[Senate Hearing 105-607]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 105-607
SECURITY ON CAMPUS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before a
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
SPECIAL HEARING
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
senate
______
50-166 cc U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 1998
_______________________________________________________________________
For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC
20402
ISBN 0-16-057442-0
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
TED STEVENS, Alaska, Chairman
THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont
SLADE GORTON, Washington DALE BUMPERS, Arkansas
MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
CONRAD BURNS, Montana TOM HARKIN, Iowa
RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland
JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire HARRY REID, Nevada
ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah HERB KOHL, Wisconsin
BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado PATTY MURRAY, Washington
LARRY CRAIG, Idaho BYRON DORGAN, North Dakota
LAUCH FAIRCLOTH, North Carolina BARBARA BOXER, California
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas
Steven J. Cortese, Staff Director
Lisa Sutherland, Deputy Staff Director
James H. English, Minority Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and
Education, and Related Agencies
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman
THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi TOM HARKIN, Iowa
SLADE GORTON, Washington ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii
JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire DALE BUMPERS, Arkansas
LAUCH FAIRCLOTH, North Carolina HARRY REID, Nevada
LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho HERB KOHL, Wisconsin
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas PATTY MURRAY, Washington
TED STEVENS, Alaska ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia
(Ex officio) (Ex officio)
Majority Professional Staff
Bettilou Taylor
Minority Professional Staff
Marsha Simon
Administrative Support
Jim Sourwine
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Opening remarks of Senator Arlen Specter......................... 1
Statement of Howard Clery, founder, Security on Campus, Inc...... 2
Prepared statement........................................... 4
Statement of Jacob McKee, student, Lehigh University............. 7
Statement of Barbara Prentice, Centerville, MA................... 9
Prepared statement........................................... 12
Statement of Dr. Stanley Ikenberry, president, American Council
on Education................................................... 19
Prepared statement........................................... 20
Statement of Michele Goldfarb, director, Office of Student
Conduct, University of Pennsylvania............................ 24
Statement of Peter C. Erichsen, vice president and general
counsel, University of Pennsylvania and University of
Pennsylvania Health System..................................... 24
Statement of Dolores A. Stafford, director, university police
department, George Washington University....................... 26
Prepared statement........................................... 28
Prepared statement of the International Association of Campus Law
Enforcement Administrators..................................... 30
Statement of David A. Longanecker, Assistant Secretary for
Postsecondary Education, U.S. Department of Education.......... 36
Prepared statement........................................... 37
Campuses......................................................... 40
Statement of Senator Robert G. Torricelli, U.S. Senator from New
Jersey......................................................... 45
SECURITY ON CAMPUS
----------
THURSDAY, MARCH 5, 1998
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human
Services, and Education, and Related Agencies,
Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 3:25 p.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Arlen Specter (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Specter and Faircloth.
Also present: Senator Torricelli.
NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES
OPENING REMARKS OF SENATOR SPECTER
Senator Specter. On this subject there is substantial
concern as to the definition of the Department of Education on
what constitutes a campus. The Department has made an inquiry
at the University of Pennsylvania. Apparently commercial
property in buildings or some parts of buildings, which are
used for commercial purposes, where other parts are used for
educational purposes, does not constitute the campus.
Although not binding on the Department of Education, there
is a Pennsylvania Superior Court case, Commonwealth v.
Mitchell, which defined campus on other issues as not being
limited to educational or research grounds, but also including
commercial property that the college or university used for
investment purposes.
The statistics as to the University of Pennsylvania, which
we are taking a look at, do not include, as I understand the
facts--and we are going to have a representative from the
university here--the sidewalks, and the hospital of the
university was not included.
The President of the University of Pennsylvania, Dr. Roden,
is quoted in the newspaper, I believe in her report to the
Department of Education as well, that there was no finding of
evidence that the university was hiding anything or distorting
campus crime. That is the outstanding question in light of the
limitations on the university's report.
There is considerable pressure at this time for expanding
the statutes which relate to campus reporting to go against
these disciplinary files and other files which could raise very
material questions on privacy.
I believe that at a minimum, Mr. Secretary, the Department
is going to have to take a much closer look at the statutory
requirements and find a way to get compliance, or there is
likely to be a rash of additional legislation imposing
penalties on universities and going much further. There is
legislation pending in the House which goes a great deal
further.
So, I would invite your close attention to what this
hearing will disclose, and you do have your Assistant
Secretary, Mr. David Longanecker, here for the purpose of this
facet of the hearing.
Senator Torricelli had asked for some time to testify, and
we will reserve his time.
Let me now call all in one panel so that we can try to
proceed with some dispatch here. Mr. Howard Clery, Mr. Jacob
McKee----
Senator Faircloth. Mr. Chairman, I had one quick question
of the Secretary.
Senator Specter. OK.
Senator Faircloth. And it will not take but a second to ask
it.
What is the Department's policy regarding the use of Pell
grants and other Federal grants and loans for the purchase of
books and other educational material at bookstores which are
not associated with the college or university?
Secretary Riley. David, do you want to respond to that?
That is a higher education issue. I am going to ask Dr.
Longanecker to respond. He is head of higher education. Are you
familiar with that?
Mr. Longanecker. Senator, sure. Pell grants are provided
based on the ability of the family to pay and predicated on the
costs. The students can use the resources that they receive to
purchase the services that they need whether they are on campus
or off campus.
Senator Faircloth. They can buy off campus with Pell
grant----
Mr. Longanecker. Absolutely.
Senator Faircloth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Specter. Thank you.
Secretary Riley. Mr. Chairman, Dr. Longanecker indicated to
me that he would respond to your question or your statement in
his statement. If I might be excused. I certainly enjoyed
spending the afternoon with you.
Senator Specter. All right. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. That
will be fine.
STATEMENT OF HOWARD CLERY, FOUNDER, SECURITY ON CAMPUS,
INC.
Senator Specter. I call on Mr. Howard Clery, Mr. Jacob
McKee, Ms. Barbara Prentice, Mr. Stanley Ikenberry, Ms. Michele
Goldfarb, Ms. Dolores Stafford, and Mr. David Longanecker.
I am going to have the timer set here at 3 minutes because
we need to conclude by 4 o'clock if we possibly can because, as
I said earlier, the Governmental Affairs Committee is meeting.
Mr. Clery is the cofounder, along with Mrs. Connie Clery,
of Security on Campus, an organization which is dedicated to
improving security on campus. Security on Campus was founded
after the tragic murder of their daughter Jeanne, who was a
freshman at Lehigh University, in 1986 and who was brutally
raped and murdered while in a dormitory at Lehigh by another
Lehigh student, a truly, tragic, tragic incident.
Mr. Clery, the floor is yours, sir.
Mr. Clery. Thank you very much, Senator.
We want to thank you very much for your support in passage
of the Campus Security Act of 1990 which you not only sponsored
but introduced on the Senate floor the day after five students
were massacred at the University of Florida in Gainesville.
Because of this action, campus crime and student safety has
been improved on many residential campuses.
However, far too many institutions are not in compliance
with the letter or spirit of the law. The Department of
Education has investigated five universities in 1997 and all
five institutions have been found in major noncompliance with
the Federal Security Act of 1990. We have attached an addendum
to our report that briefly summarizes those findings.
A common sense review of individual campus crime statistics
reported annually by the Chronicles of Higher Education show
gross underreporting of student violations of Federal drug laws
and State underage alcohol laws. Many campus research reports
reveal recent illegal drug use by students ranging from 14 to
20 percent of the campus population, and the result is a rising
death toll from alcohol poisoning. Rape and sexual assault
crimes are substantially underreported by many schools as they
run them through the judiciary committee, and the adjudication
and findings of those hearings never appear in the campus
statistical reports. The reasons for noninclusion are bogus
claims of confidentiality which even extend to annual campus
crime reports.
We would strongly recommend to this committee the campus
crime reporting and disclosure provisions of the Higher
Education Act of 1965 be amended to include substantial fines
to be levied by the Department of Education on colleges and
universities found in meaningful noncompliance with the Federal
Campus Security Act of 1990.
We would also like to propose that every student who
applies for a federally financed or a guaranteed loan submit an
annual or at least a preliminary drug test. Looking at recent
reports yesterday in the New York Times, they said that there
were 5 million students on the loan program, and if you used
any sort of percentages, you might come up with a feeling that
500,000 to 1 million students who are being financed by Federal
loan program are drug users. Student athletes have to take drug
tests. Why not people who are using Federal funds?
I think we should recognize that every organization is a
mirror of the people who are an integral part of it. Our
universities are no exception. Many parents and legislators do
not know that 80 percent of campus crimes are committed by
students on students, and campus crime is being fueled by
student binge drinking, use of illegal drugs, unlawful
fraternity hazing, and the increasing presence of firearms and
gang activity. A new campus business, by the way, is now
gambling.
All of the above aberrations are present in some of our
high schools or many of them, but university admissions
officers ignore the world around them. They rarely inquire or
require the following from perspective students who are
applying to their institutions. They ought to ask these
questions.
Have you been arrested and convicted of a crime?
Have you been registered as a gang member by your local
police?
Do you own a registered firearm and where will it be
housed?
Have you included a drug test as part of your required
medical exam prior to admission?
PREPARED STATEMENT
So, I would like to summarize for the fact that a lot still
remains to be done to make this legislation that you sponsored
a reality and the campuses become safe places and places of
learning and not crime.
Senator Specter. Thank you very much, Mr. Clery, and thank
you for all the work that you and Mrs. Clery have done on this
important subject.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Connie and Howard Clery
Senator Spector, the Student Right to Know and Campus Security Act
of 1990, which you sponsored and introduced on the Senate Floor the day
after 5 students were massacred at the University of Florida in
Gainsville, has substantially increased student safety and security on
many residential college campuses.
However, far too many institutions are not in compliance with the
letter or spirit of the law. The Department of Education has
investigated 5 universities during 1997 and all five institutions have
been found in major non-compliance with the Federal Campus Security Act
of 1990. Please see the attached addendum.
A common sense review of individual campus crime statistics,
reported annually by the Chronicle of Higher Education, show gross
under-reporting of student violations of Federal Drug Laws and State
Underage Alcohol laws. Many campus research reports reveal recent
``illegal drug use by students ranging from 14-20 percent of the campus
population, while the new phenomenon of binge drinking is hovering
between 40-50 percent of campus populations and the result is a rising
death toll from alcohol poisoning''. Rape and Sexual Assault crimes are
substantially underreported by many schools as they do not include
results of Judiciary Committee adjudication or findings of Campus Rape
Crisis Centers. The reasons for non-inclusion are bogus claims of
confidentiality which even extend to the annual campus crime
statistics.
We would strongly recommend the Campus Crime Reporting and
Disclosure provisions of the Higher Education Act of 1965 be amended to
include the following:
--Require annual campus statistical disclosure of liquor law and drug
violations determined by Campus Security and Administrators,
not just arrests.
--Require annual drug tests from students applying for and receiving
Federally Guaranteed Student Loans.
--Require the names of individuals arrested and charged by Campus
Security and Administrators to be entered and disclosed in
``Campus Crime Logs''.
--Remove F.E.R.P.A confidentiality protections for students found
guilty of violating campus rules of conduct which correspond to
violations of State and Federal Laws. Victims' confidentiality
should be maintained in accordance with state laws. Two State
and two Federal Courts have ruled F.E.R.P.A Confidentiality of
Students found guilty of actions violating State and Federal
Laws are not Educational Records.
--Require Campus Police or Security logs be disclosed within 24 hours
for Campuses with Residential Housing.
--Campus crime statistics must include rapes and sexual assaults
reported to and confirmed by Campus Administrators, Athletic
Coaches, Judicial Committees and Rape Crisis Centers. (The
reporting of these statistics does not violate Professional-
Patient Confidentiality Regulations).
Example: According to the Dartmouth College Student Newspaper,
the college reports 4-6 rapes annually but there are 40-50
students in counseling at the Rape Crisis Center.
--Consumer rights dictate that campus crime statistics give a
realistic picture of campus crime and relative student safety.
--The Department of Education should be empowered to levy fines on
Universities found not in compliance with the provisions of the
Campus Security Act.
Campus Boundaries should include:
--Municipal streets and sidewalks bisecting the campus.
--Stores and enterprises leased by the school to private businesses
to provide student services, i.e., book stores, eating
establishments, etc.
--Fraternity and sororities located just ``off campus''.
--Areas adjacent to campus containing large numbers of students in
private housing. Many state universities have 50-80 percent of
their ``residential students'' living a ``few blocks'' from
campus. (A separate statistical column can be added to the
annual crime report.)
--Streets ``adjacent'' to campus, but which are patrolled by Campus
Police or Security.
Every organization is a mirror of the people who are an integral
part of it. Our universities are no exception. Many parents and
legislators do not know that 80 percent of campus crimes are committed
by students on students. Campus crime is being fueled by student binge
drinking, use of illegal drugs, unlawful fraternity hazing and the
increasing presence of firearms and gang activity, i.e., gambling,
drugs, prostitution.
University Admissions' and Deans' offices are well aware of the
National Studies revealing:
--50-60 percent of male students indulge in binge drinking.
--30-40 percent of female students indulge in binge drinking.
--15-20 percent of students are recent users of illegal drugs.
--Sexual Assault and Rape are major campus problems.
--Student physical violence is growing.
--Student illegal gambling is ``a new campus business''.
All of the above aberrations are also present in our high schools.
But, university admission officers ignore the world around them. They
rarely inquire or require the following from prospective students:
--Have you been arrested and convicted of a crime?
--Have you been registered as a gang member by your local police?
--Do you own a firearm? Where will it be housed?
--Have you included a drug test as part of your required medical exam
prior to admission?
Deans and student affairs personnel too often believe student
crimes are educational opportunities instead of punishment
opportunities. This mind set can lead to increased campus crime and
student victims. It also tends to obscure the inherent institutional
responsibility to ensure a safe campus environment and, therefore,
reduced civil suits by victims. Campus safety is enhanced by suspension
and separation of students found guilty of campus judicial hearings for
violators of State and Federal laws. Sadly, many student crime victims
transfer to other campuses because the student perpetrators remain on
campus with minimal punishment and their names and violations held
``Confidential'' by false interpretations of Federal Law by the U.S.
Department of Education.
Deans and student affairs personnel must take proactive security
measures to ensure student safety in dormitories, fraternities and
sororities. This would require regular campus police and security
patrols of campus student housing to reduce:
--Binge and underage drinking.
--Sale and use of illegal drugs.
--Possession of illegal firearms and gambling.
--The number of unauthorized persons.
(A number of campus police departments are now using undercover
personnel as a supplement to regular patrols and the results are
encouraging).
The above recommendations may shock some people, but they are
normal procedures used in our towns and cities, our hospitals and
public institutions, our businesses and military services. It should be
remembered that our University Campuses are high-crime communities.
This reality is obscured by massive falsifications of annual crime
statistics required by Federal Law!
This current academic year has seen an alarming increase in student
deaths from alcohol poisoning due to binge drinking. (In November 1997
alone, 5 students have died of alcohol poisoning in the state of
Virginia.) A few years ago, Police Chief Reuben Greenberg of
Charleston, South Carolina wrote: ``With few exceptions other than the
drug traffickers themselves, administrators of our nation's
universities are the most hostile elements to the enforcement of our
nation's drug laws''. Most local police departments continue to hold
the same views about the campuses located in their communities.
Many protected members of academia will mindlessly shout ``Police
State''. Many students, faculty and staff will exclaim ``It's about
Time''. Most parents will say ``Thank God''!
______
addendum--campus security act program review summary [february 1998]
The following five schools have been found in non-compliance with
the Federal Campus Security Act of 1990:
(1) Moorhead State University (Minnesota)
Found in violation, September 13, 1996
--Crime Statistics Not Accurately Disclosed in annual security
reports.
--Timely Warnings were not issued.
--Security Report Information Not Made Available to Students and
Employees.
--Deficiencies in information contained in the annual campus security
reports (statements of policy omitted or incomplete; statements
of policy inaccurate).
The Chicago Regional Office of the DOE issued the ``Final Program
Review'' letter on June 30, 1997 referring this case to the Washington,
DC office for administrative (i.e. possible fine) action. Further
information can be found on our Web Site. The original complaint was
filed by Margaret Jakobson in 1995.
(2) Virginia Tech (Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University)
Found in violation, June 19, 1997
--Crime Statistics Not Accurately Compiled for annual security
reports.
--Crime Statistics Not Accurately Disclosed in annual security
reports.
--Statements of Policy Omitted/Incomplete (procedures to follow if a
sex offense occurs; procedures for campus disciplinary actions
in alleged sex offense cases; sanctions the institution may
impose following a disciplinary hearing).
This report was issued by the Philadelphia Regional Office of the
DOE following complaints filed by Eileen Wagner and SOC in August of
1996 on the behalf of campus rape survivor Christy Brzonkala. Her rapes
by two football players were not properly included in the statistics.
No further action is expected based on this complaint.
(3) Miami University of Ohio
Found in violation, September 11, 1997
--Crime incidents from all sources not reported.
--Crime statistics not calculated correctly from Miami University
police records.
--All university properties not included.
--Inconsistent data.
--Crime statistics from branch campuses misreported.
--Failure to follow Campus Security Act Regulations Regarding
Notification of Disciplinary Action.
Ohio Supreme Court ordered the school to grant access to UDB
records; DOE says ruling that F.E.R.P.A. does not cover these records
is wrong ``as a matter of law.'' This investigation resulted from a
formal complaint filed in January of 1997 by S. Daniel Carter and MUOH
graduate Jennifer Markiewicz who uncovered inaccuracies in reporting
while editor of the student newspaper. The Program Review Report was
issued on September 11, 1997.
(4) Clemson University
Found in violation, July 18, 1998
--Crime Statistics Not/Improperly Reported (sex offenses improperly
reported; hate crimes not reported; only reported 1\1/2\ years
worth of data, not 3 years; statistics inconsistently reported;
Statistics Do Not Match Institutional Records).
--Drug/Alcohol Policy Not Included in the Campus Security Report.
--Timely Warning Procedure Inadequately Developed.
--Sexual Assault Policy Inadequate/Underdeveloped.
--Crime Statistics Not/Inaccurately Gathered (Statistics Are Gathered
From Police Reports Only).
This case was brought about through the initial complaint filed
with the Atlanta office in February of 1997 by the survivor of a campus
``gang-rape.'' The ``Equal Rights Alliance'' filed an amicus complaint
on May 4th.
(5) The University of Pennsylvania
Found in violation, February 1998
--Hate Crime Statistics Not Included In Campus Security Report.
--Failure to Report Specific Incidents (1,994 rape; 1,006 liquor law
violations)
--Failure to Complete Separate Statistics for Separate Campuses.
--Failure to Include Statistics For All Campus Locations (campus
hospital).
--Failure To Notify All Prospective Students and Parents of the
Availability of the Campus Security Report.
--Failure To Provide Campus Security Report to All Current Students.
This case was initiated in December, 1996 by the Philadelphia
Office of U.S. Dept. of Education based on a November 25, 1996 article
in The Philadelphia Inquirer regarding crime reporting. An in-depth
complaint was filed on June 11, 1997 by the Equal Rights Alliance and
Security On Campus, Inc.
STATEMENT OF JACOB McKEE, STUDENT, LEHIGH UNIVERSITY
Senator Specter. I turn now to Mr. Jacob McKee, a second-
year engineering student at Lehigh. He has many academic honors
in advanced biology, calculus, and economics. He is also active
in sports, hockey, baseball. Thank you for joining us, Mr.
McKee, and the floor is yours.
Mr. McKee. Thank you, Senator.
I believe what you mostly want to know is how colleges deal
with crime on their campuses, so I will tell my story and what
I have experienced with regard to college security.
About 3 weeks into the fall semester of 1997, I was
assaulted by Jason McNutt, a fourth-year student at Lehigh
University. It was my first semester of college and college
life and my first time living away from home. I received a
punch to my left eye while I was not looking and it cracked the
orbital bone of my eye, which led to double vision and loss of
feeling in my face.
Since the attack, I have had more than 20 doctor's visits
and two serious operations on my eye. In both of these
operations, I ran the risk of total loss of vision in my left
eye.
Well, from my experiences, this is what I could tell to
help this hearing. Throughout the entire process, I believe
that Lehigh University and its fully certified on-campus police
program treated me and the criminal similarly. In many respects
I feel he has been given more preferential treatment than I.
Throughout the entire incident, Lehigh University's position
seemed to be one of down playing the situation. They simply
wanted to minimize severity of the situation and move on and
away from it. The university attempted to do this in several
different ways.
They actually down played the incident to me. They did this
by trying to make me believe that it was merely a simple
scuffle. They also led me to believe that I was also partially
to blame. I know what I have been through and I know that the
only mistake that I made was to be in the wrong place at the
wrong time. No one will be able to alter my thinking on that. I
was simply in a place where someone who was intoxicated,
reckless, and out of control aggressively attacked me. This
place was Lehigh University.
Another problem I had with Lehigh University was the manner
in which they handled the school trial. I was required to be
there but only as a witness. I went there knowing almost none
of the defendant's circumstances or his background. All I knew
was what happened that night and what I have been through
since, plus a little amount of information which I was able to
learn on my own. Lehigh University has intentionally avoided
providing me with any information that they have gathered on
the incident.
From my views on morals and sensibility, I believe that
that information would have been sufficient to severely punish
Jason McNutt. Now I know that that is wrong. You have to do a
lot of homework if you want to see justice served.
Jason McNutt came to the Lehigh University hearing knowing
detailed information about me, which I still cannot imagine how
he obtained. At the university trial, he questioned every
witness to the crime, including me on a one-on-one basis. I
left gaining nothing. He learned every intricate detail about
the incident and what every witness saw, perceived, and
remembered. He was in control of the trial. He got to question
me and even accuse me of things. When he was done with me, he
said that I should leave.
I had no say in the activity of the university trial, nor
was I allowed to make any final closing comments. From this
trial, what punishment did he receive? A couple of months of
probation and some hours of community service. He gained more
information than a punishment from this.
Jason McNutt is a criminal who admitted to assaulting me.
Yet, he is still permitted to attend classes and graduate on
schedule from Lehigh University. This shows the kind of
integrity the school has. Jason McNutt is now a second semester
senior about to graduate. Yet, I can only assume these details
because I have been told very little about him either formally
or informally by any representative of the university. He is
going to graduate without missing any school. I have already
been forced to delay my academic career one semester at a
minimum.
In the 6 months since the incident, I have gained little
information on the circumstances of the incident or on the
defendant. Police reports from the incident which I have
requested have not been received. I have also requested the
names of the witnesses who were at the scene. Yet, I have
received nothing.
I have, in that sense, been stonewalled by the university
staff from obtaining any information. This clearly demonstrates
their general lack of assistance to me and their policy of
covering up the incident. The only reason I can imagine for
their behavior is to protect the university and its public
image.
I feel that changes need to be made to the school security
procedures. I would suggest taking control away from the campus
police since they are too closely aligned with the school's
administration. When this type of situation is allowed to
exist, the students are not being protected by the laws of our
country but by the laws of the university which has its own
image to protect.
My bottom line of the incident is that I have been punished
severely, yet the perpetrator of the situation has not. He is
going to plead guilty to assault in a criminal court, yet he is
allowed to remain on campus, attend classes, and graduate on
schedule.
Finally, I believe the school should get its priorities
straight and think of the welfare of the students over the
reputation of the school.
Senator Specter. Mr. McKee, the proceeding that you have
described has been a campus proceeding as opposed to a trial in
a criminal court in Lehigh County?
Mr. McKee. No; just the campus, a school-run hearing.
Senator Specter. Was the individual who assaulted you tried
in the criminal court?
Mr. McKee. Not yet. He is going to plead guilty to a simple
assault, and that was going to be about a month ago except it
got continued. Now I have a subpoena for next week. I am going
to testify at it. So, if things go as planned, he should plead
guilty.
Senator Specter. Well, you may have some rights beyond a
plea bargain. That depends on what the assistant district
attorney [DA] does, but it may well be that the facts of the
case rise higher than simple assault and battery when you
describe your damages.
Mr. McKee. At first it was aggravated assault. He was
charged with aggravated assault, but the DA said that there
would not be much of a chance of getting that in court even
though he read me the definition of aggravated assault, and I
believe that in my situation every thing falls under that. The
definition--I am not positive on it, but it is something along
the lines of recklessly endangering the life or welfare of
another human being.
Senator Specter. Well, I just wanted to comment, Mr. McKee,
that you have the right to be there and to express yourself.
You can be represented by counsel if you wish. You do not have
to be. The assistant district attorney is the public
prosecutor, but you can bring those facts to the court. You are
a victim. You have a right to speak. Now, the judge does not
necessarily have to agree to a guilty plea which is bargained
with the assistant DA. I just wanted to point that out to you.
STATEMENT OF BARBARA PRENTICE, CENTERVILLE, MA
Senator Specter. Ms. Barbara Prentice, welcome. Ms.
Prentice is the mother of Adam Prentice who was the victim of a
campus crime resulting in the son's death. Ms. Prentice, thank
you for coming and the floor is yours.
Ms. Prentice. Thank you.
My son, Barnstable resident Adam Prentice, a popular local
athlete, swim instructor, and 4.0 computer systems engineering
junior at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, died from
loss of blood several hours after suffering an injury on
campus.
Adam had been out with friends but allegedly left them to
walk back to his dorm alone around 12:30 a.m. He told them that
he was tired and wanted to go home. It was homecoming weekend
and the campus was unusually busy. At 1:30 a.m. Adam was found
collapsed and bleeding profusely on the grass in front of
several greenhouses in the center of campus.
Police had responded to an alarm at the site and noticed,
quote, a smell of alcoholic beverage on his breath. They
assumed he was intoxicated. One greenhouse wing had a hole
through its roof. Another greenhouse had a hole through its
side. Adam was found semiconscious, collapsed and moaning, but
as police suspected this was a breaking and entering, he was
restrained. He is described as going from semiconscious to
combative, a typical reaction to shock due to loss of blood.
Rescue was called.
Reports state that Adam said it was not my fault. Because
no witnesses came forward at the hour of his injury, campus
police determined that he was alone and cleaned the scene
without preserving it or taking any forensic evidence. They
released a statement later that morning requesting anyone with
information to come forward, but they also stated that they
believed Adam to be alone.
His family was never notified about the injury by officials
of the university until after he had been pronounced dead 3
hours later. Officials said they had not positively identified
Adam yet. However, they had already run a criminal records
check on him at 2:30 a.m., that morning which requires first
and last name and did identify me and my home address. This was
before Adam had died.
The only stab wound on his body was made by this 8-inch
glass dagger that impaled him. There were bruises on his wrist,
but no other scratches from the jagged glass he allegedly fell
through. As no forensic evidence secured at the scene, I have
no proof that Adam was ever in the greenhouse.
The first officer to respond reported that he had seen
another person running through the middle greenhouse as he
approached the building. As he rounded the corner, he found
Adam either ``passed out or hiding,'' quote, from him. Several
other officers arrived. Adam is described as being found in
conflicting states. One officer comments that initial
observations of Adam were that he was semiconscious, soaked
with fresh blood, collapsed and moaning, but in the same breath
this same officer continues to state that throughout contact
with the subject, he was highly combative. All reports implied
that Adam's combativeness resulted from intoxication not shock.
My questions are, why did officers responding move my son?
First, their written protocol dictates that a victim of a
medical emergency should never be moved unless in danger.
Police reports specifically state that Adam was found
semiconscious and soaked with fresh blood from a severe
laceration. Yet, he was ordered to stretch his arms overhead
and restrained. Pressure was applied in the area impaled to
stop the bleeding, possibly causing deeper penetration of the
glass.
Why did the university not protect my son and their tenant
while on their property?
Why were police so insensitive and ill-prepared for my call
when I contacted them for details? I was placed on hold for
almost 10 minutes, then told the detective in charge was still
investigating and I would have to call back. I demanded to
speak with the shift commander, but he told me it was not
police protocol to contact parents. They leave that up to the
hospitals, he said. When I asked for a copy of these written
protocols, I was told that none existed.
Within the first week of Adam's death, rumors surfaced that
he had been the victim of foul play, that he had been chased
and pushed and was fleeing from something. Why were these
rumors dismissed by police as speculation and never
investigated?
Why did it take 7 weeks and my lawyer's request for police
to follow up on an interview regarding the receiver of two
anonymous calls stating that Adam had not been alone at the
time of the incident?
Why does the second person seen originally, who was never
found, metamorphosis into my son Adam making him both inside
and outside of the greenhouse at the same time? Inside he is
running through the greenhouse in a white T-shirt. At the same
time, Adam is outside of the greenhouse semi-conscious and
collapsed in a blood-soaked, fire engine red T-shirt, copies of
which I have given in my written statement.
I wonder aloud if it was determined Adam was alone without
taking the time to investigate because the homecoming parade
was due to pass the greenhouse later that morning and many
prestigious alumna were on campus. It would certainly be easier
to blame Adam for being so intoxicated that he could single-
handedly crash backward through a roof, yet not too intoxicated
to single-handedly climb on the roof, than it would be to alarm
any guests by mentioning foul play.
Why was no effort put into other suspicious incidents
reported in the police log that occurred within the same
timeframe?
Although almost a dozen police officers contributed to
Adam's investigation, not one of their reports is officially
signed. Why?
The most devastating reality for me is the lack of
accountability the police department has demonstrated by
failing to provide security for their students. At the cost of
Adam's reputation, they blamed his death on excessive drinking
to protect their own reputation rather than to investigate the
more probable possibility that foul play occurred.
Does the Constitution not state innocent until proven
guilty? How different the turn of events may have been if they
had approached Adam, as their own report indicates they should
have. Quote, my first observation of the subject were that his
shirt and denim pants were soaked with fresh blood. The
individual was barely conscious, very pale, and moaning.
Why was I not notified immediately that my son had been
injured? I would have advocated for him and demanded that he be
taken to a trauma center.
Why was I told that Adam had not been identified soon
enough to notify me when a criminal records check had been
reviewed at 2:34 a.m., which listed me as next of kin and
included my home address?
Before day break and before witnesses had even been sought
for questioning, who determined that my son had been alone
attempting to break into the greenhouse by crashing through the
roof backwards, only to run through the next greenhouse, vault
up onto a table, and kick himself out with an 8-inch shard of
glass in his back?
Who ordered the scene to be cleaned up without securing it
or taking forensic evidence?
Why has the police department denied me access to the
officers who responded at the scene and can tell me what Adam
said?
As a 4.0 honors computer systems engineering major recently
inducted into the Golden Key National Honors Society, Adam was
also a loss for the University of Massachusetts. Yet, I never
received so much as a sympathy card or telephone call offering
condolences from either Chancellor Scott or President Bolger.
Is the way alumnus, which I am, should expect to be treated by
the university officials when their children are victimized on
campus property if that victimization might taint the
reputation of the university?
Why is my son described in the police report as being 5
feet 10 inches, 160 pounds, stocky, and brown-skinned when he
was 5 feet 3 inches, 130 pounds, lean, and white? Am I expected
to believe in the credibility of this department?
I want to know why Assistant District Attorney Michael
Goggins, whose help I sought regarding Adam, said that he
realized it must be frustrating regarding the destruction of
forensic evidence but, quote, what is done is done. Who was
responsible for what is done is done? This was my son's life.
Why can Adam's clothes not be returned to me? I want what
was his last.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Adam excelled in everything he attempted because he
approached life with 150 percent effort. Both Adam and I are
born-again Christians. I know I will see him again, but when I
do, I want to look him in the eye and say, son, I gave it 150
percent just like you taught me to.
Thank you.
Senator Specter. Thank you very much, Mrs. Prentice.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Barbara Prentice
Distinguished members of the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and
Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies:
Thank you for inviting me to share my views regarding security on
campus. My name is Barbara Prentice, and I am a member of a select
group of Americans across this country that has no designated class,
race, profession, or age. My goal is to prevent you from joining my
group. I am the grieving mother of a loving son who died under
suspicious circumstances while at college.
On September 1, 1997, I kissed and hugged my firstborn child Adam
goodbye as he prepared to leave for his junior year at the University
of Massachusetts in Amherst. I reminded him to study hard, and to have
fun, but to be careful. As an alumnus of the same university, I knew
that the campus wasn't safe after dark. Adam never took my scolding
seriously, believing himself to be infallible because of his gender and
age. But he listened respectfully, and assured me he'd be fine. I waved
goodbye, watching him drive down the street until his car was out of
sight. This was the last time I saw him.
On September 24, Adam called to check in as he did every Sunday and
Wednesday. We talked for 45 minutes--much longer than usual. It was a
wonderful conversation, but it was late, so I suggested we hang up. I
never talked to him again.
At 8 p.m., on Friday, September 26, I had an unusual urge to call
Adam, but decided against it.
At 4:30 a.m., at September 27, I awoke to the telephone ringing--
the phone call that all parents fear most. Dr. Tehrani identified
himself as a trauma physician at Bay State Medical Center in
Springfield, MA. He informed me that Adam had fallen through a
greenhouse roof on campus several hours before, and had tragically been
brought to the wrong hospital first. He proceeded to state that I'd
have to get the details from the campus police, and that he was ``so
sorry to tell me that Adam had just passed away.'' At that moment, the
Barbara Prentice known to self, family, friends, and associates, passed
away, too. And I will never, ever be the same. There is no turning
back; there is no recovery. Every waking moment breaths the loss of
your child.
My son Adam was a resident of the Town of Barnstable, located on
Cape Cod in Massachusetts. He was a 4.0 Honors computer systems
Engineering major at University of Massachusetts, where he had been
highly recruited. He worked two jobs for years as a head lifeguard and
swim instructor for the YMCA and Town of Barnstable so he could put
himself through college. At school, he continued to work part time,
even though his classes were the most difficult offered on campus. He
was an accomplished song writer, musician, and athlete in six sports,
rising early each morning to exercise before work or classes. As a
born-again Christian, his gentle, compassionate nature was respected by
all. His friends ranged from a grandfather to the mentally challenged.
He loved children, and had a gift for inspiring them through his work.
Over the years, he'd taught hundreds of Cape Codders how to swim, and
was referred to as a ``quiet leader'' and ``ideal role model.'' His
death has affected the entire community.
Adam died from loss of blood several hours after suffering an
injury on campus. It was Homecoming, always a busy weekend in Amherst,
and he had been out with friends. Around 12:30 a.m., he allegedly left
them, stating that he was tired and wanted to go back to the dorm. Due
to safety issues, they didn't want him to walk home alone, but Adam was
ready to leave, and they weren't. One friend went outside to see Adam
off, then watched him walk toward the bus stop.
At 1:30 a.m., an alarm sounded at the greenhouses located in the
center of campus. Adam was found on the grass nearby, collapsed and
bleeding profusely. The greenhouses were located several blocks beyond
the walkway that led uphill to Adam's dorm, and diagonally across the
street from the campus bus stop. The first officer to respond reported
that he had seen another person running through the middle greenhouse.
As he rounded the corner of the building, he found Adam ``either passed
out or hiding'' from him. Several other officers arrived. One noted
that Adam was very pale, and had a ``smell of alcoholic beverage on his
breath.'' Officers located a hole through one greenhouse roof, and a
second hole through the side of another. All greenhouses were attached.
They suspected that this was a ``break and entry in progress,'' and
concluded that Adam had been attempting to maliciously destroy property
valued over $250.
Adam is described as being found in conflicting states--one officer
comments that ``initial observations of Adam were that he was semi-
conscious, soaked with fresh blood, collapsed and moaning,'' but in the
same breath the same officer continues to state that, ``throughout
contact with the subject, he was highly combative.'' Rescue was called,
and Adam ``continued to be combative'' as his clothes were cut off to
determine the origin of the bleeding. He is also described as being
found ``conscious and alert,'' but then again as being ``semi-
conscious, mumbling, and hard to understand.'' While in the ambulance,
it was recorded that Adam stated ``it wasn't my fault,'' but there is
no indication that rescue personnel questioned what he meant by this.
All reports are subjective, implying that Adam's combativeness resulted
from intoxication. He is even described as being ``loaded.'' The facts
are that he'd been stabbed in the back and impaled through the stomach
by a shard of glass measuring 8 inches and resembling a knife. However,
because police suspected Adam was either so drunk he didn't know what
he was doing, or had been attempting to break into the greenhouse, he
was restrained. Sources have reported to us that he had initially even
been handcuffed.
Because no witnesses had come forward at the scene to volunteer any
information, police determined that Adam was alone, and ordered the
scene to be cleaned immediately without preserving it or taking
forensic evidence. They issued a statement later that morning asking
for information, but also stated that they believed him to be alone.
Thereafter, they referred all inquiries to the the public affairs
office.
Within 1\1/2\ hours, all blood, glass and dirt from the incident
had been destroyed in the clean up, and the holes were replaced with
new glass the next day. When I visited the scene two days later, there
was no evidence at all that anything had ever happened.
In basic first aid, a victim of a medical emergency should never be
moved unless in immediate danger. Police reports specifically state
that Adam was found semi-conscious and soaked with fresh blood from a
severe laceration, yet he was ordered to stretch his arms overhead and
restrained. Pressure was then applied on the area impaled to stop the
bleeding, even though officers had seen the glass in his back. How much
deeper did this cause the glass to submerge, and no wonder he became
agitated. In forcing him to lay flat, how much more physical pain did
he have to endure needlessly? He was guilty until proven innocent, yet
defenseless to advocate for himself. In spite of police knowledge of
Adam's injury, they did not advocate for him either. He was not
medflighted to a trauma center, the written protocol for impalement in
Western Massachusetts. Nor was he transported by ambulance to a trauma
center. Even though rescue personnel came upon a blood bath (photos
attached), they chose to transport him to a hospital with no trauma
facilities. And even though three officers were restraining Adam, they
chose to transport him without enough manpower--the paramedic was
driving, and an EMTI sat in the back with him. Consequently, in his
state of pain and delirium, Adam was able to rip out his IV's and
oxygen mask, preventing proper hydration. All parties involved assumed
he was combative because he was intoxicated. Even though he was a
tenant of the University, residing on university property and injured
on university property, he was suspected of being a criminal before a
victimized student! This is an outrage to the value placed on our
children's lives. It is common knowledge to anyone with minimal first
aid training that agitation is a classic indication of oxygen
deprivation due to loss of blood.
At the hospital, Adam identified himself by full name, address,
social security number, and birthdate. Hardly a task for someone
intoxicated, never mind someone suffering as he was. Adam had also been
carrying a picture ID in his back pocket, the most common place for a
man to keep identification, but officers neglected to look either
before or after cutting his clothes off. It appears that the doctor at
the hospital was never advised about the impaled glass, as there is no
further comment about it until 45 minutes after arrival, when he
mentions seeing it in an x-ray. At this time, it was arranged for Adam
to be transferred to Bay State trauma center. Simultaneously, he went
into cardiac arrest, and had to be brought back in for stabilization.
The second ambulance then had to await discharge papers before
transporting him.
Enroute, Adam went into cardiac arrest again. He was defibrillated
and given CPR until arrival at Bay State, where his chest was cracked
for open heart massage. He was pronounced dead 7 minutes later. The
cause of death was ``loss of blood.'' He had never been given a blood
transfusion, nor typed for one. It had taken 3 hours for him to bleed
to death. He was conscious until the last half hour. During this time,
I was never notified by University officials or the first hospital. It
would have taken me less than 3 hours to drive to Springfield.
On September 27, 1997, I suffered the worst tragedy a mother can
suffer: the preventable death of a beautiful child. This time it was my
son, but he could have been yours. We send our children off to college
assuming that the University of our choice will supervise their
transition from teenager to young adult. We need to arm ourselves with
the knowledge that this is no longer truthful, and we have to prepare
our children for battle before sending them away. For the colleges we
help select for them are more concerned with protecting their public
image, and the safety of our students is often overlooked. I entrusted
my child's health and well being to the same institution I myself had
graduated from. Yet, because of an ``odor of alcohol'' on his breath,
he walked blindly into an ambush. Like so many casualties of war, he
came back to me in a body bag.
As a lifeguard, Adam was trained extensively in CPR and First Aid.
He knew how critical his condition was. Did he call for me? Why won't
those who know tell me what he said? Did he feel I'd betrayed him
because I wasn't there? I wasn't given the opportunity.
After being notified of Adam's death by Dr. Tehrani, I called the
University of Massachusetts campus police to ``get the details'' as he
had suggested. I identified myself, but the dispatcher did not
recognize ``Prentice,'' so I clarified that I was Adam's mother. He
still didn't know who I was, so I clarified that Adam had just died due
to an injury suffered on campus. He then recognized the name, and asked
what I wanted, of which I answered ``the details.'' I was placed on
hold for almost 10 minutes, then told that the detective in charge was
still investigating and I'd have to call back. I demanded to speak with
the shift commander, but he had no details either. I called Matt,
Adam's room mate and childhood friend since middle school. Matt said
that the police were storming through the dormitory as we spoke asking
questions about Adam, and had just left his room. He hadn't been with
Adam since 8 p.m., the night before, and didn't know why he hadn't come
home. I then realized that Matt didn't know, and in my own hysteria, I
was going to have to tell him that his best buddy since childhood was
dead--Matt has never been the same.
Adam's last annual physical was a month before his death. His
doctor described him as being a ``well developed, well nourished 21
year old gentleman who doesn't smoke and rarely drinks.'' However, in
spite of his excellent physical shape, Adam was small in stature, and a
prime candidate for robbery or assault alone at 1 a.m., on Homecoming
weekend. Police reports state that there was so much vehicular and
pedestrian traffic on campus that night that two additional officers
had to be called in to direct it. Yet, they had told me initially that
it was a quiet night with no one around.
Within the first week of Adam's death, rumors surfaced that he had
been the victim of foul play--that he'd been chased and pushed, or was
fleeing from something for safekeeping. These were dismissed by police
as speculation, and were not investigated. Police further commented to
Adam's friends that they were concerned that they were talking to me
because I had started these rumors! The editor of a regional newspaper
also received two anonymous calls stating that Adam had not been alone
at the time of the incident, but police did not call the editor for
details until three days later. At that time, they talked with a
reporter who had heard about the calls second hand. He allegedly stated
that he did not believe them to be credible. The police did not bother
to call the editor back himself until seven weeks later, when my lawyer
learned of them, and requested they interview him directly. By this
time, the editor could not remember much about the conversations, which
were from two separate female sources on different dates and times. He
did remember one as saying there had been a struggle with police, and
that Adam hadn't been alone.
I would like to know why, based on a smell of alcoholic beverage,
my son's life was not taken seriously. My child died this time, but if
we don't put a stop to these incidents, he could be your child just as
easily the next time. And without your intervention, there will be many
other children, and many other times. No one had checked Adam's
identity prior to concluding he was attempting to break into the
greenhouse. He could have easily been the son of a Senator. No one had
checked Adam's identity before concluding that his combativeness was
due to excessive drinking, when it was obviously due to oxygen
deprivation and loss of blood.
Adam was found at 1:30 a.m. Why, then, was it determined at 2:54
a.m., that he was alone, and had been attempting to break into the
greenhouse by crashing backward through the roof? Why does the second
person seen originally who was never found ``metamorphosis'' into Adam,
making him both inside and outside of the greenhouse at the same time?
Inside, he is running through the greenhouse in a white tee shirt with
an 8 inch shard of glass impaled in his back. He then trips an alarm
upon entering another greenhouse, where he climbs up onto a table to
kick himself out, even though he could have opened a door and walked
out just as easily. At the same time, Adam is outside of the greenhouse
semi-conscious and collapsed in a blood-soaked, fire engine red tee
shirt. Three weeks later, when an officer was re-interviewed about the
second person he, too, ``was apparently Adam Prentice.'' This time, he
is placed in the first greenhouse with a shirt matching the description
of Adam's before it turned red.
To conclude, based on police reports, Adam was in three separate
places at one time, all seen at 1:30 a.m., through a building from 75
feet that had no interior lighting, frost-tinted windows, and street
lighting blocked from a large tree.
I wonder aloud if it ``was determined'' Adam was alone without
taking the time to investigate because the Homecoming parade was due to
pass by the greenhouse later that morning, and many prestigious alumni
were on campus? It would certainly be easier to blame Adam for being so
intoxicated that he could single-handedly crash backward through a
roof, yet not too intoxicated to single-handedly climb up onto the
roof, than it would be to alarm any guests by mentioning foul play. Is
this why the scene was cleaned so quickly, without preserving it or
taking forensic evidence? Do our children really crash through roofs
with such frequency that it isn't deemed worthy of the time and effort
involved to secure the scene?
Will I ever know if Adam fell through? Did someone fall with him
(the 2nd person, who could have exited through the windows--only the
doors were alarmed.) How could Adam have fallen through the jagged
shards pictured without cutting, injuring or scratching his body
anywhere aside from the stab wound? Why weren't his clothes torn and
covered with glass? Was he stabbed outside or inside of the greenhouse?
In the police log for September 27, there was another man
identified with a severely lacerated hand who was rushed to the same
hospital 20 minutes after Adam. I was told by both the assistant
district attorney and the chief of police that this student had punched
out a dorm window. As there were no witnesses who saw him, my question
to the department has always been why? Did he punch out the window? Who
was with him when he did it, and where had he been between 12 and 2
a.m?
My son led a more than exemplary life, as attested to by the many
character references attached. My suspicions and concerns regarding the
mishandling of Adam's death are listed chronologically below as they
occurred:
The most devastating reality for me is the lack of accountability
the police department has demonstrated by failing to provide security
for one of their best students. At the cost of Adam's reputation, they
blamed his death on excessive drinking to protect their own, rather
than to investigate the more probable possibility that foul play was
involved. In assuming Adam was drunk, police allowed the destruction of
forensic evidence and denied him the most basic of his civil rights:
the right to an objective, unbiased investigation. Does the
Constitution not state ``innocent until proven guilty?'' How different
the turn of events may have been if they had approached Adam as their
own reports indicate they should have: ``My first observation of the
subject were that his shirt and denim pants were soaked with fresh
blood. The individual was barely conscious, very pale and moaning.''
Why was Adam moved when no one knew how he'd been injured? Why was
he requested to stretch his arms overhead and restrained? How much
further did this impale him, and how much more agony did he suffer
because of it. Why wasn't he treated with the compassion and
sensitivity he so readily bestowed on all who crossed his paths,
including many children of police officers and emergency personnel? Are
the lives of our students so insignificant and devalued that police are
more concerned with suspecting them of foul play and alcohol abuse than
in ensuring the second most basic of Adam's civil rights violated: the
right to fair, unbiased medical treatment? How different might the turn
of events have been here if the rescue squad had made their own medical
assessment, rather than accepting the police assessment? If Adam had
been medflighted to either trauma center in the area, I believe he'd be
here today. No one was stronger or healthier than he.
Why wasn't I notified immediately that my son had been gravely
injured? I would have advocated for him and demanded that he be taken
to a trauma center.
Why was I told Adam hadn't been identified soon enough to notify
me, when a Criminal Records check was completed as early as 2:39 a.m.,
1\1/2\ hours before Adam died, that listed me as his mother, and my
address as his home address? Why was I lied to, and why was it more
important to seek information regarding a possible criminal background
on Adam than it was to notify me? Why wasn't I given the opportunity to
say goodbye to my son by University or hospital officials? I was told
they were too busy trying to save him. If that is the case, why wasn't
he taken to a trauma center as their protocol dictated he should have
been?
Why didn't the rescue squad treat Adam's injuries per the written
protocol for impalement, loss of blood and soft tissue injury? As
professionals, why didn't they recognize the classic symptoms he
demonstrated regarding blood loss? His clothing was soaked in blood and
in full view. They knew he was impaled.
At 2:54 a.m., who determined that Adam had been alone, attempting
to break into the greenhouse by crashing through the roof backward,
only to run through the next greenhouse, vault up onto a table, and
kick himself out? How could anyone determine that he was alone when
they themselves destroyed the evidence that may have proven otherwise
by not preserving it?
Who did order this bloodbath scene to be cleaned up without
securing it or taking forensic evidence?
I know Adam talked. Did he tell them what had happened, only to
have them judge his attempts to communicate as ``loaded'' gibberish and
``inappropriate'' words sounding like, ``it wasn't my fault,'' but they
clearly remembered him to say, ``I guess I drank to much?'' Why has the
police department denied me access to the officers who responded and
can tell me what Adam said? Why do they make me suffer more than the
loss of my son alone, when it isn't necessary?
When rescue arrived, three officers were restraining Adam, yet he
was placed in the ambulance with one EMTI. Why was he allowed to be
transported with inadequate manpower? Why was the paramedic, the higher
ranked of the two, driving?
Why is there no mention of the impalement at Cooley Dickinson
hospital in reports until the doctor identifies it 45 minutes later in
an x-ray? Didn't the rescue squad advise him about it? Was it still
visible, as it had been at the scene?
Why wasn't Adam blood-typed or transfused at Cooley Dickinson? Why
wasn't I called from there?
Upon the suggestion of Dr. Tehrani, when I called the police
department for details surrounding Adam's death, why was I treated with
such arrogance? I was placed on hold two times, given no information,
then told I'd have to call back. When I called Adam's room mate for
details, they were in his dorm and demanded to know why I was calling.
When I asked Chief Luippold why I was treated in this manner, he said
the hospital should have notified them that I had been informed so they
could prepare a statement. I wanted facts, not a prepared statement. I
was then told it ``wasn't University protocol'' to notify families--it
was the hospital's responsibility. Yet, the hospital told me to call
them for the details.
When I asked for a written copy of the protocols, policies and
procedures regarding safety on campus and the chain of command followed
in reporting them, I was told no such document existed.
When I asked why no one had been concerned enough to report Adam
missing, I was told that this wasn't the responsibility of fellow
students or resident advisors, that ``We operate from the philosophy
that our students are adults and as such are responsible for their own
actions. I am very sorry for your loss.''
As a 4.0 Honors Computer Systems Engineering major recently
inducted into the Golden Key National Honor Society, Adam was also a
loss for the University of Massachusetts. Yet, I never received a
sympathy card or telephone call offering condolences from either
Chancellor Scott or President Bulger. Is the President's new $1,000,000
per year office space in Boston so expensive that he couldn't afford
the cost of a card or long distance call? Is this the way alumnus
should expect to be treated by University officials when their children
are victimized on campus property if that victimization might taint
their reputation? I entrusted my child to the University of
Massachusetts for safekeeping. I requested that he live on campus
property because he'd be safer there. The University was Adam's
landlord, and he their tenant.
Chief Luippold and I first discussed Adam death several hours after
I'd been notified that morning. He offered his condolences, then asked
if I was aware that my son had a history of alcohol abuse in
Barnstable? This was in reference to the CORI check requested at 2:34
a.m., which noted that Adam had been charged with ``minor in
possession'' in August 1995, but this charge had been dismissed, and
court fees were reduced to ``noise violation.'' The facts of this
incident were that 26 lifeguards on Cape Cod were singing and playing
guitar on the beach. There was an untapped keg of beer that one of the
guards, who was over 21, had purchased for another party later. Not one
guard had even sipped an alcoholic beverage at the time of the arrests.
All 26 were arrested, all ``minor in possession'' charges were dropped,
and all paid a fine for noise violation due to the singing and guitar
playing. No other incidents were recorded, yet Chief Luippold referred
to an unfounded charge in August 1995 that had been dismissed as
``alcohol abuse?'' I want to know what this dismissed charge 2 years
prior had to do with Adam's death? Wouldn't it have been more
appropriate to review his academic record?
Why weren't Chief Luippold and his department spending those first
crucial hours investigating Adam's death? Why was it more important to
research Adam's background for non-existent drinking habits? Shouldn't
their primary concern have been to begin the tedious process of re-
constructing why and how he'd just died? Was it Adam's fault that they
had destroyed the evidence that might have answered these questions?
Why didn't the Office of Public Affairs ever release any
information about Adam aside from ``21 year old junior from Cape Cod
who was intoxicated at the time of the fall?'' Why did police state
that they were looking for information from anyone who might have seen
Adam that night, but they believed him to be alone? Why not just say,
``We're going to say the case is open, but we made our minds up at 2:54
a.m., what will be allowed to be said, so we determined he was alone
and cleaned the scene. If you saw anything, don't bother telling us, it
is just speculation.''
Why didn't police follow up immediately on the anonymous calls to
the editor of the Gazette stating that Adam was not alone? Why did my
lawyer have to request this through the DA's office, which still took
them 7 weeks, by this time, the receiver of the calls had forgotten
most of the information.
Why did the police tell Adam's dorm friends that I had started wild
rumors and speculations about Adam being chased and pushed, when I had
been told this by an acquaintance whose son lives in Amherst who had
heard it within the first few days of Adam's death?
Why were Adam's dorm friends discouraged from talking to me and
told that I would feed them wild speculations, yet University officials
told me it was they who refused to talk?
Why was I told that Adam's friends were quoted as saying they were
all so intoxicated they didn't know where they'd been, and that they
were so hung over they couldn't remember anything the next morning, and
that they feared for Adam because he, to, was intoxicated? After
reading their reports and talking to them, they denied ever telling
police they'd been intoxicated, stating that they'd all drank earlier
in the dorm, as did Adam, but after returning from a walk with a
friend, he seemed back to normal? He did not drink again that night,
although others did.
Why was Adam's autopsy BAL so low, 0.12, as opposed to other
``alcohol-related'' autopsies of 0.42, 0.65, in the news recently. The
driving limit used to be 0.15 several years ago; it was only recently
lowered to 0.08!
Why is Adam prescribed in the police report as being 5 feet 10
inches, 160 pounds, stocky and brown-skinned, when he was 5 feet 3
inches, 130 pounds, lean, and white? Am I expected to believe in the
credibility of this department, were they describing the second person
who later ``metamorphosed into Adam, or are they just so insensitive
that they don't bother to research the facts?
Why do police reports specifically state that Adam Prentice bought
the alcohol for the party that night, when he was still studying at the
library at the time the alcohol was purchased? The student who drove
the buyer to the liquor store even informed police that Adam had not
bought the alcohol, yet they wrote it anyway.
Why can police speculate about information that is a proven lie,
but I can't speculate about information I've heard to be true? Why do
they prefer to manipulate statements made from Adam's friends to fit a
scene from their point of view that never happened, rather than to get
to the bottom of what really happened?
Why does the DA's office in Northampton, whose help I sought in
clarifying the answers to the above-mentioned questions, respond by
stating that ``we all share your frustrations'' regarding the evidence
destroyed by cleaning up without preserving any, but ``what's done is
done.''
I want to know who should be accountable for, ``What's done is
done?'' Would ``What's done is done,''satisfy the DA and Chief of
Police if Adam were their son? Would they permit their child's
reputation to be slandered because he had the misfortune to be
victimized on campus property--perhaps even stabbed deliberately, only
to be victimized again when ``help'' arrived and accused him of
malicious destruction? And again when rescue arrived and misjudged his
injury, sent him to the wrong hospital, without enough manpower, and by
the wrong source of transportation?
Why did Melinda Soffer, another attorney at the Northampton DA's
office, immediately change her attitude at the mention of Adam's name
during a phone conversation with Security on Campus staff when she
called to compliment their website? She described herself as a lawyer
working in a large college community in Massachusetts, and wondered if
there was anything she could do to help. When it was suggested that she
assist me in seeking answers regarding the suspicious death of Adam
Prentice, her voice changed from friendly to ice cold, as if a dirty
word had been spoken. She abruptly ended the conversation, and never
called back to volunteer the services she'd just offered.
Why do I have to beg for Adam's clothes to be returned to me? I
want what was his last.
Why were Adam's closest friends from the Cape who attend University
of Massachusetts interviewed for character background, but everything
they'd said regarding Adam's credibility was overlooked? Why do police
refer to rely on the speculations made third party by individuals who
didn't know Adam as evidence to support their theory that this crime
was alcohol-related? Adam's closest friends told them that when he did
drink, it was far less than them because he was such an accomplished
athlete, and he preferred getting up early to exercise as opposed to
staying out late to party?
Why was so little value placed on my son's life because of a smell
of alcohol on his breath that he had to die needlessly?
I long for the day that I can grieve my son instead of defend him.
These first months without him bring a new milestone to overcome with
each passing day. The first Columbus Day holiday without shopping with
him for winter clothes, two months since I saw him last, four months
since I heard him say ``Hi Mum'' on the phone. The first birthday this
Sunday without his thoughtful cards. Regardless of how busy Adam was,
he always took the time to remember me. Mother's Day in May 1997 was
the last card I'll ever receive from him. I am a gardener, and the card
begins with:
``My mother kept a garden, a garden of the heart, she planted all
the good things that gave my life its start. She turned me to the
sunshine and encouraged me to dream, fostering and nurturing the seeds
of self-esteem. And when the winds and rains came, she protected me
enough--but not too much--she knew I'd need to stand up strong and
tough. Her constant good example always taught me right from wrong--
markers for my pathway that will last a lifetime long. I am my mother's
garden, I am her legacy--and I hope today she feels the love reflected
back from me.''
He then went on to hand write,
``Mom, thank you for being yourself. You are the best mother in the
world. You've proved this to me time after time. Being away from home I
realize you have given me everything that I need to succeed. Thank you
for everything that you've done for me over years. I wish I was home to
celebrate this day with you. But, before you know it, I'll be back.''
If only this were true.
The Christmas holidays were the cruelest--while friends shopped for
their children's gifts and attended the traditional parties, I upgraded
my hardware to research Adam's investigation more efficiently. The most
expensive gift I purchased this season was a headstone for Adam's
grave. It has a swimmer carved into black rock and the inscription
``Lifeguard of Barnstable'' arched above it.
What is it like to lose a beloved son so needlessly, only to have
his impeccable character sacrificed relentlessly to protect the
reputation of the very institution he'd saved so hard to attend? At an
early age, Adam had accepted Jesus Christ as his personal savior, as
have I. This is my only comfort. When I see him next, it will be for
eternity.
I am not a public speaker, but Adam was. Adam excelled at
everything he attempted because he approached life with 150 percent
effort. In honor of his memory, I choose to give his investigation 150
percent. When I see him again, I want to look him in the eye and say,
``Son, I gave it 150 percent, just like you taught me to.'' It truly is
a rarity when a mother has learned so much from her child.
Until then, I visit his graveside with the dawn of each morning.
The quiet of the cemetery at this time is my refuge. I tidy the
trinkets and cards left by his friends, then sit in my car for my
prayers and devotions. Occasionally, I think of going to the ocean. We
have both always loved the ocean, and spent 21 years together sitting
and talking at the same spot he lifeguarded from in recent years.
I wonder what Adam would have done with his life had he been given
the opportunity to live it? He would have made an impact on all he
touched, as the many testimonies I've attached will attest he made in
their lives.
Would he have worked as an Engineer in competitive industry,
designing computer systems and writing 21st century programs? Would he
have owned a business, or taught Math and Engineering at the University
level? He loved to teach, and was planning to attend Graduate School in
California. Would he have quit it all to write his lyrics and play
guitar?
I will always remember him where he was happiest: sitting high upon
his lifeguard chair, twirling his whistle and pondering the gentle
waves of the Cape Cod ocean he loved so much under the warmth of the
summer sun.
``Those that would exchange essential liberties for a little
personal safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.''--Benjamin
Franklin
STATEMENT OF DR. STANLEY IKENBERRY, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN
COUNCIL ON EDUCATION
Senator Specter. I would now like to turn to Dr. Stanley
Ikenberry, president of the American Council on Education. The
floor is yours, Dr. Ikenberry.
Dr. Ikenberry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think we have
heard some important and moving testimony here today, and the
issue before us I think is important not just to this committee
but to colleges and universities across the country. Making
campuses safer places, making people aware of danger, and
investing in education in campus security is a high priority
issue for higher education generally and for campuses
specifically.
My own personal experience comes from 10 years at Penn
State and 16 years as president of the University of Illinois.
Let me state at the outset that I know of no college or
university president in the country who would tolerate a
coverup of crime or failure to properly report crime.
Publicizing criminal incidents and providing information on
campus crime helps reduce crime, in fact, by alerting the
community to its danger and encouraging prudent behavior. There
are, in addition strong legal as well as strong ethical reasons
to publicize accurate information about crime on campus.
So, my first point, Mr. Chairman, is I think presidents do
care about this issue.
As concern for personal safety has continued to grow in all
aspects of the society, campuses have become more and more
focused on creating and maintaining safe environments. The
level of awareness and concern about crime on campus is
steadily increasing. Individual institutions have responded to
the need for greater security by employing a wide range and
variety of strategies. Perhaps the most visible, for example,
have been the installation of increasingly sophisticated lock
and key systems, property identification programs, campus watch
programs, illumination of the campus grounds, student escort
services, security phone boxes, and many other measures. The
security forces have also grown in number and expanding the
screening, training, and supervision of campus personnel has
expanded as well.
Campus, city, county, and State law enforcement groups
frequently work more closely together and often as one. Data
reporting on security incidents I think is more professionally
gathered and more timely reports are made.
Of special importance are the efforts that colleges and
universities are making to educate students, faculty, and staff
on these issues. Although institutions have done and continue
to do much to improve public safety, the responsibility is a
shared one, and that is why education programs are particularly
important for students and staff.
The 1990 Campus Security Act has brought publicity to this
issue, and publicity I think helps make all of us aware of the
importance of maintaining a safe campus. But publicity alone is
not sufficient. Institutions nationwide must undertake a broad
array of measures if we are to continue to make campuses the
safe places that they must be.
My hope, however, Mr. Chairman, is that any changes in
campus security laws be judged on the basis of whether in fact
the proposed change will actually reduce crime on campus and
whether in fact it could have unintended consequences.
I believe, for example, the mandating of open campus
disciplinary proceedings could have unintended consequences
that would retard rather than accelerate the accurate reporting
of incidents, and, therefore, it would not serve students,
parents, or communities well.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Colleges and universities are committed, Mr. Chairman, to
improving campus security and safety. We will continue our
efforts in that regard. To respond most effectively to local
community conditions, schools need to be able to spend security
related funds in areas that will have the greatest impact per
dollar. Not all measures are equally effective on all campuses
because the environments vary quite widely from campus to
campus.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before
you today and would be pleased to respond to questions.
Senator Specter. Thank you very much, Dr. Ikenberry.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Stanley O. Ikenberry
Mr. Chairman, I am Stanley O. Ikenberry, president of the American
Council on Education. ACE represents over 1,600 public and private,
two-and four-year colleges and universities across America. Along with
other higher education associations that have endorsed this statement,
we are pleased to join with you in seeking measures that may lead to a
safer and more secure campus environment for our students, faculty, and
staff.
My personal perspective is drawn from my 10 years at Penn State,
which has over 20 campuses state-wide, and my 16-year tenure as
president of the University of Illinois. Illinois has only three
campuses: a small one, in Springfield, and two others that are quite
large, in Chicago and Urbana-Champaign.
College and university campuses are communities filled with people
of all ages and backgrounds, and these communities function within a
larger city or region. The size of the campus and its proximity to
other communities or cities influence the challenge of making campuses
safe.
Both on campus and off, crime is a possibility--mostly it is petty,
but sometimes it can be deadly. Presidents and chancellors know that
reporting these incidents contributes to campus safety by making the
community more aware of dangers and vulnerabilities.
As concern for personal safety continues to grow in all of society,
campuses have become more and more focused on creating and maintaining
safe environments by hiring more public safety officers, investing in
training and equipment, enhancing reporting systems, and working with
students, faculty, and staff in hundreds of way to help make campuses
like Penn State and Illinois safer places to team and grow.
Let me state at the outset that I know of no college or university
president who would tolerate a cover-up of a crime on campus. As I
indicated earlier, publicizing criminal incidents and providing
information on campus crime helps reduce crime on campus by alerting
the community to dangers and encouraging prudent behavior. The
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, for example, publishes
three comprehensive reports a year that break down crimes by location,
time-of-day, day-of-the-week, sex of victim, and other factors. The
campus and local media distribute the report and educate the public
about risk factors. Many colleges and universities throughout the U.S.
have adopted similar information measures, tailored to the
circumstances and needs of each campus.
There are, of course, strong legal reasons to publicize accurate
information about crime on campus: colleges and universities should
protect themselves from legal challenge by widely disseminating
information of any significant incident. Institutions that have made an
aggressive, good faith effort to make the campus community aware of
criminal incidents are less likely to be found negligent in a court of
law.
I disagree with those who suggest that colleges cover up crime. The
fact remains that crime does occur on campus as elsewhere in the
society, and campuses must work aggressively to address and stop
criminal activity. At one time, the college campus may have been a
sanctuary where there were few dangers to physical safety. Sadly, that
is no longer true. As with society in general, safety on campus must be
an issue of constant concern.
College and university presidents are very much aware of the need
to address campus crime. For the last decade or more, colleges have
been spending more money on increased security; sponsoring more
information and educational programs; encouraging more positive social
activities; and attempting to help students, faculty, and staff cope
when a crime occurs. In 1988 we had 37 police officers at a cost of
$1.8 million on the University of Illinois's Urbana-Champaign campus.
This year there are 51 officers and the annual expenditure exceeded
$3.4 million. In addition, in the last three years, the Urbana campus
has spent over $750,000 for increased lighting, emergency phones, and
other security measures.
Higher education associations such as ACE have been responsive to
the changing security needs on campus and to heightened public concern
about campus safety. ACE has taken the lead in focusing the attention
of college and university administrators on the need for improved
security. In December 1985, prior to passage of the federal Campus
Security Act or any state-level laws, we prepared and mailed to all
colleges a document entitled Achieving Reasonable Campus Security,
which provided campus officials with a checklist of suggested
practices. In addition to regular updates on this issue in our biweekly
newsletter, we have published a book by Professor Michael Clay Smith,
entitled: ``Coping With Crime on Campus,'' which explores both legal
issues and security measures in great detail. ACE and other higher
education associations routinely sponsor sessions on this topic for
college presidents at our annual meeting. We recently compiled a
compendium of information related to the problem of alcohol abuse on
campus, all of which is available on ACE's web page at www.acenet.edu.
These materials are designed to summarize research of importance,
provide guidance to campus officials, suggest creative responses to
dealing with campus safety, and emphasize potential liability for
failure to deal with these issues properly. These documents provide a
substantial reservoir of information that enables colleges to determine
whether their campus regulations and security structures are adequate
and to identify steps for improvement.
Given the concern about this issue by policymakers and the public,
the level of awareness and concern about crime on college campuses is
steadily increasing. Individual institutions have responded to the need
for greater security by employing a variety of strategies. Perhaps
easiest and most visible have been the installation of increasingly
sophisticated lock and key systems, property identification programs,
campus watch programs, increased illumination of the campus, student
escort services, and security phone boxes. Security forces also have
grown in number, with expanded screening, training, and supervision.
Campus, city, county, and state law enforcement officers work much more
closely together and at times as one force. Data regarding security
incidents are gathered and appropriate reports are filed. Of special
importance are the efforts colleges make to educate and regularly
remind students, faculty, staff, and other members of the campus
community about security risks and procedures.
Although institutions have done and continue to do much to improve
safety, the responsibility is a shared one. Students and student
behavior are essential to the safety equation as well. It is important
that institutions alert students to campus safety issues, but it is
equally vital that students take steps to protect themselves. Unless
students take advantage of the safety programs and services offered by
our institutions, campus safety strategies will not succeed.
Our students generally come to college from relatively safe home
environments. Often this is the first time they have had to bear much
responsibility for themselves, their health, and their behavior. Some
students think they are invulnerable: ``bad things only happen to other
people.'' Such an outlook, in my experience, can be extremely
dangerous. Campuses must constantly seek ways to inform students about
the consequences of crime and encourage them to take reasonable steps
to protect themselves; but no school can insure the safety of its
students if the students themselves do not show good judgment, if they
do not take care of themselves, or if they do not think about the well-
being of those around them.
The 1990 Campus Security Act has brought publicity to this issue--
and publicity helps make all of us aware of the importance of
maintaining a safe campus. But publicity alone is not sufficient.
Institutions nationwide must undertake safety measures if we are to
have a reasonable chance of both educating students about the frequency
of crime and reducing the likelihood of crime on campus.
Because of the complexity of the law and its manifold requirements
(I will include a list of reporting requirements as an appendix to my
statement) many campuses have had difficulty in meeting federal
reporting requirements. This was confirmed in a March 1997 General
Accounting Office (GAO) report on campus crime (GAO-HEHS-97-52) which
states, ``at the campus level, colleges are finding it difficult to
consistently interpret and apply some of the law's reporting
requirements.'' After reviewing 25 campus crime reports, GAO concluded
that some campuses had under-reported crime while others over-reported
it. The GAO report found that the Department of Education had provided
little technical assistance to help campuses implement the reporting
requirements.
Audits of campus safety reporting conducted by the Department of
Education have reached similar conclusions. While the audits found no
evidence that campuses attempt to hide crimes, they concluded that
crimes are sometimes inaccurately reported. In some cases crimes are
miscategorized. For example, a larceny may be erroneously reported as a
burglary.
Since the GAO report was released and its findings confirmed, the
Department has increased its technical assistance efforts. In addition,
the current work to update audit guidelines for independent auditors
may help achieve more consistent reporting. In some cases where the
Department of Education has audited schools, Department officials have
disagreed among themselves as to what the law requires.
One particular area relating to campus security that has drawn
intense interest is the campus student disciplinary process. Student
disciplinary systems are not intended to be, nor are they, a substitute
for the civil or criminal courts. They are, instead, the method by
which a college enforces its own standards of conduct that go beyond
the requirements of law and include violations of academic norms of
behavior. Student disciplinary codes do not result in criminal fines or
criminal jail sentences; instead, their purpose is to provide a
reasonable living and learning environment for students. When students
violate the law, they also remain subject to criminal prosecution.
When criminal acts are reported to school officials, a common
response is to discuss with the alleged victim the range of resources
and alternatives available. The options include not only asking that
the college enforce its rules by taking disciplinary action against the
offender such as expulsion, but also asking law enforcement officials
to prosecute the offender. If the student victim desires, a school
official (perhaps a counselor or someone from student affairs) will
accompany and support the victim during meetings with authorities. In
this way, colleges are doing precisely what they should be doing:
apprising the victim of available alternatives and resources, and
approaching each case with an eye to the best interest of all of the
students who are involved.
The ``Accuracy in Campus Crime Reporting Act of 1997,'' H.R. 715,
would expand reporting requirements of campus crime laws. Some of the
proposed changes in federal law envisioned by this law are reasonable.
For example, expanding the list of reportable crimes to include arson,
simple assault, larceny, and vandalism is a reasonable step, although
specific legal elements of each of these crimes must be delineated. A
provision to open campus crime logs may prove helpful, but any
requirement should allow a reasonable delay to ensure accuracy, to
protect the rights of victims and the accused, and to avoid any
impediment to a criminal investigation. Requiring campus crime reports
to be submitted to and published by the Department of Education--though
we believe it serves no useful purpose will not create any additional
difficulty for campuses, unless it results in a reduction of the
technical assistance provided by the Department of Education.
However, some of the proposed changes in this bill will be clearly
counterproductive. For example, it would require a large number of
campus officials--some with confidential counseling responsibilities--
to report knowledge of crimes. Under H.R. 715, campus administrators,
deans, disciplinary officers, athletic department officials, housing
officials, counselors, and others would be required to report any
knowledge of a crime committed on campus. Is this likely to lead to
accurate and valuable reports? Hardly likely. Will it create a complex
and expensive training burden? Absolutely.
Such a proposal would require that all of these individuals be
trained to recognize the legal difference in crimes--such as larceny
versus burglary--and report information properly. Training these myriad
of individuals will be costly and it will be an ineffective and
wasteful use of resources that otherwise could be used to enhance
campus safety. Can this training be done? Yes. Is it a good way to
reduce crime on campus? No.
Moreover, such a requirement could create a problem for counselors
and other campus officials, particularly in incidents involving sex-
related offenses. Students who have been the victim of a sexual assault
often want to talk to a trusted adult in a confidential manner. Housing
or residence staff are especially important in this role; a requirement
that they report incidents, even on an anonymous basis, may well
discourage victims from seeking help. We are especially concerned about
the position in which this places Resident Advisors, who generally are
students themselves. In addition, requiring ``counselors'' to report
any knowledge of crime could discourage students from seeking needed
assistance and threaten the confidential relationship between medical
personnel and their clients. Such issues must be considered carefully
before binding legislation that brings counterproductive results is
passed.
In the same vein, H.R. 715 would cause the federal government to
dictate campus disciplinary proceedings and require that these be open
to the public. This could have a chilling and counterproductive effect
on the reporting of crime on campus. Victims of campus crime especially
sexual assault--often use these proceedings when they want some
``justice,'' but are not willing to press criminal charges. These
victims, we feel, will be less likely to report crimes and seek a
resolution if the incident is to be discussed in a public forum. Faced
with such a choice, they may decide to drop the matter altogether.
Any changes in the campus security law should be judged on several
grounds. First, will the proposed change actually reduce crime on
campus or will it have unintended consequences? I believe, for example,
that forcing open campus disciplinary proceedings could result in a
reduction of the reported incidence of crime on campus, not better or
more accurate reporting. It will not help to reduce the actual level of
crime on campus.
Second, campuses and policymakers should consider whether the cost
of the proposed change will result in a benefit of equal value. For
example, requiring large numbers of campus personnel to be trained to
recognize the difference in types of crimes so that they can accurately
report the crimes in the unlikely event that they learn of one, is
simply not a cost-effective proposal. Such a practice will reduce the
campus resources that go into crime prevention and education efforts on
campus.
Colleges and universities are committed to improving campus
security and safety, and will continue their efforts in this regard. To
respond most effectively to local community conditions, schools need
flexibility to spend security-related funds in areas that would have
the greatest impact on safety, not on an ever-increasing array of
reports.
At a time when more financial demands are being placed on colleges
and universities by state and federal governments, any ``one-size-fits-
all'' approach to campus crime is unlikely to be as effective as one
tailored to local community conditions. Large urban campuses often need
entirely different security measures than small rural colleges. We
would encourage you to allow schools the flexibility to respond to
local security concerns in individualized ways.
We appreciate the opportunity to share our comments with you and
stand ready to work with you, other members of your committee, and your
staff to help reduce campus crime.
reporting requirements of the campus security act of 1990
(1) policies, procedures, and facilities for persons to report
criminal actions and other emergencies;
(2) policies for reporting crime, including the name and title of
each person or organization to whom students or employees should report
crimes, and policies for making timely reports of crimes to the campus
community;
(3) policies addressing security of and access to campus facilities
and security considerations in the maintenance of campus facilities;
(4) campus law enforcement policies that include an analysis of the
enforcement policy of campus security personnel, their working
relationship with state and local officials, and efforts to encourage
prompt, accurate reporting;
(5) a description of the frequency of programs held to inform
students and employees about security procedures and to encourage them
to be careful;
(6) a description of programs used to inform students about the
prevention off crimes;
(7) statistical data about the occurrence on campus of six types of
crimes reported to local police or to any official of the institution
having significant responsibility for campus or student activities;
(8) statistics about arrests for crimes involving liquor, drugs, or
weapons;
(9) statistics on murder, forcible rape, and aggravated assault
that can also be classified as a hate crime;
(10) policies on monitoring and reporting criminal activity by
student organizations of campus;
(11) policies regarding the possession, use, and sale of alcoholic
beverages and the enforcement of underage drinking laws;
(12) policies on illegal drug use and the enforcement of federal
and state drug laws;
(13) a description of drug and alcohol abuse education programs;
and
(14) policies regarding campus sexual assault, including nine
specific procedures required by the law that campuses will follow when
a sexual offense occurs.
STATEMENT OF MICHELE GOLDFARB, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF STUDENT CONDUCT,
UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA
ACCOMPANIED BY PETER C. ERICHSEN, VICE PRESIDENT AND GENERAL COUNSEL,
UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA AND UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA
HEALTH SYSTEM
Senator Specter. I now turn to Ms. Michele Goldfarb, from
the University of Pennsylvania, overseeing the operations of
the student disciplinary section and resolution of alleged
violations of the code of student conduct and code of academic
integrity. Ms. Goldfarb, the floor is yours.
Ms. Goldfarb. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. I am Michele
Goldfarb, director of the Office of Student Conduct at the
University of Pennsylvania. Before my present position, I was
an assistant district attorney for the city of Philadelphia, a
faculty member at the University of Pennsylvania Law School,
and an assistant U.S. attorney.
Before I begin, I would like to note that I am accompanied
by my colleague, Peter Erichsen, the vice president and general
counsel of the University of Pennsylvania and the University of
Pennsylvania Health System.
I appreciate the opportunity to discuss the proposed
Accuracy in Campus Crime Reporting Act. I have submitted a
statement for the record that I would like to summarize.
Also attached for the record is correspondence from
University of Pennsylvania president Judith Roden. President
Roden has consistently emphasized two points with regard to the
Campus Security Act.
First, the university is absolutely committed to fulfilling
both the letter and the spirit of the law.
Second, she has consistently affirmed and led institutional
actions and changes to increase the safety and security of our
campus. These initiatives have been significant. I have also
attached for the record a list of recent actions taken by the
university to these ends.
It is the purpose of the student disciplinary system to
further the educational mission of the university by resolving
alleged violations of the code of student conduct. The
university disciplinary process does not supplant the criminal
justice system
The Office of Student Conduct at Penn has twin goals. The
first is to help create a safe environment where academic life
can flourish, and the second is to promote the development of
students.
When serious and dangerous infractions are reported to our
office, we make every effort to involve local law enforcement.
Complainants are always notified of their option to pursue
outside remedies, such as private criminal complaints,
restraining orders, and civil lawsuits, and are encouraged to
do so. We follow these cases closely and fully cooperate with
local prosecutors. We support the notion that students should
face criminal charges where appropriate and that the victim
should avail him or herself of the full use of the criminal
justice system, in addition to the university disciplinary
process.
Many of the matters that come to the attention of our
office, however, are cases which local law enforcement
authorities, especially in a city the size of Philadelphia,
would never handle through the criminal justice system. As you
know, Mr. Chairman, the district attorney of Philadelphia
cannot begin to address all of the cases that might
theoretically be handled by it.
As a former prosecutor with experience in both local and
Federal courts, as well as the university's chief disciplinary
officer, I am acutely aware of the differences between
disciplinary proceedings on a college campus and a criminal
proceeding. Student disciplinary processes are meant to set the
standards of behavior on our campuses and to determine a
student's standing in our community. In contrast to the
criminal justice system, disciplinary proceedings are limited
in scope. Our procedures and goals do not mirror the panoply of
laws, safeguards, and rules which characterize civil and
criminal trials. I cannot overemphasize the fact, which is
frequently misunderstood, that internal disciplinary
proceedings are not meant to replace or substitute for the
criminal justice system.
That said, however, student disciplinary processes provide
an important additional forum to respond to the interests of
the university community. Our processes are designed to educate
and, where appropriate, punish those students who violate our
rules. We seek both to promote a student's sense of
responsibility by enforcing accountability and also to protect
our community by, where necessary, removing or restricting
those who pose a threat to others.
I turn now briefly to the proposed Accuracy in Campus Crime
Reporting Act.
As you know, this legislation would require open student
disciplinary proceedings and records if criminal conduct is
alleged. Mr. Chairman, the University of Pennsylvania has had 7
years of experience with the Campus Security Act. The
Department of Education has been working to provide clear and
consistent guidance on how to interpret that law.
With regard to the disciplinary process, current law is
preferable to any of the changes that have been proposed in
ACCRA. The proposal to require open disciplinary proceedings
would not accomplish ACCRA's stated goal of creating a safer
campus environment, nor would it serve to publicize crime on
campus. Indeed, ACCRA would undoubtedly have a chilling effect
on many students' willingness to report incidents of
misconduct.
One of the most troublesome aspects of the open
disciplinary proceedings provision is the fact that while it is
intended to subject the alleged perpetrator to public scrutiny,
it would also subject the victims to the same harsh public and
media scrutiny. While the criminal justice system provides for
some legal protections for participants in the process, if
disciplinary proceedings were made open, these parties would
have all the public intrusion involved in a criminal proceeding
without the attendant protections.
Furthermore, the proposed law is unnecessary to accomplish
its stated goal of alerting the campus about the types of cases
and the outcomes of disciplinary proceedings. Many campuses,
including Penn, publish regular reports to the community which
detail the types of matters that are handled by disciplinary
offices and their outcomes. These anonymous reports provide the
community with an accurate picture of campus disciplinary
activities without compromising the confidentiality of the
process.
Campuses disciplinary offices are safe, professional places
for students to report misconduct. It is very unlikely that
victims of misconduct would continue to seek the help they need
if they knew that, from the time they stepped into our offices,
their matter would be available for review by any member of the
public, including the student media.
I believe that this legislation would not add to safety on
campus which is the stated goal of ACCRA. On the contrary, it
would lead to the deterioration of the integrity and
effectiveness of the disciplinary processes.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to testify
today.
Senator Specter. Thank you, Ms. Goldfarb.
STATEMENT OF DOLORES A. STAFFORD, DIRECTOR, UNIVERSITY
POLICE DEPARTMENT, GEORGE WASHINGTON
UNIVERSITY
Senator Specter. Ms. Dolores Stafford, director of
university police at George Washington University. The floor is
yours, Ms. Stafford.
Ms. Stafford. Thank you. Good morning.
George Washington University is a large institution located
here in the District of Columbia. My department is composed of
75 uniformed police officers, 12 administrators with various
specialties, and 150 part-time students.
Let me address one issue up front. There seems to be an
underlying belief that some institutions are hiding crime or
purposely underreporting crime. This is simply not true.
Most people in my position take pride in developing a
professional department whose members main priority is
providing a safe and secure environment for students to learn
and grow. In many ways the members of the GW community hold my
department personally responsible for their safety. We accept
that responsibility and that means that we have to do what is
right and what makes sense in order to meet the expectations of
the members of our campus community. We do not do this job
simply because there is a law governing campus security.
The Campus Security Act of 1990 shook the campus law
enforcement arena. Not only did institutions have to change the
way they did business and who they hired into the security
jobs, but security took a front seat on most college campuses,
not only in the eyes of the consumer, but in the minds of those
working on college campuses. I must say that some senior
officials were initially resistant to the changes, but 8 years
later I am here to tell you that there has been a significant
change for most of us in the security business. College
administrators realize that we must use common sense as our
guide.
The only way students can and will protect themselves is if
we are continuously harping on the fact that crime can and does
occur on college campuses. Students on college campuses have a
general perception that they live in a bubble and that nothing
will happen there. Our best crime prevention tool is using
various mediums to saturate the campus with important security
related information so that students will consistently take
precautions to ensure their safety.
Effective crime prevention is not accomplished with a 1-
hour program at the beginning of a student's freshman year. It
is an ongoing effort. We need to keep this concern in the front
of their minds not only while they are on a college campus, but
for the rest of their lives.
That is why many of us in this business not only abide by
the law, we exceed the expectations. For example, at GW we meet
the requirements of the law by sending the compliance document
to every member of the GW community, but we also publish the
information in the student handbook. We publish weekly crime
logs in the student newspaper and we post crime alerts in every
building on campus after a serious incident. We not only
publish the required statistics, we publish additional
categories that are necessary to provide an overall picture of
what is happening on campus. These are just examples of the
crime prevention efforts on one college campus.
Of course, there are those institutions who are perceived
to be doing things incorrectly, but most of the mistakes appear
to be unintentional errors caused by differing interpretations
of the law. We can resolve many of these problems if we develop
clear guidelines regarding the specific expectations that
should be met for each of the standards outlined in the current
law. There are numerous areas of the current law that need
further clarification. Some of these points are made in my
written testimony which I would ask be submitted for the
record.
Senator Specter. It will be submitted in the record.
Ms. Stafford. Thank you.
Any new legislation needs to balance what is right for the
victims of campus crime, the students on campus, and the
institutions. For example, it has been suggested by some that
it might be a good idea to open campus disciplinary hearings
and records. Many of the proponents of this idea are even
college students. However, keep in mind that most of these
students are associated with campus newspapers. These changes
would certainly not be in the best interests of the general
student body.
PREPARED STATEMENT
There are many possible changes to the law that would be
beneficial to the members of the campus community at large, and
we should implement those changes without hesitation. As you
review and possibly develop legislation regarding campus crime,
I urge you to keep in mind, first, the best interests of the
students and, second, the best interests of the institutions of
higher education across the country.
Senator Specter. Thank you very much, Ms. Stafford.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dolores A. Stafford
regarding: h.r. 715--accuracy in campus crime reporting act
Good morning, my name is Dolores Stafford. As the Director of the
University Police Department for the George Washington University (GW),
a position which I have held for 5 years, I administer the law
enforcement program for one of the top ranked postsecondary
institutions in the country. My department is composed of 75 sworn,
uniformed police officers, 12 administrators with various specialties
and 150 part-time student employees. The budget for police services at
GW is approximately $3.5 million. I am also the University's
Coordinator for the Sexual Assault Crisis Consultation Team. I deal
with students who are victims of campus crimes, including sexual
assaults, on a daily basis.
I currently serve as a member of the Government Relations Committee
for the International Association of Campus Law Enforcement
Administrators, a professional organization whose members manage campus
police and security programs at more than 900 colleges and
universities.
The Campus Security Act of 1990 requires institutions to notify the
campus community about various security policies and procedures, to
report the specified criminal offenses and to provide timely notice to
the campus community regarding those crimes. I have submitted for the
record several copies of the annual report on campus crime for the
George Washington University and a copy of a recent timely notice
warning posted in every building on campus.
Let me address one issue up front, there seems to be an underlying
belief by some that institutions are hiding crime or purposely under-
reporting crime. This is simply not the norm. The people responsible
for security on college campuses have a great deal of integrity and
many even feel personally responsible for reporting crime accurately.
My colleagues and I in the campus security business want to work
closely with the members of the Department of Education and the members
of this committee to ensure that all students and their families are
provided with accurate, meaningful information about campus security.
Implementing the Campus Security Act has taken time. After
enactment in November of 1990, Congress amended the original Act on two
occasions before it was implemented. The Department of Education
published and sent three letters to institutions between March 1991 and
July 1992 providing information about complying with the Campus
Security Act. The final regulations were not published until July 1994.
This delay in receiving complete and concise regulations and the
initial difficulty in interpreting specific portions of the regulations
greatly complicated the task we faced on campus.
According to the GAO report published in March 1997, ``areas of
difficulty (for institutions) included deciding how to include
incidents reported to campus officials other than law enforcement
officers, interpreting federal requirements for reporting sex offenses,
and reporting data on hate crimes.'' This led to incidents where
institutions were publishing incorrect numbers and according to the GAO
report, some institutions were even over-reporting crime. The
Department of Education had no experience with campus crime reporting.
Its main focus is the administration of Federal financial aid programs.
During the first few years, the Department of Education staffers
assigned the task were in the learning stages. The Department has taken
steps to improve its knowledge of the issues and staff there has begun
to actively assist institutions by providing technical assistance.
An example of its recent efforts includes participation in a
training session that I coordinated between the members of the
Association of Campus Law Enforcement Administrators of Delaware, the
District of Columbia, Maryland and Northern Virginia and three members
of the Department of Education in March 1997. We had a proactive
discussion that led the group to conduct a ``self-review'' which
allowed us the opportunity to ensure that we were in compliance.
Several of the institutions found areas where they were
misunderstanding or misinterpreting the language in the final
regulations. For example, I was classifying ``hate crimes'' as a
separate category rather than identifying them under the appropriate
classification of murder, forcible rape and aggravated assault as
required by law. This error was certainly unintentional, and I was able
to correct it because I received appropriate guidance from the members
of the Department of Education. As a Campus Law Enforcement Director, I
am grateful to the Department of Education for providing educational
workshops and assistance.
H.R. 715, the Accuracy in Campus Crime Reporting Act would require
numerous amendments to the current law. Some of the changes are
reasonable and easily implemented and others are worrisome and
potentially counter-productive. I would like to offer suggestions and
comments for each of the proposed changes:
The proposed expansion to the list of persons (positions)
responsible for providing crime statistics for inclusion in the
institution's three year crime table creates some concerns which are
the specific addition of ``counselors'' and ``administrators''. The
original language of the Campus Security Act statute called for
statistics which reflect reports to ``campus security authorities or
local police agencies'', the Final Rule (as amended on June 30, 1995)
expanded that to ``local police agencies or to any official of the
institution who has significant authority for student and campus
activities''. Therefore, it could be argued that the Final Rule went
beyond the original intent of the legislation.
I would strongly recommend that ``counselors'' be removed from this
definition. Students need to be able to seek professional assistance
via counselors without fearing that the counselor will breach the
student's right to confidentiality. I would also recommend that
``administrators'' be removed because this terminology is unreasonably
ambiguous. For example, at GW, up to 3,000 employees could be
considered ``administrators''. The rest of the proposed definition does
not cause concern and will simply put the law in synch with the rules
that implement it.
H.R. 715 would require the additional reporting of four categories
of crime. The Uniform Crime Reporting Handbook includes definitions of
the offenses of larceny, arson, simple assault and vandalism. These
definitions are precise enough for police departments throughout the
nation to interpret. Institutions should not have much difficulty in
meeting this requirement.
The proposed language requires that each institution submit the
report and requires the Department of Education to compile those
statistics. This would be easily accomplished by institutions because
we already compile and publish this information. The question for
Congress is will you provide sufficient resources to the Department of
Education to compile the statistics and whether this added
responsibility will divert the Department from providing the
appropriate level of technical assistance in implementing federal
campus crime laws?
There have been accusations alleging that institutions are
forwarding incidents of violations of drug, liquor and weapons laws to
their internal judicial systems rather than ``arresting'' violators in
an effort to keep the statistics down. I would disagree with this
premise and would add that the majority of those institutions have
historically referred those types of incidents to their internal
judicial systems. There are many institutions, such as The George
Washington University, that are in jurisdictions where these offenses
are viewed as ``minor offenses'' by the local law enforcement agencies
and therefore, they will not prosecute those incidents. We are faced
with the reality that these cases are not going to be adjudicated
through the courts, so we turn to the internal institutional
disciplinary procedures as a means of addressing many of these types of
violations.
That having been said, I do not believe that it is problematic for
institutions to report ``incidents of'' drug, liquor and weapons laws
violations. In fact, GW already reports the number of arrests and the
number of incidents reported to our judicial affairs office. I do
believe that the language should be clarified to include ``persons
arrested or referred for disciplinary action.''
The proposed language requiring ``open crime logs'' is not
problematic, in fact, I have been publishing our crime log in the
student newspaper for the last four years. However, the requirement for
the open crime logs to be available within twenty-four hours is
unreasonable, specifically because the majority of schools do not have
the appropriate administrative and/or support staff on duty over the
weekends and on holidays. I would recommend that this language be
changed to ``be open to public inspection within no more than 72 hours
of the initial report being made to the department.
H.R. 715 would delete subsection 485(f)(7)(C), which states that
``nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to confer a private
right to action upon any person to enforce provisions of this
paragraph''. The deletion of this language would create ``open season''
for litigation against institutions for even the smallest technical
error. If this paragraph were to be deleted, it would be extremely
harmful to every institution of higher education. It is imperative that
this current language remain intact. For example, if a University
Police Officer erroneously classifies a Burglary as a Larceny, this
would create a private right of action against an institution.
The aspects of the proposal that would require open campus
disciplinary hearings and would exempt disciplinary records related to
allegations of criminal activity from protection under FERPA has a
potentially chilling effect upon the reporting of crimes such as sexual
assaults. IACLEA's recent study of campus crime reports for the years
1994 and 1995 delved into the distinction between sex offenses
committed by strangers and those committed by persons with whom the
victims were acquainted. Significantly, 78 percent of the on-campus
sexual assaults reported to the 585 U.S. institutions which
participated in the survey involved persons who were acquainted. This
proportion was the same for both 1994 and 1995, and reflects the
significant progress which had been made among campus police and
security units in bringing ``date rape'' cases into the open.
In my primary role in the police department and as the Coordinator
of GW's Sexual Assault Crisis Consultation Team, I have dealt with many
students who have been victims of sexual assault. The victim has lost
the power in one of the most personal choices he/she can make. It is
imperative that in dealing with someone who has been the victim of such
an assault, the victim be ``empowered'' by allowing him/her to make
his/her own decisions throughout the recovery process. In dealing with
victims, it has always been my standard practice and now it is a
requirement of Federal law to inform the victim of the option to pursue
the case through the internal judicial process as well as taking action
through the criminal justice system or both. In all but one case, the
victims elected to use the on-campus proceedings to protect their
privacy. They make this choice because they believe that the internal
judicial system is the only viable route to justice in cases involving
date rape and the judicial system affords the victim confidentiality.
If institutions lose the ability to offer acquaintance assault
victims access to discreet internal hearing processes, I fear that the
reporting of these crimes will decrease. When hearings are ``open'',
the alleged rapist may bring friends, roommates, and classmates into
the hearing room, intimidating alleged victims and witnesses. Moreover,
campus newspapers will have access to records, printing names and
circumstances that will ultimately succeed in silencing, not
encouraging victims to report these crimes. This seems directly
contrary to the intention of the original legislation. If the only
forum you offer the victim is a public forum, the long-term result will
be the continued presence on our campuses of sex offenders who might
have otherwise been identified and dealt with accordingly.
In addition, I would like to recommend a change to the Campus
Security Act that is not addressed in H.R. 715. I would recommend that
the distribution deadline be changed from September 1 to October 1.
Many institutions are heavily involved in student registration through
the latter part of August, and, in some cases, continuing into early
September. The distribution of the annual security report to all
``current students'' on or before the date of September 1 may not,
therefore, reach all of the individuals who will actually attend
classes during the fall semester at those institutions.
As you develop this legislation, I would urge you keep in mind the
welfare of the victim of on-campus crime by removing the language from
H.R. 715 that would require open campus disciplinary hearings and would
exempt disciplinary records related to allegations of criminal activity
from protection under FERPA. I would also urge you to remove the
positions of ``counselor'' and ``administrator'' from the definition of
those who are required to report crimes. Lastly, I strongly urge that
you not create a private right of action against institutions. Such a
right is an invitation to frivolous litigation which costs money and
diverts the attention from efforts to reduce crime on campus. This
would also hold our institutions of higher education to an unreasonable
standard of perfection.
______
Position Statement Prepared and Supported by the International
Association of Campus Law Enforcement Administrators
statement regarding h.r. 715--accuracy in campus crime reporting act
The Crime Awareness and Campus Security Act was signed into law by
President George Bush in November of 1990. This law was designed to
increase the quantity and quality of ``consumer information'' available
to prospective college students and their parents regarding criminal
activity and security measures on the campuses of our nation's post-
secondary institutions. By extension, it was anticipated that increased
public awareness of campus crimes and security measures would lead
colleges and universities to upgrade their campus safety programs in
order to remain ``competitive'' with their peer institutions. There is
no question that the Crime Awareness and Campus Security Act has
increased the public's awareness of the occurrence of crime on college
campuses, but the degree to which that increased awareness has
translated into enhanced campus security has yet to be measured. The
U.S. Department of Education's regulatory interpretation of the law was
slow in coming and has, in some respects, conflicted with the apparent
intent of the original statute. A re-examination of the Crime Awareness
and Campus Security Act is therefore appropriate and timely.
The bill [H.R. 715] which is now before you is described as having
the effect of increasing the completeness, timeliness, and accuracy of
campus crime statistic reporting. It would also codify specific methods
of enforcement of the provisions of the Crime Awareness and Campus
Security Act. In the view of IACLEA, the professional association which
represents America's campus police and security administrators, H.R.
715 is a mixed bag. Some of the provisions of the bill would help to
advance the intended goals of enhanced campus safety and increased
crime awareness, while others would be decidedly detrimental. The
following are our specific comments regarding H.R. 715, addressing the
various elements of the bill in the order of their appearance in its
text.
Insertion of ``campus security or law enforcement; other campus
officials (including administrators, deans, disciplinary officers,
athletic department officials, housing officials, counselors) to whom
crimes are reported; or local law enforcement'' in lieu of ``campus
security authorities or local police agencies''.
DISCUSSION
The statute called for annual tabulations of the numbers of
specific categories of offenses which had occurred on campus and had
been reported to campus security authorities or local police agencies.
The term ``campus security authorities'' was not defined by the
statute, but was eventually (April, 1994) defined by regulation to
include ``(1) A campus law enforcement unit, (2) an individual or
organization specified in an institution's statement of campus security
policy as the individual or organization to whom students and employees
should report criminal offenses, and (3) an official of the institution
who has significant responsibility for student and campus activities,
but does not have significant counseling responsibilities''. In related
(January, 1995) regulatory language regarding the Family Educational
Rights and Privacy Act [FERPA], the term ``law enforcement unit'' was
defined to mean ``any individual, office, department, division, or
other component of an educational agency or institution, such as a unit
of commissioned police officers or non-commissioned security guards,
that is officially authorized or designated by that agency or
institution to--(i) enforce any local, State, or Federal law, or refer
to appropriate authorities a matter for enforcement of any local,
State, or Federal law against any individual or organization other than
the agency or institution itself; or (ii) maintain the physical
security and safety of the agency or institution.''
As originally enacted, the statistical disclosure requirements of
the Crime Awareness and Campus Security Act were reasonably
unambiguous. The numbers to be reported were to be derived from the
sorts of ``official sources'' one might be expected to contact upon
discovering or becoming the victim of a criminal act: the local police,
the campus police or security agency, or some other campus office which
had been ``specified'' by the institution as the place to report
crimes. The picture became less clear during the negotiated rule making
process, when the catch-all ``any official other than a counselor''
category was added. The Final Rule published in April 1994 muddied the
waters even further by narrowly applying the term ``campus security
authority'' only to the ``timely warning'' provision of the statue, and
essentially re-writing the statutory description of the sources of
campuses' annual crime statistics to include, in addition to the local
police, ``any official of the institution who has significant
responsibility for student and campus activities''. The upshot is, as
reiterated in a Department of Education Dear Colleague Letter dated May
1996, that campus counselors are currently exempt from the requirement
to ``make timely warning reports to the campus community on certain
crimes that represent continuing threat to students and employees'',
yet they, along with a host of other campus officials, are responsible
for providing crime data for inclusion in the institution's annual
security report.
The current crime statistic reporting ``standard'' is needlessly
ambiguous, leading to endless questions about the validity of the
published numbers. The preamble to the Final Rule published in April
1994 discusses the implications of the requirement that crime
statistics are to be reported by ``any official of the institution who
has significant responsibility for student and campus activities'', and
states clearly that ``the function of these administrators is not to
determine authoritatively whether a crime took place--that is the
function of law enforcement professionals working within the criminal
justice system--but, with respect to these regulations to report to the
appropriate law enforcement personnel, either campus or local police,
those allegations of campus crimes that the administrators conclude are
made in good faith * * *. If the law enforcement personnel, upon
further investigation, conclude that the allegations reported are not
substantiated by the facts or the law, no campus crime need be
disclosed as a statistic.'' It is further stated that ``The occurrence
of a crime on campus need not be disclosed to students and staff under
these regulations unless the appropriate law enforcement officials
conclude that the crime did occur with the same degree of certainty
they would require for purposes of reporting under the FBI's Uniform
Crime Reporting System.''
The real-world question which arises repeatedly is, how does an
institution deal with a situation in which an alleged on campus crime
is ``reported'' to a campus official who is neither a member of the
campus law enforcement unit nor otherwise specified by institutional
policy as a person to whom such reports should be made--and the victim
refuses to speak directly to a law enforcement professional or
cooperate in any further investigation of the alleged incident? The
situation is further clouded when the campus official to whom the
``report'' is made is functioning in a counseling capacity and the
victim insists on anonymity. Are such unsubstantiated incidents
supposed to be reflected in the annual campus security report? If there
can be no professional investigation to determine their validity, must
they be accepted at face value? Certainly no such cases would appear in
the Uniform Crime Reports which police agencies file with the FBI, yet
post-secondary institutions which exclude them from their annual
security reports risk being found in ``noncompliance'' by the
Department of Education.
SUMMARY COMMENT
The language change proposed by H.R. 715 would have the effect of
codifying (one might say legitimizing) the disassociation of the term
``campus security authorities'' from the required 3-year tabulation of
campus crime statistics which was effected by the Final Rule of 1994,
but it would do nothing to correct the current ambiguity concerning the
inclusion of data whose validity is unknown because no professional
investigation could be undertaken.
RECOMMENDATION
Retain the current statutory language and instruct the Department
of Education to abide by it. Codify the following definition of
``campus security authority'':
--(1) A campus law enforcement unit [as defined in 34 CFR Part 99
Section 99.8(a)(1)]
--(2) An individual or organization specified in an institution's
statement of campus security policy as the individual or
organization to whom students and employees should report
criminal offenses, including any criminal offenses which may be
reported solely for purposes of disciplinary actions or
proceedings.
Replacing the current crime category of ``murder'' with
``homicide''; expanding the list of crime categories for which
statistics are to be disclosed to include larceny, arson, simple
assault, and vandalism.
DISCUSSION
Both larceny and arson are included among the eight ``Part 1
Offenses'' crime categories for which the FBI has historically
maintained national data, with incidents of larceny being the most
prevalent of all Part 1 offenses. Homicide (technically, ``criminal
homicide'') is another of the FBI's traditional Part 1 offense
categories (of which ``murder'' is a subset). IACLEA recommended in
1990 that all Part 1 offenses be included in an institution's campus
security report, and we stand by that recommendation.
Simple assault and vandalism are two of a host of less-serious
crime categories which have traditionally been classified as ``Part 2
Offenses'' by the FBI. In order to ensure validity and comparability
among offense data from various campuses, it is essential that reports
of this nature be filed with and investigated by local police agencies
or ``campus security authorities'' (as defined in our foregoing
recommendation).
RECOMMENDATION
With the noted editorial change to ``criminal homicide'' and the
proviso that our previously recommended definition of ``campus security
authority'' be codified, the amendment proposed by H.R. 715 should be
enacted.
Amending ``arrests for'' alcohol, drug and weapons offenses to
``incidents of'' those offenses.
DISCUSSION
As was indicated in testimony on behalf of IACLEA in 1990,
statistics regarding arrests for alcohol, drug and weapon violations
are more indicative of the level of pro-active law enforcement activity
within a community than they are of the ``crime rate''. It has become
clear, since the enactment of the Crime Awareness and Campus Security
Act, that these arrest numbers are of especially limited utility in
many campus settings. Many campus security units at smaller
institutions lack formal ``sworn'' authority to effect arrests, and the
local police are infrequently ``called in'' to respond to campus
alcohol violations. In many larger cities, simple underage possession
of alcohol--although clearly illegal--is considered to be of such a
minor nature that formal charges are rarely placed (on or off campus)
because more serious cases would inevitably ``bump'' them from the
court calendar. Colleges and universities have increasingly recognized
the serious impact which high-risk drinking, in particular, has on the
campus climate, and have referred large numbers of alcohol violators to
their internal disciplinary systems. Although some of these same
violators may have been formally ``arrested'', most would not appear in
the tallies currently required by the Crime Awareness and Campus
Security Act.
The proposed change from ``arrests for'' to ``incidents of''
alcohol, drug and weapons violations is not the recommended solution,
however, if comparability of data is the desired end. It would not be
at all unlikely for one ``incident'' to result in the placing of
charges (either on campus or, in the case of ``arrests'', through the
courts) against multiple individuals. The best measure of institutional
efforts to combat the problems of alcohol, drug, and weapons violations
would be a count of ``persons charged'' for those offenses.
RECOMMENDATION
Amend by striking ``arrests'' and inserting ``persons arrested or
referred for disciplinary action''.
Routine submission of annual campus crime statistics to the
Secretary of Education, and publication of a complete tabulation of
that data by the Department of Education.
DISCUSSION
The Crime Awareness and Campus Security Act has given prospective
students and their parents easy access to a wealth of information about
the campus security programs of the schools which they may be
considering. It is the details of those programs, more so than raw
crime statistics, which are of the most value when assessing the
climate of a particular campus and that institution's commitment to
personal safety. Compliance with this proposed change would not place
any significant burden on educational institutions, but it would result
in increased work within the Department of Education and the end
product (a list of crime statistics for every institution in the
nation) would be of limited value to consumers. In order to better
place campus crime statistics into their proper context, they should be
reported to the FBI and tabulated in association with the crime
statistics for the appropriate host jurisdiction.
recommendation
Direct the Department of Justice to collect campus crime statistics
and include them in appropriate tables within the annual publication
Crime in the United States.
Accuracy of statistics to be ``certified'' by each official charged
with their compilation.
DISCUSSION
This item relates directly to the first point addressed in this
position statement regarding H.R. 715--the definition of ``campus
security authority''. Under the existing regulatory language, or the
working proposed in H.R. 715, there are simply too many ``campus
officials'' who could potentially be determined to be acting as
``security authorities'' for any meaningful certification of accuracy
to take place.
RECOMMENDATION
With the proviso that our previously recommended definition of
``campus security authority'' be codified, the amendment as proposed by
H.R. 715 could be enacted.
Daily crime logs to be kept by the campus police and security unit.
discussion
Several states currently have some form of open records laws which
relate, either generally or specifically, to campus police ``incident
logs''. The content requirements of such logs are generally consistent
with the data elements set forth section 2(e)(4)(A) of H.R. 715--as are
their applicability specifically to campus police or security units.
The suggestion [in section 2(e)(4)(B) of H.R. 715] that names-of
victims, witnesses, or non-arrested/cited suspects be included unless
otherwise prohibited by law is a recommendation of questionable merit.
Furthermore, there is little value in passing legislation which says
that an institution ``may'' do something unless it is an act which is
prohibited by law--but imposes no requirement to do so. The proposed
requirement [section 2(e)(4)(C)(i) of H.R. 715] that crime log
information be open to public inspection within 24 hours of the initial
report being made to the department, a (presumably other) campus
security authority, or other campus official is unreasonable on two
levels. Some level of supervisory review of the log information is
required to ensure that reported incidents are appropriately classified
and that any personally identifiable information which is protected
from disclosure is not inadvertently released. In many campus police
and security units, this level of supervisory review is not available
on weekends or holidays. Secondly, the state laws upon which this
proposed amendment have been modeled refer specifically to criminal
incidents which have been reported to the agency which is responsible
for maintaining the log. It is unreasonable to hold the police or
security unit responsible for inclusion in its log within a certain
time frame of an incident which was reported to some other office or
person within the institution. This is yet another example of the lack
of clarity which has resulted from the present, overly broad regulatory
definition of ``campus security authority''.
Section 2(e)(4)(C)(ii) of H.R. 715 is drawn from a current Virginia
statute, and provides valuable clarification of circumstances in which
it may be operationally necessary to defer the inclusion of a specific
incident in a public log. Section (e)(D) is unnecessary, however.
Members of the public typically gain access to a police incident log by
personally appearing at the police station and reviewing it on site.
Some institutions have elected to post electronic versions of their
crime logs on campus computer bulletin boards and/or the Internet. Such
pro-active measures go well beyond any reasonable minimum requirement
for the keeping of a daily log, and should be encouraged--but in no way
limited by the Crime Awareness and Campus Security Act. The language
proposal in H.R. 715 would only permit such initiatives if they were
``nearly perfect'', limiting such electronic information dissemination
to only the most sophisticated institutions.
RECOMMENDATION
Enact section 2(e) of H.R. 715 with the following modifications:
--Delete proposed subsection (4)(B) in its entirety.
--Within proposed subsection (4)(C)(i), delete ``within 24 hours of
the initial report being made to the department, a campus
security authority or other campus official'' and replace with
``during normal business hours''.
--Delete proposed subsection (4)(D) in its entirety.
Deletes the current section which states ``Nothing in this
paragraph shall be construed to confer a private right of action upon
any person to enforce the provisions of this paragraph.''
DISCUSSION
The specific intent of this proposed change is unclear. It's
removal would not necessarily create a private right of action to
enforce the provisions of the paragraph, but it would appear to invite
litigation on the issue. The Department of Education currently
endeavors to respond to citizen complaints of alleged noncompliance
with the Crime Awareness and Campus Security Act in a systematic
manner. While there may be room for the improvement of the current
process, it would seem to offer the greatest promise of consistency
over time.
RECOMMENDATION
Retain the existing statutory language in this section.
Opening campus disciplinary proceedings and records to the public.
DISCUSSION
The essence of section 2(g) of H.R. 715 is that both campus
disciplinary proceedings involving alleged criminal misconduct and the
records of those proceedings would be open to public participation and
review. Section 3 of H.R. 715 would amend FERPA to remove disciplinary
records regarding allegations of criminal misconduct from the category
of ``education records''--thus facilitating the public access provided
for in section 2(g). These proposed changes would have a potentially
significant chilling effect on the reporting of campus sexual offenses.
An IACLEA study of campus crime reports for the years 1994 and 1995
delved into the distinction between sex offenses committed by strangers
and those committed by persons with whom the victims were acquainted.
Significantly, 78 percent of the on-campus sexual assaults reported to
the 585 institutions which participated in the survey involved persons
who were acquainted. This high proportion reflects quite positively on
the progress which has been made among campus police and security units
in bringing ``date rape'' cases into the open. A key factor in
addressing date rape on college and university campuses has been the
availability--for the many victims who balk at undertaking a criminal
court proceeding--of a viable, confidential remedy through the venue of
the campus disciplinary system. Opening these proceedings to the public
would undoubtedly have the effect of diminishing campus sex offense
statistics, not because there would be fewer assaults--there would
simply be fewer reports.
The criticism that not all cases of internal disciplinary action
are currently reflected in institutions' annual security report
statistics would effectively be addressed through the definition of
``campus security authority'' previously proposed in this position
statement:
--(1) A campus law enforcement unit [as defined in 34 CFR Part 99
Section 99. 8(a)(1)]
--(2) An individual or organization specified in an institution's
statement of campus security policy as the individual or
organization to whom students and employees should report
criminal offenses, including any criminal offenses which may be
reported solely for purposes of campus disciplinary actions or
proceedings.
RECOMMENDATION
Delete sections 2(g) and 3 of H.R. 715 in their entirety.
Establishing a specific method of enforcement of the provisions of
the Crime Awareness and Campus Security Act.
DISCUSSION
The proposed suspension of a minimum of 1 percent of an
institution's federal financial assistance funds for each separate
count of non-compliance would diminish the discretionary authority of
the Department of Education. The Department of Education currently
endeavors to hold institutions responsible for errors or omissions
related to the Crime Awareness and Campus Security Act in a systematic
manner. While there may be room for the improvement of the current
process, its flexibility would seem to offer the greatest promise of
achieving consistency over time. Rather than imposing mandatory
financial penalties, the Department of Education would better be
encouraged to publish and distribute a ``compliance guide'' which puts
all of the current information and interpretations relative to the
Crime Awareness and Campus Security Act together in a single location.
The Department's Internet web site would be a most appropriate tool to
accomplish this end. The Department of Education should also be
directed to periodically update its publication regarding exemplary
campus security policies, procedures, and practices, and to disseminate
that revised information to all postsecondary institutions.
RECOMMENDATION
Delete the text of Section 4 (Enforcement) of H.R. 715 in its
entirety, and substitute the following:
Section 4. Technical Assistance.
Section 485(f)(20 U.S.C. 1092(f)(4)(B)) is amended by adding:
``Such exemplary practice identification and information dissemination
shall be repeated on a five-year cycle to ensure that institutions are
kept abreast of reasonably current trends.''
STATEMENT OF DAVID A. LONGANECKER, ASSISTANT SECRETARY
FOR POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Senator Specter. We now have Dr. David Longanecker from the
Department of Education. The floor is yours, Mr. Longanecker.
Mr. Longanecker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
opportunity to be with you.
I would like to have my complete remarks included in the
record.
Senator Specter. They will be made a part of the record.
Mr. Longanecker. I will try to respond to the specific
question that you raised to the Secretary in my comments.
Certainly the crimes that were detailed here today
demonstrate the importance of our being on top of campus
security and improving campus security in this country, and we
believe that the Campus Security Act is an important tool in
helping to do that.
Senator Specter. Are you satisfied with the responses which
have been made by the universities to the act?
Mr. Longanecker. In general, yes. As my testimony will
demonstrate, this is a new law that campuses are having some
difficulty learning, but we are convinced that there is a
genuine commitment to doing so.
Our goal is to administer the Campus Security Act in a
fashion that assists these schools in providing a safe
environment in which to learn and live and to make sure that
they are well informed about security at the particular
institution they attend or that they are seeking to attend.
The Campus Security Act became law in 1990 and was amended
several times in subsequent years as a result. Though we began
notification activity at the Department shortly after its
enactment, it has taken some time for the law to fully take
hold, with our final regulations not actually being adopted
until April 1994.
I am not going to go into the details of the act. You are
familiar with those, Mr. Chairman, but I would like to talk a
little about those details that pertain to the Department, our
responsibilities and what we have done.
One of the requirements was to disseminate exemplary campus
security practices, which we did in a 1994 publication
entitled, ``Campus Security: A First Look at Promising
Practices.'' I might also mention that our Office of Safe and
Drug-free Schools has also established an expert panel to
identify more current promising and exemplary practices
programs in the area of sexual and racial harassment on campus,
and we expect additional panels on crime prevention in the
future. Much of our focus is in fact on crime prevention.
The act also requires the Department to prepare a report on
campus crime statistics which the NCES completed last year. We
have distributed over 16,000 copies of that publication.
But clearly the most important responsibility we have is to
ensure compliance with the act. The Department takes this very
seriously. Just like the institutions, it took some time to
gain the expertise on how to best pursue this efficaciously,
but we now have a quite robust approach to working with the
institutions to achieve compliance.
Our efforts have included periodic notification to the
schools and their independent auditors and to others of their
responsibilities under the law and providing technical
assistance to schools on compliance requirements.
We also have a discipline process for examining compliance.
Annual compliance audits done by independent auditors must
certify compliance with all title IV regulations, including
compliance with the Campus Security Act, and we have had a
number of noted violations through that process.
Our program reviewers routinely review Campus Security Act
compliance when they conduct program reviews.
And we examine all complaints filed against an institution
alleging noncompliance to determine what the appropriate
actions would be.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Our staff have been trained in each of the regions to
specifically address issues regarding campus security. It did
take us some time to develop this expertise because this was a
new area of responsibility.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of David A. Longanecker
ENFORCEMENT OF CRIME AWARENESS AND CAMPUS SECURITY ACT (CSA) AND
EFFORTS TO MAKE COLLEGE CAMPUSES SAFER
White House Hate Crimes Conference.--President Clinton,
Secretary Riley and other members of the cabinet met with
members of the public to address the problem of Hate Crimes.
This conference included a session moderated by OMB Director
Franklin Raines on Hate Crimes on College Campuses. The
conference was held on November 10, 1997.
Violence against women letter.--Secretary Riley, Secretary
Shalala and Attorney General Reno sent a letter to all college
presidents (not just Title IV schools) about resources
available to assist their efforts in reducing violence against
women on college campuses. This letter was sent on September 6,
1996.
Secretary speech.--Secretary Riley gave a well-received
speech at the 1995 IACLEA convention in Philadelphia regarding
campus safety.
Secretary on ``Larry King Live.''--Secretary Riley appeared
on ``Larry King Live'' in 1994 with Connie Clery and an IACLEA
(campus police organization) representative to discuss campus
security issues.
Secretary meeting.--Secretary Riley met with consumer
groups and IACLEA representatives in 1995 regarding campus
safety.
Web page.--A World Wide Web page is available to provide
information to students, parents and schools regarding
Department efforts to enforce CSA and efforts to make campuses
safer. The web address is: http://www.ed.gov/offices/OPE/Pl/
security.html
Dissemination of exemplary practices.--The Department
published a 49 page document titled ``Campus Security: A First
Look at Exemplary Practices'' in September 1994. Over 7,000 of
these were sent out and it was available for purchase from GPO.
This publication is available on the new web page.
Campus crime report.--The congressionally-mandated Campus
Crime Statistics Report was released on February 25, 1997. The
Office of Postsecondary Education sent out over 16,000 copies
to postsecondary institutions. The National Center for
Education Statistics distributed an additional 16,000 copies.
The report is available on the Department's world wide web page
and is also available for purchase from the Government Printing
Office.
Dissemination of acquaintance rape publication.--The Higher
Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention, with
Department funding, published a guide in the summer of 1996
entitled ``Preventing Alcohol-Related Problems on Campus:
Acquaintance Rape.''
Informing students and parents through student guide.--The
Department has included information in the Student Guide to
Financial Aid Programs highlighting how to obtain Campus
Security reports and how to lodge complaints of noncompliance
with CSA. Over 9 million of these guides are disseminated each
year.
Program participation agreement.--All schools must certify
in the Program Participation Agreement that they are complying
with CSA. This was executed in the summer of 1991.
Negotiated rulemaking.--CSA regulations were subject to
Negotiated Rulemaking. Throughout the process of developing the
implementing regulations for CSA, extensive outside input was
solicited and incorporated into the regulations.
Coordination with FBI.--Department staff coordinated CSA
regulations with the FBI, especially with regard to Hate Crimes
Statistics Act, schools' use of the FBI's Uniform Crime
Reporting procedures, and other issues. This is an ongoing
activity.
Dear colleague letters.--Four letters have been sent to
schools regarding institutional responsibilities under CSA.
(March 1991; August 1991; October 1992; May 1996).
Program reviews.--Program reviewers are directed to check
compliance with all laws and regulations, including CSA. If the
program reviewers have reason to believe that the institution
is not in compliance, they look deeper into the issue.
Consumer complaint procedure.--The May 1996 Dear Colleague
Letter refers individuals with complaints of noncompliance to
the Directors of the Department's Regional Offices. The letter
included a list of names and phone numbers of the regional
offices.
Focused program reviews.--Valid complaints will trigger a
focused program review. Six formal complaints have been
received to date.
Supplemental guidance to program reviewers.--The Department
issued supplemental guidance to program reviewers detailing how
to check compliance with CSA. This guidance was issued in
September 1996.
Compliance audits.--Outside auditors conducting compliance
audits are directed, by the Audit Guide, to three places where
information about CSA is located, and told to assure schools
compliance with these laws and regulations: CFR 668 (and other
sections), which contains the CSA regulations; Dear Colleague
Letters, of which 4 have been issued about CSA; and, the
Student Financial Aid Handbook, which contains extensive
information about CSA.
Explicit inclusion in audit guide.--The Inspector General,
with the encouragement of the Secretary, included explicit
language regarding checking compliance with CSA in the Audit
Guide. This is expected to raise the awareness of the CSA
requirements in the audits that are performed for every school
that participates in the Title IV Student Financial Assistant
Programs. The revised Audit Guide was issued in July 1997.
Grant program to combat drugs and violence.--The
Department's fiscal year 1996 Drug and Violence Prevention
Grant Program had an invitational priority for proposals
dealing with violence against women on college campuses.
Teacher education in school mediation.--This FIPSE project
awarded funds to Goucher College. The project develops, in
partnership with 20 Baltimore City Public Schools, a program of
conflict mediation designed to reduce violence in the schools.
Three teachers from each school will be trained to implement
programs of mediation in their schools. Forty students from
each school will be trained and used as peer mediators.
Conflict Mediation Program.--This FIPSE project awarded
funds to the University of California-Los Angeles. The project
establishes a program to help the campus community conflict
prevention and mediation deal with diversity-related tensions.
Students, faculty, and staff are trained in mediation and
conflict resolution, and, working as teams, use this approach
to prevent and intervene in diversity-related conflicts in
various campus settings and in the local community.
Mentors in violence prevention project.--This FIPSE project
awarded funds to Northeastern University. The project delivers
programs on nine campuses designed to help males better
understand what constitutes sexual violence and rape; and to
assist women and men to intervene in situations of risk. The
programs will specifically target groups of males in residence
halls, in fraternities, and on athletic teams.
Dispute resolution and diversity multimedia packages.--This
FIPSE project awarded funds to Carnegie Mellon University. The
project develops two interactive multimedia packages to help
students learn dispute resolution skills. The first package
will teach basic dispute resolution skills, and the second will
teach students to apply the skills in culture, race, and
gender-based conflicts on a campus. The materials developed in
this project will be used in a variety of settings, including
numerous courses and student life activities. The project will
look at classroom rapport as a measure of the change in campus
climate caused by the videodiscs.
Regional office training.--Department Headquarters' staff
provided training to regional office staff during scheduled
conference calls about enforcement of CSA regulations in 1991,
1992, and 1994.
Technical assistance--IACLEA Convention.--The Department
sent a representative to the IACLEA (campus law enforcement
organization) convention in 1993 in Seattle to provide
assistance and training with CSA.
Technical assistance--IACLEA Convention.--Department staff
participated in a teleconference at the IACLEA regional
conference regarding CSA and FERPA questions in 1995.
Technical assistance--AACRAO Conventions.--The Department
sent a representative to several regional and national AACRAO
(Registrars and Admission Officers) conventions in 1994 to
provide assistance and training about CSA.
Technical assistance--NASFAA Convention.--The Department
sent a representative to the NASFAA annual convention to
provide assistance with CSA in 1994.
Technical assistance--Annual Campus Crime Conferences.--The
Department sent a representative to the annual Campus Crime
Conference convened at Towson State University to provide
assistance and training about CSA in 1994 and 1995.
Technical assistance--Virginia State Convention.--The
Department sent a representative to the annual Virginia State
Higher Education Association Crime Prevention convention to
provide assistance and training about CSA in 1993.
Technical assistance--schools.--The FBI Uniform Crime
Reporting Handbook was sent to all schools to assist in
complying with CSA in 1994.
Technical assistance--informal.--The Department has
provided extensive technical assistance to schools with
questions about implementation of CSA.
Technical assistance--customer support.--The Department's
Customer Support Branch has been trained to provide technical
assistance to schools with questions regarding CSA. The May
1996 Dear Colleague Letter refers schools to Customer Support
for technical assistance. They have received 165 calls for
assistance since May 1996.
Cultural awareness.--This FIPSE project awarded funds in
1997 to CUNY, Queens College to help integrate freshman--
especially recent immigrants--into the Queens community and
foster tolerance and learning of varying cultural backgrounds.
Curriculum development.--This FIPSE project awarded funds
in 1997 to Fisk University in order to revamp their core
curriculum to emphasize multicultural studies, cultivate an
eagerness to give critical attention to unfamiliar ideas, and
develop students' capacity for critical thinking.
Student values multimedia package.--This FIPSE project
awarded funds in 1996 to Ball State University to school
students on ethical decision-making, values clarification, the
consequences of cheating and risk recognition and reduction
through a multi-media program.
Faculty development.--This FIPSE project awarded funds in
1996 to California State Polytechnic University, Pomona to
educate teachers about Asian culture so that they may be better
attuned to the needs of minority students and help them
transcend cultural boundaries to attain academic success.
Research grant.--This FIPSE project awarded funds in 1996
to the Coalition of Christian Colleges & Universities to assess
how colleges and universities influence values.
Curriculum development.--This FIPSE project awarded funds
in 1996 to Tufts University to develop an interactive
multimedia simulation of the criminal sentencing practice in
American felony courts. This program exposes students to
``extra-legal'' influences--such as race or gender of the
defendant--and how they affect judicial outcomes.
Curriculum development.--This FIPSE project awarded funds
in 1995 to the Atlanta College of Art in order to help students
understand the dynamics of cultural encounters and adapt a more
inclusive narrative of history.
Sensitivity training.--This FIPSE project awarded funds in
1994 to the University of Central Florida. Focusing efforts on
student athletes, the program addressed growing concerns
regarding issues of race, gender and ethnic differences on
college campuses.
Program development.--This FIPSE project awarded funds in
1994 to Colgate University in order to establish an Office of
Intercultural Resources (OIC) to develop, support and implement
programs designed to build bridges between international and
multicultural programs.
Sensitivity training.--This FIPSE project awarded funds in
1994 to Stanford University (Medical School) to train students
to deal effectively with acts of sexism and gender
insensitivity and increases the sensitivity of those in
leadership positions.
Community activism.--This FIPSE project awarded funds in
1994 to the Oregon Coalition Against Domestic & Sexual Violence
in order to train and supervise students to assist domestic
violence victims with temporary restraining orders, enable
students to observe how criminal and civil cases involving
issues of domestic violence are handled by the legal system,
and recruit attorneys to do pro bono cases dealing with
domestic violence.
Research grant.--This FIPSE project awarded funds in 1993
to the Center for Women Policy Studies in order to develop and
disseminate a classroom report on gender discrimination, the
effects of race and sex bias in the classroom, and provide
recommendations and strategies for improving the learning
climate.
Curriculum development.--This FIPSE project awarded funds
in 1993 to Huston-Tillotson College, a historically Black
college to develop an honors program with a focus on Mexican-
American/African-American culture.
Faculty development.--This FIPSE project awarded funds in
1993 to Keene State College help faculty develop new approaches
to learning which expose students to information from more
diverse perspectives.
Program development.--This FIPSE project awarded funds in
1993 to the University of Minnesota to promote a greater sense
of community by coordinating extracurricular services with
academic experiences, affirm diversity within the campus and
provide more opportunities for out-of-classroom association
among faculty and students.
Dissemination of alcohol related crimes publication.--The
Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention,
with Department funding, published a guide in their
``Preventing Alcohol-Related Problems on Campus'' series on
both vandalism and impaired driving.
Institutional recognition.--In March of 1998, the
Department's sub-panel on the Prevention of Sexual and Racial
Harassment and Violence Against Students in Higher Education
will announce a new recognition program for institutional
initiatives that confront these issues.
Technical assistance.--In October of 1998, the Department
will host the 12th Annual National Meeting on Alcohol, Other
Drugs and Violence Prevention. At this meeting, institutions
that have initiated ``exemplary'' programs combating these
problems will share their experiences and insights.
CAMPUSES
Senator Specter. Mr. Longanecker, is there any doubt on the
definition of campus under the statute that it would include
the sidewalks within the university?
Mr. Longanecker. Generally the issue of campus is one of
the foremost difficult areas that we have found campuses are
having a difficult time with, and it is a particular issue for
an urban institution like the University of Pennsylvania. The
law says that the definition of campus is----
Senator Specter. I know what the law says. I have the
statute before me.
Mr. Longanecker. Yes.
Senator Specter. My question pending to you is on a
sidewalk----
Mr. Longanecker. That is right. A sidewalk and a street are
not----
Senator Specter. Excuse me. Excuse me.
Mr. Longanecker. I am sorry, sir.
Senator Specter. Is there any doubt that a sidewalk is part
of the campus?
Mr. Longanecker. Yes; the law explicitly says it is not.
Senator Specter. Well, what provision of the law does that?
Mr. Longanecker. It says property that is owned and
controlled by the university. The university does not own or
control public lands.
That may be an area we should examine because one could say
those properties that are wholly contained within the
parameters of a campus should be considered part of the campus.
Senator Specter. I am not sure you are right about that. If
there is a defect in the sidewalk, if there is snow on the
sidewalk, the property owner adjacent is liable for control for
those purposes.
Mr. Longanecker. Well, you are certainly more expert in
that area of the law.
Senator Specter. I may be about sidewalks generally.
Mr. Longanecker. Our interpretation of the law is that
those are publicly owned, that those are not university owned
and controlled and----
Senator Specter. I do not know that is so. The public has
an easement to walk over sidewalks, but when a sidewalk is
within the campus of the university, if you make the
distinction that the crime has to be reported if it is on the
grass but not reported on the sidewalk, I do not think you are
right about that.
But if there is a doubt about it, we can change the law.
Mr. Longanecker. Yes; clearly there is a doubt about it
because you and I clearly differ on our interpretations.
Senator Specter. I do not know that our differing
interpretations shows a doubt about the law, but we can change
the law.
Are you saying to me that the Department of Education is
interpreting the statute to exclude sidewalks?
Mr. Longanecker. That would be correct.
Senator Specter. OK. That is good to know because that is
something that I will try to change so there is no doubt about
it.
There is a specific issue arising as to the University of
Pennsylvania on the food court. It is a building owned by the
university. There are university functions within the building.
Do you take the position that if a crime occurs in the food
court within the overall territorial confines of the
university, that that is not on the campus?
Mr. Longanecker. That would be correct. In that particular
case, that food court is contiguous but not on the specific
campus. The university property, again using the definition in
the law----
Senator Specter. Contiguous but not on, but underneath.
There are university functions in the building on top of----
Mr. Longanecker. One of the requirements of the law is that
it be used in a manner consistent with the educational mission
of the university. The food court there is a general food court
available to the entire community, it is our understanding, and
therefore was not considered to be part of the university for
this purpose.
Senator Specter. Well, the Pennsylvania Superior Court took
up the issue of campus and said it was not limited--this is
beyond my own interpretation--to education and residential
grounds, but also including commercial property of a college or
university used for investment purposes. Are you familiar with
the case of Commonwealth versus Mitchell?
Mr. Longanecker. No; I am not.
Senator Specter. Well, I will make it available to you. I
would like you to take a look at it because I think it is fair
to say that there is a sharp disagreement between this
committee, and I think the Congress, with the interpretation
the Department is making.
Have you issued a regulation which illustratively excludes
sidewalks from the campus?
Mr. Longanecker. We have. I would need to get back to you
on explicitly what the regulation is. I believe so.
Senator Specter. Mr. Clery, I believe you want to make a
comment there.
Mr. Clery. Yes; I wanted to make a comment coming from the
Pennsylvania area, and the University of Pennsylvania did
report 100, I think, armed robberies because it was on streets
that they exclusively patrol, is my understanding, by their
police. I think that that would be to your point that that is
part of the campus. Why are they patrolling areas where
students congregate and use regularly? You have to cross the
street to get to the library and you have to cross the
sidewalk. I think it is a lot of sophistry very frankly and it
is violating the spirit of the law.
Senator Specter. Do you care to comment, Mr. Longanecker?
Mr. Longanecker. Please, if I might. In defense of the
University of Pennsylvania, what I believe they have tried to
do in their patrolling is to assure that there are additional
patrols in the areas proximate to campus that are used
significantly by students. Now, think of the idiocy, if you
will----
Senator Specter. The what?
Mr. Longanecker. The idiocy in providing a disincentive for
them to try to patrol areas clearly outside their area of
purview but where they are trying to provide protection to the
students.
What we want to do is to provide greater prevention
efforts. We want to increase security, and I think we would
love to work with you on trying to find a more clear definition
of campus.
Senator Specter. Are you saying it would be a matter of
idiocy to call on the university to report crimes on the
streets within their campus?
Mr. Longanecker. No, no; absolutely not.
Senator Specter. What was----
Mr. Longanecker. They patrol areas----
Senator Specter. Excuse me. Excuse me. What was the idiocy
reference?
Mr. Longanecker. Requiring them to report crime in the
entire patrol area of the campus security of the University of
Pennsylvania which runs blocks and blocks off campus.
Senator Specter. Well, we are not talking about that. I do
not think Mr. Clery is talking about that. Mr. Clery----
Mr. Longanecker. That is precisely what he said.
Senator Specter. Excuse me. No; that is not what he said.
What did you say, Mr. Clery?
Mr. Clery. I said that sidewalks and streets that intersect
the campus are really part of the campus. The college that I
went to was out in a rural area and I had to cross the street
and a sidewalk to get from my dorm to the library. Also, that
their campus security patrol, in conjunction with the
Philadelphia police, areas that the students use, and I would
consider that part of life of going to the University of
Pennsylvania. They had 100 armed robberies there that they did
not report.
Senator Specter. That is what I understood you to say. I
start with the sidewalk because it seems to me that that is the
clearest proposition.
Do you consider it a sidewalk if you move from Walnut
Street, up to College Hall on a sidewalk that goes through the
university, Mr. Longanecker?
Mr. Longanecker. I think we ought to have a serious
discussion about that. I do not think there would be much
disagreement with that. Currently we would not consider it as a
part of the campus.
Senator Specter. Mr. Longanecker, we are having a serious
discussion about it.
Mr. Longanecker. Yes.
Senator Specter. That is what we propose to do at this
hearing.
Mr. Longanecker. Yes; pardon me, but I do not think the
Department would disagree, but the law from our interpretation
of it currently does. We enforce the law----
Senator Specter. You do not think that the Department would
disagree but the law that the Department interprets disagrees?
Mr. Longanecker. We do not interpret law. We follow law.
Senator Specter. It seems to me you are doing a lot of
interpreting, Mr. Longanecker.
Let us come back to the streets and the highways. If you
have a highway, if you have Walnut Street and you move from the
library, which is immediately south of Walnut. Immediately west
of 34th, you have the law school, which is on Chestnut, and you
have Sampson Street--take that as a street aside from Walnut
Street, which is very narrow. It is traveled but very lightly.
You have the sidewalk there between two university buildings,
would you say that there is not an obligation to report campus
crime on the sidewalk?
Mr. Longanecker. That is how we would interpret.
But let me also say that I think that is an area that
logically we should address. That is different than----
Senator Specter. That is what I am trying to do.
Mr. Longanecker. Yes. No, I agree.
That is different than the campus security patrolling some
blocks away, and if I----
Senator Specter. We are not talking and Mr. Clery was not.
If you take the college campus very distended, that is not what
is being questioned here. What is being questioned here is a
sidewalk which is right next to the grass and that is leading
right to the building. Then you have a road. You have 36th
Street actually closed off. Now, cars can go through there, but
it is actually closed off.
I do not want to get involved with you on every inch of the
grounds, but I am just a little surprised to hear you say that
it would be idiocy to classify----
Mr. Longanecker. I did not mean to imply that.
Senator Specter. Just a minute. Just a minute, please, Mr.
Longanecker. Just a minute, please.
Mr. Longanecker. Sure.
Senator Specter. I am just a little surprised to hear you
say it would be idiocy to impose an obligation on the college
to do a reporting on areas which they patrol because that would
discourage patrolling. I am just a little surprised to hear you
use language like ``idiocy'' when we are trying to find out
what your interpretation is where I find it to be extremely
restrictive, not in accordance with the letter of the law, let
alone the spirit of the law.
But the question here which has been addressed broadly has
been how you reduce campus crime which is very vital and very
important, but the thrust of college reporting of crime is to
tell people what has happened. Now, you may reduce crime if
people know what has happened and they can protect themselves.
But the reporting requirement is just a little different
from reducing crime. Your patrols reduce crime. The police
reduce crime by being on the spot. You reduce crime by taking
appropriate prosecutorial action if somebody seriously assaults
a young man like Mr. McKee, but it is a little different when
you are talking about reporting. That is a very different
proposition.
The University of Pennsylvania got into a rhetorical
dispute with the Philadelphia Inquirer. The president of the
university, Dr. Roden, was reported as saying that they found
no evidence that the university was hiding anything or
distorting campus crime. Ms. Goldfarb, do you know if that is
an accurate quotation from Dr. Roden?
Ms. Goldfarb. With your permission, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Peter
Erichsen, who is the general counsel of the university, is here
and could probably speak to that question better than I could.
I do not know that that is a quote from Dr. Roden.
Senator Specter. Mr. Erichsen, do you know the answer to
that?
Mr. Erichsen. I believe it is an accurate quote, Senator.
Senator Specter. With respect to the issue of the hospital
of the University of Pennsylvania, Ms. Goldfarb, is there any
question that should have been included as part of the
university's report?
Ms. Goldfarb. I do not think there is any question about
that, but again Mr. Erichsen can answer that question better
than I can since I am here to talk about----
Senator Specter. OK, Mr. Erichsen. Any question about the
inclusion of the hospital of the University of Pennsylvania as
part of the report?
Mr. Erichsen. There is no question that we are going to
accede to the Department. Obviously there was some question in
our mind beforehand, so we did not include it.
Senator Specter. There was a question in your mind
beforehand. So you considered the hospital of the University of
Pennsylvania and omitted it?
Mr. Erichsen. No, Mr. Chairman. I think it would be safer
to say the issue was not considered as seriously as it might
have been when we were first seeking to comply with the law.
Senator Specter. I do not understand that answer, Mr.
Erichsen. Did you exclude the hospital of the University of
Pennsylvania after thinking about it or did you just not think
about it or what?
Mr. Erichsen. It is impossible for anybody, much less me,
to reconstruct all of the deliberations that went into initial
compliance, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Specter. We need one more witness from Penn.
Mr. Erichsen. There is some evidence that consideration was
given. It is not clear that it was considered as carefully as
it might have been.
Senator Specter. But, Mr. Longanecker, do you think
Congress should consider adding penalties for failure to have
accurate reporting under this Campus Security Act?
Mr. Longanecker. Mr. Chairman, we have the authority today
to levy fines or take more serious actions.
Senator Specter. Have you done that at all?
Mr. Longanecker. We have not done so. Because this is new
law, we have been leading with a carrot and following with a
stick.
Senator Specter. Where have you followed with a stick?
Mr. Longanecker. We have not yet because we have not found
an institution that was unwilling to work with us to come into
compliance, nor have we found ones that we felt were
intentionally in noncompliance.
And if I might just respond earlier, I owe you and Mr.
Clery an apology. That was a terrible choice of words, and for
lack of something else, I used it and I apologize for that. Mr.
Clery and his wife are heroes of mine. I mean, I do not think
there are people who have demonstrated the power that an
individual can have in basically changing law for public good.
So, I want to personally and publicly apologize.
Senator Specter. I thank you for that. I agree with your
last statements, especially about the Clerys' contribution.
Senator Torricelli.
Senator Torricelli. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Specter. Senator Torricelli, are you due at the
Government Affairs Committee hearing at this moment for which
you and I are 24 minutes late?
Senator Torricelli. I am, but missing hearing discussions
of President Clinton's fund raising activities in 1996 is
something I am prepared to endure. [Laughter.]
Senator Specter. In that event, goodbye, everyone. I am not
prepared to miss that. Do you think that it is an offset if you
and I are both absent?
Senator Torricelli. It probably is, yes.
How would you like to proceed, Mr. Chairman? I am at your
disposal.
Senator Specter. Well, I would like to give you 5 minutes
to make a presentation. Then I think we are going to move on to
the next hearing.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR ROBERT G. TORRICELLI, U.S. SENATOR
FROM NEW JERSEY
Senator Torricelli. Very good. Mr. Chairman, thank you very
much for this unusual opportunity to be with the committee. I
am, indeed, very, very grateful.
I do so for what I know is a common interest and from this
discussion even more so than I might have suspected. I came
here to discuss your legislation actually, the Campus Security
Act, which you successfully authored some time ago. Recognizing
that 10 million young Americans every year are making a choice
about where to go to college, they make this judgment with
their families, and even after the Campus Security Act, in my
judgment, for a variety of reasons are still not getting the
kind of information they need for their families to make the
right choices.
As you know--I can tell from your conversation--the GAO
reported that colleges across the Nation simply are not
complying with the reporting requirements. The Department of
Education is also in my judgment failing to enforce them. From
your discussion, that is also clear today. In fact, the
Department of Education only recently began a systematic effort
to even monitor compliance with these reporting requirements.
My point in being here today is that even after they began
monitoring and if they go to compliance, for many American
families it still will not be enough. That is why I wanted to
bring this to your attention.
Under your legislation, three categories of crime are being
reported--should be reported: Murder, rape, aggravated assault.
But these represent only 16 percent of the total number of hate
crimes that actually occur on college campuses every year. Over
80 percent of these crimes actually take the form of vandalism,
harassment, or simple assault. According to the Department of
Education's most recent statistics, not one college campus
reported a hate crime that resulted in murder in 1992-94, and
less than one-half of 1 percent of the colleges reported hate
crime that resulted in rape or aggravated assault.
Current law also does not require colleges and universities
to report hate crimes against women and the disabled.
Senator Specter. Senator Torricelli, I am going to have to
interrupt you for a minute. I have to go to the other hearing
and I will return here. So, I am going to leave you in Senator
Torricelli's hands. When you conclude, we will be in recess and
I shall return.
Senator Torricelli. For all of you present, this is of
course a historic moment. I would be the only Democrat in the
105th Congress to actually be here running my own hearing.
[Laughter.]
Consider the legislative possibilities, Mr. Chairman, of
what we can do here. [Laughter.]
Senator Specter. We are voting right now on the report.
Senator Torricelli. So much for my opportunity. [Laughter.]
Senator Specter. It was the opportunity that I wanted to
avoid, and I do not want Senator Torricelli to miss the vote.
He is up for reelection in the year 2002.
We stand in recess for just a few minutes.
[A brief recess was taken.]
Senator Specter. The hearing will resume.
Senator Torricelli, you have the floor.
Senator Torricelli. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much.
Mr. Chairman, as I was suggesting earlier, the problem
before us, in addition to the fact that there has been improper
reporting and enforcement, is that in my judgment your
legislation could go further with a list of crimes that are
actually requiring of such reporting.
In the Campus Hate Crimes Right to Know Act of 1997 which I
authored, I propose expanding the list by doing two very
important things. First, the colleges have to require all hate
crimes and not simply murder, rape, or aggravated assault and
that the list include gender and disability in the class
protected by the reporting requirements.
I noted in offering the act that a recent study by the
Maryland Prejudice Institute reported that 25 percent of
minority college students attending predominantly white
colleges have been victims of hate crimes. The 25 percent is an
extraordinary statistic. In 1996 there were 90 incidents of
anti-Semitic activity on college campuses, and in 1996 alone, a
California university student sent threatening e-mail messages
to 60 Asian-Americans.
These kinds of activities sadly continue on American
college campuses, and they may not have some of the physical
impact of the crimes that are now being required to be
reported, but psychologically, the impact on a student's
education, in many ways they can be just as devastating.
For all the reasons, Mr. Chairman, that you wanted parents
and students to know whether they would be physically
endangered if they went to certain campuses--and I suspect you
wanted those colleges to have an incentive to protect their
students and end this criminal activity by the reporting
requirements. I can only suspect that was part of your
motivation.
So too I would like to give that same motivation to college
administrators. If there are acts of vandalism, if there is
graffiti, if there are other hate crime activities that
victimize certain racial, religious, or gender groups, I would
like parents and students to know about it. The incentive to
college administrators to be serious about punishing students
who commit these acts and indeed ensuring that they do not
continue I believe would be our best weapon in ending this kind
of prejudicial activity.
So, Mr. Chairman, I leave it for consideration in hopes
that in some way the efforts that you began which I believe
with proper enforcement can be so significant on college
campuses, I think together we could take this the next step.
I am very grateful for giving me this opportunity today to
present my views to you and members of this committee. I thank
you.
Senator Specter. Thank you very much, Senator Torricelli.
We will be glad to consider the additions which you have
suggested. I think we are going to have to revisit the statute
in some substantial detail.
My own sense is that the Department of Education has
interpreted this statute much too narrowly, unreasonably
narrowly, Mr. Longanecker. I do not see how you can separate
out sidewalks. If you are talking about a sidewalk that goes,
say, from Walnut Street up to College Hall, that actually goes
within the university property, and if you saw that, you might
not exclude that or you might. I do not know. If you have a
sidewalk where the university property is on each side or a
street where the university property is on each side, we are
not talking about patrolling. We are talking about reporting.
That is a big difference.
I understand your apology on the use of the word
``idiocy,'' but I am concerned about your mind set quite
frankly. We can clarify it to some extent, but we can never
write it so that there will not be any interpretation. When you
say your job is to follow the law and not interpret the law,
you are not right about that. It is just not possible for
Congress to write the law to consider every contingency. Then
you do interpret the law because you write regulations, so you
are definitely interpreting the law when you write regulations.
It is not possible for you to write regulations to consider any
contingency.
I think you have to be a lot tougher than you have been,
and I will take a look at what your authority is on the fines.
We may set up some mandatory requirements. We do that with
judges. We can do it with the Department of Education because I
think the underreporting is very substantial. I would like to
see compliance with this statute before we move on to other
statutes. There are people who want to move on to other
statutes, and I have concerns.
I think Ms. Goldfarb may be right when she talks about
victims who will not want to report crimes if the internal
proceedings are going to be reviewed by the public. She may be
right about that. I can understand the demand for it in the
face of failure to comply in a pretty obvious way. I think
there has been failure to comply in a pretty obvious way.
So, we thank you for coming today. It is a complicated
subject, and we have got a lot on our agenda, but we will
attend to this.
Senator Torricelli. Mr. Chairman, could I address Mr.
Longanecker for one moment and try to offer some perspective on
this problem?
About 25 years ago I was a college student at Rutgers
University in New Brunswick and was the victim like Mr. McKee
of some campus violence. A few years later, the Governor of New
Jersey put me on the board of governors of Rutgers University,
and I learned something very startling.
When I decided where to go to college, whether or not my
dormitory or the university setting or even the streets around
the campus were safe, it never entered into my calculation of
where I would attend a school. I assumed all universities were
safe. I looked at the departments, the testing, the quality of
the faculty, not whether or not I would be safe of life and
limb.
When I became a member of the board of governors, I came to
understand why that never entered into my calculations. Even a
great university like Rutgers University would go to any length
after any crime to ensure that it never became public. That is
the value of what Senator Specter has done.
When I served on the board of governors, we changed that
policy. We ensured that the local police were called every time
there was a crime so that it got in the newspapers, and when it
did, that university administration became very serious, deadly
serious about patrolling, security lights, ensuring that crimes
were prosecuted, ensuring that students that committed crimes
against other students were removed from the university
setting.
Truth and revealing of the facts is the only sure means of
enhancing security. That is the value of what Senator Specter
has done and why I share his frustration if the reporting and
the enforcement is not taking place.
But I went through this on a personal experience as
apparently Mr. McKee did, and to all of us, it is a very
important thing to happen. If there is one place in American
life we should be able to have some sanctuary where people can
be free of the normal life concerns and pursue academic and
intellectual pursuits, it is a university setting. Certainly we
can secure those few acres of everybody's life to make this
right.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for allowing me to be part of this
hearing.
CONCLUSION OF HEARING
Senator Specter. Thank you, Senator Torricelli. That
concludes our hearing. The subcommittee will stand in recess
subject to the call of the Chair.
[Whereupon, at 4:47 p.m., Thursday, March 5, the hearing
was concluded, and the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene
subject to the call of the Chair.]
-