[Senate Hearing 114-791]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 114-791
CAMPUS SAFETY: IMPROVING PREVENTION AND RESPONSE EFFORTS
=======================================================================
HEARING
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EDUCATION,
LABOR, AND PENSIONS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
ON
EXAMINING CAMPUS SAFETY, FOCUSING ON IMPROVING PREVENTION AND RESPONSE
EFFORTS
__________
JULY 13, 2016
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
20-892 PDF WASHINGTON : 2018
COMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EDUCATION, LABOR, AND PENSIONS
LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee, Chairman
MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming PATTY MURRAY, Washington
RICHARD BURR, North Carolina BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland
JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia BERNARD SANDERS (I), Vermont
RAND PAUL, Kentucky ROBERT P. CASEY, JR., Pennsylvania
SUSAN COLLINS, Maine AL FRANKEN, Minnesota
LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska MICHAEL F. BENNET, Colorado
MARK KIRK, Illinois SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island
TIM SCOTT, South Carolina TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut
PAT ROBERTS, Kansas ELIZABETH WARREN, Massachusetts
BILL CASSIDY, M.D., Louisiana
David P. Cleary, Republican Staff Director
Lindsey Ward Seidman, Republican Deputy Staff Director
Evan Schatz, Minority Staff Director
John Righter, Minority Deputy Staff Director
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
__________
STATEMENTS
WEDNESDAY, JULY 13, 2016
Page
Committee Members
Kirk, Hon. Mark, a U.S. Senator from the State of Illinois,
opening statement.............................................. 1
Murray, Hon. Patty, a U.S. Senator from the State of Washington.. 1
Collins, Hon. Susan M., a U.S. Senator from the State of Maine... 3
Casey, Hon. Robert P., Jr., a U.S. Senator from the State of
Pennsylvania................................................... 4
Baldwin, Hon. Tammy, a U.S. Senator from the State of Wisconsin.. 56
Warren, Hon. Elizabeth, a U.S. Senator from the State of
Massachusetts.................................................. 58
Witnesses
Amweg, Rick, Security Consultant, Security Risk Management
Consultants, LLC, Columbus, OH................................. 5
Prepared statement........................................... 7
Allan, Elizabeth, Ph.D., Executive Director of StopHazing.org and
Professor at the University of Maine, Orono, ME................ 8
Prepared statement........................................... 9
Huskey, Melynda, Ph.D., Interim Vice President of Student Affairs
and Dean of Students, Washington State University, Pullman, WA. 19
Prepared statement........................................... 21
Krisak, Wendy, M.A., NCC, LPC, Director of The Counseling Center,
DeSales University, Center Valley, PA.......................... 23
Prepared statement........................................... 25
Storch, Joseph, Associate Counsel, The State University of New
York, Albany, NY............................................... 35
Prepared statement........................................... 37
Clementi, Jane, Co-Founder, The Tyler Clementi Foundation, New
York, NY....................................................... 44
Prepared statement........................................... 46
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
Statements, articles, publications, letters, etc.:
Response to questions of Senator Murray by Joseph Storch..... 62
(iii)
CAMPUS SAFETY: IMPROVING PREVENTION AND RESPONSE EFFORTS
----------
WEDNESDAY, JULY 13, 2016
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:57 p.m., in
room SD-106, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Mark Kirk
presiding.
Present: Senators Kirk, Collins, Murray, Casey, Bennet,
Baldwin, and Warren.
Opening Statement of Senator Kirk
Senator Kirk. I recognize the Ranking Member for her
opening statement.
Opening Statement of Senator Murray
Senator Murray. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. Were you
going to make an opening statement?
Senator Kirk. No.
Senator Murray. OK. I would like the opportunity to do
that, and I want to thank everyone, and I'm glad we're able to
be here to talk about these very important and pressing issues.
I want to thank all of our colleagues who are joining us at
this hearing as well today. I also want to thank the many great
advocates here who have been working with us on reauthorizing
the Higher Education Act and, of course, improving campus
safety. It is great to see so many new faces as well.
Today, students are making major investments to pursue
higher education, which they correctly see as an opportunity to
grow and challenge themselves and to develop skills that will
better prepare them for their future. While students work hard
to succeed in higher education, the last thing they should ever
have to worry about is whether they are safe on campus.
I'd like to begin by saying a few words about the Stanford
University rape case as a critical example of why today's
discussion is so urgent and of the need for us to acknowledge
the reality of violence and fear experienced by too many
students on our college campuses. I want to make clear that the
anger and frustration that the sentencing in this case has
generated is completely justified. Our criminal justice system
failed a brave survivor who deserved to know her rapist had
been held accountable.
But, I admire this incredible young woman who has shown so
much strength in telling her story and giving hope to many
other survivors across our country and around the world. And I
admire the two students, strangers and responsible bystanders,
who did step up and take action, which highlights the critical
importance of bystander intervention, a prevention strategy for
combating all types of violence on campus, and something I look
forward to hearing about today. Their action shows how
important it is to build a community and a campus culture that
empowers students to step in and support students who are being
targeted, whether it's sexual assault or bullying or harassment
or hazing. A critical part of this is dispelling the myth that
bullying and harassment are inevitable aspects of life.
I have introduced legislation named in honor of Tyler
Clementi, a young man who we know took his own life after
experiencing bullying and harassment on the Internet. I'm so
glad that Jane Clementi is here today to talk about her son,
Tyler, what he and his family have experienced and how we can
help protect students and all gay, lesbian, bisexual, and
transgender youth so that no one has to endure what he did.
I'm also looking forward to hearing from Dr. Allan today
about hazing. Seventy-four percent of varsity athletes and 73
percent of students participating in social fraternities and
sororities have experienced at least one hazing behavior.
Alcohol consumption, humiliation, isolation, sleep deprivation,
and sex acts are hazing practices common across all student
groups. Hazing activities are often billed as traditions, but
they can have such damaging and lasting impacts on young
people, even claiming students' lives.
I know there are sincere disagreements on what Congress'
responsibilities should be when it comes to sexual assault and
violence on campus. But I firmly believe the Federal Government
has a role to play to hold institutions of higher education
responsible for providing a safe learning environment for all
students.
Colleges and universities must create a culture that does
not accept violence, and to be clear, a flyer or a one-time
training in freshman year is not enough. We as the Federal
Government have a responsibility to engage in and support these
efforts in every way that we can.
Last, there is a lot of heartache in our cities and our
communities right now. We mourn the victims and families
impacted by the horrific violence in Dallas, the tragic deaths
in Baton Rouge and Saint Paul, and we are once again reminded
that nowhere is safe from the epidemic of gun violence, not
even at our schools, which should be safe havens for our
students. My home State of Washington is no stranger to this
violence, as we saw clearly with the shooting at Seattle
Pacific University just 2 years ago.
We know there are steps we can take to make our students
safer. We should come together on a bipartisan basis at every
level of government and refuse to accept these horrors as the
new normal.
I'll conclude here so we can start this discussion. But
it's clear we have a lot of challenges before us. Everyone here
today has stepped up to make a real difference, and, going
forward, we must challenge ourselves to do even more to make
campuses safer. Day by day, step by step, we can change not
just our laws and policies but our behaviors and our culture. I
am committed to making sure that happens. I know my colleagues
are as well, and I look forward to our continued work.
Thank you.
Senator Kirk. Ms. Collins.
Statement of Senator Collins
Senator Collins. Thank you very much. Senator Kirk, Senator
Murray, I want to thank you for putting together this excellent
roundtable to explore the issue of hazing.
I'm delighted to introduce one of our panelists today,
Professor Elizabeth Allan from the University of Maine.
Professor Allan teaches courses in higher education at the
University in the College of Education and Human Development.
Her research focuses on college cultures and climates with
expertise in student hazing and prevention. The professor is
president of StopHazing.org, an organization focused on sharing
information and strategies to promote safe campus climates.
She also leads the research efforts of the Hazing
Prevention Consortium, a partnership of eight colleges and
universities engaged in a multiyear initiative to build an
evidence base for the prevention of hazing on college campuses.
She has been involved in this issue for a number of years. For
example, in 2008, Professor Allan was the principal
investigator of the National Study of Student Hazing, which
surveyed 11,000 students from 53 universities and colleges, and
major findings included that hazing exists outside of
traditional fraternity and sorority environments and that
schools should develop hazing prevention efforts that reach a
wider range of student groups.
Professor Allan received her Ph.D. in Educational Policy
and Leadership from Ohio State University and her Master's in
Health Education and Promotion, and bachelor's degrees in
psychology, both from Springfield College. It's a special honor
for me to welcome Professor Allan to our panel today.
Thank you.
Senator Kirk. Ms. Murray to introduce a witness.
Senator Murray. Thank you so much. I'm very pleased today
to introduce Dr. Melynda Huskey. She currently serves as the
Interim Vice President of Student Affairs and the Dean of
Students, where her goal is, ``to support the determination of
students.''
She has served at Washington State University for more than
22 years, working with students. She has overseen the
university's work on student affairs at a time when schools are
becoming more and more important in the fight against all forms
of violence and discrimination on our college campuses, while
also dedicating herself and her staff to helping all students
who walk through the doors.
In 2014, to increase public transparency and
accountability, the Department of Education for the first time
released a public list of schools with title IX investigations.
Dr. Huskey's school, which is Washington State University, was
among the first schools on that list. Under her leadership and
the leadership of the late president, Elson Floyd, WSU forged
forward and made a commitment to improve campus safety for our
students.
She and her staff have worked tirelessly to improve the
safety and well-being of students at WSU, dedicating themselves
to new trainings and protocols. I cannot be happier to have her
here today to talk about what she and her staff are doing. As a
Cougar alum myself, I'm very proud of this work and how
seriously Washington State University has taken this
responsibility.
My staff and I have seen Dr. Huskey's leadership on so many
fronts, not just on campus safety. She's a true leader on
addressing the hurdles that face first-time college students
and their families and helping students who are facing the
severe challenges that come with the lack of housing and
financial security and medical coverage.
I know there are still things Dr. Huskey would like to see
improved to make her school an even safer place for students to
learn and grow and thrive. But I want to take this opportunity
to praise her and her team and the university's leadership for
making the strides we've seen there.
I look forward to your testimony, and thank you for coming
all the way to what we call the other Washington here to
testify today. Thank you.
Senator Kirk. Let me recognize our Ranking Member.
I'll tell members that I put a piece of colored paper
before you that is an anti-bullying app that I developed with
my student leadership advisor. It's called Back Up Bully that
we did with Motorola. You'll notice the Motorola android symbol
is in there. They put that in because they pretty much did all
the back end of the work.
That's to encourage you to--you can even do some software
development on this subject in your own office. It would help
if my fellow members would take me up on that. But we've passed
out the Back Up Bullying app. It's a little bit--it looks a bit
like Donkey Kong there.
Mr. Casey.
Statement of Senator Casey
Senator Casey. Thanks very much, Senator Kirk.
I want to thank those who are here today for this hearing.
We want to thank all the witnesses who are here to talk about
an issue that I believe is a crisis that we need to take action
against. I know there's been some progress made in the last
couple of years, but we have a long way to go to get this
right.
I am privileged today to introduce a Pennsylvania witness,
Wendy Krisak, who is the Director of Counseling at DeSales
University. Wendy is also the faculty adviser for PACE, which
is a program that trains students to be peer counselors. We're
grateful that she's here to testify and to take questions. I'm
also looking forward to hearing more about PACE itself and the
role it's playing in ensuring a safe and supportive campus
climate for all of the students on her campus. Wendy has a B.
A. from DeSales and a master's in counseling psychology from
Kutztown University.
Wendy, we thank you for being here today and representing
not only your school but, I guess, in a sense, our State. Thank
you.
Senator Kirk. Ms. Murray.
Senator Murray. All right. With that, we'll introduce our
last three witnesses. We have Rick Amweg. He's a security
consultant who has more than 35 years of experience working at
the intersection of higher education and public safety,
including as the assistant chief of policy and the director of
Public Safety Administration at Ohio State University. He also
served as a negotiator for the rulemaking process at the U.S.
Department of Education which was conducted to develop new
regulations to the Clery Act.
Thank you for being here today.
We also have Joseph Storch, who is an associate counsel for
the State University of New York system, or SUNY. In that role,
he chairs the Student Affairs Practice Group and specializes in
legal issues around campus safety, domestic and workplace
violence policies, admissions, and financial aid. He has
written on the issue of cyber bullying, and as a member of the
Counsel's office, he helps the 26 campuses that are part of the
SUNY system implement and understand the title IX and Clery Act
to help make the campus safer.
Thank you for being here today.
And as our final witness, I'm very pleased to introduce
Jane Clementi, who along with her husband, Joe, is a co-founder
of the Tyler Clementi Foundation, which is an organization that
seeks to prevent bullying, that she founded on behalf of her
son, Tyler. Tyler was just a college freshman who was harassed
and cyber bullied and, sadly, died by suicide.
Ms. Clementi advocates for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and
transgender rights and the need for families and communities
and schools to embrace LGBT students and work to prevent and
reduce bullying and harassment in our schools.
Thank you so much for the work that you do and for taking
the time to be here with us today. We really value your
participation. Thank you.
Senator Kirk. I want to thank all of our witnesses for
coming today, and we really appreciate your expertise and
coming for this critical topic.
I thank our Ranking Member, Ms. Murray, for doing this,
impelling this committee to action on this key issue. I want to
encourage all of my colleagues to get into the software
development--in this with me, to put together an app like this.
As we know, with kids, we've got to speak to them with apps.
With that, I'll depart you. Thank you.
Senator Murray [presiding]. Each one of our witnesses is
going to give statements to begin with.
Mr. Amweg, we'll start with you.
STATEMENT OF RICK AMWEG, SECURITY CONSULTANT, SECURITY RISK
MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS, LLC, COLUMBUS, OH
Mr. Amweg. Thank you. Good afternoon, Senator Kirk, Ranking
Member Murray, and members of the committee. Thank you for
inviting me here today. I'm honored to be here and take part in
this process.
I truly do look forward to the discussion and the
opportunity to specifically discuss the effects of harassment,
intimidation, bullying, including cyber bullying, and hazing on
the post-secondary learning environment and explore ways to
improve campus safety by improving prevention and response
efforts in those areas.
There are various definitions of bullying, hazing, and
related activities. Most experts agree that there are three
conditions that must be present for activity to be defined as
bullying.
First, an imbalance of power, wherein people who bully use
their power to control or harm, and the people being bullied
may have a hard time defending themselves. Second, an intent to
cause harm. Actions done by accident are not bullying. The
person bullying has a goal to cause harm. And, third,
repetition. Incidents of bullying happen to the same person
over and over by the same person or group. This definition is
supported by the U.S. Department of Education and Bullying.gov.
Harassment, intimidation, bullying, and hazing are
oftentimes thought of as occurring only in the elementary and
secondary school environments. Until recently, most research in
this area has focused on students in this environment. Studies
now show that bullying and related activities, as well as cyber
bullying, do not end with high school but continue into the
post-secondary system.
It is important to understand these definitions in the
context in which they are applied. In the elementary and
secondary school environments, these activities are generally
prohibited by rule and/or administrative process. Once
individuals reach the age of 18, different protections are
provided to victims by law, and laws now address the illegal
behavior of the perpetrators.
Part of the problem stems from the different ways bullying
and related activities are defined in educational systems. Some
behaviors typically labeled as bullying in high school are not
treated similarly in college. Findings from a recent U.S.
Department of Education study show that when bullying and
hazing do occur in college, the consequences for the
perpetrators are often harsher than for younger students who
are less likely to face legal repercussions.
Two approaches to this issue need to be considered:
prevention and response. Some measures, such as training
programs for campus staff that interact with students,
bystander intervention programs, and awareness and familiarity
training, could impact the prevalence of bullying, hazing, and
related activities on campus.
Changing behaviors and attitudes toward bullying and hazing
are also important aspects of prevention-focused programming.
Colleges and universities already implement similar programs in
other areas, such as sexual and intimate partner violence and
awareness and prevention programs. Applying these principles to
bullying and hazing prevention is a logical step.
From the response perspective, most if not all States have
statutes that address bullying and hazing activities.
Similarly, most colleges and universities have policies and
guidelines related to bullying and hazing activities. Some
campuses address the issue within the context of harassment in
general.
For example, any action that falls generally under the
definition of bullying or hazing would be considered a
violation of the code of student conduct and would be dealt
with through the student judicial process. Typically, students
found responsible and in violation would be subject to
immediate disciplinary action. Some institutions include
suspension as part of that disciplinary process. Any case of
bullying or hazing that is determined to be a violation of
criminal statutes can be referred to the campus or local law
enforcement authorities.
Our efforts today and through the continued work of this
committee should be to identify ways to positively impact the
learning experience on our campuses by reducing incidents of
bullying and hazing, raising awareness of these activities on
our campuses, identifying existing and promising prevention
programs, and ensuring that the application of existing
statutes and conduct rules apply to these situations.
Thank you. I look forward to the forthcoming dialog.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Amweg follows:]
Prepared Statement of Rick Amweg
Good afternoon Chairman Alexander, Ranking Member Murray, members
of the committee. My name is Rick Amweg. I have over 35 years of
experience working on safety and security related matters in the
secondary and post-secondary education environments. I am here today to
participate in this roundtable discussion and specifically discuss the
effects of harassment, intimidation, bullying (including cyber
bullying) and hazing on the post-secondary learning environment and how
campuses can develop and improve awareness and prevention efforts and
positively impact safety for their students.
There are various definitions of bullying, hazing and related
activities. Most experts agree there are three conditions that must be
present for activity to be defined as bullying: (1) An imbalance of
power: people who bully use their power to control or harm and the
people being bullied may have a hard time defending themselves; (2)
Intent to cause harm: actions done by accident are not bullying; the
person bullying has a goal to cause harm; and (3) Repetition: incidents
of bullying happen to the same the person over and over by the same
person or group. This definition is supported by the U.S. Department of
Education and Bullying.gov.
Harassment, intimidation, bullying and hazing are often times
thought of as occurring only in the elementary and secondary (K-12)
school environments. Until recently, most research in this area has
focused on students in this environment. Studies now show that bullying
and related activities as well as cyberbullying does not end with high
school. Some reports indicate that nearly 25 percent of college
students are victims of bullying or hazing.
It is important to understand these definitions in the context in
which they are applied. In the elementary and secondary school
environments these activities are generally prohibited by rule and
administrative process. Once individuals reach the age of 18, different
protections are provided to victims by law and laws now address the
illegal behavior of perpetrators. Part of the problem stems from the
different way bullying and related activities are defined in
educational systems. Some behaviors typically labeled as bullying in
high school are not treated similarly in college. Findings from a
recent U.S. Department of Education study showed that when bullying and
hazing do occur in college, the consequences for the perpetrators are
often harsher than for younger students, who are less likely to face
legal repercussions.
Two approaches to this issue need to be considered: Prevention and
Response.
Some measures, such as training programs for campus staff that
interact with students, bystander intervention programs, and awareness
and familiarity training could impact the prevalence of bullying,
hazing and related activities on campuses. Changing behaviors and
attitudes toward bullying and hazing are also important aspects of
prevention-focused programming. Colleges and universities already
implement similar programs in other areas, such as sexual and intimate
partner violence awareness and prevention programs. Applying these
principles to bullying and hazing prevention is a logical step.
From the response perspective, most, if not all states have
statutes that address bullying and hazing activities. Similarly, most
colleges and universities have policies and guidelines related to
bullying and hazing activities. Some campuses address the issue within
the context of harassment in general. For example, any action that
falls generally under the definition of bullying or hazing would be
considered a violation of the student code of conduct and would be
dealt with through the student judicial process. Typically, students
found responsible and in violation will be subject to immediate
disciplinary action. Some institutions include suspension as part of
that disciplinary process. Any case of bullying or hazing that is
determined to be of a violation of criminal statutes can be referred to
campus or local law enforcement authorities.
Our efforts today, and through the continued work of this committee
should be to identify ways to positively impact the learning experience
on our campuses by reducing incidents of bullying and hazing, raise
awareness of these activities on our campuses, identify existing and
promising prevention programs, and ensure that the application of
existing statutes and conduct rules apply to these situations.
Thank you. I look forward to the forthcoming dialog on preventing
and responding to harassment, intimidation, bullying and hazing on our
college and university campuses.
Senator Murray. Thank you.
Dr. Allan.
STATEMENT OF ELIZABETH J. ALLAN, Ph.D., EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF
STOPHAZING.ORG AND PROFESSOR AT THE UNIVERSITY OF MAINE, ORONO,
ME
Ms. Allan. Senator Kirk, Ranking Member Murray, and members
of the committee, thank you for inviting me to participate in
this roundtable discussion. I'm honored to be here. My remarks
are grounded in more than 25 years of research and education
about hazing and its prevention.
I'd like to begin with a statement shared with me this week
by a parent who lost her son from hazing. She wrote, ``Hazing
is emotionally and physically hurting our youth and young
adults and can lead to death. My son would be 27 years old. No
parent ever expects to send their child off to college and come
home in a coffin. It is time for each and every one of us to
make a difference now for our children and for generations to
come. My 18-year-old daughter will be leaving for college in
the next few weeks, and I worry for her and her fellow
students, not only for hazing but also for sexual abuse,
alcohol abuse, and campus violence.''
Hazing is any activity expected of someone joining or
maintaining membership in a group that humiliates, degrades,
abuses, or endangers them, regardless of a person's willingness
to participate. Hazing is widespread, with 55 percent of
college students experiencing it and 47 percent in high school.
It occurs among athletic teams, fraternities and sororities,
marching bands, but also in recreation clubs, intramural
sports, and even honor societies.
Hazing extends far beyond pranks and antics to include
behaviors that are dangerous, demeaning, and abusive. Alcohol
use, sexual harassment and assaults, and bullying are commonly
involved. Further, hazing occurs in context where students are
learning how to be leaders and team members. While we need to
eliminate hazing to enhance campus safety, we also need to
eliminate hazing to promote educational environments conducive
to learning and to promote the development of ethical leaders
who treat each other with dignity and respect.
Though we now have some solid research about the nature and
extent of hazing, we are only in the early stages of generating
an evidence base for its prevention. At this time, it remains
common for individuals and organizations to promote and
implement prevention strategies that have limited, if any,
evidence for impact in changing behavior.
My work in recent years has focused on addressing this gap
in the research. As part of a 3-year, research-to-practice
initiative called the Hazing Prevention Consortium, I
collaborated with eight pioneering universities to test
promising hazing prevention strategies and evaluate their
impact. Through this consortium, we have conducted a
considerable amount of research to formalize a data-driven
framework for hazing prevention. But as we move forward, we
remain cognizant that building a rigorous evidence base is
necessary but also long-term and resource intensive.
As we consider hazing prevention in relation to other forms
of interpersonal violence in this roundtable, I will briefly
point to several areas in which there are needs for government
support and engagement as we strive to formulate effective
approaches to hazing prevention as one among many campus safety
issues.
We need ongoing research to continue to improve our
understanding of the problem of hazing and continued testing
and evaluation of prevention strategies to identify approaches
that have proven track records for effectiveness. We need the
establishment of sound laws, policies, and procedures to
protect students from hazing and address incidents when they
occur.
We need mandates to increase transparency about hazing
incidents and reports on campus so that institutions are held
accountable for tracking hazing and so that the public has
access to accurate information. We need the development of
research and prevention frameworks that address the
intersections across campus safety issues so that we are not
operating in a siloed approach.
State and Federal support of education and training are
needed with a focus on ethical leadership development and
bystander intervention; financial support for disseminating
broad-based information campaigns to educate the public about
hazing, signs of it, and where to report it; and coordination
of regional and national conferences and meetings to gather
scholars, practitioners, educators, families, and other
stakeholders to advance the cause of hazing prevention.
In closing, the time is now to ensure that hazing is
foregrounded as a threat to campus safety and a threat to
positive leadership development in our youth. The time is now
to prevent further senseless tragedies and loss of human
potential as a result of hazing. And the time is now to
recognize that educational institutions will be stronger and
safer without hazing. We all have an opportunity and
responsibility to make a difference by committing to hazing
prevention and promoting safer schools and campuses for the
youth of this Nation.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Allan follows:]
Prepared Statement of Elizabeth J. Allan, Ph.D.
summary
What is hazing?
Hazing is defined as ``any activity expected of someone joining or
maintaining membership in a group that humiliates, degrades, abuses, or
endangers them, regardless of a person's willingness to participate''
(Hoover & Pollard, 1999). Three key components are embedded in this
definition:
1. Hazing is behavior that occurs for the purpose of gaining
membership and/or trying to maintain membership in an established
group, organization, or team.
2. Hazing involves behavior that risks emotional or physical harm.
3. Hazing can occur regardless of a person's willingness to
participate.
Why is hazing a problem?
Hazing is a threat to campus safety.
Hazing can leave lifelong scars and in some cases, it can
be lethal.
Hazing can damage relationships, breed anger, mistrust,
and resentment that erodes the educational and leadership benefits.
Hazing is a problem for leadership development in our
Nation's youth.
Hazing wastes time and precious resources.
Nature and extent of hazing
Based on findings from a national study of student hazing (Allan &
Madden, 2008)
55 percent of college students and 47 percent of high
school students experience hazing.
Men (61 percent) and women (52 percent) experience hazing
on campus.
Hazing cuts across racial identities, meaning all students
on campus are at risk.
Hazing occurs across different types of student groups.
Hazing behaviors are dangerous, demeaning, and abusive.
Varsity athletic teams (74 percent) and fraternities and
sororities (73 percent) haze at the highest rates, but they are far
from the only domains on campus where hazing is common.
Groups such as club sports (64 percent), performing arts
organizations (56 percent), service organizations (50 percent),
intramural teams (49 percent), and recreation clubs (42 percent), and
even students involved in academic clubs (28 percent) and honor
societies engage in hazing behaviors.
Prevention
A data-driven framework for hazing prevention was
developed through work of Hazing Prevention Consortium (http://www.stop
hazing.org/hazing-prevention-consortium/) and StopHazing (2016).
More support is needed to strengthen and advance current
initiatives. Action items include: resources for further research and
its dissemination, evaluation of hazing prevention strategies to
continue building evidence-base for prevention, mandates for
institutional reporting and transparency; continued work to strengthen
State laws; support from State and Federal agencies to develop
prevention frameworks that address intersections among varied campus
safety issues to avoid siloed approach; information sharing and
coordination through professional associations in higher education;
funding and mandates for research-informed and evaluated trainings,
conferences, think tanks.
______
``Hazing is emotionally and physically hurting our youth and
young adults and can lead to death. In the case of my son, [he]
would be 27 years old [today]. No parent ever expects to send
their child off to college and come home in a coffin. There is
not a day that goes by that I do not think about my son and it
is time for each and everyone of us to make a difference NOW
for our children and generations to come. My 18-year-old
daughter will be leaving for college in the next few weeks and
I worry for her and her fellow students, not only for hazing
but including sexual abuse, alcohol abuse, campus violence,
etc.''-- Lianne Kowiak, mother of Harrison Kowiak killed by
hazing in 2008.
Chairman Alexander, Ranking Member Murray, and members of the
committee, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to participate
in this roundtable discussion about campus safety and violence
prevention in higher education. As a Professor of Higher Education and
researcher who studies aspects of campus culture and climate, I am
honored to be invited to talk with you about my research and work
related to student hazing and its prevention. My remarks are grounded
in more than 25 years of research and education about hazing and its
prevention. Over the past two and half decades, I've talked with
thousands of students and education professionals about hazing; I
coordinated efforts to pass a State law prohibiting hazing, I founded
the first educational website about hazing (www.stophazing.org); have
led research teams to survey more than 12,000 college students and
interview hundreds more about hazing on college campuses (http://
www.stophazing.org/hazing-view/), and I currently lead a team of
prevention specialists who are working to guide a consortium of eight
universities as well as several high schools across the country to
implement and evaluate strategies for hazing prevention.
In preparation for this testimony, I reached out to a network of
constituents from across the country who are invested in this issue to
let them know I would be testifying today and to ask for their input
about the most important information I needed to convey to you today.
Scholars, educators, prevention practitioners, parents of victims of
hazing incidents, and others who are deeply concerned about this issue
responded. Here is some of what they said,
``Hazing has no place in any organization . . . the lasting
and irrevocable damage is permanent. A hazing death is
senseless and preventable. Time honored `so called traditions'
must be ended. A life lost is a tragedy that can be stopped
with education and awareness. Hazing is cruel and has claimed
innocent lives affecting a family for all time. Nearly 40 years
have passed since my son Chuck died needlessly. Not a day
passes that we don't remember the loss we all suffered. The
life snuffed out that would have contributed to society. A
young and intelligent man who anticipated a bright future--who
was denied his family, his future, and not by choice.''--
Eileen Stevens, mother of Chuck Stenzel killed by hazing in
1978.
``Hazing is a very serious problem on high school and college
campuses. It does not have the carnage that gun violence does.
However, it does cause tragedy and death at an alarmingly
increasing rate. There has been at least one death every year
as a result of hazing. From 2000 to January 2015, there were 57
documented fraternity hazing related deaths. This does not take
into account the numerous lesser, more subtle forms of hazing
that happen nor other organizations where hazing occurs. What
happened to our oldest son, Gary Jr., should have never taken
place. His tragic death was totally preventable and avoidable
had one person done the right thing and stopped the hazing well
before this deadly night. Had universities been required to
report hazing incidents and posted on their websites, Gary Jr.
would not have been a pledge.''--Julie DeVercelly, mother of
Gary DeVercelly Jr. killed by hazing in 2009.
``Hazing has operated as a secretive, accepted, organized,
and institutionalized form of physical, verbal, psychological,
and emotional torture affiliated with group initiation
practices. The urgency is now to prevent hazing before another
life is lost.''-- Pamela Champion, mother of Robert Champion
killed by hazing in 2011.
My comments draw from years of research on hazing, the theories and
science of prevention, my experience as an educator and student life
professional, and my most recent work to build an evidence-based
framework for hazing prevention in college and high school settings.
But as indicated by the previous quotes from parents of hazing victims,
I am also here to speak on behalf of, and to reflect on, the
perspectives of the countless stakeholders from throughout this country
who have knowledge about and have been deeply impacted by the
prevalence of hazing in our educational institutions. It is my hope
that I can do justice to their views and to the sense of urgency they
have conveyed to me upon learning that I would be speaking with you
today.
My journey into this field was catalyzed by my role as a campus
professional at a public university where I worked with talented,
capable, and dedicated undergraduate students to promote learning and
enrichment outside the classroom through student activities, including
leadership education and advising for Greek-letter organizations. As I
coordinated leadership development programs with these college
students, I also became aware of hazing and its impact. The students
with whom I worked were intelligent, hard working, and well-liked. Yet,
many of these rising stars were experiencing the abuses of hazing or
watching silently as new members of their organizations were hazed.
There was the student who visited my office after he was hospitalized
with kidney damage from paddling; or the students burned from being
sprayed with oven cleaner, the numerous sexual assaults, the ``lock-
ups,'' days and weeks deprived of sleep, the alcohol intoxications, the
verbal abuses and other indignities to name a few. Little did I know,
this was only the tip of the iceberg. Since then, I have heard
hundreds, if not thousands, of similar stories from students and their
loved ones about the painful and sometimes tragic consequences of
hazing.
Early on, as I became more aware that students at my university
were both suffering and perpetrating abuses of hazing and not wanting
to be a bystander myself, I felt compelled to take action. Not sure
where to begin, and with no ``best practices'' as a guide, I did
whatever I could to educate others about the possible dangers of
hazing. I brought guest speakers to campus, I helped to develop
trainings, peer education, more stringent accountability for hazing,
high-risk drinking, and sexual aggression. I worked to add more rigor
to hazing investigations and develop innovative educational
consequences for hazing by working with students to develop
alternatives to hazing traditions. We instituted a hotline for
anonymous reporting and I also led an initiative to enact State
legislation--an effort that included press conferences, lobbying
efforts at the
statehouse, and courageous students telling their personal stories of
hazing experiences--all of which eventually culminated in the passage
of a State law to prohibit hazing. However, as we know, a State law
isn't sufficient to stem the tide of hazing. And workshops and
trainings may help, but they are not enough. Attitudes and practices
that sustain hazing are often embedded in campus (and school) culture.
Like sexual violence, high risk drinking, and other forms of campus
violence, hazing prevention efforts need to be data-driven, strategic,
and comprehensive.
Hazing is an emerging field of research and prevention practice.
Those of us invested in this field still have much to learn about the
nature of hazing, challenges in hazing prevention, viable and
sustainable alternatives to hazing, and promising strategies for
substantial transformation away from a culture of hazing. Resources for
further research, trainings, and education about hazing as well as
mandates for its prevention are vital next steps in achieving
educational environments free from hazing.
As a campus safety issue, hazing is problematic because of the harm
that can, and often does, result. However, it is also particularly
troubling because it occurs in contexts (clubs, campus organizations,
and athletic teams) that are living-learning laboratories for our
country's future leaders and citizens. So while we need to eliminate
hazing to enhance campus safety, we also need to eliminate hazing to
promote educational environments that are most conducive to learning
and the development of ethical leaders who treat others with the
dignity and respect each deserves.
Hazing and its prevention as a field of research is in early stages
of development. However, a recent 3-year long collaboration between
researchers and campus professionals has produced a promising framework
for hazing prevention. Beginning with a brief overview of hazing
including research on the nature and extent of hazing and a review of
some of the particular challenges related to hazing prevention, this
testimony provides more detail about that framework for hazing
prevention and how we can continue to build on this foundation to
expand the research base and capacity for more wide-reaching and
sustainable prevention in higher education and beyond.
What is hazing?
Hazing is defined as ``any activity expected of someone joining or
maintaining membership in a group that humiliates, degrades, abuses, or
endangers them, regardless of a person's willingness to participate''
(Hoover & Pollard, 1999). Three key components are embedded in this
definition:
1. Hazing is behavior that occurs for the purpose of gaining
membership and/or trying to maintain membership in an established
group, organization, or team.
2. Hazing involves behavior that risks emotional or physical harm.
3. Hazing can occur regardless of a person's willingness to
participate.
In my experience, many well-meaning individuals are quick to
dismiss hazing as harmless antics or pranks, but in reality, hazing can
leave lifelong scars and in some cases, it can be lethal. Hazing needs
to be addressed because it is a threat to campus safety. But further,
hazing can damage relationships, breed anger, mistrust, and resentment
that erodes the educational and leadership benefits of belonging to
student organizations and athletic teams. The ripple-effects of hazing
are far-reaching; its harm is not limited to the boundaries of campus.
We need to prevent any more senseless tragedies and loss of human
potential as a result of hazing, and we also need to care about hazing
because it is a leadership issue. Hazing occurs in a context where
students are learning how to be leaders and team members and hazing--
humiliating, degrading, and abusive behavior--is not the kind of
leadership we want to cultivate in future leaders of our country.
Nature and extent of hazing
What comes to mind when you think of hazing?
When asked this question, people often cite prominent examples of
hazing from popular culture or the media. Many refer to the 1978 movie
Animal House and associate hazing with specific types of organizations
such as fraternities, sororities, and athletic teams. Or they consider
hazing to be exceptional and, referring to high profile accounts
portrayed in headlines, conclude that hazing is not an issue within
their community. We know from research, however, that these depictions
don't tell the full story.
In 2008, I led a research team in a national study of student
hazing (Allan & Madden, 2008). That investigation included more than
11,000 students at 53 colleges and universities throughout the United
States. We gathered data with an online survey and followed-up with
more than 300 in-person interviews of students, staff, and
administrators. We found that hazing is widespread on college campuses
and in high schools throughout the United States with 55 percent of
college students experienced hazing and 47 percent in high school--and
that it occurs in many different types of organizations including
athletic teams, fraternities and sororities, and marching bands, but
also in other kinds of groups, like recreation clubs, intramural
sports, and even honor societies. Indeed, it can be argued that hazing
is a part of the culture and tacitly supported by individuals, groups,
and institutions.
Men (61 percent) and women (52 percent) experience hazing
on campus.
Hazing cuts across racial identities, meaning all students
on campus are at risk.
Hazing occurs across different types of student groups.
Varsity athletic teams (74 percent) and fraternities and
sororities (73 percent) haze at the highest rates, but they are far
from the only domains on campus where hazing is common.
Groups such as club sports (64 percent), performing arts
organizations (56 percent), service organizations (50 percent),
intramural teams (49 percent), and recreation clubs (42 percent), and
even students involved in academic clubs (28 percent) and honor
societies engage in hazing behaviors.
The data also indicate that hazing extends far beyond pranks and
antics as often assumed--many behaviors are dangerous, demeaning, and
abusive. Troublingly, alcohol use, sexual harassment and assault are
commonly used in hazing practices on campuses. At least one hazing
death each year has been documented since 1970 and this tally does not
account for the many hazing deaths labeled ``accidental but were
associated with hazing activities'' (Nuwer, 1990; 2004). Journalism
professor Hank Nuwer has kept a chronology of the senseless loss of
life due to hazing (see: http://www.hanknuwer.com/). And while the
physical harm entailed in some hazing is highly visible and
problematic, hazing also involves forms of psychological and emotional
harm that are not necessarily apparent on the surface and can be
exceptionally complex to treat.
It's vital to remember that hazing is not just defined by a list of
behaviors or activities. Focusing solely on a list of behaviors fails
to sufficiently address the power dynamics involved. Being familiar
with problematic and prohibited behaviors or activities as a means to
inform yourself or others is important, but not enough to prevent
hazing from happening. For example, it would seem absurd to include
consumption of water on a list of prohibited activities, however, if
it's implemented in an abusive way, consuming excessive water can cause
grave harm and can be considered hazing. In fact, tragically, several
college students have died from water intoxication in hazing incidents.
Given the severe nature of many hazing activities, the physical,
psychological, and emotional harm they can cause, and their prevalence
throughout a wide-range of organizations, much more needs to be done to
prevent hazing in our colleges and universities. Hazing does not align
with institutional missions and can result in tragic outcomes. And from
a practical standpoint, hazing can also consume a significant portion
of staff time and resources and stretch already thin budgets.
Often, despite a willingness to address the issue of hazing,
community members and campus professionals believe hazing occurs in
areas shrouded in secrecy and isolation and they are unsure of how and
where to begin addressing the problem. Hazing, however, is not nearly
as underground as many might think. Students talk to their friends (48
percent), other group members (41 percent), and family members (26
percent) about participating in hazing (Allan & Madden, 2012; 2008).
Twenty-five percent of students surveyed perceived their coach or
advisor to be aware of hazing, with some indicating that their coach or
advisor was present and participated in the hazing activity. Twenty-
five percent of students also report that alumni were present during
their hazing experiences and 36 percent indicate that some hazing
behaviors occurred in a public space.
While we often associate hazing with college students, another
striking finding from our study was the high percentage of students (47
percent) who went to college having experienced hazing in high school
(Allan & Madden, 2012; 2008). As in college hazing, hazing in high
school cuts across a range of groups including athletics, performing
arts groups, class hazing, ROTC, and other types of clubs and
organizations. And the types of hazing activities involved cover a
similar spectrum, highly abusive and physically dangerous as well as
seemingly innocuous but degrading and emotionally damaging experiences.
These findings suggest the critical importance of early education and
intervention to interrupt the onset of patterns of hazing behavior in
high school and even middle school but also to ensure that fewer
students enter college with the expectation that hazing is an
inevitable and acceptable part of group participation.
Taken together, these statistics indicate environments where
students are seeing, expecting, and normalizing hazing behavior. Those
who wish to speak out against and/or report hazing might lack the
skills to do so, be unsure of where to go, or face considerable
barriers such as retribution from their peers and becoming an outsider,
amongst other negative consequences.
Prevention specialists know the first step to preventing a problem
like hazing is to recognize the behavior. Doing so can be especially
difficult for hazing because of strong evidence that a gap exists
between students' experiences of hazing and their willingness to label
it as such. Of students belonging to clubs, organizations and teams, 55
percent experience hazing, yet only 5 percent say they were hazed
(Allan & Madden, 2012; 2008). In other words, when asked directly,
approximately 9 out of 10 students who experienced hazing do not
consider themselves to have been hazed. This disconnect reflects a
number of challenges related to hazing, including:
Students tend to overlook the problematic aspects of
hazing if they perceive that the activity had a positive intent or
outcome for themselves or the group.
Hazing is often normalized as an inherent part of
organizational culture that is accepted by the majority as a tradition,
initiation, rite of passage, group bonding, or youthful antics, pranks
and stunts.
Individuals may be more likely to recognize hazing if it
involves physical harm.
Emotional and psychological harm that can result from
hazing is often minimized or overlooked entirely.
Hazing is commonly perceived as a positive part of group
bonding or ``tradition,'' rather than as a form of interpersonal
violence.
There is a lack of clarity around consent and factors that
create a coercive environment, including the common perception that if
an individual ``goes along with'' an activity it is not hazing.
Students are challenged to reconcile the cognitive
dissonance between their notions of group participation--e.g.,
cohesion, unity and belonging and the harm of hazing.
The normalization of hazing and the difficulty many people have
with recognizing when such experiences cross the line into hazing
combine to make the problem of hazing particularly difficult to
address. Hazing is a complex problem that is embedded in campus culture
and is extremely resistant to change.
Intersections: hazing and bullying
As a common behavior among students from high school to college,
hazing is a school safety issue in its own right. But as noted, hazing
is frequently associated with other forms of interpersonal violence
such as bullying and sexual assault. The complexities of hazing need to
be understood as both distinct and connected with other forms of
interpersonal violence.
Both hazing and bullying are forms of interpersonal violence, they
both involve a power imbalance, and they can include abusive behaviors
that are verbal, physical, and social in nature. The key distinction is
that hazing is part of a membership, induction, or intake process.
While the behaviors may look similar when they play out in a school or
campus, the context and underlying dynamics are what differentiate
them. In simple terms: bullying is typically thought of as a means of
exclusion--or ostracizing peers whereas hazing is generally for the
purpose of inclusion.
In some cases, incidents of hazing can meet the criteria that
define bullying (aggression, intent to cause harm, and repetition) and
in those cases, we might refer to hazing as bullying (Olweus, 1999).
For example, fraternity pledging can involve aggressive behavior like
paddling, kidnapping, lock-ups, or line-ups where new members are
screamed and cursed at, and these activities occur over a period of
weeks culminating in what's often referred to as ``hell night'' prior
to initiation. In that scenario, it seems hazing meets the criteria
that commonly define bullying. However, most instances of hazing do not
fit squarely within the scope of bullying as defined by these criteria.
For example, sometimes hazing can occur as part of a ``rookie night''
or ``initiation night'' and sometimes the activities are not explicitly
aggressive--for instance, scavenger hunts, skits, and requirements to
``get to know'' the older members of the group. Yet frequently those
activities cross the line into hazing when they include expectations
for sexual favors, other forms of personal servitude, or the
consumption of alcohol and/or other drugs.
Why is it important to understand the distinctions?
I've worked with many educators who believe that the bullying
policy is sufficient to address hazing as well. However, because hazing
is more expansive than bullying by definition, and because it is
associated with inclusion, many hazing incidents may go unrecognized or
be overlooked if a school simply relies on its bullying policy to
``cover'' hazing. Campus professionals need to be aware of hazing and
recognize it can cause physical and emotional harm--and even death.
Intersections: hazing and sexual violence
Just as there are some common dynamics between bullying and hazing,
there are also intersections between hazing and sexual violence. Some
of the common elements include issues of power, control, and consent.
We've heard far too often of locker room assaults with broomsticks and
similarly heinous scenarios--hazing and sexual assault can occur
simultaneously. Or put differently, acts of sexual violence are among
the arsenal of weapons used in hazing. (For more on this topic see my
blog post: http://www.stophazing.
org/sayreville-case-yet-another-wake-call-hazing/).
Prevention
Given the harm and potential harm of hazing, and the extent to
which it is normalized or goes unrecognized, what can be done to
prevent it? The problem of hazing is not about a few ``bad actors'' or
anomalous groups; hazing is pervasive, exceedingly complex, deep-
rooted, and resistant to change. We know there is no simple solution--
no ``one size fits all'' strategy or remedy for any of these problems.
Given these challenges, the work of hazing prevention requires systemic
thinking and creative solutions that both draw from and expand
established frameworks in order to address the specific characteristics
of hazing as a form of interpersonal violence.
As a relatively new area of research and practice, hazing
prevention builds off of other fields that address prevention of sexual
assault, violence, high risk drinking, other substance abuse, among
other phenomena, as a public health issue. The public health approach
informs a ``science of prevention'' in which strategies to intervene
and prevent behaviors are grounded in theory and research, including
rigorous assessment and evaluation. This approach supports efforts to
expand understanding and recognition of hazing based on accurate
information and analysis. Another foundational principle from the
science of prevention is that effective and significant changes are
generated by comprehensive prevention efforts that address the issue at
multiple levels and through diverse strategies.
A comprehensive approach that involves collective action on
multiple levels is needed to create meaningful change. Thanks to
dedicated researchers and practitioners, we know a lot more than ever
before about what works to advance prevention efforts in many arenas
like high-risk drinking and sexual assault. We know it's essential that
prevention be data-driven--grounded in assessment and that it be
coalition-based, strategic, and synergistic.
If we want to prevent hazing, we need to analyze the factors that
contribute to hazing on multiple levels including: individual, group,
campus/school, and community. We further need to examine factors that
help to mitigate hazing at all those levels. We need to work
collaboratively with diverse stakeholders to amplify factors that
protect youth from hazing and at the same time, work to reduce factors
that foster environments that are conducive to hazing. For example, at
the group level, a contributing factor may be that students are more
likely to engage in hazing if they don't see alternative paths to
promote group bonding. Desirable, ``cool,'' alternatives that meet
needs for group bonding and challenge without hazing would serve as a
protective factor.
As part of a 3-year research-to-practice initiative called the
Hazing Prevention Consortium (HPC), my organization, StopHazing, LLC,
has collaborated with eight pioneering universities to develop a
framework for comprehensive hazing prevention (http://
www.stophazing.org/hazing-prevention-consortium/). This framework is
grounded in new data and reflects key components and principles that
have emerged from a research base in prevention science. Building on
the Strategic Prevention Framework (http://www.samhsa.gov/capt/
applying-strategic-prevention-framework), our hazing prevention
framework is based on a progressive, synergistic, and multi-pronged
approach that combines:
Assessment: Collection and analysis of data on hazing climate,
activities and the groups and organizations involved in order to
identify prevention needs, priorities and target audiences.
Capacity: Building knowledge and capacity in hazing prevention
among campus stakeholders through formation of hazing prevention
coalitions, stakeholder training and ongoing technical assistance on
hazing prevention.
Planning: Evidence-based strategic planning for campus hazing
prevention strategies using assessment data and coalition engagement to
outline campus-specific action plans.
Implementation: Implementation of multiple hazing prevention
programs and activities targeted to specific audiences and desired
outcomes.
Evaluation: Evaluation of hazing prevention strategies to inform
design and improvement and to measure impact.
Cultural Competence: Efforts to ensure that hazing prevention
initiatives factor in and are responsive to differentials of race,
ethnicity, gender, socioeconomic status and other cultural variables
that inform the attitudes, beliefs, behaviors and impact of hazing in
specific institutional settings.
Sustainability: Generation of financial, staff and programmatic
resources to sustain hazing prevention initiatives.
Efforts to prevent hazing that engage and resonate with
institutional culture will be most effective. And since contributing
factors that feed into hazing vary from one institution to another,
there is no one-size-fits-all solution. Collection of data to assess
campus climate and culture is critical. The culture of an institution
can both reinforce and protect against hazing--meaning that some
aspects of institutional culture are assets to buildupon for
prevention, while others present barriers to achieving a hazing-free
campus. For further delineation of this framework for campus hazing
prevention, please see: Allan, Payne, and Kerschner's (2016) Hazing
Prevention Brief for College and University Professionals: http://
www.stop
hazing.org/we-dont-haze/.
Core Strategies for Hazing Prevention
The Hazing Prevention Consortium promotes a comprehensive approach
in which campuses work to formulate prevention strategies that respond
to institutional culture, align with institutional mission, and address
hazing in numerous ways and through varied modes of intervention.
Working with experts to translate what has been learned from the
research on prevention of sexual assault, bullying, and substance
abuse, we have tested are continuing to work with the following
strategies:
Visible campus leadership anti-hazing statement: Development and
widespread dissemination of statements from leadership regarding anti-
hazing position and positive institutional values and mission that
supports a safe campus climate.
Example: President of the college or university provides public
statement to make it clear that hazing is not an acceptable practice
and not in alignment with the mission of the institution. The statement
is presented as part of new student orientation and included on the
campus hazing website along with hazing policies and procedures for
reporting and enforcement.
Coalition-building: Establishment of a hazing prevention coalition
or team with stakeholders from across multiple divisions and levels of
the organization (including students), with a mandate to lead
institutional efforts in hazing prevention, including oversight of
campus climate assessments, stages of planning, design, implementation
and evaluation of prevention strategies, and sustainability of
prevention efforts.
Example: A campus hazing prevention coalition is established, with
members appointed by the institution's President or executive level
leadership, with meetings on a monthly basis of entire group, as well
as monthly meetings for subgroups focused on Assessment and Evaluation;
Coalition Capacity Building; Policy and Procedures Review; Educational
Program Design and Implementation; and Sustainability.
Policy and protocol reviews: Regular review and refinement of
institutional policies on hazing and procedures for addressing hazing
incidents, with emphasis on widespread dissemination and accessibility,
confidential reporting, consistent response protocols, referral
systems, professional staff roles and transparency.
Example: Based on a review of hazing incidents and interviews with
Student Conduct staff and a search of other campus resources, campus
stakeholders collaborate on revising a hazing policy handbook and
website to include a clear definition, statement of policy, resources
on prevention, information on reporting, protocols for enforcement,
response, and accountability, and a list of staff contacts for
referrals and questions.
Hazing Prevention Trainings: Programs, presentations, and
activities to educate and engage stakeholders in building knowledge and
awareness of hazing and skills to prevent it.
Example: A campus with a strong student leadership tradition
includes trainings on ethical leadership and hazing for all incoming
students, with regular update trainings for students in group
leadership positions that emphasize strategies and skills for
identifying group values, developing positive group bonding activities,
and bystander intervention.
Social norms messaging: Dissemination of research-based information
regarding institutional or campus hazing norms, addressing
misperceptions regarding prevalence of values, beliefs and engagement
related to hazing, with focus on positive norms that counteract and are
alternatives to hazing.
Example: Based on survey data, a campus stakeholder group that
includes students develops a social norms poster campaign reporting on
the percentage of students who believe it is not cool to use coercion
or abusive behavior to initiate new members, with posters placed in
residence halls, on computer screens, in cafeteria table settings, and
on bookstore bookmarks, and complementary discussions and/or workshops
run jointly by staff and student leaders about positive group norms.
Bystander Intervention: Education, training programs and social
norms messaging supporting students, staff, parents, and others to
develop skills to intervene as bystanders to prevent hazing.
Example: As part of student organization and athletic team
orientation activities, student leaders are trained to facilitate
discussion on the five stages of bystander intervention--
(1) Notice behavior;
(2) Interpret behavior as a problem;
(3) Recognize one's responsibility to intervene;
(4) Develop skills needed to intervene safely; and
(5) Take action--and engage group members in role-play exercises
and followup discussions about their roles as bystanders (Berkowitz,
2009).
For a more in-depth discussion of bystander intervention applied to
hazing, please see Allan, Payne, and Kerschner's (2016) Hazing
Prevention Brief for General Audiences: http://www.stophazing.org
/we-dont-haze/.
Communication to broader campus community: Development and
dissemination of information on hazing and hazing prevention efforts to
stakeholders outside of immediate institution, including online
resources, newsletters, trainings and other programs targeted to
alumni, family and parents, and other people and organizations in local
community.
Example: Drawing upon available campus resources and data, student
affairs staff and senior administrators host and circulate a bi-monthly
online newsletter to parents regarding hazing and hazing prevention
activities, including the definition of hazing, explanation of hazing
policies and reporting procedures, information on how to be a parent
bystander, and ways to be involved in campus prevention efforts.
What is needed to propel hazing prevention forward?
Over the course of 3 years, we have worked with members of the
Hazing Prevention Consortium (HPC) to implement and evaluate these and
other strategies for hazing prevention. In doing so, we have begun to
identify promising practices in each of the domains referred to earlier
(assessment, capacity, planning, implementation, evaluation, cultural
competence, and sustainability). Although the HPC design was informed
by evidence about prevention in other fields, we launched this process
with a goal to begin building an evidence base for hazing prevention.
For while many have worked diligently to develop hazing prevention
activities, resources are needed to provide enhanced focus on rigorous
evaluation of those activities. Carefully designed and methodically
implemented evaluation is critical to measure whether and how hazing
prevention strategies are actually working. Without evaluation, we have
no way of knowing whether certain strategies have an impact in changing
social norms related to hazing and the beliefs, values and actual
behaviors of youth. Just as it is essential that the emergent field of
hazing prevention be informed by a solid base of research and
assessment to inform our understanding of the problem of hazing, in our
efforts to advance new and innovative strategies for hazing prevention,
it is incumbent on us to carry out scientifically grounded evaluation
of those strategies so that we know what is working and what isn't
working.
These principles and goals have been the cornerstones of our work
on the HPC and have guided us to place particular emphasis on
supporting our collaborators to integrate evaluation into the
development of new strategies for hazing prevention. As our initial 3-
year project draws to a close, we have collected a considerable amount
of data regarding promising practices to inform a comprehensive and
effective approach to hazing prevention. In the coming year, we will be
mining this research to formulate and put forth a preliminary framework
for hazing prevention. While we began with hunches from prevention
science about what might work best for hazing, we are now in a much
better position to assist educational institutions with implementing
comprehensive hazing prevention. Having said that, one of the biggest
lessons we've learned through the HPC is that comprehensive hazing
prevention, and especially its evaluation, is a long term process. So
we speak of ``promising'' approaches to prevention because we know that
our work to build an evidence base is an emergent process that will
continue to evolve as we collaborate with a growing cadre of colleges
and universities, other organizations, fellow researchers, and
committed stakeholders, legislators, advocates, parents, and others who
are all part of the solution.
In other words, while we've made considerable strides to propel
hazing prevention forward, there is a tremendous amount of work that
remains to be done. As we consider hazing prevention in light of campus
safety and in relation to sexual assault, bullying, cyberbullying, and
other forms of interpersonal violence, I will close by pointing to
several areas in which there are needs for governmental support and
engagement as we strive to formulate effective approaches to hazing
prevention as one among many areas of interpersonal violence
prevention.
Research. New and continued research to inform prevention,
with the following being but a few sample topics:
A followup national study of hazing in postsecondary
settings to compare with 2008 (Allan & Madden, 2012; 2008) data and
measure change over time as well as other variables.
Extent and type of hazing occurring in middle- and high-
school settings.
Variations in extent and type of hazing across cultural
groups.
Intersections of hazing and sexual violence on campus.
Hazing social norms, with focus on misperceived norms
relative to actual beliefs and behaviors.
Efficacy of bystander intervention for hazing.
Ethical leadership approaches to hazing prevention.
Social and psychological motivations for hazing.
Desirable and proven alternatives to hazing for promoting
group cohesion.
Social, academic, and personal costs of hazing for
students, families, and schools.
Effective strategies for working with victims and
perpetrators of hazing, with focus on ways to implement effective
support/healing and sanctions (respectively).
Costs and benefits of transparent institutional
approaches to hazing (e.g., inclusion of information on hazing
incidents, investigations, sanctions, etc. in annual reports,
institutional websites, and websites associated with involved students
organizations).
Evaluation. Continued testing and evaluation of hazing
prevention strategies at both secondary and higher education
institutions, including broad dissemination of findings.
Funding. Provision of State and Federal financial
resources targeted to support the research and practice of hazing
prevention in educational settings. Note that while there is interest
in hazing at the Federal level under the umbrella of school safety, in
the Department of Education and to some extent in the CDC, at this time
there is little dedicated funding for hazing prevention at the State or
Federal level (one exception being Florida which is the first State to
mandate use of an online hazing prevention curriculum for first year
students in State universities).
Policy. Engagement by State and Federal agencies to
collaborate with hazing prevention specialists to establish policies
and procedures for protecting students from hazing and addressing
incidents of hazing when they occur.
Transparency. Mandates for colleges and universities to
make hazing reports public by posting on a website and including the
consequences for organizations found responsible for hazing. Cornell
University has been on the cutting edge of this practice and numerous
other universities are following their lead (Cornell University:
https://hazing.cornell.edu, Lehigh University: http://
studentaffairs.lehigh.edu
/hazing-prevention, University of Arizona: https://
deanofstudents.arizona.edu/safe
cats/hazing).
Laws. Increased State and Federal attention to the legal
and criminal issue of hazing on its own and in relation to sexual
assault/bullying, including continued work to promote anti-hazing laws
in all States and investigation of the legal and criminal dimensions
relative to hazing incidents and investigations.
Spectrum of Interpersonal Violence. Support from State and
Federal agencies to develop prevention frameworks that address
distinctions and intersections among varied campus safety issues so
that resources can be shared and to avoid siloed approach to behaviors
that are typically interrelated.
Training. State and Federal promotion of education and
training on hazing and hazing prevention. Campus focus on trainings
that build skills for bystander intervention to prevent hazing as well
as ethical leadership development appear to be promising approaches.
Coordination. Financial support and networking structures
to help coordinate hazing prevention activities within regional and
national professional associations related to higher education and
student affairs.
Dissemination. Financial support for outreach within
campus and broader community to educate about hazing, the warning signs
of hazing, and where to report it. Regional and national conferences
and meetings to bring together scholars, practitioners, educators,
families, legislators, and other stakeholders to advance the cause of
hazing prevention.
Summary
While the previous bullet points are not an exhaustive list by any
means, I believe they provide a platform for continuing to move forward
in achieving the vision of eliminating hazing from our educational
institutions and promoting greater campus safety. This vision requires
a cultural shift that moves beyond intervention and toward shaping
communities where healthy group bonding and traditions are the norm and
where civility, honor, respect, and nonviolence are cornerstones of
student decisionmaking, participation, and leadership as members of
teams, clubs, organizations, and other groups.
In closing, we must work together to ensure that hazing is no
longer overlooked, minimized, or ``swept under the rug.'' The time is
now to ensure hazing is foregrounded as a threat to campus safety and a
threat to positive leadership development in our youth. The time is now
to prevent further senseless tragedies and loss of human potential that
can result from hazing; the time is now to recognize that our
educational institutions will be stronger and safer without hazing. We
all have an opportunity and responsibility to make a difference by
committing to hazing prevention and promoting safe schools and campuses
for the youth of this Nation. Thank you.
references
Allan, E.J. & Madden, M. (2008). Hazing in view: College students at
risk. Retrieved from http://www.stophazing.org/wp-content/uploads/
2014/06/hazing_in_view
_web1.pdf.
Allan, E.J., & Madden, M. (2012). The nature and extent of college
student hazing. International Journal of Adolescent Medicine and
Health, 24(1), 83-90.
Allan, E.J., Payne, J.M. & Kershner, D. (2016). ``We Don't Haze:'' A
Companion Prevention Brief for Colleges and University
Professionals. StopHazing and the Clery Center for Security on
Campus. http://clerycenter.org/sites/default/files/We
%20Dont%20Haze%20Companion%20Brief.
Berkowitz, A. (2009). Response ability: A complete guide to bystander
intervention. Chicago, IL: Beck & Co.
Hoover, N. & Pollard, N. (1999). National survey: Initiation rites and
athletics for NCAA sports teams. Retrieved from http://
www.alfred.edu/sports_hazing/docs/hazing.pdf.
Nuwer, H. (1990). Broken pledges: The deadly rite of hazing. Marietta,
GA: Longstreet Press.
Nuwer, H. (Ed.). (2004). The hazing reader. Bloomington, IN: Indiana
University Press.
Olweus, D. (1999). Norway. In P.K. Smith, Y. Morita, J. Junger-Tas, D.
Olweus, R. Catalano, & P. Slee (Eds.), The nature of school
bullying: A cross-national perspective (pp. 28-48). New York, NY:
Routledge.
Senator Murray. Thank you.
Dr. Huskey.
STATEMENT OF MELYNDA HUSKEY, Ph.D., INTERIM VICE PRESIDENT OF
STUDENT AFFAIRS AND DEAN OF STUDENTS, WASHINGTON STATE
UNIVERSITY, PULLMAN, WA
Ms. Huskey. Mr. Chairman, Senator Murray, and members of
the committee, my name is Melynda Huskey, and I'm the interim
vice president of Student Affairs at Washington State
University. We're proud to have Senator Murray as an alumna,
and I'm very honored to participate today in this roundtable on
the important issue of campus safety and violence prevention.
I'm here on behalf of Washington State University's
leadership and our more than 29,000 students. We are the land
grant institution of Washington. We are physically present in
every county in the State, delivering education, research, and
core services that benefit Washingtonians in their daily lives.
My role as Vice President of Student Affairs is to oversee all
programs and offices which support the out-of-classroom student
experience. And in that role, I've been asked to share with you
the approach we take on our campuses toward violence
prevention.
Like many universities, our campus has experienced
incidents of hazing, bullying, fighting, sexual assault, and
cyber bullying. We're deeply committed to using the best
evidence-based practices available and have adopted the public
health model for violence prevention. In this model,
multidisciplinary teams--in our case, healthcare providers,
human development experts, prevention scientists, student
affairs practitioners, law enforcement, compliance officers,
community members, and students--work together to define the
nature and extent of violence on our campus, identify risks and
protective factors, develop and implement interventions,
evaluate their effectiveness, and oversee their broad
implementation.
We look at all levels of interaction--social, community,
relationship, and individual--which support healthy choices and
promote a healthy campus. We also evaluate how well our
interventions serve distinct populations: veterans, members of
the LGBT community, ethnic and racial communities,
international students, and students with disabilities.
For example, our hazing prevention efforts are
interdisciplinary and distributed across campus. While a few
campus organizations are likely to come to mind, the fact is
that hazing occurs in many organizations and once established
as a cultural practice can be exceptionally resistant to
change. We offer preventative training and information to all
student organizations on this issue, provide anonymous
reporting, and work with advisers and mentors locally and
nationally to identify the risks and protective factors which
change outcomes for students.
We take the same approach to bullying and harassment,
including an educationally focused student disciplinary
process. We are also now focusing on improving suicide
prevention efforts on our campus. With support from the
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, in
partnership with the Washington State Department of Health, WSU
and other institutions of higher ed across the State are
creating and refining research-based suicide prevention plans
designed specifically for student life.
Since 2011, we've been fortunate to receive Federal support
for our work in the area of sex- and gender-based violence
through competitive funding from the U.S. Department of
Justice's Office of Violence Against Women's Grant to reduce
sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence, and
stalking on campus. We've implemented a suite of required
trainings for all incoming students, which includes face-to-
face, small group workshops on sex- and gender-based violence;
bystander empowerment and intervention strategies; and alcohol
and drug impacts on sexual decisionmaking.
We are committed to creating a safe, supportive
environment, free from violence, in which all of our students
can focus on learning and in which they can graduate as
educated citizens ready to contribute to their communities.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to be here today.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Huskey follows:]
Prepared Statement of Melynda Huskey
summary
WSU is Washington's land grant institution. Through our
five campuses, four research centers and WSU extension, WSU is
physically present in every county in the State, delivering education,
research, and core services that benefit Washingtonians in their daily
lives.
We are deeply committed to using the best evidence-based
practices available and have adopted a public health model for violence
prevention. In this model, multi-disciplinary teams--in our case,
health care providers, human development experts, prevention
scientists, student affairs practitioners, law enforcement, compliance
officers, community members, and students--work together to define the
nature and extent of violence on our campus, identify risk and
protective factors, develop and implement interventions, evaluate their
effectiveness, and oversee their broad implementation.
We look at the societal, community, relationship, and
individual factors which support healthy choices and promote a healthy
campus. We also evaluate how well our interventions serve distinct
populations: veterans, members of the LGBT community, ethnic and racial
communities, international students, students with disabilities.
WSU's hazing prevention efforts are interdisciplinary and
distributed across campus. While a few campus organizations are likely
to come to mind, the fact is that hazing can occur in any organization,
and once established as a cultural practice, can be exceptionally
resistant to change. We provide preventative training and information
to all student organizations on the issue, offer anonymous reporting,
and work with advisors and mentors locally and nationally to identify
the risk and protective factors which can change outcomes for students.
We take the same approach to bullying and harassment, including an
educationally focused student disciplinary process.
We are now focused on improving suicide prevention on
campus. With support from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health
Services Administration (SAMHSA), in partnership with the Washington
State Department of Health, WSU and other institutions of higher
education across the State are creating and refining research-based
suicide prevention plans, designed for student life.
Since 2011, we have been fortunate to receive Federal
support for our work in the area of sex- and gender-based violence
through competitive funding from the U.S. Department of Justice's
Office of Violence Against Women Grant to Reduce Sexual Assault,
Domestic Violence, Dating Violence, and Stalking on Campus. We have
implemented a suite of required trainings for all incoming students,
which include face-to-face small group workshops on sex- and gender-
based violence, bystander empowerment and intervention strategies, and
alcohol and drug impacts on sexual decisionmaking. We are committed to
creating a safe, supportive environment free from violence, in which
all our students can focus on learning, and in which they can graduate
as educated citizens who will contribute to their communities.
I look forward to answering any questions and to working
with you going forward.
______
Mr. Chairman, Senator Murray, and members of the committee, my name
is Melynda Huskey and I serve as the Interim Vice President of Student
Affairs at Washington State University. We are proud to have Senator
Murray as an alumna and I am honored to be invited by the committee and
Senator Murray to participate in the roundtable today on the extremely
important issue of campus safety and the prevention of all forms of
violence on college campuses. Today, I am here on behalf of Washington
State University's leadership and more than 29,000 students.
WSU is Washington's land grant institution. Through our five
campuses, four research centers and WSU extension, WSU is physically
present in every county in the State, delivering education, research,
and core services that benefit Washingtonians in their communities
every day. As a premiere tier one research university, WSU drives
education and innovation in our communities to support and grow the
State's economy.
WSU is led by President Kirk Schulz, who joined our Cougar family
in June. We are pleased that he supports the WSU land grant mission of
advancing, extending and applying knowledge through local and global
engagement.
As Interim Vice President and Dean of Students, I oversee the
offices and programs which support students in all of their out-of-the-
classroom activities and circumstances--everything from residence life
and dining to student involvement and engagement to student conduct to
health and wellness to fraternity and sorority life.
I have been asked to share with you the efforts we are making on
our campus to prevent violence, and the approach we have chosen to
take. Like many universities, our campus has experienced incidents of:
hazing,
bullying,
fighting, and more recently;
cyber-bullying.
We are also deeply concerned with ongoing issues of sexual
violence, dating and intimate partner violence, and stalking. Sexual
violence, in particular, requires a redoubling of effort in order to
reduce the incidence on all college campuses. At WSU, student survey
data, produced by the National College Health Assessment from the 2014-
15 school year, indicates that 10 percent of undergraduate students had
experienced some form of interpersonal violence (sexual assault, dating
violence, stalking) in the previous 12 months. This is unacceptable.
WSU is committed to enhancing the safety of our students, faculty,
staff, and visitors at all of our campuses.
To increase campus safety, WSU is engaged in focused efforts across
four main areas to further reduce sexual violence, including:
1. improved education and communication regarding acceptable
standards and conduct;
2. increased focus on prevention and intervention;
3. an enhanced reporting and response infrastructure that will
provide victims with safe and reliable options for ensuring their needs
are met; and
4. deeper collaboration with area non-profits and law enforcement
to ensure the university is engaging in best practices in confronting
and reducing sexual violence on our campuses.
The university has also prepared, and made available, university
policies, procedures, statistics, and information relating to campus
safety, emergency management, and the health and welfare of the campus
community. This includes information on student standards and conduct
policies, mental health and counseling services, safety and security
policies/procedures for University housing, harassment policies, and
sexual assault, domestic violence, and stalking policies. In all of
these cases, we continue to evaluate how well we are serving distinct
populations: veterans, members of the LGBT community, ethnic and racial
communities, international students, students with disabilities.
Guidance from the Office of Civil Rights and Department of Education
has helped us meaningfully focus and refine these efforts.
As a research institution, we are deeply committed to using the
best evidence-based practices available. For this reason, we have
adopted a public health model for violence prevention. As many of you
know, in this model, multi-disciplinary teams--in our case, health care
providers, human development experts, prevention scientists, student
affairs practitioners, law enforcement, compliance officers, community
members, and students--work together to define the nature and extent of
violence on our campus, identify risk and protective factors, develop
and implement interventions, evaluate their effectiveness, and oversee
their broad implementation. Within this model, we look at the societal,
community, relationship, and individual factors which support healthy
choices, and those that support violence, and work to intervene at all
levels to promote a healthy campus. This approach allows us to address
violence in all its forms--from bullying in residence halls to the most
serious cases of assault or sexual violence.
Our hazing prevention efforts are interdisciplinary and distributed
across campus. While a few organizations are likely to come to mind--
fraternities and sororities, marching bands--the fact is that hazing
can occur in any organization, and once established as a cultural
practice, can be exceptionally resistant to change. We provide
preventative training and information to all student organizations on
the issue, offer anonymous reporting, and work with advisors and
mentors locally and nationally to identify the risk and protective
factors which can change outcomes for students.
Bullying and other kinds of harassment are covered under our
Standards of Conduct for students. We are committed to a fair,
educational, and developmental student discipline process, recognizing
the difference between legal proceedings outside our institution and
our internal responsibilities to support students' ethical development
and accountability to our university community.
We are also committed to the prevention of another serious form of
violence on campus: suicide. With support from the Substance Abuse and
Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), in partnership with the
Washington State Department of Health, WSU and more than 15 other
institutions of higher education across the State are creating and
refining comprehensive, research-based suicide prevention plans. Again,
the public health model helps us in defining the scope of the problem,
the risk and protective factors, and the prevention strategies--from
limiting access to potentially lethal means to promoting strong social
connections among students and exploring new technologies for
delivering support and mental health evaluations to the ``digital
native'' generation of students.
We have been very fortunate to receive Federal funding to support
our efforts. Since 2011, our work in the area of sex- and gender-based
violence has been supported, in part, by competitive funding from the
U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Violence Against Women Grant to
Reduce Sexual Assault, Domestic Violence, Dating Violence, and Stalking
on Campus. Our on-campus Violence Prevention Center has supported
policy review and revision, mandatory training for employees on the
university's policy prohibiting discrimination, sexual harassment and
sexual misconduct, as well as on reporting obligations. We have
implemented a suite of required trainings for all incoming students,
which include face-to-face small group workshops on sex- and gender-
based violence, bystander empowerment and intervention strategies, and
alcohol and drug impacts on sexual decisionmaking. We continue to
evaluate and refine these efforts for effectiveness.
WSU also recognizes that the best way to increase safety on our
campuses, and to support institutional efforts, is to engage directly
with our students and community stakeholders in this process. Our
student body has created a program called ``It's on Cougs,'' led by
students to encourage bystander intervention. The program includes
trainings, workshops, and social media campaigns around ways to engage
in campus safety.
At Washington State University, we are committed to creating a
safe, supportive environment free from violence, in which all our
students can focus on learning, and in which they can graduate as
educated citizens who will contribute to the State, the Nation, and the
world.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today about issues
we take very seriously at WSU. I look forward to answering any
questions and to working with you going forward.
Senator Murray. Thank you.
Ms. Krisak.
STATEMENT OF WENDY KRISAK, M.A., NCC, LPC, DIRECTOR OF THE
COUNSELING CENTER, DESALES UNIVERSITY, CENTER VALLEY, PA
Ms. Krisak. Senator Kirk, Ranking Member Murray, and
members of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
Committee, I deeply thank you for this opportunity to testify
and share DeSales University's efforts regarding the reduction
and prevention of bullying and hazing incidents.
DeSales is a 50-year-old Catholic institution grounded in
the teachings of Saint Francis de Sales. In addition to
academics, DeSales focuses on educating students morally,
socially, and spiritually through its out-of-the-classroom
programming, which provides students with a moral compass and
enriches their lives on a deeper level. The university mission
places Christian humanism at its core and intentionally works
to enhance the dignity of the individual.
As freshmen, students learn our character code, which asks
them to conduct themselves in a respectful manner and treat
others with dignity and respect. The code is posted everywhere
on campus. Our DeSales community is committed to maintaining a
healthy and conscientiously kind environment.
Before freshmen arrive on campus, they are engaged in
Character U, our first year experience program. This program
teaches them the basics of navigating college, but also
immerses them in a character curriculum that focuses on the
virtues of patience, trust and cooperation, perseverance, love,
forgiveness, and hope. These virtues are integrated into their
learning experience through keynotes, community service
projects, and other programs.
Through Character U, students learn about themselves, the
world around them, and the role they play in it. Character U
helps new students meet new people, form relationships, and
communicate with one another. In a texting and twittering
world, this is not always easy for them. DeSales outside-of-
the-classroom programming is committed to instilling the
concept that every human being deserves to be treated with
dignity and respect.
DeSales University takes a multidisciplinary approach to
caring for our students. We have an early alert system that
places struggling students on our radar so that we can be
proactive in supporting them. Early alert prompted the creation
of our CARE team, an acronym for Concern, Assessment, and
Response. This team includes health professionals and staff
from all areas of campus. We meet bimonthly to investigate and
respond to matters of concern related to students. We
coordinate interventions and make recommendations that will
ensure the safety and well-being of our students.
In 2003, one of my colleagues and I created a six-member
team, PACE. The acronym stands for Peers Advising, Counseling,
Educating. PACE programming emphasizes personal responsibility,
deep respect for others, and concern for the common good. This
student team researches and presents on relevant wellness
topics to their fellow students. In 2012, they created
#sorryimnotsorry, a program that addressed bullying and hazing
in the cyber world as well as prevention methods. This program
led to a student-driven cyber bullying policy which is now
official policy in our student handbook.
Since then, PACE has geared its efforts toward addressing
the root of bullying in a more positive way through it's
kindness programming. From harsh words to ruthless behavior,
society has tossed aside human compassions for others for their
own gain. PACE created a week dedicated to demonstrating
kindness to others through selfless acts. These programs
inspire others to pass on those kindnesses to promote positive
behavior and a more unified campus community.
Kindness Week is now an annual event, #happierdesales. It
includes programs such as Kindness Can Change the World, a
program about bullying that motivates students to increase
kindness measures around campus. It includes tabling activities
and giveaways, such as Consent Kisses, where students ask
permission to give another student a kiss. For their consent,
the student receives two Hershey kisses, one to keep and one to
give away. This promotes consent and respect for relationships.
Other independent programs have included Write Light, Write
Life, where community members nominated someone to receive a
letter of encouragement, support, and gratitude. Everyone was
invited to help write the letters, which were then distributed
during Kindness Week. You Are More Than A Like is a program
that encourages students not to rely on how many likes they get
on social media to define their self-worth.
Digging Deeper: The Diversity of Individuality highlights
our campus-wide solidarity initiative, which focuses on
celebrating our differences and developing mutual respect for
one another as valued human beings. All of these programs have
had great impact on both students and staff.
Again, I thank you for your time and the opportunity to
share with you the efforts being made by our small university
to derail bullying and unkindness of any kind by nurturing
strong character development among our student population.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Krisak follows:]
Prepared Statement of Wendy S. Krisak, M.A., NCC, LPC
Chairman Alexander, Ranking Member Murray, and members of the
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, I deeply thank you
for this opportunity to testify and share DeSales University's efforts
regarding the reduction and prevention of bullying and hazing
incidents.
With a mission that intentionally works to enhance the dignity of
the individual, a philosophy that has Christian Humanism at its core,
and a Character Code that asks for all to conduct themselves in a
respectful manner, DeSales is a distinctive University which does not
just value educating the minds of our students, but also values
educating their hearts.
Many efforts are made to ensure that our community is healthy and
conscientiously kind. Before our students even step foot on campus as a
freshmen, they are engaged in our Character U First Year Experience
Program, they have learned the concept of bystander intervention
through the on-line program Haven, and they have been assigned a peer
mentor to assist them with their transition into college. Once they
arrive, and throughout their undergraduate years, they are offered
countless opportunities to learn about who they are for themselves, and
their role in relation to the greater world around them. Character U
emphasizes six fundamental character traits: Patience, Trust and
Cooperation, Perseverance, Love, Forgiveness, and Hope.
PACE (Peers Advising Counseling Educating), a six-person education
team, maintains as its vision to emphasize personal responsibility,
deep respect for others, and concern for the common good. With this
vision in mind, they work hard to research and present on relevant
wellness topics to their fellow students. In regards to bullying and
hazing awareness and prevention efforts, they created a program
entitled, ``#sorryimnotsorry,'' which focuses on the cyber world, which
can often be an ugly place. Out of this program, a student-driven
cyberbullying policy was created, approved, and is now an official
policy in the student handbook.
Since that time, PACE has chosen to gear their efforts toward the
positive. With this in mind, they began developing programming around
kindness. They now celebrate their own Kindness Week: #happierdesales
each year. Every day of kindness week includes programs (``Kindness Can
Change the World''), tabling activities (``Balloon Compliments,'' ``RAK
Tree,'' ``A Positive View''), and give-aways (``Consent Kisses,''
``Flower Friday'') that promote a kinder and happier DeSales. Other
independent programs have included ``Write Light, Write Life,'' a
letter writing campaign; ``You Are More Than A Like,'' which encourages
us not to rely on how many ``likes'' we get on social media to define
our worth; ``Digging Deeper: The Diversity of Individuality,'' which
highlights our Solidarity Initiative; and ``No One Else Can Play My
Part,'' which discourages the use of such words as crazy, suicidal, and
mental in casual ways.
In the event a student gets off-track, DeSales has many programs,
policies, and procedures, which educate and hold students accountable
for their behavior. Through educational conversations, community
service, reflective assignments, counseling, and mediations, students
are assisted in getting back on track and finding success as
contributing members to the university community.
DeSales University is a 50-year-old Catholic Institution grounded
in the teachings of St. Francis de Sales. In addition to its strong
academic curriculum, DeSales University also focuses on educating
students morally, socially, and spiritually through out-of-the-
classroom programming that enriches and cares for the entire human
being.
Again, I want to thank Chairman Alexander, Ranking Member Murray,
and members of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee for
this opportunity.
______
Chairman Alexander, Ranking Member Murray, and members of the
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, I deeply thank you
for this opportunity to testify and share the efforts of DeSales
University regarding the reduction and prevention of bullying and
hazing incidents.
DeSales University is a distinctive institution of higher
education. Its culture is based upon its mission of Christian Humanism.
DeSales prepares its students not only with a high quality academic
education but a character based education as well. Opportunities are
created every day for students to explore their vocations, critically
think about their value system, and improve their social conscience.
At DeSales University, we not only educate the mind, we educate the
heart as well.
The following few pages offer more details about who we are. I
assure you that everything from our philosophy and mission through our
Heritage and our Character Code, serve as the foundation for our low
count of bullying and hazing incidents, and, most certainly, provide
the spring board for our continued efforts toward prevention of such
behavior.
quick facts about desales university
University President--Fr. Bernard F. O'Connor, OSFS (July
1999).
Formally named Allentown College of Saint Francis de Sales
(opened in 1965).
Private, 4 year Catholic university for men and women.
Administered by the Oblates of St. Francis de Sales.
The enrollment for traditional undergraduate day students
is 1,597.
Total enrollment (traditional, graduate, and ACCESS adult)
is 3,136.
There are 125 full-time faculty members of which 84
percent have the highest degree in their field.
More than 95 percent of undergraduate, full-time day
students receive some form of financial aid.
Accredited by the Middle States Commission on Higher
Education (MSCHE).
Nineteen athletic teams compete in the NCAA Division III
Middle Atlantic States Collegiate Athletic Conference (MAC) and the
Eastern Collegiate Athletic Conference (ECAC).
philosophy of desales university
DeSales University is firmly and publicly committed to the
principles of Roman Catholic doctrine and morality. It also fully
recognizes that the search for truth requires an atmosphere of
intellectual freedom and that love demands an openness to all that is
good.
DeSales carefully distinguishes between the free pursuit of truth--
which it guarantees every member of the campus community--and its own
commitment to the teachings of the Catholic Church.
For DeSales University, Christian humanism means that every aspect
of human experience is capable of enlightenment by the Gospel of Jesus
Christ. This Gospel brings light to each dimension of personal
existence (physical, intellectual, social, moral, aesthetic, and
religious) and every environmental domain (natural world, social
institutions, cultural achievements, historical periods, and religious
societies).
The encounter between the Word of God and the concrete world of the
human person makes a fully meaningful existence possible. DeSales
University strives to teach the student what it means to be Christian
in a Salesian way, what it means to embrace one's own life, and what it
means to bring this Good News to the human family.
mission of desales university
It is the mission of DeSales University to provide men and women
with quality higher education according to the philosophy of Christian
humanism as developed by Saint Francis de Sales and his spiritual
heirs. The University imparts knowledge about, and develops talents
for, personal, familial, and societal living. DeSales University
enriches the human community and enhances the dignity of the individual
through its educational endeavors. In its work, the University fosters
a vital and respectful dialog between Roman Catholic faith and human
culture.
character code
``As a member of DeSales University, I will conduct myself in
a respectful manner with dignity and honesty in the Salesian
tradition of humility and gentleness.''
heritage of desales
DeSales University is named for a man who lived more than 400 years
ago, but whose lessons are still timely and practical for today's
world.
St. Francis de Sales is admired throughout the Church for his great
sanctity, learnedness, missionary zeal, gentleness, and understanding
of the human heart. Scholar, writer, pastor, spiritual guide for souls,
diplomat, bishop, and Doctor of the Church, he is best described as a
Christian Humanist, a potent spiritual force for creating a
spirituality admirably suited to those in every walk of life,
especially the common person.
De Sales was born in Thorens, France, on August 21, 1567. As a
member of a noble family, he was educated in the humanities at the
Jesuit college of Clermont at the University of Paris and received his
doctorate in both civil and canon law from the University of Padua.
For Francis, love of God naturally lead to love for all persons.
His life became a model of selfless service to God and the countless
individuals who called upon him for advice.
Francis de Sales died in 1622. In 1665, Pope Alexander VII
proclaimed him a saint. Today, the Oblates of Saint Francis de Sales
are one of several religious congregations in the Catholic Church
founded under his patronage.
desales university policies
Cyber Bullying Policy
Cyber bullying is defined as the use of electronic information and
communication devices, to include but not be limited to, email message,
instant message, text messages, cellular telephone communication,
blogs, chat rooms, and defamatory websites that:
Threaten, harass, intimidate, an individual or groups of
individuals;
Place an individual in reasonable fear of harm to the
individual or damage the individual's property; and
Have the effect of substantially disrupting the orderly
operation of the school. Violation of this policy is considered to be
an act of intolerance and anyone found in violation will be subject to
appropriate disciplinary action by the University.
General Statement
The University will not tolerate improper actions by University
community members or visitors. Actions, which are improper, include,
but are not limited to, the following:
Actual or threats of physical violence, or other forms of
harassment.
Destruction of University property or other private
property.
Interference with entry to or exit from University
buildings or facilities, including free movement by individuals.
Disruption of or interference with instructional
activities, campus events or other University business.
Interference with the rights of others to the freedom of
speech and assembly.
Unauthorized entry to a University facility and failure to
leave when requested by a representative of the University.
Possession of firearms, explosives, chemicals, or fire
extinguishers.
Failure to comply with the orders of directives of
University officials, police or other law enforcement agencies acting
within the scope of their duties.
Hazing Policy
At DeSales University we believe in the dignity of life and hold a
deep respect for each individual person as a creation of God. Hazing is
contrary to these beliefs and will therefore not be tolerated in any
form. DeSales University defines hazing as any activity suspected of
someone affiliating with or joining a group that humiliates, degrades,
abuses, or endangers, regardless of the persons willingness to
participate. Furthermore, this definition includes any action which
DeSales University--2015-16 Student Handbook Page 124 of 162 results in
the disruption of the educational process, the impairment of academic
performance, or failure to properly fulfill obligations to University
sponsored groups or organizations. DeSales University unconditionally
opposes all forms of hazing and adheres to Pennsylvania Penal Law which
defines hazing as follows:
``Any action or situation which recklessly or intentionally
endangers the mental or physical health or safety of a student
or which willfully destroys or removes public or private
property for the purpose of initiation or admission into or
affiliation with, or as a condition for continued membership
in, any organization operating under the sanction of or
recognized as an organization by an institution of higher
education. The term shall include but not be limited to, any
brutality of a physical nature such as whipping, beating,
branding, forced calisthenics, exposure to the elements, forced
consumption of any food, liquor, drug or other substance, or
any other forced physical activity which would subject the
individual to extreme mental distress, such as sleep
deprivation, forced exclusion from social contact, forced
conduct which could result in extreme embarrassment, or any
other forced activity which could adversely affect the mental
health or dignity of the individual, or any willful destruction
or removal of public or private property. For purposes of this
definition, any activity as described in this definition upon
which the initiation or admission into or affiliation with or
continued membership in an organization is directly or
indirectly conditioned shall be presumed to be `forced'
activity, the willingness of an individual to participate in
such activity notwithstanding. (Penal Law, P.S. 5352)
``Any person who causes or participates in hazing commits a
misdemeanor of the third degree.'' (Penal Law, P.S. 5353)
Any violation or suspected violation of this hazing policy should be
reported to any of the following: the Student Affairs Office, the
Director of Athletics, or the Director of Student Engagement and
Leadership. In addition, students may also report incidents of hazing
to University Police dial ext. 1250 from any on campus phone or direct
dial 610.282.1002. Any person or organization in violation of this
policy will be subject to University disciplinary action.
Intolerance Policy
Intolerance, harassment, or any other conduct that diminishes the
dignity of a human person is incompatible with our fundamental
commitment as a Catholic university in the Salesian tradition. Every
person shall be treated with respect and dignity. No person shall be
subject to any sexual, racial, psychological, physical, verbal, or
other similar harassment or abuse. Those who treat others with such
intolerance will be subject to appropriate disciplinary action by the
University.
Disciplinary Efforts
Harassing, stalking or hazing any person, including
sexually harassing and cyber bullying.
Minimum--Disciplinary probation
Maximum--Expulsion
Engaging in disorderly conduct, disruptive, lewd, or
indecent conduct.
Minimum--Community service
Maximum--Expulsion
Physically harming or threatening to harm any person,
intentionally or recklessly causing harm to any person or reasonable
apprehension of such harm or creating a condition that endangers the
health and safety of self or others.
Minimum--Disciplinary probation
Maximum--Expulsion
our numbers
According to our Director of Student Conduct, our numbers for
bullying/hazing are relatively low. The majority of the numbers do
revolve around social media, where students feel that they can ``hide
behind the screen.'' Many times, these violations are very hard to
address because it is unknown who was involved. Other times, the
violators are unknown, but other students will come forward with
information because they feel that what was done was wrong. For
instance, there was an incident in which derogatory remarks were
written on flyers promoting a student program. The remarks were
personally attacking the individual on the flyer. Several students came
forward and shared that the student who wrote these remarks was
bragging about it on his social media (Twitter). The students who came
forward said that they did not feel what he did was right and that the
students of DeSales are better than that. Our students so often pull
together and protect one another.
The following is from the Student Conduct 2015-2016 annual report.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Year 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Engaging in disorderly conduct, disruptive, lewd, or indecent 5 6 3 4 11
conduct......................................................
Harassing, stalking, or hazing any person, including sexually 0 3 0 0 0
harassing and cyber bullying.................................
Physically harming or threatening to harm any person or 0 1 2 0 0
creating a condition that could endanger self or others......
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL..................................................... 5 10 5 4 11
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
the student conduct process
Our student conduct director takes an educational, as opposed to
punitive approach when addressing student behavior. She knows that
everyone in life makes mistakes. Her goal is to work with the students
to get them back on track. Students do receive sanctions for violations
of policy, however, the key aspect of student conduct meetings is what
the student learns and applies to future situations. The minimum and
maximum sanctions are listed above. The following are some of the
educational sanctions that are often given:
Educational conversation
Mediation with both parties (similar to restorative
justice)
Counseling session to process (extended counseling depends
on the counselor)
Educational assignment (student may be asked to research
policies/impact and write a paper with a section for reflection of how
their violation may have impacted others
Community service (when possible, the service has relevant
connection to the violation)
prevention
Early Alert Process
Purpose: To provide a confidential referral system which
will enable the Counseling Center to be proactive in the support of our
students.
Reasons to Use an Alert: Some suggestions for use of an
Early Alert Form would be: changes in behavior, depression, eating
disorders, attendance irregularity, drug or alcohol use, unusual
behavior, loneliness, abuse, rape, death, relationship conflict, and
family conflict.
Care (Concern Assessment REsponse) Team
This team provides a confidential resource to the DSU community to
which faculty and staff direct concerns they may have about a student.
Such as:
Attendance Concerns
Academic Decline
Emotional Issues
Behavioral Problems
The team investigates and responds to matters of concern related to
students, coordinates interventions, and makes recommendations for
further action. The team provides assistance to students through
consultation with appropriate faculty or staff, and referral to on-
campus and off-campus resources.
Areas of Focus
Concerns: through consultation with faculty, staff, and
students the team ensures appropriate information exchange and provides
support for campus personnel, and attempts to identify behaviors of
concern to provide earlier intervention.
Assessment: when additional information is needed, the
team functions as an investigative body, charged with gathering
relevant and confidential information to assess whether further action
is required.
Response: when warranted, the team makes referrals to on-
or off-campus resources. University policy, along with other legal and
regulatory requirements, guide the team's actions. The team can also
serve as a resource to educate the campus community on effective
intervention strategies when concerns arise.
Character U (First Year Experience Program)
Character U is designed to ease the transition from high school to
college and to help students develop core character values that will
set them up to succeed at DeSales and in life after college. Through
Character U, they enjoy a close relationship with a peer mentor
assigned to guide them through their first year, an instant social
group in their dedicated pod of classmates, and a variety of Character
U programing. Programming throughout the year reflects character traits
inspired by the Golden Counsels of Saint Francis de Sales. Each month,
a trait is highlighted at Character U meetings and at various events
across campus:
September: Patience
October: Trust and Cooperation
November: Perseverance
February: Love
March: Forgiveness
April: Hope
Haven
Haven is the premier online program addressing the critical issues
of sexual assault, relationship violence, stalking, and sexual
harassment--among students, faculty and staff. It was created in
collaboration with leading campus practitioners and researchers and
national thought leaders, including renowned expert Dr. Alan Berkowitz,
Haven reaches 700,000 individuals at over 650 institutions across the
country. Haven is required for all first-year students (freshmen and
transfer students) to complete and introduces and focuses on Bystander
Intervention. This empowers our students with the understanding that
DeSales University is a community that cares for all.
Solidarity Initiative
Solidarity is an action on behalf of the one human family, calling
all of us to help overcome the divisions in our world. The DeSales
Solidarity Initiative is to provide students, faculty, and staff with a
new understanding of this human family, while encouraging them to ``be
who they are and be that well.'' We inspire mutual respect, the
development of friendships, and learning about the realities of each
other's lives through compassion and patience. We commit to fostering
the ``holistic'' growth of the DeSales community by opening a dialog
and investing in the good of one's neighbor. Goals of the Solidarity
Office:
Welcome and accept all at DeSales.
Welcome, recognize, and respect cultural differences among
the student body.
Provide a comfortable environment where differences are
met with love.
Highlight those who have paved the path to equality.
Teach one how to accept/love themselves while continuing
their journey to ``holistic'' growth.
Positively DeSales
Positively DeSales is an anonymously created and run Facebook page
that was student initiated. Its goal is to spread positivity around
campus. Students, faculty, and staff can post positive words about any
other member of the campus community. Positively DeSales then posts
these words for all to see on the page. This is a wonderful way to
anonymously highlight others.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
pace (peers advising counseling educating)
In keeping with the wellness model of college health, the PACE
(Peers Advising Counseling Educating) program was born out of a need
expressed by the university for peers teaching peers how to lead
healthier lifestyles; and this remains their mission today. Following
the piece of the DeSales University's mission, ``enriching the human
community and enhancing the dignity of the individual through its
educational endeavors,'' the PACE team maintains as it vision to
emphasize personal responsibility, deep respect for others, leadership
development, and concern for the common good. Through program
development, activities, practices, and policies, PACE reinforces these
values and offers students opportunities for personal growth, self-
assessment, and success in all aspects of their lives.
PACE also works hard at enhancing our University's Character Code
through their programming:
As a member of DeSales University, I will conduct myself in a
respectful manner, with dignity and honesty, in the Salesian
tradition of humility and gentleness.
The PACE team is comprised of six students. The team includes
seniors, juniors, and sophomores. Their majors range from marriage and
family studies, psychology, communications, and biology. They represent
many leadership roles beyond PACE including, DAWG (DeSales University
Welcoming Guides), peer mentors, rugby, tutors, student government
reps, yearbook, L.E.A.D.S.U. (leadership program), etc.
As for the brief history, PACE was created in 2003/2004 with a
group of six students. Their focus was on wellness education across the
campus community. Over the years, this has grown in many ways. Through
the years, PACE has broadened its scope from programming on campus to
offering ``PACE Academy,'' a leadership course for high school
students, ``Character Quest,'' a character-based scavenger hunt for
middle school students, and ``Bully Busters,'' an anti-bullying program
for elementary school students.
In 2006, ``Character U, the First Year Experience Program'' was
launched at DeSales with each PACEr leading a group of five DSU mentors
and 50 freshmen. This led to a global initiative, ``Destination: South
Africa'' which took a group of first-year students, led by PACErs, to
do service work in South Africa. Over the years, PACE has continued to
create new programs, including expanding the Safe Spring Break
initiative, the Journey to Wellness Fair, the Walk-A-Mile In Her Shoes
(Sexual Assault Awareness Program), To Write Love on Her Arms (Suicide
Awareness Program), and on and on. Since its inception, PACE has
effectively extended its reach to elementary schools, middle schools,
secondary schools, and professional groups on campus and
internationally. In their short existence PACE grew from nothing to a
powerful, positive force on and off campus.
From its beginning, the PACE team has always had a major impact on
the campus community, particularly with the offices of Residence Life,
Student Engagement and Leadership, Dean of Students, Student Conduct,
Career Development, and Health Services. PACE currently has many
``canned'' programs, which members are willing to present at any time
and to any group on campus. All of the programs have their own unique
activities and lessons attached to them and are offered periodically
through the year. The PACErs are some of the first people that our
freshmen meet when they move to campus. The Office of Student
Engagement and Leadership (SEAL) truly values the PACE program because
they realize that peers can sometimes reach their peers better than
staff members, particularly in certain areas of education. Because of
this, SEAL requests the PACErs for several key programs throughout
freshmen orientation, including alcohol and personal safety. PACE has
impacted the campus by bringing awareness to so many important (and
sometimes forgotten topics), including alcohol, body image, nutrition,
personal safety, sexual assault, ``Mean Girl'' behavior and cyber-
bullying. There is little doubt that their energy and enthusiasm are
infectious and will pervade our community for years to come. It is
certain that the PACERs will continue to test themselves with new and
exciting programs and find ways to better reach the DeSales students
and faculty as well as the greater community. With so much accomplished
in their years of existence, the DeSales University PACE team is
certainly destined to a future of continued success in wellness
programming.
What sets PACE apart from other efforts on our campus is first, the
name that they have made for themselves. PACE has become synonymous
with genuineness, positivity, truthfulness, ``down-to-earth,'' etc.
PACE has worked very hard over the years to become a ``go to'' when a
person, or group, needs to be educated on a topic. Because they are in
a fish bowl, PACErs also work hard at living the messages that they
teach. They are just a solid, good group of students, with only the
best intentions at their very core. When they say they will do
something, they follow through. This does not mean that they do not
make mistakes every once in a while. Obviously, they do. Nobody is
perfect. But, they are willing to admit their mistakes and turn them
into something positive (which explains why their Booze Busters first
time alcohol offenders program has been so successful).
Awareness and Prevention Efforts and Programming (and Impact)
In the 2011-12 academic year, one of the PACE students created an
original program entitled, ``#sorryimnotsorry.'' This program takes a
whole different approach to cyber bullying by introducing the most
fundamental part of our education; the alphabet. The alphabet, in
itself is simply 26 letters, but when rearranged, can be used to spell
out words. The Internet has provided a new use for the alphabet,
shortening words to save time (i.e., LOL, BRB, LMAO, etc.). While these
terms might provide a humorous gesture to some, there can also be an
extreme to it. Social Networks have been providing ways to communicate
across the world, allowing us all to stay connected at all times. Cell
phones, iPads, and laptops, are all easy ways to access websites to
update Facebook, Twitter, MySpace, and more. However, the use of the
social network for its original purpose of bringing people together,
has now changed. In recent years, these ``updates'' to status have
become more of attacks on certain people, races, ethnicities, and more.
Bullying is no longer just limited to the schoolyard playground. With
technology easily available to record, capture, or send messages, cyber
bullying has no limits, and assumes it has no ``real'' victims. The
``#sorryimnotsorry'' program provides real life examples using tweets,
Facebook, and other real messages to show the severity of the issue.
The student who created this program had a strong passion for this
topic. Through several incidents that he handled as a Resident Advisor,
he knew that DeSales was impacted by cyber bullying. In researching for
his program, he realized that DeSales did not have a policy regarding
cyber bullying. As a result, he decided to take the pen to paper and
write one. This policy made its way through the correct chain of
command and was approved by the administration to be added to the 2012-
13 handbook.
Although #sorryimnotsorry was an extremely successful program which
led to new policy, the PACE team felt that they needed to take a
different approach to educating on the topics of bullying, hazing, etc.
Taking from our mission, philosophy, and heritage, PACE began to create
programming that would focus on the other bookend of the spectrum--
kindness. They chose to title their first program #happierdesales. The
following are some of the programs and initiatives that PACE created to
make a kinder and happier DeSales:
Kindness Week: #happierdesales
Imagine a world without conflict and everyone coming together. With
all of the negativity that is portrayed in the media today, it is hard
to be motivated to make a change. Bullying affects people of all ages.
From harsh words to ruthless behavior, our society has gone down a path
of not caring about other people's feelings for their own gain. Our
goal is to create a week solely dedicated to being kind to one another
through selfless acts that inspire everyone to pass on the smiles and
happiness which will promote positive behavior and a more unified
campus community.
Bullying does not go away when students enter their college years,
especially with new technology and the opportunity for cyber-bullying.
It is important to educate college communities on the types of bullying
that can occur, along with the negative effects that accompany it. In
the beginning of ``Kindness Week 2014 #happierdesales,'' students will
be flooded with information regarding the commonness of bullying and
the increasing risk for low self-esteem, depression, and suicide that
coincides with it. As the week progresses, various activities and
events will be held in order to promote kindness to combat the
negativity of bullying. The main goals in carrying out this project
include making students aware of the effects of bullying as well as
promoting kindness through the use of activities, giveaways,
programming, and events. We hope to instill a sense of positivity on
campus that will continue throughout the semester and into the future.
``Kindness Week: #happierdesales'' includes:
``Kindness Can Change the World'': An educational bullying
program to motivate students to increase kindness measures around
campus.
Tabling activities in the dining hall to promote kindness
& gratitude:
``Balloon Compliments'' where students wrote down
compliments to send to anyone they chose. These compliments were placed
in deflated balloons and placed in the recipients' mailboxes. The
recipients were instructed to blow up the balloon and then pop it to
receive their compliment. Also, PACErs walked around campus and
randomly handed out helium-filled balloons that had compliments in them
for students.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
``Random Acts of Kindness Tree'' where students wrote
down random acts of kindness that they performed or were shown to them.
These were all placed and displayed on a tree in the student union
building.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
``A Positive View'' where the DeSales community could
write positive statements and quotes on the windows in the cafeteria
for all to see.
``Consent Kisses'' where our students asked other
students if they could give them a kiss to promote consent. When they
received a ``yes,'' they handed the person two Hershey kisses . . . one
for them to keep, and one for them to give someone else.
``Flower Friday'' in which locally donated carnations
and other flowers were randomly handed out to students.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
``Write Light, Write Life''
This letter writing campaign asked the DeSales community to take a
few moments to fill out an on-line form nominating any member of the
DSU community to receive an anonymous letter of encouragement,
gratitude, etc. A day was chosen and all were invited to come and help
write the letters, which were distributed during kindness week. People
from all across campus called PACE to thank them for initiating such a
thoughtful program.
``You Are More Than Just A Like''
This program had us take a look at the emphasis we put on the
amount of ``likes'' we receive on social media. So often we feel our
self-worth depends on what people think of words or pictures we post
and tweet. Worst yet, we are devastated when negative comments are
made. This program illustrated that we are more than a like, more than
a filtered picture, and that our self-worth should only be defined by
what we know of ourselves.
``Mean Girls''
This program came about after several female students met with one
of our male PACErs regarding some ``mean girl'' behavior that was
occurring in the freshmen residence hall. There were two distinct
groups of students who were not getting along, but no one seemed to
know how it started. The male PACEr created this program at which there
was a viewing of the movie, ``Mean Girls.'' Afterward there was a
roundtable discussion about the movie and the freshmen females were
able to share their concerns in a healthy, mediated dialog.
``Digging Deeper: The Diversity of Individuality''
This program helps us realize that as humans, our individual
differences are what make us unique, special, and worthy of respect.
``No One Else Can Play My Part''
During lunch hours in the dining hall students answered the
question why ``No One Else Can Play My Part.'' The papers were later
displayed in the Student Union to show that each student's life is a
story; and the part in the story he or she plays cannot be replaced
with anyone else. On the second day, students pledged to no longer use
words such as crazy, suicidal, mental, and others in a casual or
hurtful way. When the words are now used in their proper context, the
stigma surrounding mental health illnesses can be eliminated over time.
``The Secret We All Share''
This program is presented in residence halls in lecture format to
bring awareness to the fact that 1 in 3 people will be diagnosed with a
mental health illness in his or her lifetime, but how no one talks
about this commonality, making it a secret we all share. The program
detailed the signs and symptoms of the most common mental health
illnesses and how to break the stigma surrounding them. The program
taught that the most valuable tool to breaking the stigma by talking
about mental health illness (i.e. share stories). This can be done by
having real, honest conversations and by taking the lead, as so many
celebrities have done, to speak up about a mental health illness. This
openness will start other conversations that will help to break the
stigma.
``To Write Love On Her Arms'' Open Mic Night
The event consisted of four different student performers throughout
the night. Money was raised in a raffle to benefit To Write Love on
Hers Arms (TWLOHA), which works to provide funding for mental health
research and treatment for those struggling with mental illnesses and
suicidal ideation. Between performances, the coordinating PACEr spoke
about mental health illness and suicidal ideation. Before the
entertainment began the coordinating presenter educated the students on
the purpose of the program. The student had a friend who took his life;
she wanted to do something in his memory and to raise awareness about
mental illnesses in the hope that someday suicide, as an end to
depression, might be erased. She also spoke about the signs and
symptoms of the most common mental health illnesses and the work of
TWLOHA. She shared the story of her friend's struggle with depression,
and reminded students that no matter their situation, there is hope.
During the event, students had the opportunity to write ``love'' on
their arms, write letters of thanks to their support groups of friends
and family, and to describe their greatest fears and dreams in order to
offer insight about the real, honest conversations that should be
occurring to promote openness and discussion on mental health
illnesses.
Bystander Intervention
Although this is not a formal program, PACE makes sure to always
include this concept into every program they present. They want their
peers to take as much pride and ownership in their university community
as they do.
Multi-Disciplinary Approach
PACE knows that tackling this issue is not a ``one group'' effort
but requires the efforts of the entire DeSales University community.
Therefore, PACE utilizes every opportunity to partner with as many
other offices on campus as possible. They have worked with everyone
from Student Conduct to Campus Ministry, from the Center for Service
and Social Justice, to Student Engagement and Leadership and many
others. Most often will work directly with Residence Life to provide
in-residence programs.
The ``C'' in Pace
Pace serves as peer counselors for those students who are more
comfortable talking to a peer rather than a professional counselor. In
particular, they are sure to attend as many programs as possible in
order to be able to process difficult topics with students following
speakers and presentations.
summary
DeSales University is a 50-year-old Catholic Institution grounded
in the teachings of St. Francis de Sales. In addition to its strong
academic curriculum, DeSales University also focuses on educating
students morally, socially, and spiritually through out-of-the-
classroom programming that enriches the entire human being.
In a world that has become increasingly desensitized to how we as
human beings treat others and how we perceive others who have different
beliefs, cultures, lifestyles, etc., every division within the
University's student life department is intentionally committed to
cultivating an environment based on Christian Humanism, kindness,
selflessness, tolerance, service to others, social awareness, moral
consciousness, ethical leadership, and responsibility. Through its
intentional programming, DeSales seeks to instill in its students the
personal role they play within their local and global communities.
Again, I would like to thank Chairman Alexander, Ranking Member
Murray, and members of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
Committee for this opportunity to showcase the student driven
prevention efforts of DeSales University.
Senator Murray. Thank you.
Mr. Storch.
STATEMENT OF JOSEPH STORCH, ASSOCIATE COUNSEL, THE STATE
UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK, ALBANY, NY
Mr. Storch. Thank you. Senator Kirk, Ranking Member Murray,
and members of the committee, on behalf of the State University
of New York, the largest comprehensive higher education
institution in the Nation, its Chancellor, Nancy Zimpher, and
it's General Counsel, Joseph Porter, I thank the committee for
convening this important hearing.
Fifty-five years ago next month, the Fifth Circuit issued a
seminal decision in Dixon v. Alabama requiring that public
colleges offer due process to students charged with violation.
St. John Dixon's alleged crime was that he sat in at a lunch
counter. He was dismissed with no hearing and no process, and
the court said that just won't do. Forty-four years ago last
month, this Congress added title IX to the education amendments
of 1972, and the law that became the Clery Act recently turned
25.
In the decades since, we have learned much, and much has
changed. Students charged with violations receive robust due
process, including notice of charges and an opportunity to be
heard, at a level unimaginable five decades ago. The Clery
Act's attention to crime on campus has led to a complete
overhaul such that our students are far safer on campus than in
the surrounding communities. Congress and the Department of
Education have drawn attention to sexual and interpersonal
violence and other violence and the need for colleges to
respond robustly.
But there is far more work to be done. We like to say that
the best response to bullying, hazing, and other violence is
when you don't need to respond at all since it didn't happen in
the first place. While a trauma-informed, balanced response
with clear neutral policies and due process are important, SUNY
was most excited by this Congress' shift in the Violence
Against Women Act's amendments to Clery to require significant
prevention work, not just at orientation but at a campaign
across the year.
Traditionally, the Clery Act and title IX guidance looked
backward: respond to violations, report them, count them, warn
of past crimes. Congress in VAWA said institutions must look
forward: prevent.
But at SUNY, we went farther than VAWA. While VAWA requires
that training be offered to all students, at SUNY, we require
that our student leaders and our student athletes complete
training before they can compete in intercollegiate athletics
or before their club or organization can be registered or
recognized. Why? Because we think that they're more likely to
be offenders? Because we think that they're more likely to be
victims? No. Because we think they're most likely to be leaders
and leaders who could model pro-social behavior to their fellow
students.
We partnered with the Department of Health to offer Green
Dot and Bringing in the Bystander training to all SUNY
campuses. We worked closely with the New York State Police, the
Office of Campus Safety, and the State Coalitions Against
Sexual Assault and Domestic Violence to develop cutting edge
programs for response and prevention.
We take threat assessment and behavioral analysis seriously
and have trained with the FBI and U.S. Marshals to help us
appropriately identify and respond to student threats before
violence occurs. SUNY partnered with New York's Governor Cuomo
who took SUNY policies and proposed them as laws across the
State. Now, all New York college students have those same
protections.
As a public institution, we spent significant resources
training on constitutional due process, including model
policies, live trainings, and webinars. In every case, we
strive for a fair and equitable process.
But like anything 25 years old, some minor repairs to the
Clery Act are in order. While Congress has appropriately added
additional requirements for colleges, it hasn't cleaned up ones
that are no longer effective or whose bureaucracy outweighs its
effectiveness. Make no mistake. SUNY wants to do more to
prevent bullying, hazing, and other violence. We just want to
do it more effectively.
Ultimately, there is much good work to be done on college
campuses. But to be effective, training and prevention of
bullying, hazing, and other violence must begin long before
college orientation. Students form their habits and
interpersonal norms in high school or middle school, and
colleges sometimes fight an uphill battle to change those
views.
Further, many high school students will graduate or not
graduate and never attend college and never have access to the
protections that only apply in the Higher Education Act. But we
believe they still need education, and that education must take
place earlier.
SUNY hears and actively embraces the call to provide the
best tools, resources, and services to protect our students
from campus violence and support them in the event that an
incident occurs. In all the areas described in this oral and my
written testimony, we in higher education and the Congress are
moving in the right direction, but there is more work to be
done.
We're not afraid of taking on tough challenges. But we want
to address these issues in ways that are proven with evidence
to make a real difference in the lives of our students so that
the next 25 years of college attendees will be even safer than
the last 25 years, which, with your work, were even safer than
the 25 years before that.
Thank you for the deep honor of addressing this committee.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Storch follows:]
Prepared Statement of Joseph Storch
summary
SUNY is the Nation's largest comprehensive public university
system, with nearly 500,000 students at 64 institutions, including
community colleges, technology colleges, comprehensive colleges, and
doctoral degree granting universities. SUNY exhibits a strong
commitment to ensuring student safety, and strongly supports the
Senate's efforts to prioritize this issue.
Bullying and hazing have significant negative impact on our
students. SUNY works diligently on training, policies, and methods to
cut down on bullying and hazing and to quickly respond when it does
occur (including partnering with national and State groups). But as
with sexual and interpersonal violence, education and cultural change
must begin earlier. Bullying is all but free, but responding is cost-
prohibitive. Since a high percentage of bullying occurs through digital
and social media, Congress should examine the Communications Decency
Act and consider empowering victims through a notice and takedown, with
review provision for harmful bullying content posted online, that
balances protected speech with protections against defamation.
While the Clery Act and Title IX guidance traditionally looked
backward toward response and reporting, the Violence Against Women Act
amendments require colleges to look forward and train in preventing
incidents before they occur. SUNY applauds Congress' shift toward
robust prevention requirements.
SUNY proudly partnered with New York State Governor Andrew M. Cuomo
to develop Education Law 129-B which, in addition to the most
comprehensive response requirements of any State, builds upon the VAWA
prevention shift to require that, while programming is offered to all
new and continuing students (as VAWA requires), student-athletes and
leaders must complete prevention training. In this way, campus leaders
will be well trained to model positive behavior to their fellow
students. Additionally, working with State and national partners, we
have provided many live and webinar trainings on response and
prevention, including partnering with the Department of Health to
provide each SUNY campus with a choice of Green Dot or Bringing in the
Bystander/Know Your Power training.
SUNY has proudly worked with members and staff in the Senate and
House on common-sense amendments to the Clery Act to clarify confusing
elements and add additional requirements that will bring forward more
reports, address reports in a balanced but serious manner, and provide
meaningful sanctions for violators.
But to meaningfully reduce violence, education must begin long
before college. Attitudes and interpersonal norms begin and become
reinforced in high school and middle school, we cannot succeed if
training to change these habits begins at college. Requiring earlier
education will reduce violence at colleges and provide vital education
for those who don't go to college.
______
The State University of New York,
Office of General Counsel,
Albany, NY 12246,
July 11, 2016.
Hon. Lamar Alexander, Chairman,
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC 20510.
Hon. Patty Murray, Ranking Member,
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC 20510.
Re: Campus Safety: Improving Prevention and Response Efforts
Dear Chairman Alexander, Ranking Member Murray, and members of the
committee: On behalf of The State University of New York (SUNY), I
thank the committee for convening this important hearing on Campus
Safety: Improving Prevention and Response Efforts. SUNY is the Nation's
largest comprehensive public university system, with nearly half a
million students at 64 campuses, including community colleges,
technology colleges, comprehensive colleges, and doctoral degree-
granting universities. Indeed, SUNY is a microcosm of the national
higher education sector. As such, this testimony stems from the
system's extensive experience in creating policies that both fit the
needs of diverse institutions and support system-wide objectives.
As an Associate Counsel in the Office of General Counsel for the
SUNY system, I view campus safety issues through the laws that govern
institutions of higher education, which are primarily the Higher
Education Act (including the Clery Act), Title IX, and State and local
laws that apply to campuses. We play a central role in interpreting
what the law means for students, faculty and staff, on the 64 campuses
within the SUNY system.
While this hearing will focus on campus safety, I will concentrate
my comments on the prevention of and response to violence on college
campuses, a field that has been my professional focus and is essential
for campus safety. SUNY has an unwavering commitment to ensuring
student safety, and we strongly support the Senate's efforts to make
this issue a national priority, as we have done in New York State. We
were proud to work with New York's Governor and legislature to develop
the Nation's most comprehensive State law addressing interpersonal
violence on campus.
Reducing and Preventing Bullying and Hazing: Bullying and hazing
have significant negative impacts on our students. SUNY has worked hard
on training, policies, and methods to cut down on bullying and hazing
and to quickly respond when it does occur. On SUNY campuses, we train
our student groups, deal seriously with those who engage in hazing and
bullying, and treat multiple violations with the utmost gravity. But as
with prevention and response to sexual and interpersonal violence,
colleges need this education and cultural change to begin earlier.
Ideas and ideals are ingrained in children long before they start
taking college admissions tours. A casual glance at television shows,
news media, and social media shows bullying and defamation proceeding
at a breathless pace. Institutions can best address bullying if
Congress requires educational changes that occur earlier in students'
lives.
SUNY has engaged campus leadership at different levels to address
bullying and hazing. SUNY has a number of ``role-alike'' groups where
Title IX Coordinators, various student affairs professionals, and many
others from the same position within a campus will meet to cross-train
and develop best practices. Many of these meetings have focused on
bullying and hazing, the need to respond appropriately to protect
victims and witnesses while seriously addressing allegations. Where we
can, we have engaged New York State and national partners (for
instance, conducting a training with the FBI and U.S. Marshalls) to
learn and implement best practices.
As a high percentage of bullying occurs through digital and social
media, Congress should look at the role of the Communications Decency
Act in providing immunity to providers for content that they do not
create (a good idea) while not requiring them to temporarily take down
and review harmful content when they receive a notification (a bad
idea). Some victims of online and social media bullying can afford
expensive attorneys and investigators to act against their bullies;
most cannot. The cost of bullying is all but free; the cost of fighting
back is prohibitive. Congress may wish to consider a system similar to
the notice and takedown provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright
Act, allowing a victim to notify a website about defamatory material,
then have that material temporarily removed and analyzed to ensure that
it is defamatory and not protected speech, and either kept off or
returned to the site. Some companies are, by necessity, already
reviewing comments or prohibiting anonymous commenting. Congress can
require or promote consistency in a way that balances speech with
preventing brutal bullying and defamation online.
The Clery Act, which turned a quarter century late last year, has
traditionally aimed at reporting, and in recent years responding to,
certain crimes that occur in certain designated geographic locations.
Congress changed that focus in 2013 adding the new requirements to
count and classify gender-based violent crimes, and focus on
prevention, training, and education, long a hallmark of our own
programming. Although we had devoted resources and time to prevention
in the past, the legislative shift has given SUNY access to
partnerships and new ideas as colleges and community organizations
devote more resources and attention to prevention. SUNY takes the
issues of harassment and discrimination, including sexual violence,
extremely seriously. We believe that this focus has allowed SUNY to
emerge as a leader, providing resources to students. We partner with
national, State, and local organizations, as well as colleges and
universities across the country, to advance our mission of ending
violence on campus.
Title IX and its implementing regulations prohibit discrimination
based on sex. Alongside other civil rights law, this has been read to
include gender-based violence and peer harassment based on race, color,
sex, national origin, or disability. Several of these behaviors are
common forms of bullying or hazing. The Department of Education (ED)
Office for Civil Rights has issued guidance to colleges and
universities to provide clarity around the law, and ensure it is
enforced properly, guiding campuses to limit the effects of violence
and prevent its recurrence. In other words, at least traditionally,
both the Clery Act and title IX guidance looked backward: respond to
violence, count it, report it. There were some minor calls for
training, but both laws were primarily reactive, not proactive, to
violence.
Shifting From Response to Prevention: Truth be told, SUNY does not
want to be a leader in developing programs, processes, and trainings to
respond to violence; rather, we look to the day when our dedicated
professionals have no violence to respond to. That, quite simply, is
our goal. As colleges progressively do a better job of notifying
students how to report violence, reports will increase, flooding the
offices assigned and requiring additional resources.\1\ If we are ever
to reduce reports, it will have to be through reducing violence by
shifting to a regime of prevention training. That, in turn, will
require additional resources and emphasis on the issue from the top
down. Without such resources, reports will stay high even as violence
stays high. The graph below exemplifies this curve:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Joseph Storch, Sexual Violence: Responding to Reports Is Not
Enough, INSIDE HIGHER ED, https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2016/03/
14/colleges-must-not-only-respond-reports-sexual-violence-also-prevent-
it-essay (Mar. 14, 2016).
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
To bend that curve, colleges must continually look ``upstream,'' as
shown in the graphic below. Good work after the incident occurs is not
enough. We must strive to take ``water'' out of the ``stream'' in the
form of fewer incidents that necessitate responses.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT
In 2015, SUNY continued its partnership with the New York State
Department of Health, working together to provide each SUNY campus with
a choice of Green Dot or Bringing in the Bystander/Know Your Power
training at no cost to the SUNY attendees. Hundreds were trained in one
program or both. In addition, SUNY has a strong relationship with the
One Love Foundation, with thousands of administrators, faculty, and
students trained using their dating violence prevention curriculum.
Students have been moved by the program and it has caused them to
question how they would help a friend in a violent relationship. The
SUNY Athletic Conference (SUNYAC) decided to take a leadership role in
dating violence prevention, and SUNYAC student-athletes have undergone
several trainings and engaged in programming on their campuses. In
April 2017, the student-athletes will lead a conference-wide single day
event that will raise awareness of dating violence amongst tens of
thousands of students.
New York Education Law 129-B: In October 2014, New York State
Governor Andrew M. Cuomo met with the SUNY Board of Trustees about
sexual assault on campus, and the Board passed a resolution that would
``establish a comprehensive, system-wide, uniform set of sexual assault
prevention and response practices at SUNY campuses, which can be a
model for colleges and universities across the State and the Nation.''
\2\ SUNY Chancellor Nancy L. Zimpher, a leader on this issue, convened
a working group \3\ comprised of campus presidents, counsel, student
life leadership, title IX coordinators, University police and public
safety representatives, students, faculty, and nationally recognized
external experts to take five-dozen very good policies and develop a
single cutting-edge set of policies. In fewer than 60 days, the group
ably fulfilled its mandate, and as of December 1, 2014, those policies
began to roll out on campus. Governor Cuomo soon took SUNY's policies
to the next level, proposing them as State law. After extensive,
valuable input from victim advocates, students, private and public
colleges, and other experts, the bills passed nearly unanimously, and
Education Law 129-B \4\ was enacted. This practice and the resulting
law, can be a model for colleges and universities, and key stakeholders
to come together and improve campus safety prevention and response on
broader issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ http://www.suny.edu/about/leadership/board-of-trustees/
meetings/webcastdocs/Sexual%20
Assault%20Response%20and%20Prevention %20REVISED-Merged.pdf.
\3\ http://system.suny.edu/sexual-violence-prevention-workgroup/.
\4\ https://www.ny.gov/programs/enough-enough-combating-sexual-
assault-college-campuses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prevention and Response Webinar Series: SUNY co-produces a webinar
series \5\ with the New York State Department of Health, New York State
Office for the Prevention of Domestic Violence, the New York State
Coalition Against Sexual Assault, and the New York State Coalition
Against Domestic Violence to provide training in prevention and
response. Webinars are open to colleges, community partners, and
government agencies. Topics include explaining title IX to beginners,
cultivating a peer-educator program, efficiently educating members of
Greek letter organizations, developing different types of campus-wide
violence-prevention campaigns, de-mystifying the sexual assault
forensic exam, addressing sexual and interpersonal violence in study-
abroad settings, reaching out to nightlife establishments to partner in
violence prevention, a conversation with Missoula author Jon Krakauer,
and many more. Webinars are offered completely free of cost and can
create a strong sense of community for students by helping raise
awareness and educating students.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ http://system.suny.edu/sexual-violence-prevention-workgroup/
training/webinars/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sworn Law Enforcement and Local Law Enforcement Memoranda of
Understanding: SUNY campuses have title IX coordinators, professionals
responsible for Clery Act compliance and training, and trained
counselors. State-operated colleges have sworn law enforcement:
University Police officers who train alongside local law enforcement
but also have at least 60 college credits prior to starting their role.
University Police are knowledgeable and recognized in their field,
trained in community policing and trauma-informed response. SUNY
campuses maintain MOUs with local law enforcement regarding response to
crimes of violence and other matters. SUNY has a strong relationship
with the New York State Police, and we routinely partner on initiatives
to promote safety on campus and in the community.
Training: In recent years, SUNY conducted hundreds of general and
specialized trainings for campus personnel in complying with the Higher
Education Act (including the Clery Act as amended by VAWA), title IX,
and New York Education Law 129-B, and in going beyond these laws to
best serve students. Some live trainings have drawn hundreds of
participants. Audience members have included University and campus
leadership, administrators, faculty, and students.
In the months after Congress reauthorized the Violence Against
Women Act amending the Clery Act, SUNY worked diligently to advise
negotiated rulemakers on relevant issues, and to develop guidance and
training for SUNY professionals and others in higher education
(including several national live trainings and webinars). ED issued its
proposed regulations on June 19, 2014. On June 26 and July 9, SUNY
conducted two live trainings for over 250 SUNY professionals on how to
comply with the law and regulations (even though the regulations were
not to take effect until the next summer). The training team wrote a
93-page guidance document \6\ in the 1-week before the first training
and, following the trainings, SUNY made the guidance free and public;
it was shared by several national higher education groups and has since
been accessed over 30,000 times. SUNY is partnering with the City
University of New York and with State agencies and community
organizations to develop cutting-edge prevention resources and
trainings. We would like to make them available to the higher education
and larger communities, in order to maximize the impact on campus
safety. In the years to come, with the support of Congress, we could do
even more to reduce violence before it occurs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ http://system.suny.edu/media/suny/content-assets/documents/
generalcounsel/SUNY-VAWA-Guidance-2014.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amendments to the Clery Act: SUNY works diligently to comply with
the Clery Act and related obligations. We have been privileged to work
with members and staff in the House and Senate--from both parties--on
amendments to the law that will allow colleges to comply more
efficiently. While some minor changes can ease compliance, below are
several major changes Congress could enact to make compliance more
effectual, permitting institutions to devote time saved to prevention
education:
Clarify Clery geography: ED has given conflicting guidance
regarding how and where to count crimes when students study abroad.
This has led to confusion and high compliance cost. In their most
recent guidance,\7\ ED writes that if a college rents hotel rooms for
one night, they do not count for Clery, unless two different groups use
that same hotel for one different night each in 1 year; two nights
would count, but only if there are certain agreements in place, and
only for the days the college has ``control,'' and colleges would only
count crimes in the students' rooms, hallways, and public areas. A
student killed in a non-student hotel room would not be reportable, a
non-student killed in the hotel pool would be reportable. A heinous
triple homicide occurring 3 days before students arrive would not be
reportable, nor would the same crime occurring on the sidewalk just
outside the hotel. And even if colleges are able to organize and count
all covered trips taken by study abroad, academic programs, athletics,
and certain student organizations, ED would have the college combine
those statistics with certain crimes occurring at certain off-campus
student organization houses (mostly Greek letter organizations) that
have little or nothing to do with these trips. This leads to confusion
and very costly compliance, while there is no evidence that it makes
students safer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ https://www..ed.gov/admins/lead/safety/handbook.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clarify Local Law Enforcement Letters for Study Abroad: ED
requires that colleges write to local law enforcement for every
jurisdiction that includes Clery geography. This means that for the
hundreds (even thousands) of hotels, classrooms and other sites that
must be included in Clery geography under ED's June 2016
interpretation, institutions must write detailed letters to local law
enforcement asking them to report certain crimes using United States
Uniform Crime Reporting definitions, in certain pinpoint locations and
only for certain days. Unfortunately, this has simply become an
exercise in futility, as international police agencies rarely respond
with useful numbers. ED audits against what letters are sent, and a
college could run afoul by not having sent a specific letter (even if
no answer would ever be received). Institutions are spending
significant time and resources developing and mailing letters that bear
no fruit. Further, sending letters asking about sexual assault and
dating violence to certain localities puts our students in more danger.
To date, ED has declined to allow for an exception where college
professionals have a good faith belief that such letters will endanger
our students.
Policy Statements: ED insists that the Annual Security
Report include full policy statements and (with a single exception)
does not allow colleges to link to the relevant policies. That leads to
longer reports which are less likely to be read. Congress could offer
flexibility to educate students efficiently, including links to
relevant documents.
Campus Security Authorities and Responsible Employees:
ED's Federal Student Aid office has defined ``Campus Security
Authority'' in a manner that differs significantly from ED's Office for
Civil Rights definition of ``Responsible Employee.'' \8\ Institutions
scramble to determine what employees meet the definition of one, the
other, or both. Further, the language used in both terms is confusing.
SUNY has suggested combining both concepts into a single new term
called ``Mandatory Reporter'' and defining that term broadly. As a
matter of policy and in practice, we want more reports of crime to come
forward, and Mandatory Reporter is a term that has a clear meaning and
societal understanding. Except for those with legal privilege or
confidentiality restrictions (including medical, mental health, legal,
or religious professionals), all compensated employees should be
mandatory reporters who must, as soon as reasonably practicable, report
all crimes covered by the law to the appropriate office or offices as
determined by the institution. Reporting to the title IX coordinator
would meet this requirement. This will result in more crimes being
brought forward (and higher but more accurate numbers reported), more
consistency in reporting, and the ability of institutions to offer a
blanket training to employees, rather than spending significant time
identifying and narrowly training certain employees as Campus Security
Authorities, others as Responsible Employees, and still others as both.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ http://system.suny.edu/media/suny/content-assets/documents/
compliance/Crime-and-
Incident-Reporting-Guidelines-for-CSAs-and-Responsible-Employees-
FINAL.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reduce double counting of crimes: ED has earnestly tried
to ensure that all crimes are reported and do not fall through the
cracks. Over time, it has modified its use of the Uniform Crime
Reporting hierarchy rule, such that certain incidents are double or
triple counted or more. The undersigned has identified an example of a
single incident that would be counted close to three dozen times for
Clery Act purposes. Over-counting crimes provides students with no more
of an honest report than under-counting of crimes. SUNY therefore has
suggested that crimes be reported once in the most appropriate
category, and that colleges retain documentation for their decisions.
Modernize missing student reporting: ED, while trying in
good faith to develop a method to comply with this 2008 addition,
created a complex and confusing regime for reporting missing on-campus
students (the ED 2016 Handbook devotes seven pages and more than 2,000
words to complying with its current system). SUNY suggests a return to
the plain congressional intent. The requirement can simply read:
``if a student is reported missing for 24 hours, within the
next 18 hours, the college must contact local law enforcement,
the student's emergency contact, and the student's parents, if
under 18.''
This will accomplish the important goals (which we firmly support)
without adding unhelpful bureaucratic requirements.
new additions to the clery act
Double down on prevention: As stated earlier, SUNY
applauds Congress' 2013 shift from response only to response and
prevention. And at SUNY and in New York, we have gone further. While
programming is offered to all new and continuing students, we require
that student leaders and student-athletes complete training. This is
not because we believe they are more likely to be victims or offenders;
rather, it is because we believe they are most likely to be leaders on
campus. By training leaders who can model pro-social behavior, we can
efficiently educate an entire campus.
Transcript notations: New York State law requires uniform
transcript notations for students found responsible and suspended or
expelled after a student conduct process for conduct code violations
that are equivalent to Clery Act Primary Crimes. Institutions to which
the student transfers are not prohibited from admitting the student,
but are on notice of past violations and can request additional
documentation under FERPA. While New York colleges provide notations
for students transferring out, they do not benefit from notations for
students transferring in from out-of-state. A uniform standard will
allow colleges to consider admitting students with full knowledge of
past transgressions.
Amnesty: SUNY supports adding a plain-language amnesty
from drug or alcohol use charges to encourage reporting and reduce the
fear of a victim or bystander that they will get in trouble, not the
person who committed the violence. SUNY's amnesty policy became law in
New York and states:
``A bystander acting in good faith or a reporting individual
acting in good faith that discloses any incident of domestic
violence, dating violence, stalking, or sexual assault to
[College/University] officials or law enforcement will not be
subject to [College/University's] code of conduct action for
violations of alcohol and/or drug use policies occurring at or
near the time of the commission of the domestic violence,
dating violence, stalking, or sexual assault.''
Training Must Begin Before College: SUNY firmly believes that
colleges and universities must play a major role in the effort to
prevent violence, including bullying, hazing, harassment, and sexual
and interpersonal violence, and must respond appropriately to any
violence that does occur, but the process cannot succeed if it begins
at college orientation. While title IX applies equally to elementary,
secondary, and postsecondary education, the Clery Act as a part of the
Higher Education Act does not apply to elementary and secondary
schools. This is not to say that the entire reporting regime of the law
must be applied to high schools, but requiring prevention education
elements earlier will go a long way toward reducing violence on college
campuses. Many young people develop their habits and interpersonal
norms during high school or even middle school. By the time they arrive
at college, some of those (mis)understandings are deeply ingrained and
colleges fight an uphill battle to change their minds. Earlier
education will prepare them for the additional training at college, and
help to lower incidents of violence that occur before the student ever
sets foot on a college campus.
Further, the large number of high school students who graduate (or
do not graduate) and never attend college do not benefit from the
response, reporting, or newer prevention elements of the Clery Act.
Their apartment complex will not issue an Annual Security Report, they
will not receive Timely Warnings of dangerous crimes, and they will not
be taught the elements of consent and how to prevent sexual and
interpersonal violence. These young people are at equal or greater risk
of committing or becoming victims of these crimes, but the law does not
reach them. While Congress may have difficulty legislating the response
and reporting elements of the Clery Act for private landowners, by
requiring more, better, and earlier training and education in consent,
bystander intervention, and other elements required by VAWA, we will
have a fighting chance of keeping all young people safe, whether or not
they attend college.
Congress should consider funding for institutions to partner with
school districts to develop and implement training that is research
based, creative, and consistent across the students' time in middle
school, high school, and college. By taking advantage of scale,
targeted funding toward such partnerships can significantly reduce
incidents of violence in college, before college, and for students who
will never attend college.
conclusion
In 2016-17, SUNY will conduct a University-wide climate survey on
all campuses. It will be the largest such survey conducted anywhere in
our Nation to date. We will conduct the survey every 2 years, and
thereby gather data that, in coordination with State and national
partners, will help us understand what works and what doesn't work in
reducing violence, so that we can turn those lessons into more
effective training and policy. SUNY Chancellor Zimpher is well known
for saying we need real data to know what works. This climate survey,
in addition to our work with State and national partners on research
into effectiveness of different programming, will aid colleges and
universities across the Nation in addressing violence on campus.
SUNY hears and actively embraces the national call for providing
the best tools, resources, and services to protect our students from
campus violence and support them in the event that an incident occurs.
We must, in short, get down to the business of making our campuses as
safe as possible while ensuring more accountability and transparency.
In all of the areas described throughout my testimony, we are moving in
the right direction, but there is much more work to be done. We are not
afraid of taking on tough challenges, but we want to address these
issues in ways that are proven to make a real difference in the lives
of our students. Thank you for the honor of addressing this committee.
Sincerely,
Joseph Storch, Associate Counsel,
The State University of New York.
Senator Murray. Thank you very much.
Ms. Clementi.
STATEMENT OF JANE CLEMENTI, CO-FOUNDER, THE TYLER CLEMENTI
FOUNDATION, NEW YORK, NY
Ms. Clementi. Thank you, Senator Murray and esteemed
members of the HELP Committee. I am grateful for the
opportunity to share my son, Tyler Clementi's, story today with
you with the hope that you will learn from our family's pain, a
family that is not very different than some of your own. Maybe
we could even be your neighbors or your friends. I certainly
think that we could be your voters and your constituency,
because everywhere I go, I hear people that relate to some part
of Tyler's story.
As a family, we are like most families. We once had many
hopes and dreams, especially for our children. We are very
private and simple, and we enjoyed the simple pleasures of
spending as much family time together as we could, whether at
home in Ridgewood in the beautiful garden State of New Jersey
or as we traveled on vacation.
Our family consists of my husband, Joseph, who is a civil
engineer by education; myself, a registered nurse; my oldest
son, James, who graduated from Skidmore College in 2009 and
works full time for the Tyler Clementi Foundation; my middle
son, Brian, who graduated from Cornell University in 2010 and
is a mechanical engineer, a thermal dynamic specialist; and my
youngest son, Tyler, who graduated Ridgewood High School in
June 2010.
Tyler was a very kind, caring, and thoughtful young man. He
had a great sense of humor and a cheerful, easy-going
disposition. He always had a great smile on his face. He always
woke up with this huge smile, as if to welcome the day and say,
``I can do anything today. Today is a day with many great
possibilities, many great opportunities.''
He was also very, very creative and very smart and curious.
He liked to explore and investigate, and he especially liked to
travel. He was very full of life and energy and lots of ideas.
Tyler had many interests in his short life, as most children do
as they go through many phases and stages. But his one true
passion was music. He was an accomplished and gifted violinist.
Tyler was very special and precious to us. But he was
unknown to the world until September 2010, when he made
national headlines. Shortly after he started his freshman year
at Rutgers University, Tyler's roommate web-cammed him in a
live stream of him in a sexual encounter with another man. And
then Tyler's roommate tweeted about Tyler's encounter, inviting
many others to come and join in and watch, inviting them into a
very private personal moment.
I can only imagine that these bullying actions by his
roommate must have humiliated Tyler in front of his new dorm
mates. He must have even thought, maybe, possibly, that his
sexual orientation was something to be laughed at or ashamed
of. At this point, Tyler's reality became very twisted and
distorted. Tyler could no longer see how special and precious
he was, and he could not even see or find the support and
resources that he had available to him.
Tyler became totally consumed and only concerned about the
words of people who were out there trying only to humiliate
him. These bullying actions must have caused Tyler to feel
isolated, alone, worthless, and so very desperate, because it
was at this point that Tyler made a decision that we can never
change or undo. On September 22, 2010, Tyler died by suicide.
He was 18 years old.
Tyler made a decision that we can never change or correct,
a decision that not only affected Tyler, but also our entire
family and many others who knew and loved him. We will forever
be missing a part of our family. Our family will never be whole
again, and the simple pleasures of family time together are not
simple anymore. Every holiday and special family event is
unbearable and incomplete because Tyler is missing, and a part
of us is missing.
As much as we would like to go back and change Tyler's
actions, the reality is we can't. Instead, we have decided to
move forward and work to change the mindsets and attitudes of
people who think that the actions of setting up a camera or
sending out tweets that say ``come and join in and watch the
show'' are acceptable, because those are not acceptable
actions. This is why my husband, Joe, and I started the Tyler
Clementi Foundation to put an end to all online and offline
bullying in schools, workplaces, and faith communities.
As an organization, the Tyler Clementi Foundation has
initiated several awareness programs based on Tyler's story, as
well as partnerships to provide anti-bullying research,
information, and tools for youth, parents, and youth-serving
professionals. Our Day One Campaign is a simple, innovative,
research-based, and effective intervention designed to prevent
bullying before it happens. Day One Campaign creates a safe,
inclusive atmosphere within a community where everyone is
embraced, not despite their differences, but because of their
differences. We are also committed to turn bystanders into
upstanders, a person who speaks up when they see someone being
humiliated or bullied.
I am not sure why Tyler's story attracted so much
attention. But one thing I have learned is that it is not an
isolated occurrence. Everywhere I go, people share with me how
they connected to some part of Tyler's story, maybe not the
exact situation, but some part of the circumstances as well as
the emotional toll that Tyler must have experienced.
Research shows that over 3.2 million students report that
they have been a victim of some form of bullying every year,
and that number is astronomical and unacceptable. This is not a
rite of passage or simply kids being kids. This is a public
health threat.
But don't be deceived also by thinking that bullying only
occurs in school age children or that it is something that is
less serious than it truly is, because bullying behaviors do
not magically disappear at a certain age. It can and will
continue into adulthood unless there are behavior
modifications, and bullying behaviors are serious and can
sometimes rise to the level of criminal hazing, harassment,
invasion of privacy, and/or stalking. And to my knowledge, at
this point in time, there are no Federal laws that address the
full effects of bullying behaviors or promotes any type of
prevention measures.
I do believe that every classroom and institution of higher
education can and should be a safe place to learn and thrive.
But in order for that to happen, we need Federal legislation to
help create safe campus climates for all students in higher
education across the country. It is my urge today that I really
would love to ask you to include the Tyler Clementi Higher
Education Anti-harassment Act in the reauthorization of the
Higher Education Act.
The Tyler Clementi Higher Education Act would include
initiatives to expand and improve programs to prevent
harassment of students, as well as counseling for targets and
perpetrators and training for faculty, staff, and students.
Book knowledge is important, but the wisdom of empathy and
compassion is priceless, and empathy is one of the best tools
that we have to make the world a better place.
So the time is now to create safe spaces for all young
adults to learn and thrive in our higher education system,
because we can't let Tyler's story continue to repeat itself.
Action must be taken now, because we have already seen far too
many Tylers already.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Clementi follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jane Clementi
summary
In September 2010, my son Tyler Clementi made national headlines.
Not for his musical gifts or his thoughtful kindness but because of a
decision he made following an incident of cyber harassment/bullying. He
had just started his freshmen year at Rutgers University, when he was
web-cammed by his roommate while engaging in a sexual encounter with
another man. His roommate then tweeted about Tyler's encounter inviting
many others to join in and watch. Announcing to the entire world a very
personal moment that should have remained just that, a private
encounter. At this point Tyler's reality became twisted and distorted,
as he became consumed with and only concerned about the words of people
who were interested only in humiliating him. He could not see how
special and precious he was or find the resources and support that was
available to him. Because it was at this point that Tyler made a
decision that we can never change or undo. On September 22, 2010 Tyler
died by suicide. He was 18 years old.
Tyler's situation and the end result may have been the extreme, but
it is important to remember that no matter what the immediate outcome,
all bullying and harassment hurts and almost always leaves painful
physical and emotional scars, which can sometimes last a life time. The
painful physical and emotional effects of bullying can manifest with
emotional distress leading to self-harming behaviors such as alcohol
and drug use and/or abuse, cutting, unprotected sex, anxiety, low self-
esteem, depression and suicidal ideation. It can also interfere in
productivity and attendance at school and work.
I am not sure why Tyler's story attracted so much attention but one
thing I have learned is it is not an isolated occurrence. Everywhere I
go people share how they connect to some part of Tyler's story, maybe
not the exact situation but some part of his circumstances as well as
the emotional toll that Tyler must have experienced. Over 3.2 million
students report that they have been the victim of some form of bullying
every year, that number is astronomical and unacceptable. This is not a
rite of passage or simply kids being kids, this is a public health
threat.
Our personal response has been to create the Tyler Clementi
Foundation, which is working to put an end to all online and offline
bullying in schools, workplaces and faith communities. As an
organization, The Tyler Clementi Foundation has initiated several
awareness programs based on Tyler's story as well as partnerships to
provide anti-bullying research, information and tools for youth,
parents and youth serving professionals.
Our Day One Campaign is a simple, innovative, research-based and
effective intervention designed to prevent bullying before it happens.
Day One Campaign creates a safe inclusive atmosphere within a community
where everyone is embraced not despite their differences but because of
their differences. We are also committed to turn bystanders into
``Upstanders.'' A person who speaks up when they see someone being
harassed, intimidated or bullied.
I believe that every classroom and institution of higher education
can and should be a safe place to learn and thrive but in order for
that to happen we need Federal legislation to help create safe campus
climates for all students in higher education across the country.
I urge you to include The Tyler Clementi Higher Education Anti-
Harassment Act in the reauthorization of the higher education act. The
Tyler Clementi Higher Education Anti-Harassment Act would:
1. Initiate, expand and/or improve programs that prevent the
harassment of students.
2. Provide counseling to targets and perpetrators.
3. Train and educate students, faculty and staff about ways to
prevent or address harassment.
4. Promote ongoing research as to what is the best methods to
combat this epidemic.
I believe this bill will allow institutions of higher education to
take a fresh look and reexamine their policies and procedures that are
and are not in place. In addition this legislation is your opportunity
to not only keep our own young adults safe but to also have a global
influence as many students come from all over the world to study at our
fine institutions of higher education. Book knowledge is important but
the wisdom of empathy and compassion is priceless.
Bullying does not magically disappear when someone turns 18. We
must continue to provide safe and supportive learning environments for
all students in all learning environments including higher education.
The time is now, we can't let Tyler's story continue to repeat itself.
Action must be taken now because there have been far too many Tyler's
already. Thank you.
______
Chairman Alexander, Ranking Member Murray and the esteemed members
of the HELP Committee, thank you for the opportunity to share my son,
Tyler Clementi's story today. I hope you will learn from his
experiences and allow his story to motivate you to create safe spaces
in our higher education system, so that no other young person will ever
have to experience or endure the pain, hurt, shame and humiliation that
Tyler endured.
tyler's story
We were and are a very private and quiet family, who like many
families once had many hopes and dreams, especially for our children.
We enjoyed the simple pleasures of spending as much family time
together as we could, whether at home in Ridgewood, NJ or traveling on
vacation. Our family consists of my husband, Joseph who is a civil
engineer by education, myself a registered nurse, James my oldest son
who graduated from Skidmore College in May 2009 and now works for The
Tyler Clementi Foundation, Brian our middle son who graduated from
Cornell University in May 2010 and is a mechanical engineer, and our
youngest son Tyler, who graduated Ridgewood High School in June 2010.
Our youngest son Tyler was a loving son, a kind and caring brother,
a thoughtful friend, and a compassionate young man. He had a great
sense of humor and a cheerful easy going disposition. He always woke up
with a smile on his face. A warm welcoming smile that seemed to
announce that the new day was going to be good no matter what came
along. Tyler was also very creative, smart and curious. He loved to
investigate, explore and travel. He was so full of life and energy.
Tyler had many interests in his short life, as most children do, as
they move through different phases and stages. But Tyler's one special
love that remained constant was music. He was a gifted musician and his
instrument of choice was the violin. He was an accomplished violinist.
Tyler was very special and precious to us, his family, but he was
unknown to the world until the fall of 2010 when he made national
headlines. He had just started his freshmen year at Rutgers University.
Tyler's roommate web-cammed Tyler in a sexual encounter with another
man and then Tyler's roommate tweeted about Tyler's encounter inviting
many others to join in and watch, announcing to the entire world a very
personal moment that should have remained just that, a private
encounter.
I can only imagine that these bullying actions by his roommate must
have humiliated Tyler in front of his new dorm mates. This may have
even caused Tyler to think that his sexual orientation was something to
be laughed at and ashamed of. At this point Tyler's reality became
twisted and distorted. Tyler could no longer see how special and
precious he was. He was not able to see or find the support and
resources he had available to him. Tyler became totally consumed with
and only concerned about the words of people who were interested only
in humiliating him. These bullying actions must have caused Tyler to
feel isolated, alone, worthless, and so very desperate.
Because it was at this point that Tyler made a decision that we
will never be able to undo or change. On September 22, 2010 Tyler died
by suicide. He was 18 years old.
Tyler made a decision that cannot ever be changed or corrected, a
decision that not only affected Tyler but our entire family and many
others who knew and loved him. My world crashed to a stop and then
crumbled apart with the devastation and trauma of the loss of my son.
The anguish and despair has been overwhelming at times. It has been a
long dark journey of much sadness and many tears. It remains an ongoing
battle to push back the sadness and hold on to the peace. A peace that
only recently I have been able to find, now that the fog and haze of
the trauma has finally lifted, now after almost 70 months. My life's
journey is one I hope no one else will ever have to travel, live
through or endure. A piece of me has died and I have been left with an
empty space deep within. I will be forever missing a part of me. All
memories and photos were excruciating to look back on. It was strange
but all of my memories, my happy moments from the past quickly turned
and twisted in my head to a future that would never happen. Tyler was
gone and our family would never be whole again. The simple pleasures of
family time together are no more. Every holiday or special family event
is unbearable and incomplete because Tyler is missing.
Also adding to our family's pain was the added torment of enduring
a criminal trial against Tyler's roommate for invading Tyler's privacy
during a sexual act, hindering an investigation and tampering with
evidence. The pain and anguish that I felt during the trial, was
overwhelming at times, as I seemed to be listening and watching through
Tyler's ears, eyes and mind. As different pieces of evidence were
presented they would trigger memories, both good and bad, but none the
less all bittersweet and sad. Even simple things such as Tyler's
laptop, reminded me how he carefully explored his options and then
chose the different features he liked best, including the blue color
for the case. And the photos of his dorm room, reminiscing on how
carefully we had shopped for all the components of his room, like the
lamps and the bedding and all the other accessories and how excited he
was to be setting it up and settling in at college. How quickly this
all changed.
As much as we would like to go back and change Tyler's actions we
can't, but we can move forward by working to change the mindsets and
attitudes of people who think that actions like setting up a camera and
tweeting messages like ``come join in and watch the show''--are
acceptable, because they are not. This is why my husband, Joe and I
started the Tyler Clementi Foundation, to put an end to all online and
offline bullying in schools, workplaces and faith communities.
background information about bullying
According to Stopbullying.gov,
``bullying is unwanted, aggressive behavior among school aged
children that involves a real or perceived power imbalance. The
behavior is repeated, or has the potential to be repeated, over
time. Bullying includes actions such as making threats,
spreading rumors, attacking someone physically or verbally, and
excluding someone from a group on purpose.'' \6\
This can be deceiving to many young adults who associate the term
bullying with school-aged children and something that is less serious
than it truly is. This definition can be misleading and might even be
seen as a middle class suburban problem. But bullying behaviors do not
magically disappear at a certain age, it can and will continue on into
adulthood unless there is behavior modification. Bullying behaviors are
serious and can sometimes rise to the level of criminal hazing,
harassment, invasion of privacy and/or stalking. And to my knowledge at
this point in time there are no Federal laws that address the full
effects of bullying behaviors or promotes any type of prevention
measures.
Tyler's situation and the end result may have been the extreme, but
it is important to remember that no matter what the immediate outcome,
all bullying and harassment hurts and almost always leaves painful
physical and emotional scars, which can sometimes last a life time. The
painful physical and emotional effects of bullying can manifest with
emotional distress leading to self-harming behaviors such as alcohol
and drug use and/or abuse, cutting, unprotected sex, anxiety, low self-
esteem, depression and suicidal ideation. It can also interfere in
productivity and attendance at school and work.
I am not sure why Tyler's story attracted so much attention but one
thing I have learned is it is not an isolated occurrence. Everywhere I
go people share how they connect to some part of Tyler's story, maybe
not the exact situation but some part of his circumstances as well as
the emotional toll that Tyler must have experienced. Over 3.2 million
students report that they have been the victim of some form of bullying
every year, that number is astronomical and unacceptable. This is not a
rite of passage or simply kids being kids, this is a public health
threat.
Here Are Just a Few Statistics
28 percent of U.S. students in grades 6-12 have experienced
bullying.\1\
20 percent of U.S. students in grades 9-12 have experienced
bullying.\3\
9 percent of students in grades 6-12 experienced cyberbullying.\1\
15 percent of high school students (grades 9-12) were
electronically bullied in the past year.\4\
55.2 percent of LGBT students experienced cyberbullying.\5\
30 percent of young people admit to bullying others in surveys.\2\
70.6 percent of young people say they have seen bullying in their
schools.\2\
62 percent witnessed bullying two or more times in the last month
and 41 percent witness bullying once a week or more.\2\
the tyler clementi foundation
As an organization, The Tyler Clementi Foundation has initiated
several awareness programs based on Tyler's story as well as
partnerships to provide anti-bullying research, information and tools
for youth, parents and youth serving professionals.
day one campaign
Our Day One Campaign is a simple, innovative, research-based and
effective intervention designed to prevent bullying before it happens.
Day One Campaign creates a safe inclusive atmosphere within a community
where everyone is embraced not despite their differences but because of
their differences. One of the pieces of knowledge I learned, is that
bullying is a power imbalance or struggle. People are usually targeted
because they are different. The difference can be real or perceived or
even at times fabricated. We must change our culture to embrace our
differences and not use them to humiliate someone else. I believe a
diverse group of people will make a community successful and thrive.
The truth is we need many different interests, gifts and talents to
have a truly great country, one that will lead in areas of technology,
business, education and health care. We do not need to like or agree
with everyone but we must be respectful and treat everyone with the
dignity they deserve.
Our Day 1 Campaign is simple, just visit our website and download
the script which states specifically what behaviors, words and actions
are acceptable and what are not. Have a leader read the script to the
group and get an acknowledgement back from the group that they
understand. By verbally calling out and naming specific words and
actions that are not acceptable within a certain group, the leader sets
the tone and the group understands that this community will be a safe
supportive space for everyone.
upstander pledge
The next step would be to allow individuals in the group or
community to pledge to be an Upstander. An Upstander is someone who
stands up and speaks out when they see someone being humiliated,
harassed or bullied. Another piece of information that I learned is
that in 80 percent of all bullying situations there are 3 components,
the bully, the target, and the bystanders. This was true in Tyler's
situation, there were many witnesses called up during the trial and I
couldn't help but think, if just one of those people had reached out to
Tyler or had reported what was happening, there might have been a very
different ending to Tyler's story.
The good news is, this knowledge creates a great opportunity to
enable us to change the power dynamics in future bullying situations,
as we turn the bystanders into Upstanders. There are several ways
someone can become an Upstander, and of course we never ever want
anyone to put themselves in harm's way. If the bystander knows the
people involved or they feel safe, they can simply speak up at the time
of the incident. Letting the aggressor know that those words, actions
or pictures are hurtful and offensive and that they will not be
tolerated in this place or space. Sometimes just calling it out can
change the tone and atmosphere and is all that is needed. But if that
doesn't have impact or if you are not safe speaking up then it is
essential to tell a trusted adult and/or a person in authority. Telling
is not the same as tattling if the motive is to help and keep someone
safe. Most importantly is to speak to the target, especially if you
know the target. Make sure the target is safe, and that they know where
to go for help and support, as well as letting them know that you are a
resource for them if need be.
steps for bullying prevention
The Tyler Clementi Foundation believes that every classroom and
institution of higher education can be a safe place to learn and
thrive, but in order for that to happen, we need to change the culture
in many of these institutions. There may never be a one-size-fits-all
solution to the epidemic of bullying. But the simplest and best place
to start is to teach and encourage empathy. To encourage people to only
do and say what they would want done and said to them. Empathy is one
of the best tools we have to make the world a better place.
My personal goal is to change hearts and minds to ignite this
culture shift to a society that is empathetic, respectful, considerate
and kind but I also understand that sometimes that cannot happen
quickly enough without or in isolation of legislation. Legislation is a
necessary part of the process to help create that change. Because some
people may be blinded or unaware of the harm and pain that is caused by
their own biases and prejudices, there is a need for laws that can set
a minimum for acceptable behavior and shine a spot light on those
injustices and inequalities present on some of our university and
college campuses. Federal legislation is urgently needed to help create
safe campus climates for all students in higher education across the
country.
Because our higher education system is so highly recognized around
the world, our colleges and universities attract students from all
parts of the world. Students who come with many different thoughts and
ideas including ethnic and cultural biases. This further supports the
idea that we need to have legislation that will provide a safe campus
climate for all students, especially the most vulnerable.
federal legislation
My request of you today is simple, I urge you to include The Tyler
Clementi Higher Education Anti-Harassment Act in the reauthorization of
the higher education act. The Tyler Clementi Higher Education Anti-
Harassment Act would:
1. Initiate, expand and/or improve programs that prevent the
harassment of students.
2. Provide counseling to targets and perpetrators.
3. Educate and train students, faculty and staff about ways to
prevent or address harassment.
4. Promote ongoing research as to what is the best methods to
combat this epidemic.
I believe this bill will allow institutions of higher education to
take a fresh look and reexamine their policies and procedures that are
and are not in place. In addition this legislation is your opportunity
to not only keep our own young adults safe but to also have a global
influence. Book knowledge is important but the wisdom of empathy and
compassion is priceless.
Bullying does not magically disappear when someone turns 18. We
must continue to provide safe and supportive learning environments for
all students in all learning environments including higher education.
The time is now, we can't let Tyler's story continue to repeat itself.
Action must be taken now because there have been far too many Tyler's
already. Thank you.
references
1. National Center for Education Statistics and Bureau of Justice
Statistics, School Crime Supplement, 2011.
2. Bradshaw, C.P., Sawyer, A.L., & O'Brennan, L.M. (2007). Bullying
and peer victimization at school: Perceptual differences between
students and school staff. School Psychology Review, 36(3), 361-382.
3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Youth Risk Behavior
Surveillance System, 2013.
4. Hawkins, D.L., Pepler, D., and Craig, W.M. (2001). Peer
interventions in playground bullying. Social Development , 10, 512-527.
5. Kosciw, J.G., Greytak, E.A., Bartkiewicz, M.J., Boesen, M.J., &
Palmer, N.A. (2012). The 2011 National School Climate Survey: The
experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender youth in our
Nation's schools. New York: GLSEN.
6. Stopbullying.gov.
Senator Murray. Thank you very much, and thank you to all
of our witnesses today. In the absence of our chairman, Senator
Kirk, I'm going to ask some questions and we'll go back and
forth. But we really appreciate everyone's participation today.
Ms. Clementi, I just want to thank you for sharing your
personal story and for all the work you're doing to stop
bullying on our college campuses, especially as it affects our
LGBT youth. As a mother, I can only imagine what you've gone
through.
I am very proud to lead the Tyler Clementi Higher Education
Anti-harassment Act here in the Senate, along with my
colleague, Senator Baldwin. But I think we should also
recognize my colleague, the late Senator Frank Lautenberg, who
originally wrote this and introduced it, and we appreciate his
tremendous lead on this.
What this bill does is it actually requires colleges and
universities that receive Federal aid to establish anti-
harassment policies and specifically recognize the cyber
bullying, and creates a grant program to prevent bullying and
provide counseling to our students. When I first sponsored this
bill, I was actually surprised to learn that there aren't
universal policies in place in our colleges and universities
across the country, because no student should ever have to face
discrimination or harassment when they're pursuing a degree. I
just really believe that colleges should be safe places for our
students to learn, and it should be all of our responsibility
to create that environment.
Ms. Clementi, through the Tyler Clementi Foundation, you
have collaborated with many institutions and organizations that
are engaging in this work. I wanted to ask you, in your
opinion, what would be the single most impactful thing the
Federal Government could do to stop bullying on our campuses?
Ms. Clementi. I'm not sure that there would be one single
answer, because I'm not sure that one issue relates to
everyone. But I certainly think that the legislation that is
put before--that you've spoken about addresses many different
issues. I think it talks about prevention, which is key, but
also in the event that bullying does happen, we want to have
programs in place, and I think it's essential that we have
policies in place at colleges and universities.
Many colleges and universities do not have any policies, or
they haven't been even updated to fully use the proper research
that is out there currently. I think this bill would give
colleges a reason to reevaluate their programs and policies and
reinstitute and, hopefully, come up with some new ideas that
will address the issues.
Senator Murray. Thank you, and thank you for your
tremendous advocacy on this.
Research on the causes of bullying and hazing and sexual
harassment and sexual assault and intimate partner violence
indicates that bystanders are a key piece of prevention work.
And as I mentioned when I began--Stanford University and what
happened there--it really became clear to many of us how
important it is to train students on intervening as bystanders.
If not for those two Stanford graduate students who were
strangers to the victim but were willing to intervene and help,
the situation could have been a lot worse.
I think it's really essential that the Federal Government
and schools invest in violence prevention programs that help to
build self-awareness and responsibility and confidence. I want
to start with Dr. Huskey and Dr. Allan. What are some of the
promising programs and activities and practices that work to
prevent violence on our campuses and really change campus
culture?
Dr. Huskey or Dr. Allan, whichever one.
Ms. Allan. OK. I'll jump in here. Promising programs and
practices that work to prevent violence and change campus
culture--I think we know from prevention science that it's
important to have a prevention framework.
It's very important to assess the climate, gather data,
have data-driven approaches, and to evaluate what you're doing;
to have staff who are dedicated or designated to do the work so
it's not all on one person's shoulders or on no one's
shoulders; to have a coalition-based approach, an approach that
is considered comprehensive, and what we mean by that and what
the literature means is that it's not just one training or one
type of workshop or a speaker coming in to campus or a 1-week
awareness week. It needs to be something where there's high
dosage.
It's a comprehensive, multi-pronged approach that is
looking at the problem, the contributing factors, and the
protective factors at multiple levels. What's contributing to
hazing or bullying, sexual violence, and other issues at the
individual level, at the group level, at the institutional
level? You're looking at policies, you're looking at individual
behaviors, and then also you're looking at the community level
as well. The social, ecological approach is critical, we know
from the research.
We also know that a social norms approach as well as
bystander intervention both have some evidence base to back
them up in terms of effectiveness, and a social norms approach
works to emphasize rates of positive behaviors that we want to
emphasize, positive attitudes and behaviors. We also know
bystander intervention--the Know Your Power Program has built a
strong evidence based platform for that bystander intervention
program, and there are other programs as well.
Of course, training, engagement of students in the planning
and design of these efforts, and outreach to the broader
community, so in the case--I think in all these cases, it's
really important to not only focus on the immediate campus
community and the students, but include all the constituencies
on campus and other stakeholders as well, including family,
parents, caregivers, alumni, and the local community who may
come into contact or see warning signs of these kinds of
behaviors. And if they know what they're looking for and they
know where to report it, they can be very helpful in terms of
bystander intervention.
Senator Murray. Dr. Huskey.
Ms. Huskey. There are a couple of pretty robustly
researched programs. Green Dot and Know Your Power are two of
those. Both of those really work at the cultural level by
norming intervention and pro-social behavior but also by giving
students very concrete skills and the opportunity to practice
those skills. What we know is that students often don't have
many opportunities. Some folks are naturally gifted in
intervention and being an upstander. Others are not and really
benefit from the opportunity to practice some basic skills.
So we require our new students to attend bystander
intervention training as early as possible in their first
semester, and then we reinforce that in a variety of
environments so that students have many opportunities to
practice. We've been very fortunate that our student government
has embraced this effort and as student leaders has really been
engaged in promoting and extending our work around
intervention.
We also know that students would benefit from early and
frequent conflict resolution training. As I think we've all
agreed, most of this work needs to start in elementary school.
By the time we have an 18-year-old student who is facing a
major developmental event in coming to college, the ability to
generate new behavior is limited just by the incredible
cognitive capacity that's taken up by being at college.
If we could introduce more broad-based conflict resolution
training early to teach students to deescalate, to intervene,
to think about ways of moving away from violence and toward
creative problem solving, we know that that would be very
helpful. We do our best to provide that in the college
experience, and I think we do a good job. But we could
certainly--it would be so helpful to be able to build on a
strong base of bi-standard training and conflict resolution
training that happened early and that we could reinforce.
Senator Murray. Very good.
Senator Casey.
Senator Casey. I want to thank Senator Murray for her
leadership today for this roundtable, but also for her work on
these issues for a long, long time, and we're grateful for that
leadership. It's probably needed now more than ever, and we're
grateful for that.
I want to make a preliminary comment and then direct maybe
one basic question to both Dr. Huskey and to Mr. Storch. I
guess the first comment is when you consider this problem of
sexual assault and sexual violence on campus in addition to the
related problem of bullying, which seems to occur at all ages
in a lot of different circumstances, but especially when
children are very young where it can be particularly
destructive, I guess in both cases, the tolerance of that
activity is the ultimate betrayal.
We told children to study hard, go to school, and you'll
succeed. Well, they study hard and they go to school and they
get bullied over and over and over again. A lot of adults don't
do a damned thing about it. We tell young women to study hard
so you can go to college, and you'll be on a college campus and
you'll learn a lot. Your life will be improved if you get that
college education. And then, once again, people in authority,
from politicians to leaders of all kinds and some of them on
campuses, don't do very much.
Then you have the horrific circumstances where someone who
happens to be gay or lesbian or has a disability becomes the
subject of bullying to the extent where they feel that the only
way for them to deal with it is to take their own life. I want
to thank Ms. Clementi for being here. We can't even imagine
what you've been through, but your presence here gives us hope
that we can find some answers that will lead us in the right
direction.
But it is a betrayal, and for too long, we've, I think, as
a society have kind of shrugged our shoulders. Politicians need
to do more. Campus or university leaders need to do more.
Employers need to do more, and certainly parents need to do
more. I think we have to push hard enough to where people get a
little bit uncomfortable with some of the things we're
proposing, because if people aren't uncomfortable, not much is
going to happen.
I've had the chance to work on two parts of this, one to
lead the effort to have enacted into law the Campus Save Act,
which did a whole host of things, but it's only been in
practice for a year. We had to, first of all, get it done as
part of the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act,
and then get the regulatory process done, and then in September
2015, or, I should say, technically, July 2015, it went into
effect. So I want to ask about what the experience is by
universities.
I want to thank Senator Murray for her leadership on the
Tyler Clementi Higher Education Anti-harassment Act. I'm a co-
sponsor of that, and I'm also leading the effort on the Safe
Schools Improvement Act, which means that local school
districts have to do more when it comes to bullying.
But I guess one question only, because we don't have time,
for--Dr. Huskey, I'll start with you. In terms of Campus Save,
it's been a reality now for just a year. What steps has your
institution taken to implement the Campus Save Act?
Ms. Huskey. Thanks very much for the question. Because we
have been fortunate enough to receive the Department of Justice
grant, we were actually in compliance with almost all elements
of the Campus Save Act before it was enacted, so we had the
opportunity to extend our work. We were fortunate enough to
receive an extension of that grant. So we have been able to
really strengthen our Campus Community Relations Team, to
provide more education, and to do that work that allowed us to
be in compliance.
Senator Casey. That's great. I should have mentioned some
of the elements. We are trying to do a number of things.
Increasing transparency is one; promoting bystander
responsibility which was talked about today; making sure that
victims get the help that they need, that schools have to have
in place procedures and policies to help victims; clear
procedures for institutional disciplinary proceedings; and
assistance to institutions to implement the requirements.
Mr. Storch, maybe you can give your perspective from a
major institution like yours.
Mr. Storch. Thank you, Senator. As I said in my testimony,
we dove into the changes in the Campus Save Act, the VAWA
amendments to Clery, head first. The Department of Education
issued its proposed regulations on June 19th of 2014. On June
26th, we held the first of two trainings for all of our
campuses. We had over 250 people between the two trainings.
I had seven of my colleagues, a total of eight attorneys,
and we had two very good interns. We wrote a 93-page guidance
on how to comply with all aspects, from exactly what you have
to do to report on what the State laws are in the annual
security report, to policies on bystander intervention, to
polices on confidentiality. We took a lot of things that were
already working with SUNY and we spun them up to things that
would work well across the board.
We wrote 93 pages in a week, written, edited, ready for our
trainings. Like I said, we had 250 people between those two
trainings, and we wanted to be sure that even though the laws
would go into effect in July 2015, by July 2014, all of our
SUNY campuses would be trained, and we met that goal. So other
colleges were waking up that this was there, and nothing
against them. But we were completing our trainings on it,
because it is that much of a thing that the entire university
thinks about, from our chancellor to our student affairs
practitioners, our title IX practitioners, and the like, and
we've continued to build on that.
In New York State, we had our SUNY policies--the Governor
worked extremely well with SUNY, took those SUNY policies and
proposed them. They passed almost unanimously in both houses,
and that went way beyond the requirements of VAWA, explaining
confidentiality, an affirmative consent definition that is
really a model definition, amnesty when bystanders or victims
come and report, and a number of really important training
things, because, as we said, we encourage you to double down on
prevention.
Everybody up here, you've heard about it. SUNY doesn't want
to be the leader in responding to bullying, hazing, and
violence. We want to have fewer incidents to respond to, and I
know all my colleagues up here share that. We really liked what
the Congress did with VAWA, and we hope that you continue down
that path.
Senator Casey. Great. Thank you very much. I appreciate it.
Senator Murray. Senator Baldwin.
Statement of Senator Baldwin
Senator Baldwin. Thank you very much, Senator Murray, for
convening this roundtable. This is very, very helpful to all of
us, and I appreciate the presence of all of our witnesses here.
I wanted to start with you, Ms. Clementi, and start by also
sharing my gratitude to you and your family, all of your
family, for, as you said, helping others learn through your
family's pain, but, really, taking serious action so that the
tragedy that you experienced doesn't happen to other families.
I very much appreciate that. I know I'm not alone in being
inspired by your strength and your family's strength.
You said in your testimony that through your efforts on
this bill that you've learned that Tyler's experience was far
from an isolated one. And, in fact, you cited some research, I
believe, that counts over 3 million instances of cyber
bullying, I think you said. But it strikes me that this is
probably an area that's under-researched, that we don't have as
much information about the prevalence of bullying in higher
education and, particularly, that directed at LGBT students.
However, I imagine from your own experience that you've
heard a lot anecdotally, and you've begun to understand how
widespread this is. I wonder if you could speak to that.
Ms. Clementi. Sure. Thank you. Yes, I have definitely
heard--everywhere that I go to speak, people come up to me from
all ages. Whether it's in a workplace that we've spoken or in
high schools or colleges, people seem to like to share what it
is that attracts them to Tyler's story and what their own
experiences are. I do think that it is definitely an under-
researched area.
I know as a foundation, we are working with Rutgers
University, as we have a Tyler Clementi Center at Rutgers
University, and we are working also on research in that area.
We are also doing polling in that area, because it's important
to not only know that it exists, but also what will work best,
like what do you want to hear? Do they want to hear me share
Tyler's story, or do they want to hear Beyonce say, ``girls
don't put other girls down'' or--what are the words that work?
Because we want it to work. We want something that will work.
It might not be the same for everyone. There might be
different messages for different people. Some people don't even
want to call it bullying in the higher education area, but it
is. It's harassing. It's ongoing actions that are hurtful to
another person. Some inner city youth may not consider it
bullying, either. They may just call it a rite of passage or
hazing. But whatever it's called, it's behavior that's
unwanted, and we need to change it, and we need to address it.
We definitely need more research, more polling, and to
survey the area. That's one of the activities that I think our
new executive director at the Tyler Clementi Center at
Rutgers--it plans to survey colleges and find what's being done
for LGBT students, specifically, in the college area, what is
working and what is not working, and which schools have
programs in place.
Senator Baldwin. Thank you. With regard to where you left
it, which schools have programs in place and policies, we have
two witnesses here whose universities have taken a number of
steps to address bullying, hazing, and other threats to campus
safety. I'd like to ask this of Dr. Huskey and Mr. Storch.
Can you each talk briefly about how your universities are
specifically addressing bullying targeted at LGBT students and
why it's important for your schools to have affirmative
policies addressing bullying, and what the positive impacts of
those policies have been so far on the learning environment?
I'll start with you, Dr. Huskey.
Ms. Huskey. I'd be glad to start. Thank you. This is a
matter that is very dear to my heart, as a lesbian, as a
parent.
I really honor your capacity to be here and to talk about
this tragedy. It's astonishing to me, and I have so much
respect for what you're doing.
Washington State University has been a leader in LGBT
services. We were the first university in the State to have a
professionally staffed center. I was the inaugural director of
the center, as a matter of fact, and from the very beginning of
that time, we have had inclusive policies which acknowledged
the value of LGBT students and their full inclusion in our
institution. So we do not have policies which specifically
prohibit LGBT harassment, because the inclusion of LGBT
students in every element of our policy and practice has been
established for 20 years.
We've seen changes over time. Certainly, issues around
Trans students are much more prevalent now than they were when
I first came to the institution, and we are very attentive to
the changing student populations and the changing needs.
But we do know the work of the Safe Schools Coalition in
Washington for years documented that LGBT students are at
higher risk for all forms of harassment from unkind words to
physical assault, and we need to be very aware that we have a
special responsibility--because we know those students are more
at risk--to outreach to them and to ensure that everyone on our
campuses understands that we value and include all of our
students because of who they are, not in spite of, but because
of who they are.
Mr. Storch. Thank you, Senator. Like Washington State, this
is something that we think about a lot at the State University
of New York. SUNY is, beginning this past year, conducting a
survey of all incoming students with questions about, among
many other things, sexual orientation, gender identity and
expression, with a number of different choices and the option
to fill in additional choices. Because we need to know more in
order--we need more data in order to be able to most
appropriately respond.
We have done a number of trainings. When the Office of
Civil Rights issued its recent letter on transgender students,
we read that in the counsel's office and said, ``Yes, I mean,
we've been there for a long time.'' And if you read some of
their past resolution agreements, we weren't surprised by
anything that we saw in there. In general, specific to our
transgender student population, we have taken an approach where
we try to make those students comfortable. We know that for our
transgender students, they have been hassled at every point in
their life, in elementary school, in high school, their homes,
their churches, everywhere they've gone.
When I work with my campus clients and we have a request
from a transgender student who wants something different,
something to change to make them more comfortable, we take a
look and we say, ``Is this something that--yes, we've been
doing it this way for a long time, but is it something that we
really need to do this way? You know, the full name on the
class roster--do we really need it that way? Can we just use a
preferred name? Yes, let's just use a preferred name.'' That is
how our SUNY clients look at it, in a really student-centered
way, and I'm very proud of them for that.
A slight shift on your question, but I think it gets to the
same concept. When SUNY's chancellor put together a working
group in 2014 to look at issues of sexual and interpersonal
violence, I was one of the co-coordinators, and I was working
with the committee that was writing our affirmative consent
definition. We had a bunch of outside experts in our committee.
We had one expert who is one of the co-founders of Equal
Justice New York, a woman named Libby Post, and she said, ``You
know, in your affirmative consent definition, you should say
affirmatively, as it were, that this applies regardless of
sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, because a
lot of students don't think that it applies to them.'' And I
said, ``OK. Well, what should the sentence say?'' She said,
``This definition applies regardless of sexual orientation,
gender identity, or gender expression.''
We typed it in. It was in there. Passed all the way through
the SUNY policies. Passed all the way into the legislation,
went into the legislation. There were a lot of changes to a lot
of points in the legislation. Both parties let that go, and
when that passed, when Governor Cuomo signed that into law in
2015, it was the first time, as I'm told by another activist,
that any State had passed a law saying rights are going to be
given equally regardless of gender identity or gender
expression.
We didn't know as we were going through it. It was a no-
brainer. Libby Post said it and--OK. We put it in. We had no
idea how historic it was. But that's the kind of commitment we
have at SUNY. We're not trying to make history. It's just
business as usual to try to treat students equally.
Senator Murray. Thank you.
Senator Warren.
Statement of Senator Warren
Senator Warren. Thank you very much. Thank you, Ranking
Member, and I offer my apologies. We're trying to cover
multiple things at the same time, so we're a little bit come
and go here.
When I was preparing for this roundtable, I was thinking
about the fact of the Boston Pride Parade, which we love in
Boston. And for years, when I have gone to the Pride Parade, I
don't march. I dance in the Pride Parade. I love it as much as
any single thing I get to do as a Senator, because Pride shows
what this Nation looks like when we are at our best,
celebrating who we are.
Last month, I danced in the Pride Parade, and the next day,
we woke up to find out that a gunman had massacred dozens at an
LGBT club in Orlando. It reminded us that the struggle for
acceptance is far from over. But this is certainly true on
college campuses. A Campus Pride survey found that nearly a
quarter of lesbian, gay, and bisexual students, staff, faculty,
and administrators were harassed on college campuses based on
their sexual orientation, and over 40 percent of transgender
respondents reported fearing for their physical safety.
Ms. Clementi, I think about the harassment that your son
experienced and about others on college campuses who live with
bigotry, who live with hatred, who live with injustice, and I
refuse to believe that we cannot make our campuses safe or more
welcoming places. You have tried to draw attention to the
importance of collecting better data about harassment and
bullying of LGBTQ students. Can you just tell this committee a
little bit more about why you believe that is so important?
Ms. Clementi. Yes. Thank you, Senator Warren. I think that
it's very, very important, because, basically, people in the
power struggle and the bullying situation--it's usually because
of someone's difference. And, unfortunately, because of some
people's cultural or religious biases that they bring with them
to the college campus, they like to target LGBT youth, and
that's what I think I have found in the work that I've done and
in the stories that I've heard from many people who have shared
them with me.
That is why I think we really need to work strongly in this
area for LGBT youth. We need to collect this data so that we
have the input, so that we can do the assessment, and then we
can implement a plan, and then we can help correct those
actions.
Senator Warren. I just want to say thank you for throwing
your heart into this very difficult fight. It is courageous, it
is selfless, and it presses all of us to do better. I am a huge
believer in data, that data help us understand what's
happening. If you don't count it, you're a lot less likely to
be able to----
Ms. Clementi. And that's one of the things I mentioned
before with Senator Baldwin. At Rutgers University, we have a
Tyler Clementi Center, and we have a new executive director,
and that's one of her main goals at this point in time, to
survey the 4,000, 5,000 higher education institutions and find
out what services they have and who are providing what and
what's working in those places.
Senator Warren. Senator Baldwin has been a real leader----
Ms. Clementi. Yes, I think it was a great point to make.
Senator Warren. Good. There's another issue that I also
would like to raise today. In recent years, we have seen a wave
of State legislative proposals that make it easier for college
students to bring guns to school despite the fact that
students, faculty, and campus law enforcement officials
overwhelmingly say this is a bad idea. Of course, the NRA
doesn't care that it is a bad idea. They actively boast of
their efforts to eliminate some State laws banning concealed
weapons on college campuses, and they have had some successes.
Just last year, they released a report, and the title of the
report is On Campus Carry, We Have Only Begun to Fight.
Mr. Amweg, you've spent 35 years in campus law enforcement.
In your expert opinion, will allowing more guns on college
campuses increase or reduce the risk of violence on campus?
Mr. Amweg. Thank you, Senator Warren. I think inasmuch--and
to highlight what you said--that this is an issue that is taken
up State by State, but in some cases, even institution by
institution within those States. I think most educators would
agree that introducing firearms into the teaching and learning
environment of a higher education institution is
counterproductive to the mission of the institution.
For example, in an active shooter situation, introducing
more firearms into that incident, into that already armed
encounter, would lead, certainly, to creating a less safe, not
a more safe environment for that institution. There have been
only a few studies that have looked at that as something
similar to this, in other words, introducing armed citizens
into an already armed encounter, and none of those studies have
shown that a positive impact will come from that kind of a mix.
Additionally, law enforcement responding to the scene of an
active shooter, particularly on a university campus, are now
faced with a mixed environment. Both the, if you will, good
guys and bad guys have guns. So while law enforcement officers
are certainly trained to evaluate those encounters before using
or employing deadly force, it still takes time to determine if
the person that they're encountering is, in fact, a good guy or
a bad guy, and that's the time officers could be using to
eliminate the threat and save lives otherwise.
Senator Warren. Thank you, Mr. Amweg. I think that's a very
powerfully made point. I appreciate that.
Dr. Huskey, you're a current campus administrator. Could
you weigh in on this, please?
Ms. Huskey. We're fortunate that Washington currently has
laws which govern that. Firearms and other dangerous weapons
are currently prohibited by statute on our campus. It's not an
issue that we have had to consider.
My concern is, consequently, primarily with suicide
prevention. We know that young people die much too frequently
from suicide. It's the second leading cause of death for young
people 19 to 25, just under accidental death, and firearms are
the most lethal means available. The use of a firearm is about
85 percent lethal for students attempting suicide as opposed to
about 5 percent for overdose or poison.
Reducing access to lethal means is an important part of
research prevention programs around suicide, and we will
continue to consider that a very important part of our work.
Our goal is always to keep students safe, and whatever our
legislative and legal environment is, that will be our primary
responsibility.
Senator Warren. Thank you, Dr. Huskey. I appreciate that.
Actually, I'd like to go there. Whatever you think about the
NRA's unsupported claim that somehow more guns is going to
reduce campus violence, the suicide aspect of this and how
lethal suicide attempts are with guns is something that we've
got to address, and we've just got to address it honestly.
I know, Ms. Clementi, that you have devoted your life to
the cause of reducing bullying, harassment, and suicide, which,
as Dr. Huskey noted, is the second leading cause of death among
college age adults. In your opinion, if we introduced more guns
on college campuses, what do you think would be the effect on
suicides?
Ms. Clementi. It definitely would increase the number,
especially, of completed suicides. It's a no-brainer, a common
sense question. You don't want to give a youth who is impulsive
and spontaneous a weapon that's going to cause so much self-
harm or even harm to other people. I think you need to
eliminate as many possible weapons in their arsenal that they
can have, and I think that would be an easy answer for that.
Senator Warren. Thank you very much. I appreciate all of
you being here for this. The way I see this, it is up to law
enforcement, teachers, campus officials, parents, kids to
demand that politicians put the safety of our children above
the demands of NRA lobbyists. I will keep fighting, too.
But I want to be clear. Elected officials don't answer to
me. They answer to the public, and I very much hope that all of
you and everyone else who hears this will be pushing back and
pushing our Congress to do more about gun safety. Thank you.
Thank you for being here.
Senator Murray. Thank you very much. I want to thank all of
our colleagues and our witnesses who joined us here today. This
is really a good step in laying the groundwork that we need to
do to make sure that we have strong reauthorizing language in
the Higher Education Act, and I hope that we can do it in a
bipartisan way and move it forward. This is obviously a very
critical issue, and today is just one part of this
conversation. I appreciate everyone being here and
participating.
The hearing record is going to remain open for 10 days.
Members may submit additional information for the record.
I particularly want to thank all of our roundtable
participants today for being here and sharing your knowledge,
and I appreciate you working with us to get this done and get
it done right. Thank you very much.
With that, the hearing is closed. Thank you.
[Additional material follows.]
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
Response to Questions of Senator Murray by Joseph Storch
The State University of New York,
Office of General Counsel,
Albany, NY 12246,
August 29, 2016.
Hon. Lamar Alexander, Chairman,
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC 20510.
Hon. Patty Murray, Ranking Member,
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC 20510.
Re: Campus Safety: Improving Prevention and Response Efforts
Dear Chairman Alexander, Ranking Member Murray, and members of the
committee: On behalf of The State University of New York (SUNY), I am
honored to provide written responses to the questions asked by Ranking
Member Murray. Below please find the questions as well as testimonial
responses.
______
Question 1. What recommendations do you have to address problems
related to campus safety, such as reducing bullying, harassment, gun
violence, and campus sexual assault, in the reauthorization of the
Higher Education Act?
Answer 1. The Higher Education Act not only prescribes the law and
compliance requirements, but also serves as a moral compass to
encourage colleges to best serve students. As we said during our recent
testimony, when Congress reauthorized the Violence Against Women Act
(VAWA) and amended the Clery Act in 2013, it added significant
prevention and training requirements. The Clery Act had traditionally
looked backward (report what happened, respond to what happened). For
the first time, the VAWA amendments to the Clery Act require a look
forward, which adds an element of prevention, not just reaction. As
Congress considers amendments to the Higher Education Act, we urge you
to double down on prevention measures, including assisting campuses to
provide more focused training and authorizing additional Federal
resources for colleges to meet their prevention goals.
Legislatively, we should not look at bullying, harassment, gun
violence, and sexual assault as completely separate issues with
distinct solutions, but as a continuum of harm conducted by some
against others. There are no simple solutions to any of these problems,
but to make progress in preventing any of them we must work efficiently
to address all of them simultaneously.
Each issue can be addressed, in part, through prevention
programming that encourages respect between and among our students and
staff. This is much easier to say than to do, but addressing the issues
together and consistently will allow for more progress toward safe
campuses than requiring a separate compliance, response, and prevention
regime for each issue.
Building upon my initial written testimony, we would also recommend
the following changes to strengthen the Higher Education Act and help
make campuses safer for students, staff, and members of the community.
As Congress adds additional requirements for colleges, it should also
consider changes to outmoded requirements whose bureaucratic
requirements outweigh any safety gains.
While some minor changes can ease compliance, below are several
major changes Congress could enact to make compliance more effectual,
permitting institutions to save time and devote more attention to
prevention education:
Clarify Clery geography: The U.S. Education Department
(``ED'') has given conflicting guidance regarding how and where to
count crimes when students study abroad. This has led to confusion and
high compliance cost. In its most recent guidance,\1\ ED writes that if
a college rents hotel rooms for one night, those rooms do not count for
Clery unless two different groups use that same hotel for one different
night each in 1 year; two nights would count, but only if there are
certain agreements in place, and only for the days the college has
``control,'' and colleges would only count crimes in the students'
rooms, hallways, and public areas. A student killed in a non-student
hotel room would not be reportable, a non-student killed in the hotel
pool would be reportable. A heinous triple homicide occurring 3 days
before students arrive would not be reportable, nor would the same
crime occurring on the sidewalk just outside the hotel. And even if
colleges are able to organize and count all covered trips taken by
study abroad, academic programs, athletics, and certain student
organizations, ED would have the college combine those statistics with
certain crimes occurring at certain off-campus student organization
houses (mostly Greek letter organizations) that have little or nothing
to do with these trips. This leads to confusion and very costly
compliance, while there is no evidence that it makes students safer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://www..ed.gov/admins/lead/safety/handbook.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The statistical validity of assessing safety in a town or village
in a holistic way based on crimes collected through certain limited
sources during only 24 or 48 hours, and only in parts of a single hotel
is little better than polling three people at a political rally and
using that to predict an election. In other words, not a good predictor
at all. Does the fact that a crime did or did not occur during a day or
two in a hotel serve as a predictor of whether the same or another
crime would occur in a different day years later in that same hotel?
And what, if anything, does that say about the surrounding
neighborhood, city, State, or province? The clear answer is little or
nothing. The United States possesses assets, including reports by the
State Department and Central Intelligence Agency, that provide a
holistic and statistically meaningful assessment of safety in a given
area. Congress can require that ED work with other agencies to provide
information about the given safety of an area, without requiring
tedious collection of miniscule data points that do not provide
statistically sound information about the safety of a location.
Clarify local law enforcement letters for Study Abroad: ED
requires that colleges write to local law enforcement for every
jurisdiction that includes Clery geography. This means that for the
hundreds (even thousands) of hotels, classrooms, and other sites that
must be included in Clery geography under ED's June 2016 interpretation
institutions must write detailed letters to local law enforcement
asking them to report certain crimes using United States Uniform Crime
Reporting definitions, in certain pinpoint locations and only for
certain days. Unfortunately, this has simply become an exercise in
futility, as international police agencies rarely respond with useful
numbers. ED audits against what letters are sent, and a college could
run afoul by not having sent a specific letter (even if no answer would
ever be received). Institutions are spending significant time and
resources developing and mailing letters that bear no fruit. Further,
sending letters asking about sexual assault and dating violence to
certain localities, which do not recognize sexual and interpersonal
violence as a crime and which may choose to arrest or retaliate against
reporting victims, puts our students in more danger. To date, ED has
declined to allow for an exception where college professionals have a
good faith belief that such letters will endanger our students. SUNY
campuses have been working with national and New York State
organizations to better prepare students to prevent violence overseas
and to address violence in a careful and tailored manner, but time
spent on technical Clery compliance at sites overseas (for which there
is no evidence of safety gain) is time not spent on thoughtful,
cutting-edge programming to prevent and respond to violence overseas.
Policy statements: ED insists that the Annual Security
Report include full policy statements and (with a single exception)
does not allow colleges to link to the relevant policies. That leads to
longer reports that are less likely to be read. Congress could offer
flexibility to educate students efficiently, including links to
relevant documents.
Campus Security Authorities and Responsible Employees:
ED's Federal Student Aid office has defined ``Campus Security
Authority'' in a manner that differs significantly from ED's Office for
Civil Rights definition of ``Responsible Employee.'' Institutions
scramble to determine which employees meet the definition of one, the
other, or both. Further, the language used in both terms is confusing.
SUNY has suggested combining both concepts into a single new term
called ``Mandatory Reporter'' and defining that term broadly. As a
matter of policy and in practice, we want more reports of crime to come
forward, and Mandatory Reporter is a term that has a clear meaning and
societal understanding. Except for those with legal privilege or
confidentiality restrictions (including medical, mental health, legal,
or religious professionals), all compensated employees should be
mandatory reporters who must, as soon as reasonably practicable, report
all crimes covered by the law to the appropriate office or offices as
determined by the institution. Reporting to the Title IX Coordinator
would meet this requirement. This will result in more crimes being
brought forward (and higher but more accurate numbers reported), more
consistency in reporting, and the ability of institutions to offer a
blanket training to employees, rather than spending significant time
identifying and narrowly training certain employees as Campus Security
Authorities, others as Responsible Employees, and still others as both.
Reduce double counting of crimes: ED has earnestly tried
to ensure that all crimes are reported and do not fall through the
cracks. Over time, it has modified its use of the Uniform Crime
Reporting hierarchy rule, such that certain incidents are double or
triple counted or more. The undersigned has identified an example of a
single incident that would be counted close to three dozen times for
Clery Act purposes. Over-counting crimes can skew reports, and thus
misinforms students, just as much as under-counting crimes. SUNY
therefore has suggested that crimes be reported once in the most
appropriate category, and that colleges retain documentation for their
decisions.
Modernize missing student reporting: ED, while trying in
good faith to develop a method to comply with this 2008 addition,
created a complex and confusing regime for reporting missing on-campus
students (the ED 2016 Handbook devotes seven pages and more than 2,000
words to complying with its current system). SUNY suggests a return to
the plain congressional intent. The requirement can simply read,
``If a student is reported missing for 24 hours, within the
next 18 hours, the college must contact local law enforcement,
the student's emergency contact, and the student's parents, if
under 18.''
This will accomplish the important goals (which we firmly support)
without adding unhelpful bureaucratic requirements. We would change the
second period to 18 hours to reduce confusion from the current 24
hours/24 hours regime.
new additions to the clery act
Double down on prevention: As stated earlier, SUNY
applauds Congress's 2013 shift from response only to response and
prevention. And at SUNY and in New York, we have gone further. While
programming is offered to all new and continuing students, we require
that student leaders and student-athletes complete training. This is
not because we believe they are more likely to be victims or offenders;
rather, it is because we believe they are most likely to be leaders on
campus. By training student leaders who can model pro-social behavior,
we can efficiently educate an entire campus.
Transcript notations: New York State law requires uniform
transcript notations for students found responsible and suspended or
expelled after a student conduct process for conduct code violations
that are equivalent to Clery Act Primary Crimes. Institutions to which
the student transfers are not prohibited from admitting the student,
but are on notice of past violations and can request additional
documentation under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act
(FERPA). While New York colleges provide notations for students
transferring out, they do not benefit from notations for students
transferring in from out of State. A uniform standard will allow
colleges to consider admitting students with full knowledge of past
transgressions.
Amnesty: SUNY supports adding a plain-language amnesty
from drug or alcohol use charges to encourage reporting and reduce the
fear of a victim or bystander that they will get in trouble, not the
person who committed the violence. SUNY's amnesty policy became law in
New York and reads,
``A bystander acting in good faith or a reporting individual
acting in good faith that discloses any incident of domestic
violence, dating violence, stalking, or sexual assault to
[College/University] officials or law enforcement will not be
subject to [College/University's] code of conduct action for
violations of alcohol and/or drug use policies occurring at or
near the time of the commission of the domestic violence,
dating violence, stalking, or sexual assault.''
Mobile Resource: SUNY has launched a mobile website \2\
that allows victims and survivors to anonymously access confidential
and private resources 24/7. The SAVR (Sexual Assault and Violence
Response) site instantly displays on-campus and off-campus resources
(these can be sorted by campus, zip code, or map location), and with a
single additional click, opens Google Maps to find the resource. Where
appropriate, resources are highlighted as being confidential, open 24
hours per day, or legal in nature. SAVR also includes all relevant
policy information plus information specific to victims needing medical
assistance. SUNY has the only such system in the Nation, but has made
its data base public for others to create additional resources and has
developed a Toolkit \3\ for other colleges and States to develop a
similar system at low or no cost. Congress can fund a national system
or require that States adopt similar systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ http://www.suny.edu/violence-response/.
\3\ https://docs.google.com/document/d/
1E3ZZqQ03ah3RV_qhrUrdv3TNh5cNSQiq9N8BB
21Ij-Y/pub.
Question 2. In recent years, from Virginia Tech to Seattle Pacific
University in my home State of Washington, there have been too many
horrific instances of gun violence on college campuses. Despite these
tragedies, more and more States have passed legislation that overrides
campus policy that ensures that the campus is a gun-free zone.
Colleges and universities have reported to the committee how they
battle the epidemic of sexual assault, stalking, harassment, and
domestic violence on a daily basis. According to the Department of
Justice, 19 percent of college-aged women have experienced dating
violence.\4\ In a domestic violence situation, when a gun is present,
the risk of a homicide for a woman increases by 500 percent.\5\
Intimate partners are in fact more likely to be murdered with a firearm
than by all other means combined. These realities raise concerns about
the implications of overriding campus gun-free-zone policies,
suggesting that increasing the availability of guns makes a campus a
less safe place for all students, especially women.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Krebs, C.P., Lindquist, C.H., Warner, T.D., Fisher, B.S., &
Martin, S.L. (2007). The Campus Sexual Assault (CSA) Study. Washington,
DC.: National Institute of Justice.
\5\ J.C. Campbell, D.W. Webster, J. Koziol-McLain, et al. (2003).
``Risk factors for femicide within physically abusive intimate
relationships: results from a multi-site case control study,'' 93 Amer.
J. of Public Health.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Storch, what preventative measures does SUNY take to protect
their students against on-campus gun violence?
Answer 2. For almost 50 years, New York State law and regulations
have proscribed the possession of weapons on college campuses, except
for sworn law enforcement. SUNY enforces these rules at our State-
operated and community colleges. More than 15 years ago, New York State
law converted our campus officers to police status. As sworn law
enforcement, our University Police officers receive the highest level
of training equivalent to sister police agencies, plus additional
campus-specific requirements. SUNY also requires officers to have
college or military experience.
SUNY campuses practice community policing, engaging students and
staff constantly through involvement in the community--bike patrols,
attendance at residence hall programs, assisting with student events--
that help bridge the gap with students. In turn, students can discuss a
crime or a danger with a police officer they know, not one at the other
end of a phone line.
SUNY campuses coordinate the assessment of students and staff that
may pose a risk via threat assessment or behavioral assessment teams.
Information is shared in compliance with laws among professionals who
are trained to evaluate which factors show a real risk and which
constitute normal behavior among college students.
We believe that the best time to protect students from violence or
an active shooter is long before the violence occurs or the active
shooter arrives. The University expends significant resources training
campus professionals and building capacity to address students who pose
a risk to themselves or others. SUNY regularly cross-trains with local
and State law enforcement. We conducted a major conference on the topic
with the highest-level threat assessment professionals from the FBI and
U.S. Marshalls. We will continue to train and build capacity in this
area.
While there are no guarantees, SUNY, its campuses, and its sworn
law enforcement and student affairs professionals work diligently and,
more importantly, work together--in a coordinated manner to try to keep
our students safe from violence, including gun violence.
Please let me know if I can provide any additional information.
Sincerely,
Joseph Storch, Associate Counsel,
The State University of New York.
[Whereupon, at 4:19 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]