Last Friday, student newspapers across the country finally heard the result of a lawsuit that has been pending for two-and-a-half years. The players: The Harvard Crimson newspaper and Harvard University. The background: The Crimson requested records related to incidents reported in the Harvard University police log, and that request was denied. The argument: Harvard University Police, because endowed with the same powers as a municipal police force, should be obliged to release police records that would be considered public information in any city in Massachusetts. The verdict of the Supreme Judicial Court: A loss for The Crimson, a win for Harvard University. The law stands as it always has: Private university police are part of a "private institution," and therefore not obligated to disclose the same level of information to the community. Thankfully, campus police are required to release certain crime statistics, according to the Clery Act, a federal law passed in 1998.

The Justice grappled with this issue all too painfully last semester with a forum piece about alleged rape on campus; this bizarre loophole in public disclosure law makes up just one level of the legislative quagmire that paralyzes college newspapers throughout the country. Complicated privacy laws layer upon complicated privacy laws, to the effect that administrators-often not absolutely sure themselves what they might be liable for-do their best avoid inquiries from college newspapers. Despite The Crimson's admirable efforts, the Justice, and other campus publications, will still find their investigative articles stymied by one more legislative roadblock.

One person not disappointed by the court's verdict is Robert W. Iuliano, Harvard's general counsel. "The opinion upholds the University's decision to protect our students' privacy," he told The Crimson.

The logic behind this reasoning is baffling, to say the least: The media circus that often follows an appalling crime is indeed unfortunate for the victim, but the Supreme Judicial Court long ago declared that information about crimes is important for the community to know, despite the victim's discomfort. So why don't University students, faculty and staff also deserve the right to know what transpires in their community?

A cynic would suggest that the tight-lipped approach of universities like Harvard and Brandeis is not so much inspired by a kindly concern for their students' privacy, but rather by a cold, hard, capitalist reality. The more visible university crimes are, the less attractive schools become to prospective students and donors.

Crimson President Lauren Schuker, Harvard class of 2006, told the Justice the verdict was "disappointing news," and said "things like rape and assault probably happen all the time," and it was frustrating not to be able to report on them because of lack of access to police records.

The fight is far from over, however. Ms. Schuker said The Crimson hopes to collaborate with Massachusetts State Senator Jarrett T. Barrios, who has already introduced a potential bill forcing campus police departments around the state to release more detailed crime reports. If a new case on the matter is opened, as Ms. Schuker hopes will take place this spring, the Justice will stand fully behind The Crimson both on this page and in the courtroom.