key element for campuses to consider with student suicide and student-related crime is how much an institution is made aware of a potential scenario, and what deliberate steps should it have taken to prevent such a scenario. But there is a fine line between prohibiting dangerous behavior and maintaining student privacy; outside of an imminent threat to self and others, schools can mandate very little for students who show even clear signs of distress, and who are able to turn down offers for therapy, counseling, and other resources.

This is the challenge in the years following Virginia Tech's mass shooting and a growing culture of violence and suicide on campus. As more students become empowered to share intimate thoughts about suicidal ideation, schools may find that stakeholders (other students, parents, legislators) may want to push the envelope on the role campus communities should play in preventing tragedy. And as courts draw closer to establishing rules of liability for schools in student health and protection, which could extend to self-care, more attention must be given to the social-emotional well-being of students on campus, not just how many courses they're taking at a time or how long it takes them to graduate.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Institutions struggle to find the line between mental health intervention and privacy issues

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The New York Times profiled the 2016 suicide of a Hamilton College sophomore, whose academic advisors had known he had been struggling academically but failed to intervene, positing a question of whether colleges have a responsibility to prevent suicide or notify students' parents if there are signs of "complete crash and burn."

# data[].attributes.headline
Option 3 Continued: Ethical issue of students having their scholarships revoked 

# data[].attributes.subject
Option 3 Continued: Ethical issue of students having their scholarships revoked 

# data[].attributes.body
In this article, the University of Texas at Tyler found their calculations to be off for a full ride, four-year fellowships it offers to the institution. In response to their error, between 50 to 60 students had their scholarships revoked even though students abandoned their backup colleges to attend the institution because of the scholarship. As word about what has happened has spread in recent days, many admissions leaders say they view UT Tyler's actions as unethical (Jaschik, 2018). Of course, the students that had their dreams taken away from them have negative feelings towards the school, as well, as admission officials are dumbfounded by the institutions decision. Vice president for marketing and chief communications Lucas Roebuck was questioned if it were legal for the school to take such action because of their mistake, Roebuck said, "We would not do anything that was illegal (Jaschik, 2018)”.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This is the time of year when some colleges find that more admitted applicants than they expected have accepted admissions offers. Generally this is viewed as a good problem to have -- even if it means that some double rooms must be converted to triples. The norm is to find a way to deal with the accepted applicants. When the University of California, Irvine, last year found itself with about 800 unexpected freshmen and tried to revoke some admissions offers, an uproar prompted a reversal of that approach.

But in the last week, the way a university has dealt with its own mistake -- offering more scholarships than it budgeted for, and then withdrawing them -- has left admissions experts stunned and angry.

The University of Texas at Tyler found its calculations off for full-ride, four-year fellowships it offered. More fellowships were offered than were in the university's plan, and most of those offered the scholarships said that they planned to arrive at Tyler in the fall.

The university responded by revoking between 50 and 60 such scholarships, even though students are being informed long after many of them committed to Tyler and abandoned other college options. Adding to the turmoil for these students is that most of them are from Nepal, so they were obtaining their student visas on the basis of attending a college that many no longer consider to be within reach. The university declined to confirm that all of those who had scholarships revoked were international students, but said that no Texans had scholarships taken away.

As word about what has happened has spread in recent days, many admissions leaders say they view UT Tyler's actions as unethical. Further, they note that the students from Nepal are taking to social media to tell their stories, and that others may now view offers from American colleges and universities as something other than trustworthy. As that view spreads, many American colleges could feel an impact.

Admissions officials say they are simply stunned by UT Tyler's decision.

"What happened on one level is understandable, as almost every U.S. campus is coping with enrollment and budget headaches, including negative reactions from potential international students to recent U.S. rhetoric and policy shifts," said Jonathan Burdick, vice provost for enrollment initiatives and dean of college admission at the University of Rochester. But, he added, "In this climate, pulling the rug out from 45 students who have worked their butts off to be prepared for study in a U.S. college is criminal." (About 45 Nepalese students have identified themselves as among those whose scholarships were revoked.)

Burdick said, "The buck should stop with the officials who made the offers to figure out how to honor them. If not, there should be accountability at a higher, systemwide level."

Rochester enrolls some students from Nepal, he added, and many need aid. "They are costly on average but also excellent. Their peers benefit from knowing them."

Some admissions counselors who work with international students said Tyler's decision is already leading to questions that they can't answer from prospective students considering applying to American colleges.

Many colleges, of course, have different policies for international and domestic students, or for in-state and out-of-state students. But these policies are public and do not involve revoking a pledged offer of a scholarship.

The value of the revoked scholarships is just over $27,000 a year for a non-Texas student.

UT Tyler has offered the students whose scholarships have been revoked a $5,000-a-year scholarship and in-state tuition rates for which they would normally not be eligible. The university also has offered refunds on any fees already paid by the scholarship winners who now cannot afford to or do not want to enroll.

Lucas Roebuck, vice president for marketing and chief communications officer at UT Tyler, said that the university never expected to have as many applicants from Nepal as it attracted. Historically, he said, the university has had a handful of Nepalese students. When plans for the new full-ride scholarships were announced, the current students apparently reached out to friends and family members at home, encouraging them to apply.

Tyler didn't have to admit all of them, and the university reviewed applications individually. "We made a mistake," he said, blaming the admissions decisions on "an administrative oversight."

The university is honoring 184 full-scholarship offers, including 35 to students from outside the United States. This is the first year that the university has offered the full scholarship program.

"We regret this. It is unfortunate, and it has a real impact," Roebuck said.

He said, "We have budget realities," so the university was forced to reconsider the scholarship commitments when it realized the number that had been awarded. He said the awards being honored already exceed budget plans, but Tyler cannot afford to go beyond that.

Asked if the lesser scholarship and the refunds were enough to compensate students who were led to believe that they could count on UT Tyler, he said, "All I can say is that we are very regretful. We took a very hard look at our budget options."

And asked if it was legal to revoke a scholarship offer that students accepted in good faith, Roebuck said, "We would not do anything that was illegal."

Justin Draeger, president and CEO of the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators, said via email that he could not comment on the situation at UT Tyler.

In general, however, he said that his association has "several ethical principles detailing expectations that financial aid administrators manifest the highest levels of integrity and dealing with parents and students in a way that merits trust, which includes abiding by commitments made to students and parents."

Joan Liu, university adviser at United World College of South East Asia, in Singapore ("college" in the name refers to what in the U.S. would be a precollege school), said via email that the situation cannot be treated as just another budget glitch.

"UT Tyler's actions perpetuate the growing perception that U.S. universities do not welcome international students. UT Tyler's decision to cancel full scholarships may jeopardize the entire admissions profession," she said.

The students who saw scholarships disappear are being forced into "a new version of the admissions Hunger Games, where kids will be forced to compete against each other if any last-minute opportunities come up."

Added Liu, "The timing, scope and damage done to international students by a U.S. institution is unprecedented. It cannot be overstated how remarkable this is."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
University gives away more scholarships than it budgeted for, and revokes them

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This is the time of year when some colleges find that more admitted applicants than they expected have accepted admissions offers. Generally this is viewed as a good problem to have -- even if it means that some double rooms must be converted to triples.

# data[].attributes.headline
Legal and Ethical issues: FERPA (Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act) 

# data[].attributes.subject
Legal and Ethical issues: FERPA (Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act) 

# data[].attributes.body
The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act is a Federal law that protects the privacy of student education records. The law applies to all schools that receive funds under an applicable program of the U.S. Department of Education (Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act FERPA, 2018). I chose this topic because as a student affairs professional, I run across this issue quiet often with parents trying to get information about the student without their consent.

# data[].attributes.headline
Researching the Role of Ethic in Academic Advising 

# data[].attributes.subject
Researching the Role of Ethic in Academic Advising 

# data[].attributes.body
Academic advisors are faced with situations in which they have dealt with ethical dilemmas. For example, allowing if the students career path is right for them or the number of classes they are wanting to take in a semester is the best option for them. The harm of these situations is that there is for the advisor to take quick action. Certain decisions must be made in a short period of time, and it is at this point that the practice and theory behind advising merge with the values (Church & Robinson, 2018). Academic advising is a crucial part of higher education and a student’s educational journey. As the importance of academic advising only increases, so does the importance of their decisions. Legal and ethics issues in advising will continue to become more important as advising develops. Advisors must be able to adjust to do their jobs effectively.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Matthew Church and Anthony Robinson, University of Louisville

All advisers have had situations in which they have been faced with ethical dilemmas. These dilemmas can range from the practical (Should I let this student take three physical activity courses in a semester?) to the dire (Should a student stay in this major?). The detriment of these situations is that there is a need for the academic adviser to act rapidly and on his/her own. Certain decisions must be made in a short period of time, and it is at this point that the practice and theory behind advising merge with the values. Fisher (2005) noted the need for advisers to be strong student advocates, neutral mediators, moral role models, and conscientious staff representatives. Furthering the roles of advisers, Fisher (2005) concluded that institutions need to provide advisers with the resources necessary to enhance and update ethical decision making for the sake of building and maintaining student trust. Fisher's contention prompted a further question: What is the role of ethics in advising? This question delves into the very core of advising and the National Academic Advising Association's Statement of Core Values of Academic Advising (NACADA, 2004). It is common for all student affairs personnel to face ethical decisions on a daily basis. Janosik, Creamer, & Humphrey (2004) concluded that giving greater attention and time to the field of ethics is vital to student affairs. With that conclusion in mind, this article represents an attempt to focus attention and time on the issue of ethics.

Academic advising is becoming a vital part of higher education. As the importance of academic advising increases, so does the importance of the decisions faced by advisers on a day-to-day basis. Several examples of ethical dilemmas come to mind regarding potential situations faced by academic advisers within the scope of their positions.

Ethics in Everyday Advising

Some of the questions and quandaries that confront advisers on a day-to-day basis are rooted in ethical dilemmas and merit substantial ethical reflection. Three instances come to mind: the "easy class," the medical student, and the policy question. Each will be presented as an example and their ethical implications discussed. The test cases and the presentation of ethical ideals through examples was a method utilized by Lowenstein and Grites (1993). The answers and approaches to each differ based on certain idiosyncrasies of each case. Each example ties in several interpretations of the core values and the ethical ideals of advising.

Example 1: "Easy Class"

A student comes into an office and the adviser asks which courses he would like to take. In response, the student looks up and asks, "What is easy?" This circumstance happens more frequently than we would like to admit and produces several ethical quandaries. The adviser must not only try to do what is right but also to respect the intentions of the student. The dilemma involves fidelity, justice, and autonomy. The adviser is loyal to the student, the institution, and higher education. Most advisers will know which courses are reputed to be easy and which ones are not. Answering the student's question forces a decision. By telling the student an "easy class," the adviser is being disloyal to the student and the educational community. If higher education is to promote a well-rounded education and a love of learning, recommending courses that offer little intellectual stimulation does not help higher education. Also, recommending an easy course may lead to lesser quality students in that course, and the adviser would also be disloyal to the faculty.

The student's side is another question. By telling the student the name of an easy course, the immediate needs and aims of the student are met and the adviser is well-liked. On the contrary, what is the long-term ramification of the recommendation? By suggesting easy courses, the adviser has established a situation where the student has learned how to find easier courses and may opt to take courses along this typology. Eschewing difficult courses will boost the student's GPA, but what does it do to the student? How does an easy course help a student prepare for life outside of college? How does taking the easy way out establish trends for life? A simple question carries many ethical implications. Fidelity mandates a dilemma since the adviser is loyal to the institution and to the student. The need for autonomy on the part of the student and adviser is involved, as are respect for person, the NACADA Core Values, and the very root value of personal responsibility.

Example 2: Medical School

Questions of justice, personal responsibility, and fidelity surround the example of an aspiring medical student. At her first meeting with an adviser, a student states her intention to become an oncologist. As the student and adviser continue to meet throughout the student's time at the institution, the goal stays the same, but the student's GPA falters. Each semester the student is closer to probation and hovers around a 2.0. She cannot get any higher than a C in her pre-medical courses and is in danger of failing out. She still insists they she going to medical school. What does an adviser do? The consideration of fidelity suggests the adviser remain loyal to the student and encourage her to keep working toward her goal. However, respect for a student implies honesty. Someone needs to advise this student to find a backup plan, such as another major or goal. Medical school admissions are quite competitive, and a 2.1 GPA will not allow the student to be competitive with other applicants. Concerns of utility suggest telling the student the reality of the situation. The student benefits because she is free to pursue something in which she may find more success. What is the proper answer? Face facts or encourage a goal most likely untenable?

Example 3: Policy Question

The last example is rather simple. A student has applied to graduate and is denied. He has neglected to finish one public speaking course, which is required by the general education requirements. The student, having already been accepted to graduate school with a fellowship, comes to the adviser seeking help. The student does not know if he will be able to get a similar financial aid package in the next year. The student needs to graduate and wants to petition. Upon being informed there is no solution, the student asks the adviser, "Don't you think the policy is unfair?" This question puts the adviser at a loss. The adviser may empathize with the student and wish that she could help the advisee go on to graduate school. The adviser also may think that the student should have been allowed to graduate. The converse is that the adviser is an employee of the institution and steward of higher education. If the adviser says the policy is unfair, she has forfeited loyalty to the institution in favor of loyalty to the student. Cases can be made for both decisions. Which is the best one?

Discussion

The prior three examples demonstrate the tenuous role of ethics in current advising practice. While numerous theories can be promulgated to ideally craft the ethical adviser, the formulation of such an ideal is quite difficult. The adviser has three loyalties that must be considered: student, institution, and self. Both Kitchener (2000) and Lowenstein and Grites (1993) mentioned fidelity as one of the base considerations in ethics. While it goes without saying that fidelity is important, it is also the most dangerous ethical consideration in advising. Loyalty to the student is an imperative. Advisers go into advising out of a desire to help students and to promote education. Thus, loyalty to the student is an important consideration for any adviser. Institutional loyalty is another hallmark. The adviser must always remember that he/she is an agent of the institution and must support the policies of the institution. These two loyalties are quite prone to conflict, and there is need for a method of determining which loyalty to uphold. This situation highlights the third and most important loyalty: loyalty to self. Advisers must "walk the lines" among their loyalties as they attempt to carry out their duties. However, while it is easy to say there is need to walk these lines, the actual guidance on how to do so is lacking. The following will attempt to suggest a methodology for deciding loyalties.

The first step is to adopt an applied ethical approach to advising. The subjective nature of advising necessitates the avoidance of standardization and calls for the adviser to approach every instance on a case-by-case basis. Adopting this schema allows for constant thought on the nature of the situation and precludes errors based on habit. With a mindset focused on applied ethics, the adviser is better equipped to handle any situation and allows for the ability to think on one's feet. After this is adopted, the adviser must go through a step-by-step process for each encounter that has any ethical concerns. When a student's situation elicits ethical concern, the adviser needs to consider the various ideals discussed earlier in this piece. Beneficence should be constant in every adviser, and there should be a desire to help for the sake of the student.

The next ideal concerns fidelity. An adviser must always consider the various loyalties involved in any decision and must clearly identify these ideals.

The last concern is autonomy. The adviser needs to know that the decision is ultimately his/hers; he/she cannot go to solicit policy opinions for every question, as this would minimize their efficiency.

Now with the background ideals identified, the following will suggest a step-by-step process for resolving ethical concerns.

Method for Resolving Ethical Concerns

There are five steps involved in this method for ethical considerations in advising. The first step is to consider the issue without any external influence or consideration. The adviser should consider the issue on its own and try to identify and deconstruct the issue to allow for analysis. This can be viewed as fusion of advising with the Lockean theory oftabula rasa, starting with a blank slate. The next step involves a limited infusion of external concerns. The adviser, having broken down the issue, should look at what is best for the student and the institution. Ideally, the answers will overlap. A confluence of the interests of the student and institution allows for a cessation of the process. Unfortunately, there is often conflict between the two concerns, and this leads to the third step. The third step involves the consideration of utility. An adviser should attempt to find what action would lead to the greatest good for the greatest number. Once an adviser identifies what the utilitarian decision is, the fourth step aligns the two decisions on their respective benefit. By quantifying the positives and negatives of the situation, the adviser has a better chance of evaluating the situation. The fourth step allows for a comparison of the possible ethical good of a decision. The last step is the decision. The decision, ultimately, is made by the adviser. While consulting colleagues is feasible, the adviser has to answer to the student and decide what is best for the student, the institution, and the adviser. This brief schematic may not be universally accepted, but it does attempt to formulate a process of dealing with ethical decision making in advising.

To summarize, the following are the five steps proposed for resolving ethical concerns in academic advising.

1. Deconstruct the issue from a blank slate.

2. Identify what is best for the student and what is best for the institution. (If the two are the same, the process stops here.)

3. Consider a course of action that offers the most utility.

4. Quantify ramifications.

5. Decide.

Conclusion

The preceding was intended to identify and clarify the role of ethics in academic advising. As academic advising becomes more indispensable in institutions and in the academic careers of students, the number of ethical decisions faced by advisers will grow. There is always the possibility of sticking to the existing policy, but situations oftentimes arise that policy has not addressed. In situations such as this, the adviser must make the decision. The quandary derives from the possible antagonism between what is best for the student and what is best for the institution. The NACADA Core Values statement and the ethical ideals mentioned earlier provide some guidance to this disconnect, but they do not provide any definitive steps on how to resolve each situation. Deriving from these issues, we have proposed the five-step decision-making process suggested in the latter portions of this work. The process allows for considering each issue on its own merits and attempting to draw out and address each ethical implication. While the process is by no means a panacea for all ethical dilemmas faced by advisers, it is a start. Legal issues and ethics in advising will continue to become more important as advising grows and comes into greater prominence in higher education. Advisers must be able to do their jobs confidently. We hope that, by considering the ethical implication of each issue, advisers will be able to do their jobs, do them well, and do them ethically.

References

Fisher, K. (2005). Ethical decision making in academic advising.NACADA Clearinghouse of Academic Advising Resources. Retrieved April 27, 2005 from http://www.nacada.ksu.edu/Clearinghouse/AdvisingIssues/Ethical-Decision.htm.

Janosik, S., Creamer, D., & Humphrey, E. (2004). An analysis of ethical problems facing student affairs administrators.NASPA Journal, 41, 356–374.

Kitchener, K. (2000).Foundations of ethical practice, research, and teaching in psychology. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Lowenstein, M., & Grites, T. (1993) Ethics in academic advising.NACADA Journal, 13, 53–61.

NACADA. (2004).NACADA statement of core values of academic advising. Retrieved May 22, 2006, from http://www.nacada.ksu.edu/Clearinghouse/AdvisingIssues/Core-Values.htm.

Additional Resources

Buck, J., Moore, J., Schwartz, M., & Supon, S. (2001, January 9). What is ethical behavior for an academic adviser?The Mentor: An Academic Advising Journal, 5(1). Retrieved May 1, 2005 from http://www.psu.edu/dus/mentor.

Frank, K. (2000). Ethical considerations and obligations. In V. Gordon, W. Habley, & Associates (Eds.)Academic advising: A comprehensive handbook (pp. 44–57). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Nash, R. (1997) Teaching ethics in the student affairs classroom.NASPA Journal, 35, 3–19.

About the Authors

Matthew Church is an academic counselor senior in the College of Arts & Sciences Center for Advising and Student Services at the University of Louisville. He can be reached at mschur01@louisville.edu or 502-852-1326.

Anthony Robinson is an academic counselor with the University of Louisville Honors Program. He can be reached atawrobi01@louisville.edu or 502-852-1536.

Published in The Mentor on May 23, 2006, by Penn State's Division of Undergraduate Studies
Available online at dus.psu.edu/mentor
Privacy and Legal Statements | Copyright | © The Pennsylvania State University | All rights reserved

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Mentor: An Academic Advising Journal

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Matthew Church and Anthony Robinson, University of Louisville All advisers have had situations in which they have been faced with ethical dilemmas. These dilemmas can range from the practical (Should I let this student take three physical activity courses in a semester?) to the dire (Should a student stay in this major?).

# data[].attributes.headline
Researching Special Issue: Legal and Ethical Issues in School Counseling 

# data[].attributes.subject
Researching Special Issue: Legal and Ethical Issues in School Counseling 

# data[].attributes.body
Trust is an important element in the development of forming relationships. Counselors in any placement in education uphold the promise of confidentiality to be critical for the development of their student’s trust. Counseling students who show signs of harming themselves or others poses the most difficult legal and ethical predicaments for the counselor and institution. Counselors must make professional decisions that may result in serious consequences for their students. School counselors must continually take professional development to update themselves on legal and ethical practices in their profession. Applying moral philosophies to situations involved in in respect of the rights of students in school settings is not always easy. To be effective advocates for student’s rights, all student affairs professionals must have a thorough grasp of issues related the legality and ethics of privacy, privileged communication, confidentiality and informed consent (Special Issue: Legal and Ethical Issues in School Counseling, 2002).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Angelo State University - Library Online Resources

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Unauthorized use is prohibited; Usage may be subject to security testing and monitoring; Misuse is subject to criminal prosecution; No expectation of privacy except as otherwise provided by applicable privacy laws.

# data[].attributes.body
Carter, J. (2018). Institutions struggle to find the line between mental health intervention and privacy issues. Retrieved 2018, from https://www.educationdive.com/news/institutions-struggle-to-find-the-line-between-mental-health-intervention-a/523503/

Church, M. & Robinson, A. (2018). Ethics in academic advising. Retrieved from https://dus.psu.edu/mentor/old/articles/060523mc.htm

Family educational rights and privacy act (FERPA). (2018). Retrieved 2018, from https://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/fpco/ferpa/index.htm

Jaschik, S. (2018). University gives away more scholarships than it budgeted for, and revokes them inside higher ed. Retrieved 2018, from https://www.insidehighered.com/admissions/article/2018/04/30/university-gives-away-more-scholarships-it-budgeted-and-revokes-them

Special Issue: Legal and ethical issues in school counseling. (2002). Professional School Counseling, 6(1), 1-60.