Experimentos y resultados

Georgetown University Salem International University

Georgetown University, Washington D.C.

Security on Campus, Inc. filed a complaint on behalf of a female student who was sexually assaulted on campus. The student notified the university, and an internal

investigation as well as a disciplinary hearing, ensued. When the female student inquired as to the outcome of the hearing, she was made to sign a non-disclosure agreement or she would be denied access to the findings. The student stated in the complaint that she had to know “the outcome not only for [her] peace of mind but also to make decisions about

25

Multiple crimes should not be confused with multiple people. If two people are assaulted, the report would list two assaults. If one person is kidnapped, assaulted, and sexually abused, only one of the crimes should be listed.

where [she] would feel safest attending school” (U.S. Department of Education,

Georgetown University Clery Act Report, 2004). The complaint was filed to determine whether the University was permitted to deny victims the outcome of disciplinary hearings.

The DOE proceeded to investigate the matter and determined the following: 1. The University could not require an alleged sexual assault victim to execute a

non-disclosure agreement as a pre-condition to accessing judicial proceeding outcomes and sanction information under the Clery Act.

2. The Family Education Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) exceptions

referenced in the University’s response do not apply in such cases. FERPA permits, yet does not require certain re-disclosure of judicial proceedings outcomes and sanctions to alleged victims of a crime of violence or non- forcible sex offenses.

3. The Clery Act does require access to outcomes and sanctions information without condition. Specifically, the statute states, “both the accuser and the accused must be informed of the outcome of any institutional disciplinary proceeding brought alleging a sex offense.” Compliance with the Clery Act does not constitute a violation of FERPA provisions. (U.S. Department of Education, Georgetown University Clery Act Report, 2004)

The University was required to change its policies and submit the modifications to the DOE within 30 days of the decision. Although the DOE determined a violation had occurred, it did not seek sanctions against the University as this was an issue that needed to be clarified for all institutions.

Salem International University, West Virginia

The chief of police for the local police department submitted a complaint that University officials were impeding the police department’s enforcement on campus. The complaint alleged that campus officials had destroyed evidence, obstructed

investigations, and hindered access to the campus, employees, and students. The

complaint specified an incident that occurred in August of 1998 when three students from China, participating in a summer youth camp, disappeared from campus with their

possessions remaining in the dorm rooms.26 The University never reported the incident to any law enforcement agency, choosing instead to conduct an internal investigation. An informal search of the grounds was conducted, and the “University concluded that the youths’ disappearance was probably pre-arranged, that they were safe, and most likely living with family members in the United States” (U.S. Department of Education, Salem International University Clery Act Report, 2004).

Through its own sources, the FBI learned of the incident in October of 1998 and conducted an investigation, but the youths’ disappearance was never solved. The complaint noted that the “University is still unable to provide any substantive evidence that these youths did not meet with foul play” (U.S. Department of Education, Salem International University Clery Act Report, 2004). The DOE opened an investigation explaining that it was unlikely that the incident would have resulted in any mandatory reporting under the Clery Act, but it raised concerns about the University’s response to such incidents (U.S. Department of Education, Salem International University Clery Act Report, 2004).

26

Three other students, participating in the program, were picked up at John F. Kennedy airport and were also never seen again.

The investigation revealed the following Clery Act violations:

1. The University did not have the administrative capability to comply with the Act. For example, the annual budget for the Office of Campus Security was insufficient to meet the security needs of the institution. Specifically, the annual budget for fiscal year 2000 was $2,075. Total enrollment for fiscal year was approximately 625 students, which amounted to less than $4.00 per student. Of the three staff members, only one received an annual salary above $20,000, resulting in high turnover and low morale. Staff was required to handle other duties, such as installing telephones and internet cables, working on the campus cooling system, and watering the lawn.

2. Incidents were not reported or underreported. The University reported zero forcible sex offenses since the reporting requirement began, yet over two calendar years, five sexual assaults occurred and were reported to University officials. Additionally, over three calendar years, 40 burglaries were not reported. Alcohol, drug, and weapons violations were underreported by 39 incidents.

3. Crimes were miscoded and not included in the annual report.

4. Crime statistics were not collected from all sources. This was due in part to the disintegrated relationship between the University and the local police department. The campus community was given a directive stating that they were not to give out information regarding any student, staff, or faculty member at the University. The directive applied to everyone, including the

Salem police department. If any information were released, it could result in the termination of the person who released the information.

5. Timely warnings were not issued.

6. The annual report was not distributed to current students and employees, and prospective students and employees were not notified of its availability. 7. Policies and procedures were not included in the annual report. (U.S.

Department of Education, Salem International University Clery Act Report, 2004)

The University was required to address each violation and implement corrective

measures. The DOE closed the investigation. The matter was referred for sanctions and a fine of $250,000 was imposed. The University paid $200,000 in fines.

Agency Investigations: 2005

In 2005, three institutions were investigated for possible Clery Act violations, yet only two institutions were determined to have violated the provisions of the Act.27 Table 5.8 illustrates the institutions.

Table 5.8 Agency Investigations: 2005

2005