U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

50–166 cc 1998

S. HRG. 105–607

SECURITY ON CAMPUS

HEARING

BEFORE A

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

SPECIAL HEARING

Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate

For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office

Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402

ISBN 0–16–057442–0
(II)

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

TED STEVENS, Alaska, Chairman

THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico

CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri

SLADE GORTON, Washington

MITCH MCCONNELL, Kentucky

CONRAD BURNS, Montana

RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama

JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire

ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah

BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado

LARRY CRAIG, Idaho

LAUCH FAIRCLOTH, North Carolina

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas

ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii

ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont

DALE BUMPERS, Arkansas

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey

TOM HARKIN, Iowa

BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland

HARRY REID, Nevada

HERB KOHL, Wisconsin

PATTY MURRAY, Washington

BYRON DORGAN, North Dakota

BARBARA BOXER, California

STEVEN J. CORTESE, Staff Director

LISA SUTHERLAND, Deputy Staff Director

JAMES H. ENGLISH, Minority Staff Director

SUBCOMMITTEE ON DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND

EDUCATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman

THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi

SLADE GORTON, Washington

CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri

JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire

LAUCH FAIRCLOTH, North Carolina

LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas

TED STEVENS, Alaska

(Ex officio)

TOM HARKIN, Iowa

ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii

DALE BUMPERS, Arkansas

HARRY REID, Nevada

HERB KOHL, Wisconsin

PATTY MURRAY, Washington

ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia

(Ex officio)

Majority Professional Staff

BETTILOU TAYLOR

Minority Professional Staff

MARSHA SIMON

Administrative Support

JIM SOURWINE
(III)

C O N T E N TS

Page

Opening remarks of Senator Arlen Specter ........................................................... 1

Statement of Howard Clery, founder, Security on Campus, Inc .......................... 2

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 4

Statement of Jacob McKee, student, Lehigh University ...................................... 7

Statement of Barbara Prentice, Centerville, MA .................................................. 9

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 12

Statement of Dr. Stanley Ikenberry, president, American Council on Education ..................................................................................................................... 19

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 20

Statement of Michele Goldfarb, director, Office of Student Conduct, University of Pennsylvania ............................................................................................. 24

Statement of Peter C. Erichsen, vice president and general counsel, University of Pennsylvania and University of Pennsylvania Health System ............ 24

Statement of Dolores A. Stafford, director, university police department,

George Washington University ........................................................................... 26

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 28

Prepared statement of the International Association of Campus Law Enforcement Administrators ............................................................................................ 30

Statement of David A. Longanecker, Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary

Education, U.S. Department of Education ......................................................... 36

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 37

Campuses ................................................................................................................. 40

Statement of Senator Robert G. Torricelli, U.S. Senator from New Jersey ....... 45
(1)

SECURITY ON CAMPUS

THURSDAY, MARCH 5, 1998

U.S. SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN

SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES,

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS,

Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met at 3:25 p.m., in room SD–192, Dirksen

Senate Office Building, Hon. Arlen Specter (chairman) presiding.

Present: Senators Specter and Faircloth.

Also present: Senator Torricelli.

NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES

OPENING REMARKS OF SENATOR SPECTER

Senator SPECTER. On this subject there is substantial concern as

to the definition of the Department of Education on what constitutes a campus. The Department has made an inquiry at the

University of Pennsylvania. Apparently commercial property in

buildings or some parts of buildings, which are used for commercial

purposes, where other parts are used for educational purposes,

does not constitute the campus.

Although not binding on the Department of Education, there is

a Pennsylvania Superior Court case, Commonwealth v. Mitchell, which defined campus on other issues as not being limited to educational or research grounds, but also including commercial property that the college or university used for investment purposes.

The statistics as to the University of Pennsylvania, which we are

taking a look at, do not include, as I understand the facts—and we

are going to have a representative from the university here—the

sidewalks, and the hospital of the university was not included.

The President of the University of Pennsylvania, Dr. Roden, is

quoted in the newspaper, I believe in her report to the Department

of Education as well, that there was no finding of evidence that the

university was hiding anything or distorting campus crime. That is

the outstanding question in light of the limitations on the university’s report.

There is considerable pressure at this time for expanding the

statutes which relate to campus reporting to go against these disciplinary files and other files which could raise very material questions on privacy.

I believe that at a minimum, Mr. Secretary, the Department is

going to have to take a much closer look at the statutory requirements and find a way to get compliance, or there is likely to be a
2

rash of additional legislation imposing penalties on universities

and going much further. There is legislation pending in the House

which goes a great deal further.

So, I would invite your close attention to what this hearing will

disclose, and you do have your Assistant Secretary, Mr. David

Longanecker, here for the purpose of this facet of the hearing.

Senator Torricelli had asked for some time to testify, and we will

reserve his time.

Let me now call all in one panel so that we can try to proceed

with some dispatch here. Mr. Howard Clery, Mr. Jacob McKee——

Senator FAIRCLOTH. Mr. Chairman, I had one quick question of

the Secretary.

Senator SPECTER. OK.

Senator FAIRCLOTH. And it will not take but a second to ask it.

What is the Department’s policy regarding the use of Pell grants

and other Federal grants and loans for the purchase of books and

other educational material at bookstores which are not associated

with the college or university?

Secretary RILEY. David, do you want to respond to that? That is

a higher education issue. I am going to ask Dr. Longanecker to respond. He is head of higher education. Are you familiar with that?

Mr. LONGANECKER. Senator, sure. Pell grants are provided based

on the ability of the family to pay and predicated on the costs. The

students can use the resources that they receive to purchase the

services that they need whether they are on campus or off campus.

Senator FAIRCLOTH. They can buy off campus with Pell grant——

Mr. LONGANECKER. Absolutely.

Senator FAIRCLOTH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator SPECTER. Thank you.

Secretary RILEY. Mr. Chairman, Dr. Longanecker indicated to me

that he would respond to your question or your statement in his

statement. If I might be excused. I certainly enjoyed spending the

afternoon with you.

Senator SPECTER. All right. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. That will

be fine.

STATEMENT OF HOWARD CLERY, FOUNDER, SECURITY ON CAMPUS,

INC.

Senator SPECTER. I call on Mr. Howard Clery, Mr. Jacob McKee,

Ms. Barbara Prentice, Mr. Stanley Ikenberry, Ms. Michele Goldfarb, Ms. Dolores Stafford, and Mr. David Longanecker.

I am going to have the timer set here at 3 minutes because we

need to conclude by 4 o’clock if we possibly can because, as I said

earlier, the Governmental Affairs Committee is meeting.

Mr. Clery is the cofounder, along with Mrs. Connie Clery, of Security on Campus, an organization which is dedicated to improving

security on campus. Security on Campus was founded after the

tragic murder of their daughter Jeanne, who was a freshman at Lehigh University, in 1986 and who was brutally raped and murdered

while in a dormitory at Lehigh by another Lehigh student, a truly,

tragic, tragic incident.

Mr. Clery, the floor is yours, sir.

Mr. CLERY. Thank you very much, Senator.
3

We want to thank you very much for your support in passage of

the Campus Security Act of 1990 which you not only sponsored but

introduced on the Senate floor the day after five students were

massacred at the University of Florida in Gainesville. Because of

this action, campus crime and student safety has been improved on

many residential campuses.

However, far too many institutions are not in compliance with

the letter or spirit of the law. The Department of Education has investigated five universities in 1997 and all five institutions have

been found in major noncompliance with the Federal Security Act

of 1990. We have attached an addendum to our report that briefly

summarizes those findings.

A common sense review of individual campus crime statistics reported annually by the Chronicles of Higher Education show gross

underreporting of student violations of Federal drug laws and State

underage alcohol laws. Many campus research reports reveal recent illegal drug use by students ranging from 14 to 20 percent of

the campus population, and the result is a rising death toll from

alcohol poisoning. Rape and sexual assault crimes are substantially

underreported by many schools as they run them through the judiciary committee, and the adjudication and findings of those hearings never appear in the campus statistical reports. The reasons for

noninclusion are bogus claims of confidentiality which even extend

to annual campus crime reports.

We would strongly recommend to this committee the campus

crime reporting and disclosure provisions of the Higher Education

Act of 1965 be amended to include substantial fines to be levied by

the Department of Education on colleges and universities found in

meaningful noncompliance with the Federal Campus Security Act

of 1990.

We would also like to propose that every student who applies for

a federally financed or a guaranteed loan submit an annual or at

least a preliminary drug test. Looking at recent reports yesterday

in the New York Times, they said that there were 5 million students on the loan program, and if you used any sort of percentages,

you might come up with a feeling that 500,000 to 1 million students who are being financed by Federal loan program are drug

users. Student athletes have to take drug tests. Why not people

who are using Federal funds?

I think we should recognize that every organization is a mirror

of the people who are an integral part of it. Our universities are

no exception. Many parents and legislators do not know that 80

percent of campus crimes are committed by students on students,

and campus crime is being fueled by student binge drinking, use

of illegal drugs, unlawful fraternity hazing, and the increasing

presence of firearms and gang activity. A new campus business, by

the way, is now gambling.

All of the above aberrations are present in some of our high

schools or many of them, but university admissions officers ignore

the world around them. They rarely inquire or require the following from perspective students who are applying to their institutions. They ought to ask these questions.

Have you been arrested and convicted of a crime?

Have you been registered as a gang member by your local police?
4

Do you own a registered firearm and where will it be housed?

Have you included a drug test as part of your required medical exam prior to admission?

PREPARED STATEMENT

So, I would like to summarize for the fact that a lot still remains

to be done to make this legislation that you sponsored a reality and

the campuses become safe places and places of learning and not

crime.

Senator SPECTER. Thank you very much, Mr. Clery, and thank you for all the work that you and Mrs. Clery have done on this important subject.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CONNIE AND HOWARD CLERY

Senator Spector, the Student Right to Know and Campus Security Act of 1990,

which you sponsored and introduced on the Senate Floor the day after 5 students

were massacred at the University of Florida in Gainsville, has substantially increased student safety and security on many residential college campuses.

However, far too many institutions are not in compliance with the letter or spirit

of the law. The Department of Education has investigated 5 universities during

1997 and all five institutions have been found in major non-compliance with the

Federal Campus Security Act of 1990. Please see the attached addendum.

A common sense review of individual campus crime statistics, reported annually

by the Chronicle of Higher Education, show gross under-reporting of student violations of Federal Drug Laws and State Underage Alcohol laws. Many campus research reports reveal recent ‘‘illegal drug use by students ranging from 14–20 percent of the campus population, while the new phenomenon of binge drinking is hovering between 40–50 percent of campus populations and the result is a rising death

toll from alcohol poisoning’’. Rape and Sexual Assault crimes are substantially

underreported by many schools as they do not include results of Judiciary Committee adjudication or findings of Campus Rape Crisis Centers. The reasons for noninclusion are bogus claims of confidentiality which even extend to the annual campus crime statistics.

We would strongly recommend the Campus Crime Reporting and Disclosure provisions of the Higher Education Act of 1965 be amended to include the following:

—Require annual campus statistical disclosure of liquor law and drug violations

determined by Campus Security and Administrators, not just arrests.

—Require annual drug tests from students applying for and receiving Federally

Guaranteed Student Loans.

—Require the names of individuals arrested and charged by Campus Security and

Administrators to be entered and disclosed in ‘‘Campus Crime Logs’’.

—Remove F.E.R.P.A confidentiality protections for students found guilty of violating campus rules of conduct which correspond to violations of State and Federal

Laws. Victims’ confidentiality should be maintained in accordance with state

laws. Two State and two Federal Courts have ruled F.E.R.P.A Confidentiality

of Students found guilty of actions violating State and Federal Laws are not

Educational Records.

—Require Campus Police or Security logs be disclosed within 24 hours for Campuses with Residential Housing.

—Campus crime statistics must include rapes and sexual assaults reported to and

confirmed by Campus Administrators, Athletic Coaches, Judicial Committees

and Rape Crisis Centers. (The reporting of these statistics does not violate Professional-Patient Confidentiality Regulations).

Example: According to the Dartmouth College Student Newspaper, the college

reports 4–6 rapes annually but there are 40–50 students in counseling at the

Rape Crisis Center.

—Consumer rights dictate that campus crime statistics give a realistic picture of

campus crime and relative student safety.

—The Department of Education should be empowered to levy fines on Universities

found not in compliance with the provisions of the Campus Security Act.

Campus Boundaries should include:

—Municipal streets and sidewalks bisecting the campus.
5

—Stores and enterprises leased by the school to private businesses to provide student services, i.e., book stores, eating establishments, etc.

—Fraternity and sororities located just ‘‘off campus’’.

—Areas adjacent to campus containing large numbers of students in private housing. Many state universities have 50–80 percent of their ‘‘residential students’’

living a ‘‘few blocks’’ from campus. (A separate statistical column can be added

to the annual crime report.)

—Streets ‘‘adjacent’’ to campus, but which are patrolled by Campus Police or Security.

Every organization is a mirror of the people who are an integral part of it. Our

universities are no exception. Many parents and legislators do not know that 80 percent of campus crimes are committed by students on students. Campus crime is

being fueled by student binge drinking, use of illegal drugs, unlawful fraternity hazing and the increasing presence of firearms and gang activity, i.e., gambling, drugs,

prostitution.

University Admissions’ and Deans’ offices are well aware of the National Studies

revealing:

—50–60 percent of male students indulge in binge drinking.

—30–40 percent of female students indulge in binge drinking.

—15–20 percent of students are recent users of illegal drugs.

—Sexual Assault and Rape are major campus problems.

—Student physical violence is growing.

—Student illegal gambling is ‘‘a new campus business’’.

All of the above aberrations are also present in our high schools. But, university

admission officers ignore the world around them. They rarely inquire or require the

following from prospective students:

—Have you been arrested and convicted of a crime?

—Have you been registered as a gang member by your local police?

—Do you own a firearm? Where will it be housed?

—Have you included a drug test as part of your required medical exam prior to

admission?

Deans and student affairs personnel too often believe student crimes are educational opportunities instead of punishment opportunities. This mind set can lead

to increased campus crime and student victims. It also tends to obscure the inherent

institutional responsibility to ensure a safe campus environment and, therefore, reduced civil suits by victims. Campus safety is enhanced by suspension and separation of students found guilty of campus judicial hearings for violators of State and

Federal laws. Sadly, many student crime victims transfer to other campuses because

the student perpetrators remain on campus with minimal punishment and their

names and violations held ‘‘Confidential’’ by false interpretations of Federal Law by

the U.S. Department of Education.

Deans and student affairs personnel must take proactive security measures to ensure student safety in dormitories, fraternities and sororities. This would require

regular campus police and security patrols of campus student housing to reduce:

—Binge and underage drinking.

—Sale and use of illegal drugs.

—Possession of illegal firearms and gambling.

—The number of unauthorized persons.

(A number of campus police departments are now using undercover personnel as

a supplement to regular patrols and the results are encouraging).

The above recommendations may shock some people, but they are normal procedures used in our towns and cities, our hospitals and public institutions, our businesses and military services. It should be remembered that our University Campuses are high-crime communities. This reality is obscured by massive falsifications

of annual crime statistics required by Federal Law!

This current academic year has seen an alarming increase in student deaths from

alcohol poisoning due to binge drinking. (In November 1997 alone, 5 students have

died of alcohol poisoning in the state of Virginia.) A few years ago, Police Chief Reuben Greenberg of Charleston, South Carolina wrote: ‘‘With few exceptions other

than the drug traffickers themselves, administrators of our nation’s universities are

the most hostile elements to the enforcement of our nation’s drug laws’’. Most local

police departments continue to hold the same views about the campuses located in

their communities.

Many protected members of academia will mindlessly shout ‘‘Police State’’. Many

students, faculty and staff will exclaim ‘‘It’s about Time’’. Most parents will say

‘‘Thank God’’!
6

ADDENDUM—CAMPUS SECURITY ACT PROGRAM REVIEW SUMMARY [FEBRUARY 1998]

The following five schools have been found in non-compliance with the Federal Campus Security Act of 1990:

(1) Moorhead State University (Minnesota)

Found in violation, September 13, 1996

—Crime Statistics Not Accurately Disclosed in annual security reports.

—Timely Warnings were not issued.

—Security Report Information Not Made Available to Students and Employees.

—Deficiencies in information contained in the annual campus security reports (statements of policy omitted or incomplete; statements of policy inaccurate). The Chicago Regional Office of the DOE issued the ‘‘Final Program Review’’ letter on June 30, 1997 referring this case to the Washington, DC office for administrative

(i.e. possible fine) action. Further information can be found on our Web Site. The

original complaint was filed by Margaret Jakobson in 1995.

(2) Virginia Tech (Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University)

Found in violation, June 19, 1997

—Crime Statistics Not Accurately Compiled for annual security reports.

—Crime Statistics Not Accurately Disclosed in annual security reports.

—Statements of Policy Omitted/Incomplete (procedures to follow if a sex offense occurs; procedures for campus disciplinary actions in alleged sex offense cases;

sanctions the institution may impose following a disciplinary hearing). This report was issued by the Philadelphia Regional Office of the DOE following complaints filed by Eileen Wagner and SOC in August of 1996 on the behalf of campus rape survivor Christy Brzonkala. Her rapes by two football players were not

properly included in the statistics. No further action is expected based on this complaint.

(3) Miami University of Ohio

Found in violation, September 11, 1997

—Crime incidents from all sources not reported.

—Crime statistics not calculated correctly from Miami University police records.

—All university properties not included.

—Inconsistent data.

—Crime statistics from branch campuses misreported.

—Failure to follow Campus Security Act Regulations Regarding Notification of

Disciplinary Action.

Ohio Supreme Court ordered the school to grant access to UDB records; DOE says

ruling that F.E.R.P.A. does not cover these records is wrong ‘‘as a matter of law.’’

This investigation resulted from a formal complaint filed in January of 1997 by S.

Daniel Carter and MUOH graduate Jennifer Markiewicz who uncovered inaccuracies in reporting while editor of the student newspaper. The Program Review Report

was issued on September 11, 1997.

(4) Clemson University

Found in violation, July 18, 1998

—Crime Statistics Not/Improperly Reported (sex offenses improperly reported;

hate crimes not reported; only reported 11⁄2 years worth of data, not 3 years;

statistics inconsistently reported; Statistics Do Not Match Institutional

Records).

—Drug/Alcohol Policy Not Included in the Campus Security Report.

—Timely Warning Procedure Inadequately Developed.

—Sexual Assault Policy Inadequate/Underdeveloped.

—Crime Statistics Not/Inaccurately Gathered (Statistics Are Gathered From Police Reports Only).

This case was brought about through the initial complaint filed with the Atlanta

office in February of 1997 by the survivor of a campus ‘‘gang-rape.’’ The ‘‘Equal

Rights Alliance’’ filed an amicus complaint on May 4th.

(5) The University of Pennsylvania

Found in violation, February 1998

—Hate Crime Statistics Not Included In Campus Security Report.

—Failure to Report Specific Incidents (1,994 rape; 1,006 liquor law violations)

—Failure to Complete Separate Statistics for Separate Campuses.

—Failure to Include Statistics For All Campus Locations (campus hospital).
7

—Failure To Notify All Prospective Students and Parents of the Availability of the

Campus Security Report. —Failure To Provide Campus Security Report to All Current Students.

This case was initiated in December, 1996 by the Philadelphia Office of U.S. Dept. of Education based on a November 25, 1996 article in The Philadelphia Inquirer regarding crime reporting. An in-depth complaint was filed on June 11, 1997 by the

Equal Rights Alliance and Security On Campus, Inc.

STATEMENT OF JACOB McKEE, STUDENT, LEHIGH UNIVERSITY

Senator SPECTER. I turn now to Mr. Jacob McKee, a second-year engineering student at Lehigh. He has many academic honors in

advanced biology, calculus, and economics. He is also active in

sports, hockey, baseball. Thank you for joining us, Mr. McKee, and

the floor is yours.

Mr. MCKEE. Thank you, Senator. I believe what you mostly want to know is how colleges deal with crime on their campuses, so I will tell my story and what I have

experienced with regard to college security. About 3 weeks into the fall semester of 1997, I was assaulted by Jason McNutt, a fourth-year student at Lehigh University. It was

my first semester of college and college life and my first time living

away from home. I received a punch to my left eye while I was not

looking and it cracked the orbital bone of my eye, which led to double vision and loss of feeling in my face. Since the attack, I have had more than 20 doctor’s visits and two

serious operations on my eye. In both of these operations, I ran the

risk of total loss of vision in my left eye. Well, from my experiences, this is what I could tell to help this hearing. Throughout the entire process, I believe that Lehigh University and its fully certified on-campus police program treated me

and the criminal similarly. In many respects I feel he has been

given more preferential treatment than I. Throughout the entire incident, Lehigh University’s position seemed to be one of down playing the situation. They simply wanted to minimize severity of the

situation and move on and away from it. The university attempted

to do this in several different ways.

They actually down played the incident to me. They did this by

trying to make me believe that it was merely a simple scuffle. They

also led me to believe that I was also partially to blame. I know

what I have been through and I know that the only mistake that

I made was to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. No one

will be able to alter my thinking on that. I was simply in a place

where someone who was intoxicated, reckless, and out of control

aggressively attacked me. This place was Lehigh University.

Another problem I had with Lehigh University was the manner

in which they handled the school trial. I was required to be there

but only as a witness. I went there knowing almost none of the defendant’s circumstances or his background. All I knew was what

happened that night and what I have been through since, plus a

little amount of information which I was able to learn on my own.

Lehigh University has intentionally avoided providing me with any

information that they have gathered on the incident.

From my views on morals and sensibility, I believe that that information would have been sufficient to severely punish Jason

McNutt. Now I know that that is wrong. You have to do a lot of

homework if you want to see justice served.
8

Jason McNutt came to the Lehigh University hearing knowing

detailed information about me, which I still cannot imagine how he

obtained. At the university trial, he questioned every witness to the

crime, including me on a one-on-one basis. I left gaining nothing.

He learned every intricate detail about the incident and what every

witness saw, perceived, and remembered. He was in control of the

trial. He got to question me and even accuse me of things. When

he was done with me, he said that I should leave.

I had no say in the activity of the university trial, nor was I allowed to make any final closing comments. From this trial, what

punishment did he receive? A couple of months of probation and

some hours of community service. He gained more information

than a punishment from this.

Jason McNutt is a criminal who admitted to assaulting me. Yet,

he is still permitted to attend classes and graduate on schedule

from Lehigh University. This shows the kind of integrity the school

has. Jason McNutt is now a second semester senior about to graduate. Yet, I can only assume these details because I have been told

very little about him either formally or informally by any representative of the university. He is going to graduate without missing any school. I have already been forced to delay my academic

career one semester at a minimum.

In the 6 months since the incident, I have gained little information on the circumstances of the incident or on the defendant. Police reports from the incident which I have requested have not been

received. I have also requested the names of the witnesses who

were at the scene. Yet, I have received nothing.

I have, in that sense, been stonewalled by the university staff

from obtaining any information. This clearly demonstrates their

general lack of assistance to me and their policy of covering up the

incident. The only reason I can imagine for their behavior is to protect the university and its public image.

I feel that changes need to be made to the school security procedures. I would suggest taking control away from the campus police

since they are too closely aligned with the school’s administration.

When this type of situation is allowed to exist, the students are not

being protected by the laws of our country but by the laws of the

university which has its own image to protect.

My bottom line of the incident is that I have been punished severely, yet the perpetrator of the situation has not. He is going to

plead guilty to assault in a criminal court, yet he is allowed to remain on campus, attend classes, and graduate on schedule.

Finally, I believe the school should get its priorities straight and

think of the welfare of the students over the reputation of the

school.

Senator SPECTER. Mr. McKee, the proceeding that you have described has been a campus proceeding as opposed to a trial in a

criminal court in Lehigh County?

Mr. MCKEE. No; just the campus, a school-run hearing.

Senator SPECTER. Was the individual who assaulted you tried in

the criminal court?

Mr. MCKEE. Not yet. He is going to plead guilty to a simple assault, and that was going to be about a month ago except it got
9

continued. Now I have a subpoena for next week. I am going to testify at it. So, if things go as planned, he should plead guilty.

Senator SPECTER. Well, you may have some rights beyond a plea

bargain. That depends on what the assistant district attorney [DA]

does, but it may well be that the facts of the case rise higher than

simple assault and battery when you describe your damages.

Mr. MCKEE. At first it was aggravated assault. He was charged

with aggravated assault, but the DA said that there would not be

much of a chance of getting that in court even though he read me

the definition of aggravated assault, and I believe that in my situation every thing falls under that. The definition—I am not positive

on it, but it is something along the lines of recklessly endangering

the life or welfare of another human being.

Senator SPECTER. Well, I just wanted to comment, Mr. McKee,

that you have the right to be there and to express yourself. You

can be represented by counsel if you wish. You do not have to be.

The assistant district attorney is the public prosecutor, but you can

bring those facts to the court. You are a victim. You have a right

to speak. Now, the judge does not necessarily have to agree to a

guilty plea which is bargained with the assistant DA. I just wanted

to point that out to you.

STATEMENT OF BARBARA PRENTICE, CENTERVILLE, MA

Senator SPECTER. Ms. Barbara Prentice, welcome. Ms. Prentice

is the mother of Adam Prentice who was the victim of a campus

crime resulting in the son’s death. Ms. Prentice, thank you for coming and the floor is yours.

Ms. PRENTICE. Thank you.

My son, Barnstable resident Adam Prentice, a popular local athlete, swim instructor, and 4.0 computer systems engineering junior

at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, died from loss of

blood several hours after suffering an injury on campus.

Adam had been out with friends but allegedly left them to walk

back to his dorm alone around 12:30 a.m. He told them that he was

tired and wanted to go home. It was homecoming weekend and the

campus was unusually busy. At 1:30 a.m. Adam was found collapsed and bleeding profusely on the grass in front of several

greenhouses in the center of campus.

Police had responded to an alarm at the site and noticed, quote,

a smell of alcoholic beverage on his breath. They assumed he was

intoxicated. One greenhouse wing had a hole through its roof. Another greenhouse had a hole through its side. Adam was found

semiconscious, collapsed and moaning, but as police suspected this

was a breaking and entering, he was restrained. He is described as

going from semiconscious to combative, a typical reaction to shock

due to loss of blood. Rescue was called.

Reports state that Adam said it was not my fault. Because no

witnesses came forward at the hour of his injury, campus police determined that he was alone and cleaned the scene without preserving it or taking any forensic evidence. They released a statement

later that morning requesting anyone with information to come forward, but they also stated that they believed Adam to be alone.

His family was never notified about the injury by officials of the

university until after he had been pronounced dead 3 hours later.
10

Officials said they had not positively identified Adam yet. However,

they had already run a criminal records check on him at 2:30 a.m.,

that morning which requires first and last name and did identify

me and my home address. This was before Adam had died.

The only stab wound on his body was made by this 8-inch glass

dagger that impaled him. There were bruises on his wrist, but no

other scratches from the jagged glass he allegedly fell through. As

no forensic evidence secured at the scene, I have no proof that

Adam was ever in the greenhouse.

The first officer to respond reported that he had seen another

person running through the middle greenhouse as he approached

the building. As he rounded the corner, he found Adam either

‘‘passed out or hiding,’’ quote, from him. Several other officers arrived. Adam is described as being found in conflicting states. One

officer comments that initial observations of Adam were that he

was semiconscious, soaked with fresh blood, collapsed and moaning, but in the same breath this same officer continues to state that

throughout contact with the subject, he was highly combative. All

reports implied that Adam’s combativeness resulted from intoxication not shock.

My questions are, why did officers responding move my son?

First, their written protocol dictates that a victim of a medical

emergency should never be moved unless in danger. Police reports

specifically state that Adam was found semiconscious and soaked

with fresh blood from a severe laceration. Yet, he was ordered to

stretch his arms overhead and restrained. Pressure was applied in

the area impaled to stop the bleeding, possibly causing deeper penetration of the glass.

Why did the university not protect my son and their tenant while

on their property?

Why were police so insensitive and ill-prepared for my call when

I contacted them for details? I was placed on hold for almost 10

minutes, then told the detective in charge was still investigating

and I would have to call back. I demanded to speak with the shift

commander, but he told me it was not police protocol to contact

parents. They leave that up to the hospitals, he said. When I asked

for a copy of these written protocols, I was told that none existed.

Within the first week of Adam’s death, rumors surfaced that he

had been the victim of foul play, that he had been chased and

pushed and was fleeing from something. Why were these rumors

dismissed by police as speculation and never investigated?

Why did it take 7 weeks and my lawyer’s request for police to

follow up on an interview regarding the receiver of two anonymous

calls stating that Adam had not been alone at the time of the incident?

Why does the second person seen originally, who was never

found, metamorphosis into my son Adam making him both inside

and outside of the greenhouse at the same time? Inside he is running through the greenhouse in a white T-shirt. At the same time,

Adam is outside of the greenhouse semi-conscious and collapsed in

a blood-soaked, fire engine red T-shirt, copies of which I have given

in my written statement.

I wonder aloud if it was determined Adam was alone without

taking the time to investigate because the homecoming parade was
11

due to pass the greenhouse later that morning and many prestigious alumna were on campus. It would certainly be easier to

blame Adam for being so intoxicated that he could single-handedly

crash backward through a roof, yet not too intoxicated to singlehandedly climb on the roof, than it would be to alarm any guests

by mentioning foul play.

Why was no effort put into other suspicious incidents reported in

the police log that occurred within the same timeframe?

Although almost a dozen police officers contributed to Adam’s investigation, not one of their reports is officially signed. Why?

The most devastating reality for me is the lack of accountability

the police department has demonstrated by failing to provide security for their students. At the cost of Adam’s reputation, they

blamed his death on excessive drinking to protect their own reputation rather than to investigate the more probable possibility that

foul play occurred.

Does the Constitution not state innocent until proven guilty?

How different the turn of events may have been if they had approached Adam, as their own report indicates they should have.

Quote, my first observation of the subject were that his shirt and

denim pants were soaked with fresh blood. The individual was

barely conscious, very pale, and moaning.

Why was I not notified immediately that my son had been injured? I would have advocated for him and demanded that he be

taken to a trauma center.

Why was I told that Adam had not been identified soon enough

to notify me when a criminal records check had been reviewed at

2:34 a.m., which listed me as next of kin and included my home

address?

Before day break and before witnesses had even been sought for

questioning, who determined that my son had been alone attempting to break into the greenhouse by crashing through the roof backwards, only to run through the next greenhouse, vault up onto a

table, and kick himself out with an 8-inch shard of glass in his

back?

Who ordered the scene to be cleaned up without securing it or

taking forensic evidence?

Why has the police department denied me access to the officers

who responded at the scene and can tell me what Adam said?

As a 4.0 honors computer systems engineering major recently inducted into the Golden Key National Honors Society, Adam was

also a loss for the University of Massachusetts. Yet, I never received so much as a sympathy card or telephone call offering condolences from either Chancellor Scott or President Bolger. Is the way

alumnus, which I am, should expect to be treated by the university

officials when their children are victimized on campus property if

that victimization might taint the reputation of the university?

Why is my son described in the police report as being 5 feet 10

inches, 160 pounds, stocky, and brown-skinned when he was 5 feet

3 inches, 130 pounds, lean, and white? Am I expected to believe in

the credibility of this department?

I want to know why Assistant District Attorney Michael Goggins,

whose help I sought regarding Adam, said that he realized it must

be frustrating regarding the destruction of forensic evidence but,
12

quote, what is done is done. Who was responsible for what is done

is done? This was my son’s life.

Why can Adam’s clothes not be returned to me? I want what was

his last.

PREPARED STATEMENT

Adam excelled in everything he attempted because he approached life with 150 percent effort. Both Adam and I are bornagain Christians. I know I will see him again, but when I do, I

want to look him in the eye and say, son, I gave it 150 percent just

like you taught me to.

Thank you.

Senator SPECTER. Thank you very much, Mrs. Prentice.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF BARBARA PRENTICE

Distinguished members of the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies:

Thank you for inviting me to share my views regarding security on campus. My

name is Barbara Prentice, and I am a member of a select group of Americans across

this country that has no designated class, race, profession, or age. My goal is to prevent you from joining my group. I am the grieving mother of a loving son who died

under suspicious circumstances while at college.

On September 1, 1997, I kissed and hugged my firstborn child Adam goodbye as

he prepared to leave for his junior year at the University of Massachusetts in Amherst. I reminded him to study hard, and to have fun, but to be careful. As an alumnus of the same university, I knew that the campus wasn’t safe after dark. Adam

never took my scolding seriously, believing himself to be infallible because of his

gender and age. But he listened respectfully, and assured me he’d be fine. I waved

goodbye, watching him drive down the street until his car was out of sight. This

was the last time I saw him.

On September 24, Adam called to check in as he did every Sunday and Wednesday. We talked for 45 minutes—much longer than usual. It was a wonderful conversation, but it was late, so I suggested we hang up. I never talked to him again.

At 8 p.m., on Friday, September 26, I had an unusual urge to call Adam, but decided against it.

At 4:30 a.m., at September 27, I awoke to the telephone ringing—the phone call

that all parents fear most. Dr. Tehrani identified himself as a trauma physician at

Bay State Medical Center in Springfield, MA. He informed me that Adam had fallen

through a greenhouse roof on campus several hours before, and had tragically been

brought to the wrong hospital first. He proceeded to state that I’d have to get the

details from the campus police, and that he was ‘‘so sorry to tell me that Adam had

just passed away.’’ At that moment, the Barbara Prentice known to self, family,

friends, and associates, passed away, too. And I will never, ever be the same. There

is no turning back; there is no recovery. Every waking moment breaths the loss of

your child.

My son Adam was a resident of the Town of Barnstable, located on Cape Cod in

Massachusetts. He was a 4.0 Honors computer systems Engineering major at University of Massachusetts, where he had been highly recruited. He worked two jobs

for years as a head lifeguard and swim instructor for the YMCA and Town of

Barnstable so he could put himself through college. At school, he continued to work

part time, even though his classes were the most difficult offered on campus. He

was an accomplished song writer, musician, and athlete in six sports, rising early

each morning to exercise before work or classes. As a born-again Christian, his

gentle, compassionate nature was respected by all. His friends ranged from a grandfather to the mentally challenged. He loved children, and had a gift for inspiring

them through his work. Over the years, he’d taught hundreds of Cape Codders how

to swim, and was referred to as a ‘‘quiet leader’’ and ‘‘ideal role model.’’ His death

has affected the entire community.

Adam died from loss of blood several hours after suffering an injury on campus.

It was Homecoming, always a busy weekend in Amherst, and he had been out with

friends. Around 12:30 a.m., he allegedly left them, stating that he was tired and

wanted to go back to the dorm. Due to safety issues, they didn’t want him to walk
13

home alone, but Adam was ready to leave, and they weren’t. One friend went outside to see Adam off, then watched him walk toward the bus stop.

At 1:30 a.m., an alarm sounded at the greenhouses located in the center of cam- pus. Adam was found on the grass nearby, collapsed and bleeding profusely. The

greenhouses were located several blocks beyond the walkway that led uphill to

Adam’s dorm, and diagonally across the street from the campus bus stop. The first

officer to respond reported that he had seen another person running through the

middle greenhouse. As he rounded the corner of the building, he found Adam ‘‘either

passed out or hiding’’ from him. Several other officers arrived. One noted that Adam

was very pale, and had a ‘‘smell of alcoholic beverage on his breath.’’ Officers located

a hole through one greenhouse roof, and a second hole through the side of another.

All greenhouses were attached. They suspected that this was a ‘‘break and entry in

progress,’’ and concluded that Adam had been attempting to maliciously destroy

property valued over $250. Adam is described as being found in conflicting states—one officer comments that ‘‘initial observations of Adam were that he was semi-conscious, soaked with fresh

blood, collapsed and moaning,’’ but in the same breath the same officer continues

to state that, ‘‘throughout contact with the subject, he was highly combative.’’ Rescue was called, and Adam ‘‘continued to be combative’’ as his clothes were cut off

to determine the origin of the bleeding. He is also described as being found ‘‘conscious and alert,’’ but then again as being ‘‘semi-conscious, mumbling, and hard to

understand.’’ While in the ambulance, it was recorded that Adam stated ‘‘it wasn’t

my fault,’’ but there is no indication that rescue personnel questioned what he

meant by this. All reports are subjective, implying that Adam’s combativeness resulted from intoxication. He is even described as being ‘‘loaded.’’ The facts are that

he’d been stabbed in the back and impaled through the stomach by a shard of glass

measuring 8 inches and resembling a knife. However, because police suspected

Adam was either so drunk he didn’t know what he was doing, or had been attempting to break into the greenhouse, he was restrained. Sources have reported to us

that he had initially even been handcuffed. Because no witnesses had come forward at the scene to volunteer any information, police determined that Adam was alone, and ordered the scene to be cleaned immediately without preserving it or taking forensic evidence. They issued a statement

later that morning asking for information, but also stated that they believed him

to be alone. Thereafter, they referred all inquiries to the the public affairs office. Within 11⁄2 hours, all blood, glass and dirt from the incident had been destroyed in the clean up, and the holes were replaced with new glass the next day. When

I visited the scene two days later, there was no evidence at all that anything had

ever happened.

In basic first aid, a victim of a medical emergency should never be moved unless in immediate danger. Police reports specifically state that Adam was found semiconscious and soaked with fresh blood from a severe laceration, yet he was ordered

to stretch his arms overhead and restrained. Pressure was then applied on the area

impaled to stop the bleeding, even though officers had seen the glass in his back.

How much deeper did this cause the glass to submerge, and no wonder he became

agitated. In forcing him to lay flat, how much more physical pain did he have to

endure needlessly? He was guilty until proven innocent, yet defenseless to advocate

for himself. In spite of police knowledge of Adam’s injury, they did not advocate for

him either. He was not medflighted to a trauma center, the written protocol for impalement in Western Massachusetts. Nor was he transported by ambulance to a

trauma center. Even though rescue personnel came upon a blood bath (photos attached), they chose to transport him to a hospital with no trauma facilities. And

even though three officers were restraining Adam, they chose to transport him without enough manpower—the paramedic was driving, and an EMTI sat in the back

with him. Consequently, in his state of pain and delirium, Adam was able to rip

out his IV’s and oxygen mask, preventing proper hydration. All parties involved assumed he was combative because he was intoxicated. Even though he was a tenant

of the University, residing on university property and injured on university property, he was suspected of being a criminal before a victimized student! This is an

outrage to the value placed on our children’s lives. It is common knowledge to anyone with minimal first aid training that agitation is a classic indication of oxygen

deprivation due to loss of blood.

At the hospital, Adam identified himself by full name, address, social security

number, and birthdate. Hardly a task for someone intoxicated, never mind someone

suffering as he was. Adam had also been carrying a picture ID in his back pocket,

the most common place for a man to keep identification, but officers neglected to

look either before or after cutting his clothes off. It appears that the doctor at the

hospital was never advised about the impaled glass, as there is no further comment
14

about it until 45 minutes after arrival, when he mentions seeing it in an x-ray. At

this time, it was arranged for Adam to be transferred to Bay State trauma center.

Simultaneously, he went into cardiac arrest, and had to be brought back in for stabilization. The second ambulance then had to await discharge papers before transporting him. Enroute, Adam went into cardiac arrest again. He was defibrillated and given CPR until arrival at Bay State, where his chest was cracked for open heart massage. He was pronounced dead 7 minutes later. The cause of death was ‘‘loss of

blood.’’ He had never been given a blood transfusion, nor typed for one. It had taken

3 hours for him to bleed to death. He was conscious until the last half hour. During

this time, I was never notified by University officials or the first hospital. It would

have taken me less than 3 hours to drive to Springfield. On September 27, 1997, I suffered the worst tragedy a mother can suffer: the pre- ventable death of a beautiful child. This time it was my son, but he could have been

yours. We send our children off to college assuming that the University of our choice

will supervise their transition from teenager to young adult. We need to arm ourselves with the knowledge that this is no longer truthful, and we have to prepare

our children for battle before sending them away. For the colleges we help select

for them are more concerned with protecting their public image, and the safety of

our students is often overlooked. I entrusted my child’s health and well being to the

same institution I myself had graduated from. Yet, because of an ‘‘odor of alcohol’’

on his breath, he walked blindly into an ambush. Like so many casualties of war,

he came back to me in a body bag. As a lifeguard, Adam was trained extensively in CPR and First Aid. He knew how critical his condition was. Did he call for me? Why won’t those who know tell me

what he said? Did he feel I’d betrayed him because I wasn’t there? I wasn’t given

the opportunity. After being notified of Adam’s death by Dr. Tehrani, I called the University of Massachusetts campus police to ‘‘get the details’’ as he had suggested. I identified

myself, but the dispatcher did not recognize ‘‘Prentice,’’ so I clarified that I was

Adam’s mother. He still didn’t know who I was, so I clarified that Adam had just

died due to an injury suffered on campus. He then recognized the name, and asked

what I wanted, of which I answered ‘‘the details.’’ I was placed on hold for almost

10 minutes, then told that the detective in charge was still investigating and I’d

have to call back. I demanded to speak with the shift commander, but he had no

details either. I called Matt, Adam’s room mate and childhood friend since middle

school. Matt said that the police were storming through the dormitory as we spoke

asking questions about Adam, and had just left his room. He hadn’t been with

Adam since 8 p.m., the night before, and didn’t know why he hadn’t come home.

I then realized that Matt didn’t know, and in my own hysteria, I was going to have

to tell him that his best buddy since childhood was dead—Matt has never been the

same.

Adam’s last annual physical was a month before his death. His doctor described

him as being a ‘‘well developed, well nourished 21 year old gentleman who doesn’t

smoke and rarely drinks.’’ However, in spite of his excellent physical shape, Adam

was small in stature, and a prime candidate for robbery or assault alone at 1 a.m.,

on Homecoming weekend. Police reports state that there was so much vehicular and

pedestrian traffic on campus that night that two additional officers had to be called

in to direct it. Yet, they had told me initially that it was a quiet night with no one

around.

Within the first week of Adam’s death, rumors surfaced that he had been the victim of foul play—that he’d been chased and pushed, or was fleeing from something

for safekeeping. These were dismissed by police as speculation, and were not investigated. Police further commented to Adam’s friends that they were concerned that

they were talking to me because I had started these rumors! The editor of a regional

newspaper also received two anonymous calls stating that Adam had not been alone

at the time of the incident, but police did not call the editor for details until three

days later. At that time, they talked with a reporter who had heard about the calls

second hand. He allegedly stated that he did not believe them to be credible. The

police did not bother to call the editor back himself until seven weeks later, when

my lawyer learned of them, and requested they interview him directly. By this time,

the editor could not remember much about the conversations, which were from two

separate female sources on different dates and times. He did remember one as saying there had been a struggle with police, and that Adam hadn’t been alone.

I would like to know why, based on a smell of alcoholic beverage, my son’s life

was not taken seriously. My child died this time, but if we don’t put a stop to these

incidents, he could be your child just as easily the next time. And without your

intervention, there will be many other children, and many other times. No one had
15

checked Adam’s identity prior to concluding he was attempting to break into the

greenhouse. He could have easily been the son of a Senator. No one had checked

Adam’s identity before concluding that his combativeness was due to excessive

drinking, when it was obviously due to oxygen deprivation and loss of blood. Adam was found at 1:30 a.m. Why, then, was it determined at 2:54 a.m., that he was alone, and had been attempting to break into the greenhouse by crashing backward through the roof? Why does the second person seen originally who was never

found ‘‘metamorphosis’’ into Adam, making him both inside and outside of the

greenhouse at the same time? Inside, he is running through the greenhouse in a

white tee shirt with an 8 inch shard of glass impaled in his back. He then trips

an alarm upon entering another greenhouse, where he climbs up onto a table to kick

himself out, even though he could have opened a door and walked out just as easily.

At the same time, Adam is outside of the greenhouse semi-conscious and collapsed

in a blood-soaked, fire engine red tee shirt. Three weeks later, when an officer was

re-interviewed about the second person he, too, ‘‘was apparently Adam Prentice.’’

This time, he is placed in the first greenhouse with a shirt matching the description

of Adam’s before it turned red.

To conclude, based on police reports, Adam was in three separate places at one

time, all seen at 1:30 a.m., through a building from 75 feet that had no interior

lighting, frost-tinted windows, and street lighting blocked from a large tree. I wonder aloud if it ‘‘was determined’’ Adam was alone without taking the time to investigate because the Homecoming parade was due to pass by the greenhouse

later that morning, and many prestigious alumni were on campus? It would certainly be easier to blame Adam for being so intoxicated that he could singlehandedly crash backward through a roof, yet not too intoxicated to single-handedly

climb up onto the roof, than it would be to alarm any guests by mentioning foul

play. Is this why the scene was cleaned so quickly, without preserving it or taking

forensic evidence? Do our children really crash through roofs with such frequency

that it isn’t deemed worthy of the time and effort involved to secure the scene? Will I ever know if Adam fell through? Did someone fall with him (the 2nd person, who could have exited through the windows—only the doors were alarmed.) How

could Adam have fallen through the jagged shards pictured without cutting, injuring

or scratching his body anywhere aside from the stab wound? Why weren’t his

clothes torn and covered with glass? Was he stabbed outside or inside of the greenhouse?

In the police log for September 27, there was another man identified with a se- verely lacerated hand who was rushed to the same hospital 20 minutes after Adam.

I was told by both the assistant district attorney and the chief of police that this

student had punched out a dorm window. As there were no witnesses who saw him,

my question to the department has always been why? Did he punch out the window? Who was with him when he did it, and where had he been between 12 and

2 a.m?

My son led a more than exemplary life, as attested to by the many character references attached. My suspicions and concerns regarding the mishandling of Adam’s

death are listed chronologically below as they occurred:

The most devastating reality for me is the lack of accountability the police department has demonstrated by failing to provide security for one of their best students.

At the cost of Adam’s reputation, they blamed his death on excessive drinking to

protect their own, rather than to investigate the more probable possibility that foul

play was involved. In assuming Adam was drunk, police allowed the destruction of

forensic evidence and denied him the most basic of his civil rights: the right to an

objective, unbiased investigation. Does the Constitution not state ‘‘innocent until

proven guilty?’’ How different the turn of events may have been if they had approached Adam as their own reports indicate they should have: ‘‘My first observation of the subject were that his shirt and denim pants were soaked with fresh

blood. The individual was barely conscious, very pale and moaning.’’

Why was Adam moved when no one knew how he’d been injured? Why was he

requested to stretch his arms overhead and restrained? How much further did this

impale him, and how much more agony did he suffer because of it. Why wasn’t he

treated with the compassion and sensitivity he so readily bestowed on all who

crossed his paths, including many children of police officers and emergency personnel? Are the lives of our students so insignificant and devalued that police are more

concerned with suspecting them of foul play and alcohol abuse than in ensuring the

second most basic of Adam’s civil rights violated: the right to fair, unbiased medical

treatment? How different might the turn of events have been here if the rescue

squad had made their own medical assessment, rather than accepting the police assessment? If Adam had been medflighted to either trauma center in the area, I believe he’d be here today. No one was stronger or healthier than he.
16

Why wasn’t I notified immediately that my son had been gravely injured? I would have advocated for him and demanded that he be taken to a trauma center.

Why was I told Adam hadn’t been identified soon enough to notify me, when a Criminal Records check was completed as early as 2:39 a.m., 11⁄2 hours before Adam

died, that listed me as his mother, and my address as his home address? Why was

I lied to, and why was it more important to seek information regarding a possible

criminal background on Adam than it was to notify me? Why wasn’t I given the opportunity to say goodbye to my son by University or hospital officials? I was told

they were too busy trying to save him. If that is the case, why wasn’t he taken to

a trauma center as their protocol dictated he should have been?

Why didn’t the rescue squad treat Adam’s injuries per the written protocol for im- palement, loss of blood and soft tissue injury? As professionals, why didn’t they recognize the classic symptoms he demonstrated regarding blood loss? His clothing was

soaked in blood and in full view. They knew he was impaled. At 2:54 a.m., who determined that Adam had been alone, attempting to break into the greenhouse by crashing through the roof backward, only to run through the next

greenhouse, vault up onto a table, and kick himself out? How could anyone determine that he was alone when they themselves destroyed the evidence that may have

proven otherwise by not preserving it? Who did order this bloodbath scene to be cleaned up without securing it or taking forensic evidence?

I know Adam talked. Did he tell them what had happened, only to have them judge his attempts to communicate as ‘‘loaded’’ gibberish and ‘‘inappropriate’’ words

sounding like, ‘‘it wasn’t my fault,’’ but they clearly remembered him to say, ‘‘I guess

I drank to much?’’ Why has the police department denied me access to the officers

who responded and can tell me what Adam said? Why do they make me suffer more

than the loss of my son alone, when it isn’t necessary? When rescue arrived, three officers were restraining Adam, yet he was placed in the ambulance with one EMTI. Why was he allowed to be transported with inadequate manpower? Why was the paramedic, the higher ranked of the two, driving? Why is there no mention of the impalement at Cooley Dickinson hospital in re- ports until the doctor identifies it 45 minutes later in an x-ray? Didn’t the rescue

squad advise him about it? Was it still visible, as it had been at the scene?

Why wasn’t Adam blood-typed or transfused at Cooley Dickinson? Why wasn’t I called from there?

Upon the suggestion of Dr. Tehrani, when I called the police department for de- tails surrounding Adam’s death, why was I treated with such arrogance? I was

placed on hold two times, given no information, then told I’d have to call back.

When I called Adam’s room mate for details, they were in his dorm and demanded

to know why I was calling. When I asked Chief Luippold why I was treated in this

manner, he said the hospital should have notified them that I had been informed

so they could prepare a statement. I wanted facts, not a prepared statement. I was

then told it ‘‘wasn’t University protocol’’ to notify families—it was the hospital’s responsibility. Yet, the hospital told me to call them for the details.

When I asked for a written copy of the protocols, policies and procedures regarding safety on campus and the chain of command followed in reporting them, I was

told no such document existed.

When I asked why no one had been concerned enough to report Adam missing,

I was told that this wasn’t the responsibility of fellow students or resident advisors,

that ‘‘We operate from the philosophy that our students are adults and as such are

responsible for their own actions. I am very sorry for your loss.’’

As a 4.0 Honors Computer Systems Engineering major recently inducted into the

Golden Key National Honor Society, Adam was also a loss for the University of Massachusetts. Yet, I never received a sympathy card or telephone call offering condolences from either Chancellor Scott or President Bulger. Is the President’s new

$1,000,000 per year office space in Boston so expensive that he couldn’t afford the

cost of a card or long distance call? Is this the way alumnus should expect to be

treated by University officials when their children are victimized on campus property if that victimization might taint their reputation? I entrusted my child to the

University of Massachusetts for safekeeping. I requested that he live on campus

property because he’d be safer there. The University was Adam’s landlord, and he

their tenant.

Chief Luippold and I first discussed Adam death several hours after I’d been notified that morning. He offered his condolences, then asked if I was aware that my

son had a history of alcohol abuse in Barnstable? This was in reference to the CORI

check requested at 2:34 a.m., which noted that Adam had been charged with ‘‘minor

in possession’’ in August 1995, but this charge had been dismissed, and court fees

were reduced to ‘‘noise violation.’’ The facts of this incident were that 26 lifeguards
17

on Cape Cod were singing and playing guitar on the beach. There was an untapped

keg of beer that one of the guards, who was over 21, had purchased for another

party later. Not one guard had even sipped an alcoholic beverage at the time of the

arrests. All 26 were arrested, all ‘‘minor in possession’’ charges were dropped, and

all paid a fine for noise violation due to the singing and guitar playing. No other

incidents were recorded, yet Chief Luippold referred to an unfounded charge in August 1995 that had been dismissed as ‘‘alcohol abuse?’’ I want to know what this

dismissed charge 2 years prior had to do with Adam’s death? Wouldn’t it have been

more appropriate to review his academic record?

Why weren’t Chief Luippold and his department spending those first crucial hours investigating Adam’s death? Why was it more important to research Adam’s background for non-existent drinking habits? Shouldn’t their primary concern have been

to begin the tedious process of re-constructing why and how he’d just died? Was it

Adam’s fault that they had destroyed the evidence that might have answered these

questions?

Why didn’t the Office of Public Affairs ever release any information about Adam aside from ‘‘21 year old junior from Cape Cod who was intoxicated at the time of

the fall?’’ Why did police state that they were looking for information from anyone

who might have seen Adam that night, but they believed him to be alone? Why not

just say, ‘‘We’re going to say the case is open, but we made our minds up at 2:54

a.m., what will be allowed to be said, so we determined he was alone and cleaned

the scene. If you saw anything, don’t bother telling us, it is just speculation.’’ Why didn’t police follow up immediately on the anonymous calls to the editor of the Gazette stating that Adam was not alone? Why did my lawyer have to request

this through the DA’s office, which still took them 7 weeks, by this time, the receiver of the calls had forgotten most of the information. Why did the police tell Adam’s dorm friends that I had started wild rumors and speculations about Adam being chased and pushed, when I had been told this by

an acquaintance whose son lives in Amherst who had heard it within the first few

days of Adam’s death? Why were Adam’s dorm friends discouraged from talking to me and told that I would feed them wild speculations, yet University officials told me it was they who

refused to talk?

Why was I told that Adam’s friends were quoted as saying they were all so intoxi- cated they didn’t know where they’d been, and that they were so hung over they

couldn’t remember anything the next morning, and that they feared for Adam because he, to, was intoxicated? After reading their reports and talking to them, they

denied ever telling police they’d been intoxicated, stating that they’d all drank earlier in the dorm, as did Adam, but after returning from a walk with a friend, he

seemed back to normal? He did not drink again that night, although others did. Why was Adam’s autopsy BAL so low, 0.12, as opposed to other ‘‘alcohol-related’’

autopsies of 0.42, 0.65, in the news recently. The driving limit used to be 0.15 several years ago; it was only recently lowered to 0.08!

Why is Adam prescribed in the police report as being 5 feet 10 inches, 160 pounds,

stocky and brown-skinned, when he was 5 feet 3 inches, 130 pounds, lean, and

white? Am I expected to believe in the credibility of this department, were they describing the second person who later ‘‘metamorphosed into Adam, or are they just

so insensitive that they don’t bother to research the facts?

Why do police reports specifically state that Adam Prentice bought the alcohol for

the party that night, when he was still studying at the library at the time the alcohol was purchased? The student who drove the buyer to the liquor store even informed police that Adam had not bought the alcohol, yet they wrote it anyway.

Why can police speculate about information that is a proven lie, but I can’t speculate about information I’ve heard to be true? Why do they prefer to manipulate

statements made from Adam’s friends to fit a scene from their point of view that

never happened, rather than to get to the bottom of what really happened?

Why does the DA’s office in Northampton, whose help I sought in clarifying the

answers to the above-mentioned questions, respond by stating that ‘‘we all share

your frustrations’’ regarding the evidence destroyed by cleaning up without preserving any, but ‘‘what’s done is done.’’

I want to know who should be accountable for, ‘‘What’s done is done?’’ Would

‘‘What’s done is done,’’satisfy the DA and Chief of Police if Adam were their son?

Would they permit their child’s reputation to be slandered because he had the misfortune to be victimized on campus property—perhaps even stabbed deliberately,

only to be victimized again when ‘‘help’’ arrived and accused him of malicious destruction? And again when rescue arrived and misjudged his injury, sent him to the

wrong hospital, without enough manpower, and by the wrong source of transportation?
18

Why did Melinda Soffer, another attorney at the Northampton DA’s office, immediately change her attitude at the mention of Adam’s name during a phone conversation with Security on Campus staff when she called to compliment their

website? She described herself as a lawyer working in a large college community

in Massachusetts, and wondered if there was anything she could do to help. When

it was suggested that she assist me in seeking answers regarding the suspicious

death of Adam Prentice, her voice changed from friendly to ice cold, as if a dirty

word had been spoken. She abruptly ended the conversation, and never called back

to volunteer the services she’d just offered.

Why do I have to beg for Adam’s clothes to be returned to me? I want what was

his last.

Why were Adam’s closest friends from the Cape who attend University of Massachusetts interviewed for character background, but everything they’d said regarding

Adam’s credibility was overlooked? Why do police refer to rely on the speculations

made third party by individuals who didn’t know Adam as evidence to support their

theory that this crime was alcohol-related? Adam’s closest friends told them that

when he did drink, it was far less than them because he was such an accomplished

athlete, and he preferred getting up early to exercise as opposed to staying out late

to party?

Why was so little value placed on my son’s life because of a smell of alcohol on

his breath that he had to die needlessly?

I long for the day that I can grieve my son instead of defend him. These first

months without him bring a new milestone to overcome with each passing day. The

first Columbus Day holiday without shopping with him for winter clothes, two

months since I saw him last, four months since I heard him say ‘‘Hi Mum’’ on the

phone. The first birthday this Sunday without his thoughtful cards. Regardless of

how busy Adam was, he always took the time to remember me. Mother’s Day in

May 1997 was the last card I’ll ever receive from him. I am a gardener, and the

card begins with:

‘‘My mother kept a garden, a garden of the heart, she planted all the good things

that gave my life its start. She turned me to the sunshine and encouraged me to

dream, fostering and nurturing the seeds of self-esteem. And when the winds and

rains came, she protected me enough—but not too much—she knew I’d need to

stand up strong and tough. Her constant good example always taught me right from

wrong—markers for my pathway that will last a lifetime long. I am my mother’s

garden, I am her legacy—and I hope today she feels the love reflected back from

me.’’

He then went on to hand write,

‘‘Mom, thank you for being yourself. You are the best mother in the world. You’ve

proved this to me time after time. Being away from home I realize you have given

me everything that I need to succeed. Thank you for everything that you’ve done

for me over years. I wish I was home to celebrate this day with you. But, before

you know it, I’ll be back.’’

If only this were true.

The Christmas holidays were the cruelest—while friends shopped for their children’s gifts and attended the traditional parties, I upgraded my hardware to research Adam’s investigation more efficiently. The most expensive gift I purchased

this season was a headstone for Adam’s grave. It has a swimmer carved into black

rock and the inscription ‘‘Lifeguard of Barnstable’’ arched above it.

What is it like to lose a beloved son so needlessly, only to have his impeccable

character sacrificed relentlessly to protect the reputation of the very institution he’d

saved so hard to attend? At an early age, Adam had accepted Jesus Christ as his

personal savior, as have I. This is my only comfort. When I see him next, it will

be for eternity.

I am not a public speaker, but Adam was. Adam excelled at everything he attempted because he approached life with 150 percent effort. In honor of his memory,

I choose to give his investigation 150 percent. When I see him again, I want to look

him in the eye and say, ‘‘Son, I gave it 150 percent, just like you taught me to.’’

It truly is a rarity when a mother has learned so much from her child.

Until then, I visit his graveside with the dawn of each morning. The quiet of the

cemetery at this time is my refuge. I tidy the trinkets and cards left by his friends,

then sit in my car for my prayers and devotions. Occasionally, I think of going to

the ocean. We have both always loved the ocean, and spent 21 years together sitting

and talking at the same spot he lifeguarded from in recent years.

I wonder what Adam would have done with his life had he been given the opportunity to live it? He would have made an impact on all he touched, as the many

testimonies I’ve attached will attest he made in their lives.
19

Would he have worked as an Engineer in competitive industry, designing computer systems and writing 21st century programs? Would he have owned a business,

or taught Math and Engineering at the University level? He loved to teach, and was

planning to attend Graduate School in California. Would he have quit it all to write

his lyrics and play guitar?

I will always remember him where he was happiest: sitting high upon his lifeguard chair, twirling his whistle and pondering the gentle waves of the Cape Cod

ocean he loved so much under the warmth of the summer sun.

‘‘Those that would exchange essential liberties for a little personal safety deserve

neither liberty nor safety.’’—Benjamin Franklin

STATEMENT OF DR. STANLEY IKENBERRY, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN

COUNCIL ON EDUCATION

Senator SPECTER. I would now like to turn to Dr. Stanley

Ikenberry, president of the American Council on Education. The

floor is yours, Dr. Ikenberry.

Dr. IKENBERRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think we have

heard some important and moving testimony here today, and the

issue before us I think is important not just to this committee but

to colleges and universities across the country. Making campuses

safer places, making people aware of danger, and investing in education in campus security is a high priority issue for higher education generally and for campuses specifically.

My own personal experience comes from 10 years at Penn State

and 16 years as president of the University of Illinois.

Let me state at the outset that I know of no college or university

president in the country who would tolerate a coverup of crime or

failure to properly report crime. Publicizing criminal incidents and

providing information on campus crime helps reduce crime, in fact,

by alerting the community to its danger and encouraging prudent

behavior. There are, in addition strong legal as well as strong ethical reasons to publicize accurate information about crime on campus.

So, my first point, Mr. Chairman, is I think presidents do care

about this issue.

As concern for personal safety has continued to grow in all aspects of the society, campuses have become more and more focused

on creating and maintaining safe environments. The level of awareness and concern about crime on campus is steadily increasing. Individual institutions have responded to the need for greater security by employing a wide range and variety of strategies. Perhaps

the most visible, for example, have been the installation of increasingly sophisticated lock and key systems, property identification

programs, campus watch programs, illumination of the campus

grounds, student escort services, security phone boxes, and many

other measures. The security forces have also grown in number and

expanding the screening, training, and supervision of campus personnel has expanded as well.

Campus, city, county, and State law enforcement groups frequently work more closely together and often as one. Data reporting on security incidents I think is more professionally gathered

and more timely reports are made.

Of special importance are the efforts that colleges and universities are making to educate students, faculty, and staff on these

issues. Although institutions have done and continue to do much

to improve public safety, the responsibility is a shared one, and
20

that is why education programs are particularly important for students and staff.

The 1990 Campus Security Act has brought publicity to this

issue, and publicity I think helps make all of us aware of the importance of maintaining a safe campus. But publicity alone is not

sufficient. Institutions nationwide must undertake a broad array of

measures if we are to continue to make campuses the safe places

that they must be.

My hope, however, Mr. Chairman, is that any changes in campus

security laws be judged on the basis of whether in fact the proposed change will actually reduce crime on campus and whether in

fact it could have unintended consequences.

I believe, for example, the mandating of open campus disciplinary proceedings could have unintended consequences that would

retard rather than accelerate the accurate reporting of incidents,

and, therefore, it would not serve students, parents, or communities well.

PREPARED STATEMENT

Colleges and universities are committed, Mr. Chairman, to improving campus security and safety. We will continue our efforts in

that regard. To respond most effectively to local community conditions, schools need to be able to spend security related funds in

areas that will have the greatest impact per dollar. Not all measures are equally effective on all campuses because the environments vary quite widely from campus to campus.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you

today and would be pleased to respond to questions.

Senator SPECTER. Thank you very much, Dr. Ikenberry.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF STANLEY O. IKENBERRY

Mr. Chairman, I am Stanley O. Ikenberry, president of the American Council on

Education. ACE represents over 1,600 public and private, two-and four-year colleges

and universities across America. Along with other higher education associations

that have endorsed this statement, we are pleased to join with you in seeking measures that may lead to a safer and more secure campus environment for our students, faculty, and staff.

My personal perspective is drawn from my 10 years at Penn State, which has over

20 campuses state-wide, and my 16-year tenure as president of the University of

Illinois. Illinois has only three campuses: a small one, in Springfield, and two others

that are quite large, in Chicago and Urbana-Champaign.

College and university campuses are communities filled with people of all ages

and backgrounds, and these communities function within a larger city or region.

The size of the campus and its proximity to other communities or cities influence

the challenge of making campuses safe.

Both on campus and off, crime is a possibility—mostly it is petty, but sometimes

it can be deadly. Presidents and chancellors know that reporting these incidents

contributes to campus safety by making the community more aware of dangers and

vulnerabilities.

As concern for personal safety continues to grow in all of society, campuses have

become more and more focused on creating and maintaining safe environments by

hiring more public safety officers, investing in training and equipment, enhancing

reporting systems, and working with students, faculty, and staff in hundreds of way

to help make campuses like Penn State and Illinois safer places to team and grow.

Let me state at the outset that I know of no college or university president who

would tolerate a cover-up of a crime on campus. As I indicated earlier, publicizing

criminal incidents and providing information on campus crime helps reduce crime

on campus by alerting the community to dangers and encouraging prudent behavior.
21

The University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, for example, publishes three comprehensive reports a year that break down crimes by location, time-of-day, day-ofthe-week, sex of victim, and other factors. The campus and local media distribute

the report and educate the public about risk factors. Many colleges and universities

throughout the U.S. have adopted similar information measures, tailored to the circumstances and needs of each campus.

There are, of course, strong legal reasons to publicize accurate information about crime on campus: colleges and universities should protect themselves from legal

challenge by widely disseminating information of any significant incident. Institutions that have made an aggressive, good faith effort to make the campus community aware of criminal incidents are less likely to be found negligent in a court of

law.

I disagree with those who suggest that colleges cover up crime. The fact remains that crime does occur on campus as elsewhere in the society, and campuses must

work aggressively to address and stop criminal activity. At one time, the college

campus may have been a sanctuary where there were few dangers to physical safety. Sadly, that is no longer true. As with society in general, safety on campus must

be an issue of constant concern.

College and university presidents are very much aware of the need to address campus crime. For the last decade or more, colleges have been spending more money

on increased security; sponsoring more information and educational programs; encouraging more positive social activities; and attempting to help students, faculty,

and staff cope when a crime occurs. In 1988 we had 37 police officers at a cost of

$1.8 million on the University of Illinois’s Urbana-Champaign campus. This year

there are 51 officers and the annual expenditure exceeded $3.4 million. In addition,

in the last three years, the Urbana campus has spent over $750,000 for increased

lighting, emergency phones, and other security measures. Higher education associations such as ACE have been responsive to the changing security needs on campus and to heightened public concern about campus safety.

ACE has taken the lead in focusing the attention of college and university administrators on the need for improved security. In December 1985, prior to passage of

the federal Campus Security Act or any state-level laws, we prepared and mailed

to all colleges a document entitled Achieving Reasonable Campus Security, which

provided campus officials with a checklist of suggested practices. In addition to regular updates on this issue in our biweekly newsletter, we have published a book by

Professor Michael Clay Smith, entitled: ‘‘Coping With Crime on Campus,’’ which explores both legal issues and security measures in great detail. ACE and other higher

education associations routinely sponsor sessions on this topic for college presidents

at our annual meeting. We recently compiled a compendium of information related

to the problem of alcohol abuse on campus, all of which is available on ACE’s web

page at www.acenet.edu.

These materials are designed to summarize research of importance, provide guidance to campus officials, suggest creative responses to dealing with campus safety,

and emphasize potential liability for failure to deal with these issues properly.

These documents provide a substantial reservoir of information that enables colleges

to determine whether their campus regulations and security structures are adequate

and to identify steps for improvement.

Given the concern about this issue by policymakers and the public, the level of

awareness and concern about crime on college campuses is steadily increasing. Individual institutions have responded to the need for greater security by employing a

variety of strategies. Perhaps easiest and most visible have been the installation of

increasingly sophisticated lock and key systems, property identification programs,

campus watch programs, increased illumination of the campus, student escort services, and security phone boxes. Security forces also have grown in number, with expanded screening, training, and supervision. Campus, city, county, and state law enforcement officers work much more closely together and at times as one force. Data

regarding security incidents are gathered and appropriate reports are filed. Of special importance are the efforts colleges make to educate and regularly remind students, faculty, staff, and other members of the campus community about security

risks and procedures.

Although institutions have done and continue to do much to improve safety, the

responsibility is a shared one. Students and student behavior are essential to the

safety equation as well. It is important that institutions alert students to campus

safety issues, but it is equally vital that students take steps to protect themselves.

Unless students take advantage of the safety programs and services offered by our

institutions, campus safety strategies will not succeed.

Our students generally come to college from relatively safe home environments.

Often this is the first time they have had to bear much responsibility for them-
22

selves, their health, and their behavior. Some students think they are invulnerable:

‘‘bad things only happen to other people.’’ Such an outlook, in my experience, can

be extremely dangerous. Campuses must constantly seek ways to inform students

about the consequences of crime and encourage them to take reasonable steps to

protect themselves; but no school can insure the safety of its students if the students themselves do not show good judgment, if they do not take care of themselves,

or if they do not think about the well-being of those around them. The 1990 Campus Security Act has brought publicity to this issue—and publicity helps make all of us aware of the importance of maintaining a safe campus. But

publicity alone is not sufficient. Institutions nationwide must undertake safety

measures if we are to have a reasonable chance of both educating students about

the frequency of crime and reducing the likelihood of crime on campus. Because of the complexity of the law and its manifold requirements (I will include a list of reporting requirements as an appendix to my statement) many campuses

have had difficulty in meeting federal reporting requirements. This was confirmed

in a March 1997 General Accounting Office (GAO) report on campus crime (GAO–

HEHS–97–52) which states, ‘‘at the campus level, colleges are finding it difficult to

consistently interpret and apply some of the law’s reporting requirements.’’ After reviewing 25 campus crime reports, GAO concluded that some campuses had underreported crime while others over-reported it. The GAO report found that the Department of Education had provided little technical assistance to help campuses implement the reporting requirements. Audits of campus safety reporting conducted by the Department of Education have reached similar conclusions. While the audits found no evidence that campuses

attempt to hide crimes, they concluded that crimes are sometimes inaccurately reported. In some cases crimes are miscategorized. For example, a larceny may be erroneously reported as a burglary. Since the GAO report was released and its findings confirmed, the Department has increased its technical assistance efforts. In addition, the current work to update audit guidelines for independent auditors may help achieve more consistent reporting. In some cases where the Department of Education has audited schools, Department officials have disagreed among themselves as to what the law requires. One particular area relating to campus security that has drawn intense interest is the campus student disciplinary process. Student disciplinary systems are not intended to be, nor are they, a substitute for the civil or criminal courts. They are,

instead, the method by which a college enforces its own standards of conduct that

go beyond the requirements of law and include violations of academic norms of behavior. Student disciplinary codes do not result in criminal fines or criminal jail sentences; instead, their purpose is to provide a reasonable living and learning environment for students. When students violate the law, they also remain subject to criminal prosecution.

When criminal acts are reported to school officials, a common response is to discuss with the alleged victim the range of resources and alternatives available. The

options include not only asking that the college enforce its rules by taking disciplinary action against the offender such as expulsion, but also asking law enforcement

officials to prosecute the offender. If the student victim desires, a school official (perhaps a counselor or someone from student affairs) will accompany and support the

victim during meetings with authorities. In this way, colleges are doing precisely

what they should be doing: apprising the victim of available alternatives and resources, and approaching each case with an eye to the best interest of all of the students who are involved.

The ‘‘Accuracy in Campus Crime Reporting Act of 1997,’’ H.R. 715, would expand

reporting requirements of campus crime laws. Some of the proposed changes in federal law envisioned by this law are reasonable. For example, expanding the list of

reportable crimes to include arson, simple assault, larceny, and vandalism is a reasonable step, although specific legal elements of each of these crimes must be delineated. A provision to open campus crime logs may prove helpful, but any requirement should allow a reasonable delay to ensure accuracy, to protect the rights of

victims and the accused, and to avoid any impediment to a criminal investigation.

Requiring campus crime reports to be submitted to and published by the Department of Education—though we believe it serves no useful purpose will not create

any additional difficulty for campuses, unless it results in a reduction of the technical assistance provided by the Department of Education.

However, some of the proposed changes in this bill will be clearly counterproductive. For example, it would require a large number of campus officials—some

with confidential counseling responsibilities—to report knowledge of crimes. Under

H.R. 715, campus administrators, deans, disciplinary officers, athletic department

officials, housing officials, counselors, and others would be required to report any
23

knowledge of a crime committed on campus. Is this likely to lead to accurate and

valuable reports? Hardly likely. Will it create a complex and expensive training burden? Absolutely. Such a proposal would require that all of these individuals be trained to recognize the legal difference in crimes—such as larceny versus burglary—and report information properly. Training these myriad of individuals will be costly and it will be an

ineffective and wasteful use of resources that otherwise could be used to enhance

campus safety. Can this training be done? Yes. Is it a good way to reduce crime on

campus? No.

Moreover, such a requirement could create a problem for counselors and other

campus officials, particularly in incidents involving sex-related offenses. Students

who have been the victim of a sexual assault often want to talk to a trusted adult

in a confidential manner. Housing or residence staff are especially important in this

role; a requirement that they report incidents, even on an anonymous basis, may

well discourage victims from seeking help. We are especially concerned about the

position in which this places Resident Advisors, who generally are students themselves. In addition, requiring ‘‘counselors’’ to report any knowledge of crime could

discourage students from seeking needed assistance and threaten the confidential

relationship between medical personnel and their clients. Such issues must be considered carefully before binding legislation that brings counterproductive results is

passed.

In the same vein, H.R. 715 would cause the federal government to dictate campus

disciplinary proceedings and require that these be open to the public. This could

have a chilling and counterproductive effect on the reporting of crime on campus.

Victims of campus crime especially sexual assault—often use these proceedings

when they want some ‘‘justice,’’ but are not willing to press criminal charges. These

victims, we feel, will be less likely to report crimes and seek a resolution if the incident is to be discussed in a public forum. Faced with such a choice, they may decide

to drop the matter altogether.

Any changes in the campus security law should be judged on several grounds.

First, will the proposed change actually reduce crime on campus or will it have unintended consequences? I believe, for example, that forcing open campus disciplinary

proceedings could result in a reduction of the reported incidence of crime on campus,

not better or more accurate reporting. It will not help to reduce the actual level of

crime on campus.

Second, campuses and policymakers should consider whether the cost of the proposed change will result in a benefit of equal value. For example, requiring large

numbers of campus personnel to be trained to recognize the difference in types of

crimes so that they can accurately report the crimes in the unlikely event that they

learn of one, is simply not a cost-effective proposal. Such a practice will reduce the

campus resources that go into crime prevention and education efforts on campus.

Colleges and universities are committed to improving campus security and safety,

and will continue their efforts in this regard. To respond most effectively to local

community conditions, schools need flexibility to spend security-related funds in

areas that would have the greatest impact on safety, not on an ever-increasing

array of reports.

At a time when more financial demands are being placed on colleges and universities by state and federal governments, any ‘‘one-size-fits-all’’ approach to campus

crime is unlikely to be as effective as one tailored to local community conditions.

Large urban campuses often need entirely different security measures than small

rural colleges. We would encourage you to allow schools the flexibility to respond

to local security concerns in individualized ways.

We appreciate the opportunity to share our comments with you and stand ready

to work with you, other members of your committee, and your staff to help reduce

campus crime.

REPORTING REQUIREMENTS OF THE CAMPUS SECURITY ACT OF 1990

(1) policies, procedures, and facilities for persons to report criminal actions and

other emergencies;

(2) policies for reporting crime, including the name and title of each person or organization to whom students or employees should report crimes, and policies for

making timely reports of crimes to the campus community;

(3) policies addressing security of and access to campus facilities and security considerations in the maintenance of campus facilities;

(4) campus law enforcement policies that include an analysis of the enforcement

policy of campus security personnel, their working relationship with state and local

officials, and efforts to encourage prompt, accurate reporting;
24

(5) a description of the frequency of programs held to inform students and employees about security procedures and to encourage them to be careful;

(6) a description of programs used to inform students about the prevention off

crimes;

(7) statistical data about the occurrence on campus of six types of crimes reported

to local police or to any official of the institution having significant responsibility

for campus or student activities;

(8) statistics about arrests for crimes involving liquor, drugs, or weapons;

(9) statistics on murder, forcible rape, and aggravated assault that can also be

classified as a hate crime;

(10) policies on monitoring and reporting criminal activity by student organizations of campus;

(11) policies regarding the possession, use, and sale of alcoholic beverages and the

enforcement of underage drinking laws;

(12) policies on illegal drug use and the enforcement of federal and state drug

laws;

(13) a description of drug and alcohol abuse education programs; and

(14) policies regarding campus sexual assault, including nine specific procedures

required by the law that campuses will follow when a sexual offense occurs.

STATEMENT OF MICHELE GOLDFARB, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF STUDENT CONDUCT, UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA

ACCOMPANIED BY PETER C. ERICHSEN, VICE PRESIDENT AND GENERAL COUNSEL, UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA AND UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA HEALTH SYSTEM

Senator SPECTER. I now turn to Ms. Michele Goldfarb, from the

University of Pennsylvania, overseeing the operations of the student disciplinary section and resolution of alleged violations of the

code of student conduct and code of academic integrity. Ms. Goldfarb, the floor is yours.

Ms. GOLDFARB. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. I am Michele

Goldfarb, director of the Office of Student Conduct at the University of Pennsylvania. Before my present position, I was an assistant district attorney for the city of Philadelphia, a faculty member

at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, and an assistant

U.S. attorney.

Before I begin, I would like to note that I am accompanied by my

colleague, Peter Erichsen, the vice president and general counsel of

the University of Pennsylvania and the University of Pennsylvania

Health System.

I appreciate the opportunity to discuss the proposed Accuracy in

Campus Crime Reporting Act. I have submitted a statement for the

record that I would like to summarize.

Also attached for the record is correspondence from University of

Pennsylvania president Judith Roden. President Roden has consistently emphasized two points with regard to the Campus Security

Act.

First, the university is absolutely committed to fulfilling both the

letter and the spirit of the law.

Second, she has consistently affirmed and led institutional actions and changes to increase the safety and security of our campus. These initiatives have been significant. I have also attached

for the record a list of recent actions taken by the university to

these ends.

It is the purpose of the student disciplinary system to further the

educational mission of the university by resolving alleged violations

of the code of student conduct. The university disciplinary process

does not supplant the criminal justice system
25

The Office of Student Conduct at Penn has twin goals. The first

is to help create a safe environment where academic life can flourish, and the second is to promote the development of students.

When serious and dangerous infractions are reported to our office, we make every effort to involve local law enforcement. Complainants are always notified of their option to pursue outside remedies, such as private criminal complaints, restraining orders, and

civil lawsuits, and are encouraged to do so. We follow these cases

closely and fully cooperate with local prosecutors. We support the

notion that students should face criminal charges where appropriate and that the victim should avail him or herself of the full

use of the criminal justice system, in addition to the university disciplinary process.

Many of the matters that come to the attention of our office,

however, are cases which local law enforcement authorities, especially in a city the size of Philadelphia, would never handle through

the criminal justice system. As you know, Mr. Chairman, the district attorney of Philadelphia cannot begin to address all of the

cases that might theoretically be handled by it.

As a former prosecutor with experience in both local and Federal

courts, as well as the university’s chief disciplinary officer, I am

acutely aware of the differences between disciplinary proceedings

on a college campus and a criminal proceeding. Student disciplinary processes are meant to set the standards of behavior on our

campuses and to determine a student’s standing in our community.

In contrast to the criminal justice system, disciplinary proceedings

are limited in scope. Our procedures and goals do not mirror the

panoply of laws, safeguards, and rules which characterize civil and

criminal trials. I cannot overemphasize the fact, which is frequently misunderstood, that internal disciplinary proceedings are

not meant to replace or substitute for the criminal justice system.

That said, however, student disciplinary processes provide an important additional forum to respond to the interests of the university community. Our processes are designed to educate and, where

appropriate, punish those students who violate our rules. We seek

both to promote a student’s sense of responsibility by enforcing accountability and also to protect our community by, where necessary, removing or restricting those who pose a threat to others.

I turn now briefly to the proposed Accuracy in Campus Crime

Reporting Act.

As you know, this legislation would require open student disciplinary proceedings and records if criminal conduct is alleged. Mr.

Chairman, the University of Pennsylvania has had 7 years of experience with the Campus Security Act. The Department of Education has been working to provide clear and consistent guidance

on how to interpret that law.

With regard to the disciplinary process, current law is preferable

to any of the changes that have been proposed in ACCRA. The proposal to require open disciplinary proceedings would not accomplish ACCRA’s stated goal of creating a safer campus environment,

nor would it serve to publicize crime on campus. Indeed, ACCRA

would undoubtedly have a chilling effect on many students’ willingness to report incidents of misconduct.
26

One of the most troublesome aspects of the open disciplinary proceedings provision is the fact that while it is intended to subject

the alleged perpetrator to public scrutiny, it would also subject the

victims to the same harsh public and media scrutiny. While the

criminal justice system provides for some legal protections for participants in the process, if disciplinary proceedings were made

open, these parties would have all the public intrusion involved in

a criminal proceeding without the attendant protections.

Furthermore, the proposed law is unnecessary to accomplish its

stated goal of alerting the campus about the types of cases and the

outcomes of disciplinary proceedings. Many campuses, including

Penn, publish regular reports to the community which detail the

types of matters that are handled by disciplinary offices and their

outcomes. These anonymous reports provide the community with

an accurate picture of campus disciplinary activities without compromising the confidentiality of the process.

Campuses disciplinary offices are safe, professional places for

students to report misconduct. It is very unlikely that victims of

misconduct would continue to seek the help they need if they knew

that, from the time they stepped into our offices, their matter

would be available for review by any member of the public, including the student media.

I believe that this legislation would not add to safety on campus

which is the stated goal of ACCRA. On the contrary, it would lead

to the deterioration of the integrity and effectiveness of the disciplinary processes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to testify today.

Senator SPECTER. Thank you, Ms. Goldfarb.

STATEMENT OF DOLORES A. STAFFORD, DIRECTOR, UNIVERSITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY

Senator SPECTER. Ms. Dolores Stafford, director of university police at George Washington University. The floor is yours, Ms. Stafford.

Ms. STAFFORD. Thank you. Good morning.

George Washington University is a large institution located here

in the District of Columbia. My department is composed of 75 uniformed police officers, 12 administrators with various specialties,

and 150 part-time students.

Let me address one issue up front. There seems to be an underlying belief that some institutions are hiding crime or purposely

underreporting crime. This is simply not true.

Most people in my position take pride in developing a professional department whose members main priority is providing a safe

and secure environment for students to learn and grow. In many

ways the members of the GW community hold my department personally responsible for their safety. We accept that responsibility

and that means that we have to do what is right and what makes

sense in order to meet the expectations of the members of our campus community. We do not do this job simply because there is a

law governing campus security.

The Campus Security Act of 1990 shook the campus law enforcement arena. Not only did institutions have to change the way they

did business and who they hired into the security jobs, but security
27

took a front seat on most college campuses, not only in the eyes of

the consumer, but in the minds of those working on college campuses. I must say that some senior officials were initially resistant

to the changes, but 8 years later I am here to tell you that there

has been a significant change for most of us in the security business. College administrators realize that we must use common

sense as our guide. The only way students can and will protect themselves is if we are continuously harping on the fact that crime can and does occur

on college campuses. Students on college campuses have a general

perception that they live in a bubble and that nothing will happen

there. Our best crime prevention tool is using various mediums to

saturate the campus with important security related information so

that students will consistently take precautions to ensure their

safety. Effective crime prevention is not accomplished with a 1-hour program at the beginning of a student’s freshman year. It is an ongoing effort. We need to keep this concern in the front of their minds

not only while they are on a college campus, but for the rest of

their lives.

That is why many of us in this business not only abide by the

law, we exceed the expectations. For example, at GW we meet the

requirements of the law by sending the compliance document to

every member of the GW community, but we also publish the information in the student handbook. We publish weekly crime logs in

the student newspaper and we post crime alerts in every building

on campus after a serious incident. We not only publish the required statistics, we publish additional categories that are necessary to provide an overall picture of what is happening on campus. These are just examples of the crime prevention efforts on one

college campus.

Of course, there are those institutions who are perceived to be

doing things incorrectly, but most of the mistakes appear to be unintentional errors caused by differing interpretations of the law.

We can resolve many of these problems if we develop clear guidelines regarding the specific expectations that should be met for

each of the standards outlined in the current law. There are numerous areas of the current law that need further clarification.

Some of these points are made in my written testimony which I

would ask be submitted for the record.

Senator SPECTER. It will be submitted in the record.

Ms. STAFFORD. Thank you.

Any new legislation needs to balance what is right for the victims of campus crime, the students on campus, and the institutions. For example, it has been suggested by some that it might be

a good idea to open campus disciplinary hearings and records.

Many of the proponents of this idea are even college students.

However, keep in mind that most of these students are associated

with campus newspapers. These changes would certainly not be in

the best interests of the general student body.

PREPARED STATEMENT

There are many possible changes to the law that would be beneficial to the members of the campus community at large, and we
28

should implement those changes without hesitation. As you review

and possibly develop legislation regarding campus crime, I urge

you to keep in mind, first, the best interests of the students and,

second, the best interests of the institutions of higher education

across the country.

Senator SPECTER. Thank you very much, Ms. Stafford.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DOLORES A. STAFFORD

REGARDING: H.R. 715—ACCURACY IN CAMPUS CRIME REPORTING ACT

Good morning, my name is Dolores Stafford. As the Director of the University Police Department for the George Washington University (GW), a position which I

have held for 5 years, I administer the law enforcement program for one of the top

ranked postsecondary institutions in the country. My department is composed of 75

sworn, uniformed police officers, 12 administrators with various specialties and 150

part-time student employees. The budget for police services at GW is approximately

$3.5 million. I am also the University’s Coordinator for the Sexual Assault Crisis

Consultation Team. I deal with students who are victims of campus crimes, including sexual assaults, on a daily basis.

I currently serve as a member of the Government Relations Committee for the

International Association of Campus Law Enforcement Administrators, a professional organization whose members manage campus police and security programs

at more than 900 colleges and universities.

The Campus Security Act of 1990 requires institutions to notify the campus community about various security policies and procedures, to report the specified criminal offenses and to provide timely notice to the campus community regarding those

crimes. I have submitted for the record several copies of the annual report on campus crime for the George Washington University and a copy of a recent timely notice

warning posted in every building on campus.

Let me address one issue up front, there seems to be an underlying belief by some

that institutions are hiding crime or purposely under-reporting crime. This is simply

not the norm. The people responsible for security on college campuses have a great

deal of integrity and many even feel personally responsible for reporting crime accurately. My colleagues and I in the campus security business want to work closely

with the members of the Department of Education and the members of this committee to ensure that all students and their families are provided with accurate, meaningful information about campus security.

Implementing the Campus Security Act has taken time. After enactment in November of 1990, Congress amended the original Act on two occasions before it was

implemented. The Department of Education published and sent three letters to institutions between March 1991 and July 1992 providing information about complying with the Campus Security Act. The final regulations were not published until

July 1994. This delay in receiving complete and concise regulations and the initial

difficulty in interpreting specific portions of the regulations greatly complicated the

task we faced on campus.

According to the GAO report published in March 1997, ‘‘areas of difficulty (for institutions) included deciding how to include incidents reported to campus officials

other than law enforcement officers, interpreting federal requirements for reporting

sex offenses, and reporting data on hate crimes.’’ This led to incidents where institutions were publishing incorrect numbers and according to the GAO report, some institutions were even over-reporting crime. The Department of Education had no experience with campus crime reporting. Its main focus is the administration of Federal financial aid programs. During the first few years, the Department of Education staffers assigned the task were in the learning stages. The Department has

taken steps to improve its knowledge of the issues and staff there has begun to actively assist institutions by providing technical assistance.

An example of its recent efforts includes participation in a training session that

I coordinated between the members of the Association of Campus Law Enforcement

Administrators of Delaware, the District of Columbia, Maryland and Northern Virginia and three members of the Department of Education in March 1997. We had

a proactive discussion that led the group to conduct a ‘‘self-review’’ which allowed

us the opportunity to ensure that we were in compliance.

Several of the institutions found areas where they were misunderstanding or misinterpreting the language in the final regulations. For example, I was classifying
29

‘‘hate crimes’’ as a separate category rather than identifying them under the appropriate classification of murder, forcible rape and aggravated assault as required by

law. This error was certainly unintentional, and I was able to correct it because I

received appropriate guidance from the members of the Department of Education.

As a Campus Law Enforcement Director, I am grateful to the Department of Education for providing educational workshops and assistance. H.R. 715, the Accuracy in Campus Crime Reporting Act would require numerous amendments to the current law. Some of the changes are reasonable and easily implemented and others are worrisome and potentially counter-productive. I would

like to offer suggestions and comments for each of the proposed changes: The proposed expansion to the list of persons (positions) responsible for providing crime statistics for inclusion in the institution’s three year crime table creates some

concerns which are the specific addition of ‘‘counselors’’ and ‘‘administrators’’. The

original language of the Campus Security Act statute called for statistics which reflect reports to ‘‘campus security authorities or local police agencies’’, the Final Rule

(as amended on June 30, 1995) expanded that to ‘‘local police agencies or to any official of the institution who has significant authority for student and campus activities’’. Therefore, it could be argued that the Final Rule went beyond the original intent of the legislation. I would strongly recommend that ‘‘counselors’’ be removed from this definition. Students need to be able to seek professional assistance via counselors without fearing that the counselor will breach the student’s right to confidentiality. I would also

recommend that ‘‘administrators’’ be removed because this terminology is unreasonably ambiguous. For example, at GW, up to 3,000 employees could be considered

‘‘administrators’’. The rest of the proposed definition does not cause concern and will

simply put the law in synch with the rules that implement it. H.R. 715 would require the additional reporting of four categories of crime. The Uniform Crime Reporting Handbook includes definitions of the offenses of larceny,

arson, simple assault and vandalism. These definitions are precise enough for police

departments throughout the nation to interpret. Institutions should not have much

difficulty in meeting this requirement. The proposed language requires that each institution submit the report and re- quires the Department of Education to compile those statistics. This would be easily

accomplished by institutions because we already compile and publish this information. The question for Congress is will you provide sufficient resources to the Department of Education to compile the statistics and whether this added responsibility will divert the Department from providing the appropriate level of technical assistance in implementing federal campus crime laws? There have been accusations alleging that institutions are forwarding incidents of violations of drug, liquor and weapons laws to their internal judicial systems rather

than ‘‘arresting’’ violators in an effort to keep the statistics down. I would disagree

with this premise and would add that the majority of those institutions have historically referred those types of incidents to their internal judicial systems. There are

many institutions, such as The George Washington University, that are in jurisdictions where these offenses are viewed as ‘‘minor offenses’’ by the local law enforcement agencies and therefore, they will not prosecute those incidents. We are faced

with the reality that these cases are not going to be adjudicated through the courts,

so we turn to the internal institutional disciplinary procedures as a means of addressing many of these types of violations.

That having been said, I do not believe that it is problematic for institutions to

report ‘‘incidents of’’ drug, liquor and weapons laws violations. In fact, GW already

reports the number of arrests and the number of incidents reported to our judicial

affairs office. I do believe that the language should be clarified to include ‘‘persons

arrested or referred for disciplinary action.’’

The proposed language requiring ‘‘open crime logs’’ is not problematic, in fact, I

have been publishing our crime log in the student newspaper for the last four years.

However, the requirement for the open crime logs to be available within twenty-four

hours is unreasonable, specifically because the majority of schools do not have the

appropriate administrative and/or support staff on duty over the weekends and on

holidays. I would recommend that this language be changed to ‘‘be open to public

inspection within no more than 72 hours of the initial report being made to the department.

H.R. 715 would delete subsection 485(f)(7)(C), which states that ‘‘nothing in this

paragraph shall be construed to confer a private right to action upon any person

to enforce provisions of this paragraph’’. The deletion of this language would create

‘‘open season’’ for litigation against institutions for even the smallest technical error.

If this paragraph were to be deleted, it would be extremely harmful to every institution of higher education. It is imperative that this current language remain intact.
30

For example, if a University Police Officer erroneously classifies a Burglary as a

Larceny, this would create a private right of action against an institution. The aspects of the proposal that would require open campus disciplinary hearings and would exempt disciplinary records related to allegations of criminal activity

from protection under FERPA has a potentially chilling effect upon the reporting

of crimes such as sexual assaults. IACLEA’s recent study of campus crime reports

for the years 1994 and 1995 delved into the distinction between sex offenses committed by strangers and those committed by persons with whom the victims were

acquainted. Significantly, 78 percent of the on-campus sexual assaults reported to

the 585 U.S. institutions which participated in the survey involved persons who

were acquainted. This proportion was the same for both 1994 and 1995, and reflects

the significant progress which had been made among campus police and security

units in bringing ‘‘date rape’’ cases into the open.

In my primary role in the police department and as the Coordinator of GW’s Sexual Assault Crisis Consultation Team, I have dealt with many students who have

been victims of sexual assault. The victim has lost the power in one of the most personal choices he/she can make. It is imperative that in dealing with someone who

has been the victim of such an assault, the victim be ‘‘empowered’’ by allowing him/

her to make his/her own decisions throughout the recovery process. In dealing with

victims, it has always been my standard practice and now it is a requirement of

Federal law to inform the victim of the option to pursue the case through the internal judicial process as well as taking action through the criminal justice system or

both. In all but one case, the victims elected to use the on-campus proceedings to

protect their privacy. They make this choice because they believe that the internal

judicial system is the only viable route to justice in cases involving date rape and

the judicial system affords the victim confidentiality.

If institutions lose the ability to offer acquaintance assault victims access to discreet internal hearing processes, I fear that the reporting of these crimes will decrease. When hearings are ‘‘open’’, the alleged rapist may bring friends, roommates,

and classmates into the hearing room, intimidating alleged victims and witnesses.

Moreover, campus newspapers will have access to records, printing names and circumstances that will ultimately succeed in silencing, not encouraging victims to report these crimes. This seems directly contrary to the intention of the original legislation. If the only forum you offer the victim is a public forum, the long-term result

will be the continued presence on our campuses of sex offenders who might have

otherwise been identified and dealt with accordingly.

In addition, I would like to recommend a change to the Campus Security Act that

is not addressed in H.R. 715. I would recommend that the distribution deadline be

changed from September 1 to October 1. Many institutions are heavily involved in

student registration through the latter part of August, and, in some cases, continuing into early September. The distribution of the annual security report to all ‘‘current students’’ on or before the date of September 1 may not, therefore, reach all

of the individuals who will actually attend classes during the fall semester at those

institutions.

As you develop this legislation, I would urge you keep in mind the welfare of the

victim of on-campus crime by removing the language from H.R. 715 that would require open campus disciplinary hearings and would exempt disciplinary records related to allegations of criminal activity from protection under FERPA. I would also

urge you to remove the positions of ‘‘counselor’’ and ‘‘administrator’’ from the definition of those who are required to report crimes. Lastly, I strongly urge that you not

create a private right of action against institutions. Such a right is an invitation

to frivolous litigation which costs money and diverts the attention from efforts to

reduce crime on campus. This would also hold our institutions of higher education

to an unreasonable standard of perfection.

POSITION STATEMENT PREPARED AND SUPPORTED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

ASSOCIATION OF CAMPUS LAW ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATORS

STATEMENT REGARDING H.R. 715—ACCURACY IN CAMPUS CRIME REPORTING ACT

The Crime Awareness and Campus Security Act was signed into law by President

George Bush in November of 1990. This law was designed to increase the quantity

and quality of ‘‘consumer information’’ available to prospective college students and

their parents regarding criminal activity and security measures on the campuses of

our nation’s post-secondary institutions. By extension, it was anticipated that increased public awareness of campus crimes and security measures would lead colleges and universities to upgrade their campus safety programs in order to remain
31

‘‘competitive’’ with their peer institutions. There is no question that the Crime

Awareness and Campus Security Act has increased the public’s awareness of the occurrence of crime on college campuses, but the degree to which that increased

awareness has translated into enhanced campus security has yet to be measured.

The U.S. Department of Education’s regulatory interpretation of the law was slow

in coming and has, in some respects, conflicted with the apparent intent of the original statute. A re-examination of the Crime Awareness and Campus Security Act is

therefore appropriate and timely. The bill [H.R. 715] which is now before you is described as having the effect of increasing the completeness, timeliness, and accuracy of campus crime statistic reporting. It would also codify specific methods of enforcement of the provisions of the

Crime Awareness and Campus Security Act. In the view of IACLEA, the professional association which represents America’s campus police and security administrators, H.R. 715 is a mixed bag. Some of the provisions of the bill would help to

advance the intended goals of enhanced campus safety and increased crime awareness, while others would be decidedly detrimental. The following are our specific

comments regarding H.R. 715, addressing the various elements of the bill in the

order of their appearance in its text.

Insertion of ‘‘campus security or law enforcement; other campus officials (including administrators, deans, disciplinary officers, athletic department officials, housing officials, counselors) to whom crimes are reported; or local law enforcement’’ in

lieu of ‘‘campus security authorities or local police agencies’’.

DISCUSSION

The statute called for annual tabulations of the numbers of specific categories of

offenses which had occurred on campus and had been reported to campus security

authorities or local police agencies. The term ‘‘campus security authorities’’ was not

defined by the statute, but was eventually (April, 1994) defined by regulation to include ‘‘(1) A campus law enforcement unit, (2) an individual or organization specified

in an institution’s statement of campus security policy as the individual or organization to whom students and employees should report criminal offenses, and (3) an

official of the institution who has significant responsibility for student and campus

activities, but does not have significant counseling responsibilities’’. In related (January, 1995) regulatory language regarding the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act [FERPA], the term ‘‘law enforcement unit’’ was defined to mean ‘‘any individual, office, department, division, or other component of an educational agency or

institution, such as a unit of commissioned police officers or non-commissioned security guards, that is officially authorized or designated by that agency or institution

to—(i) enforce any local, State, or Federal law, or refer to appropriate authorities

a matter for enforcement of any local, State, or Federal law against any individual

or organization other than the agency or institution itself; or (ii) maintain the physical security and safety of the agency or institution.’’

As originally enacted, the statistical disclosure requirements of the Crime Awareness and Campus Security Act were reasonably unambiguous. The numbers to be

reported were to be derived from the sorts of ‘‘official sources’’ one might be expected

to contact upon discovering or becoming the victim of a criminal act: the local police,

the campus police or security agency, or some other campus office which had been

‘‘specified’’ by the institution as the place to report crimes. The picture became less

clear during the negotiated rule making process, when the catch-all ‘‘any official

other than a counselor’’ category was added. The Final Rule published in April 1994

muddied the waters even further by narrowly applying the term ‘‘campus security

authority’’ only to the ‘‘timely warning’’ provision of the statue, and essentially rewriting the statutory description of the sources of campuses’ annual crime statistics

to include, in addition to the local police, ‘‘any official of the institution who has significant responsibility for student and campus activities’’. The upshot is, as reiterated in a Department of Education Dear Colleague Letter dated May 1996, that

campus counselors are currently exempt from the requirement to ‘‘make timely

warning reports to the campus community on certain crimes that represent continuing threat to students and employees’’, yet they, along with a host of other campus

officials, are responsible for providing crime data for inclusion in the institution’s

annual security report.

The current crime statistic reporting ‘‘standard’’ is needlessly ambiguous, leading

to endless questions about the validity of the published numbers. The preamble to

the Final Rule published in April 1994 discusses the implications of the requirement

that crime statistics are to be reported by ‘‘any official of the institution who has

significant responsibility for student and campus activities’’, and states clearly that

‘‘the function of these administrators is not to determine authoritatively whether a
32

crime took place—that is the function of law enforcement professionals working

within the criminal justice system—but, with respect to these regulations to report

to the appropriate law enforcement personnel, either campus or local police, those

allegations of campus crimes that the administrators conclude are made in good

faith * * *. If the law enforcement personnel, upon further investigation, conclude

that the allegations reported are not substantiated by the facts or the law, no campus crime need be disclosed as a statistic.’’ It is further stated that ‘‘The occurrence

of a crime on campus need not be disclosed to students and staff under these regulations unless the appropriate law enforcement officials conclude that the crime did

occur with the same degree of certainty they would require for purposes of reporting

under the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting System.’’

The real-world question which arises repeatedly is, how does an institution deal

with a situation in which an alleged on campus crime is ‘‘reported’’ to a campus official who is neither a member of the campus law enforcement unit nor otherwise

specified by institutional policy as a person to whom such reports should be made—

and the victim refuses to speak directly to a law enforcement professional or cooperate in any further investigation of the alleged incident? The situation is further

clouded when the campus official to whom the ‘‘report’’ is made is functioning in a

counseling capacity and the victim insists on anonymity. Are such unsubstantiated

incidents supposed to be reflected in the annual campus security report? If there

can be no professional investigation to determine their validity, must they be accepted at face value? Certainly no such cases would appear in the Uniform Crime Reports which police agencies file with the FBI, yet post-secondary institutions which

exclude them from their annual security reports risk being found in ‘‘noncompliance’’ by the Department of Education.

SUMMARY COMMENT

The language change proposed by H.R. 715 would have the effect of codifying (one

might say legitimizing) the disassociation of the term ‘‘campus security authorities’’

from the required 3-year tabulation of campus crime statistics which was effected

by the Final Rule of 1994, but it would do nothing to correct the current ambiguity

concerning the inclusion of data whose validity is unknown because no professional

investigation could be undertaken.

RECOMMENDATION

Retain the current statutory language and instruct the Department of Education

to abide by it. Codify the following definition of ‘‘campus security authority’’:

—(1) A campus law enforcement unit [as defined in 34 CFR Part 99 Section

99.8(a)(1)]

—(2) An individual or organization specified in an institution’s statement of campus security policy as the individual or organization to whom students and employees should report criminal offenses, including any criminal offenses which

may be reported solely for purposes of disciplinary actions or proceedings.

Replacing the current crime category of ‘‘murder’’ with ‘‘homicide’’; expanding the

list of crime categories for which statistics are to be disclosed to include larceny,

arson, simple assault, and vandalism.

DISCUSSION

Both larceny and arson are included among the eight ‘‘Part 1 Offenses’’ crime categories for which the FBI has historically maintained national data, with incidents

of larceny being the most prevalent of all Part 1 offenses. Homicide (technically,

‘‘criminal homicide’’) is another of the FBI’s traditional Part 1 offense categories (of

which ‘‘murder’’ is a subset). IACLEA recommended in 1990 that all Part 1 offenses

be included in an institution’s campus security report, and we stand by that recommendation.

Simple assault and vandalism are two of a host of less-serious crime categories

which have traditionally been classified as ‘‘Part 2 Offenses’’ by the FBI. In order

to ensure validity and comparability among offense data from various campuses, it

is essential that reports of this nature be filed with and investigated by local police

agencies or ‘‘campus security authorities’’ (as defined in our foregoing recommendation).
33

RECOMMENDATION

With the noted editorial change to ‘‘criminal homicide’’ and the proviso that our previously recommended definition of ‘‘campus security authority’’ be codified, the

amendment proposed by H.R. 715 should be enacted. Amending ‘‘arrests for’’ alcohol, drug and weapons offenses to ‘‘incidents of’’ those offenses.

DISCUSSION

As was indicated in testimony on behalf of IACLEA in 1990, statistics regarding arrests for alcohol, drug and weapon violations are more indicative of the level of

pro-active law enforcement activity within a community than they are of the ‘‘crime

rate’’. It has become clear, since the enactment of the Crime Awareness and Campus

Security Act, that these arrest numbers are of especially limited utility in many

campus settings. Many campus security units at smaller institutions lack formal

‘‘sworn’’ authority to effect arrests, and the local police are infrequently ‘‘called in’’

to respond to campus alcohol violations. In many larger cities, simple underage possession of alcohol—although clearly illegal—is considered to be of such a minor nature that formal charges are rarely placed (on or off campus) because more serious

cases would inevitably ‘‘bump’’ them from the court calendar. Colleges and universities have increasingly recognized the serious impact which high-risk drinking, in

particular, has on the campus climate, and have referred large numbers of alcohol

violators to their internal disciplinary systems. Although some of these same violators may have been formally ‘‘arrested’’, most would not appear in the tallies currently required by the Crime Awareness and Campus Security Act.

The proposed change from ‘‘arrests for’’ to ‘‘incidents of’’ alcohol, drug and weapons violations is not the recommended solution, however, if comparability of data

is the desired end. It would not be at all unlikely for one ‘‘incident’’ to result in the

placing of charges (either on campus or, in the case of ‘‘arrests’’, through the courts)

against multiple individuals. The best measure of institutional efforts to combat the

problems of alcohol, drug, and weapons violations would be a count of ‘‘persons

charged’’ for those offenses.

RECOMMENDATION

Amend by striking ‘‘arrests’’ and inserting ‘‘persons arrested or referred for disciplinary action’’.

Routine submission of annual campus crime statistics to the Secretary of Education, and publication of a complete tabulation of that data by the Department of

Education.

DISCUSSION

The Crime Awareness and Campus Security Act has given prospective students

and their parents easy access to a wealth of information about the campus security

programs of the schools which they may be considering. It is the details of those

programs, more so than raw crime statistics, which are of the most value when assessing the climate of a particular campus and that institution’s commitment to personal safety. Compliance with this proposed change would not place any significant

burden on educational institutions, but it would result in increased work within the

Department of Education and the end product (a list of crime statistics for every

institution in the nation) would be of limited value to consumers. In order to better

place campus crime statistics into their proper context, they should be reported to

the FBI and tabulated in association with the crime statistics for the appropriate

host jurisdiction.

RECOMMENDATION

Direct the Department of Justice to collect campus crime statistics and include

them in appropriate tables within the annual publication Crime in the United

States.

Accuracy of statistics to be ‘‘certified’’ by each official charged with their compilation.

DISCUSSION

This item relates directly to the first point addressed in this position statement

regarding H.R. 715—the definition of ‘‘campus security authority’’. Under the existing regulatory language, or the working proposed in H.R. 715, there are simply too
34

many ‘‘campus officials’’ who could potentially be determined to be acting as ‘‘security authorities’’ for any meaningful certification of accuracy to take place.

RECOMMENDATION

With the proviso that our previously recommended definition of ‘‘campus security

authority’’ be codified, the amendment as proposed by H.R. 715 could be enacted.

Daily crime logs to be kept by the campus police and security unit.

DISCUSSION

Several states currently have some form of open records laws which relate, either

generally or specifically, to campus police ‘‘incident logs’’. The content requirements

of such logs are generally consistent with the data elements set forth section

2(e)(4)(A) of H.R. 715—as are their applicability specifically to campus police or security units. The suggestion [in section 2(e)(4)(B) of H.R. 715] that names-of victims,

witnesses, or non-arrested/cited suspects be included unless otherwise prohibited by

law is a recommendation of questionable merit. Furthermore, there is little value

in passing legislation which says that an institution ‘‘may’’ do something unless it

is an act which is prohibited by law—but imposes no requirement to do so. The proposed requirement [section 2(e)(4)(C)(i) of H.R. 715] that crime log information be

open to public inspection within 24 hours of the initial report being made to the department, a (presumably other) campus security authority, or other campus official

is unreasonable on two levels. Some level of supervisory review of the log information is required to ensure that reported incidents are appropriately classified and

that any personally identifiable information which is protected from disclosure is not

inadvertently released. In many campus police and security units, this level of supervisory review is not available on weekends or holidays. Secondly, the state laws

upon which this proposed amendment have been modeled refer specifically to criminal incidents which have been reported to the agency which is responsible for maintaining the log. It is unreasonable to hold the police or security unit responsible for

inclusion in its log within a certain time frame of an incident which was reported

to some other office or person within the institution. This is yet another example

of the lack of clarity which has resulted from the present, overly broad regulatory

definition of ‘‘campus security authority’’.

Section 2(e)(4)(C)(ii) of H.R. 715 is drawn from a current Virginia statute, and

provides valuable clarification of circumstances in which it may be operationally

necessary to defer the inclusion of a specific incident in a public log. Section (e)(D)

is unnecessary, however. Members of the public typically gain access to a police incident log by personally appearing at the police station and reviewing it on site. Some

institutions have elected to post electronic versions of their crime logs on campus

computer bulletin boards and/or the Internet. Such pro-active measures go well beyond any reasonable minimum requirement for the keeping of a daily log, and

should be encouraged—but in no way limited by the Crime Awareness and Campus

Security Act. The language proposal in H.R. 715 would only permit such initiatives

if they were ‘‘nearly perfect’’, limiting such electronic information dissemination to

only the most sophisticated institutions.

RECOMMENDATION

Enact section 2(e) of H.R. 715 with the following modifications:

—Delete proposed subsection (4)(B) in its entirety.

—Within proposed subsection (4)(C)(i), delete ‘‘within 24 hours of the initial report

being made to the department, a campus security authority or other campus official’’ and replace with ‘‘during normal business hours’’.

—Delete proposed subsection (4)(D) in its entirety.

Deletes the current section which states ‘‘Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to confer a private right of action upon any person to enforce the provisions

of this paragraph.’’

DISCUSSION

The specific intent of this proposed change is unclear. It’s removal would not necessarily create a private right of action to enforce the provisions of the paragraph,

but it would appear to invite litigation on the issue. The Department of Education

currently endeavors to respond to citizen complaints of alleged noncompliance with

the Crime Awareness and Campus Security Act in a systematic manner. While

there may be room for the improvement of the current process, it would seem to

offer the greatest promise of consistency over time.
35

RECOMMENDATION

Retain the existing statutory language in this section.

Opening campus disciplinary proceedings and records to the public.

DISCUSSION

The essence of section 2(g) of H.R. 715 is that both campus disciplinary proceedings involving alleged criminal misconduct and the records of those proceedings

would be open to public participation and review. Section 3 of H.R. 715 would

amend FERPA to remove disciplinary records regarding allegations of criminal misconduct from the category of ‘‘education records’’—thus facilitating the public access

provided for in section 2(g). These proposed changes would have a potentially significant chilling effect on the reporting of campus sexual offenses. An IACLEA study

of campus crime reports for the years 1994 and 1995 delved into the distinction between sex offenses committed by strangers and those committed by persons with

whom the victims were acquainted. Significantly, 78 percent of the on-campus sexual assaults reported to the 585 institutions which participated in the survey involved persons who were acquainted. This high proportion reflects quite positively

on the progress which has been made among campus police and security units in

bringing ‘‘date rape’’ cases into the open. A key factor in addressing date rape on

college and university campuses has been the availability—for the many victims

who balk at undertaking a criminal court proceeding—of a viable, confidential remedy through the venue of the campus disciplinary system. Opening these proceedings to the public would undoubtedly have the effect of diminishing campus sex offense statistics, not because there would be fewer assaults—there would simply be

fewer reports.

The criticism that not all cases of internal disciplinary action are currently reflected in institutions’ annual security report statistics would effectively be addressed through the definition of ‘‘campus security authority’’ previously proposed

in this position statement:

—(1) A campus law enforcement unit [as defined in 34 CFR Part 99 Section 99.

8(a)(1)]

—(2) An individual or organization specified in an institution’s statement of campus security policy as the individual or organization to whom students and employees should report criminal offenses, including any criminal offenses which

may be reported solely for purposes of campus disciplinary actions or proceedings.

RECOMMENDATION

Delete sections 2(g) and 3 of H.R. 715 in their entirety.

Establishing a specific method of enforcement of the provisions of the Crime

Awareness and Campus Security Act.

DISCUSSION

The proposed suspension of a minimum of 1 percent of an institution’s federal financial assistance funds for each separate count of non-compliance would diminish

the discretionary authority of the Department of Education. The Department of

Education currently endeavors to hold institutions responsible for errors or omissions related to the Crime Awareness and Campus Security Act in a systematic

manner. While there may be room for the improvement of the current process, its

flexibility would seem to offer the greatest promise of achieving consistency over

time. Rather than imposing mandatory financial penalties, the Department of Education would better be encouraged to publish and distribute a ‘‘compliance guide’’

which puts all of the current information and interpretations relative to the Crime

Awareness and Campus Security Act together in a single location. The Department’s

Internet web site would be a most appropriate tool to accomplish this end. The Department of Education should also be directed to periodically update its publication

regarding exemplary campus security policies, procedures, and practices, and to disseminate that revised information to all postsecondary institutions.

RECOMMENDATION

Delete the text of Section 4 (Enforcement) of H.R. 715 in its entirety, and substitute the following:
36

Section 4. Technical Assistance.

Section 485(f)(20 U.S.C. 1092(f)(4)(B)) is amended by adding: ‘‘Such exemplary

practice identification and information dissemination shall be repeated on a fiveyear cycle to ensure that institutions are kept abreast of reasonably current trends.’’

STATEMENT OF DAVID A. LONGANECKER, ASSISTANT SECRETARY

FOR POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Senator SPECTER. We now have Dr. David Longanecker from the

Department of Education. The floor is yours, Mr. Longanecker.

Mr. LONGANECKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the

opportunity to be with you.

I would like to have my complete remarks included in the record.

Senator SPECTER. They will be made a part of the record.

Mr. LONGANECKER. I will try to respond to the specific question

that you raised to the Secretary in my comments.

Certainly the crimes that were detailed here today demonstrate

the importance of our being on top of campus security and improving campus security in this country, and we believe that the Campus Security Act is an important tool in helping to do that.

Senator SPECTER. Are you satisfied with the responses which

have been made by the universities to the act?

Mr. LONGANECKER. In general, yes. As my testimony will demonstrate, this is a new law that campuses are having some difficulty learning, but we are convinced that there is a genuine commitment to doing so.

Our goal is to administer the Campus Security Act in a fashion

that assists these schools in providing a safe environment in which

to learn and live and to make sure that they are well informed

about security at the particular institution they attend or that they

are seeking to attend.

The Campus Security Act became law in 1990 and was amended

several times in subsequent years as a result. Though we began notification activity at the Department shortly after its enactment, it

has taken some time for the law to fully take hold, with our final

regulations not actually being adopted until April 1994.

I am not going to go into the details of the act. You are familiar

with those, Mr. Chairman, but I would like to talk a little about

those details that pertain to the Department, our responsibilities

and what we have done.

One of the requirements was to disseminate exemplary campus

security practices, which we did in a 1994 publication entitled,

‘‘Campus Security: A First Look at Promising Practices.’’ I might

also mention that our Office of Safe and Drug-free Schools has also

established an expert panel to identify more current promising and

exemplary practices programs in the area of sexual and racial harassment on campus, and we expect additional panels on crime prevention in the future. Much of our focus is in fact on crime prevention.

The act also requires the Department to prepare a report on

campus crime statistics which the NCES completed last year. We

have distributed over 16,000 copies of that publication.

But clearly the most important responsibility we have is to ensure compliance with the act. The Department takes this very seriously. Just like the institutions, it took some time to gain the ex-
37

pertise on how to best pursue this efficaciously, but we now have

a quite robust approach to working with the institutions to achieve

compliance.

Our efforts have included periodic notification to the schools and

their independent auditors and to others of their responsibilities

under the law and providing technical assistance to schools on compliance requirements.

We also have a discipline process for examining compliance. An- nual compliance audits done by independent auditors must certify

compliance with all title IV regulations, including compliance with

the Campus Security Act, and we have had a number of noted violations through that process. Our program reviewers routinely review Campus Security Act compliance when they conduct program reviews. And we examine all complaints filed against an institution alleg- ing noncompliance to determine what the appropriate actions

would be.

PREPARED STATEMENT

Our staff have been trained in each of the regions to specifically address issues regarding campus security. It did take us some time

to develop this expertise because this was a new area of responsibility. [The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DAVID A. LONGANECKER

ENFORCEMENT OF CRIME AWARENESS AND CAMPUS SECURITY ACT (CSA) AND EFFORTS

TO MAKE COLLEGE CAMPUSES SAFER

White House Hate Crimes Conference.—President Clinton, Secretary Riley and other members of the cabinet met with members of the public to address the problem of Hate Crimes. This conference included a session moderated by OMB Director

Franklin Raines on Hate Crimes on College Campuses. The conference was held on

November 10, 1997.

Violence against women letter.—Secretary Riley, Secretary Shalala and Attorney

General Reno sent a letter to all college presidents (not just Title IV schools) about

resources available to assist their efforts in reducing violence against women on college campuses. This letter was sent on September 6, 1996.

Secretary speech.—Secretary Riley gave a well-received speech at the 1995

IACLEA convention in Philadelphia regarding campus safety.

Secretary on ‘‘Larry King Live.’’—Secretary Riley appeared on ‘‘Larry King Live’’

in 1994 with Connie Clery and an IACLEA (campus police organization) representative to discuss campus security issues.

Secretary meeting.—Secretary Riley met with consumer groups and IACLEA representatives in 1995 regarding campus safety.

Web page.—A World Wide Web page is available to provide information to students, parents and schools regarding Department efforts to enforce CSA and efforts

to make campuses safer. The web address is: http://www.ed.gov/offices/OPE/Pl/security.html

Dissemination of exemplary practices.—The Department published a 49 page document titled ‘‘Campus Security: A First Look at Exemplary Practices’’ in September

1994. Over 7,000 of these were sent out and it was available for purchase from

GPO. This publication is available on the new web page.

Campus crime report.—The congressionally-mandated Campus Crime Statistics

Report was released on February 25, 1997. The Office of Postsecondary Education

sent out over 16,000 copies to postsecondary institutions. The National Center for

Education Statistics distributed an additional 16,000 copies. The report is available

on the Department’s world wide web page and is also available for purchase from

the Government Printing Office.

Dissemination of acquaintance rape publication.—The Higher Education Center

for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention, with Department funding, published a guide
38

in the summer of 1996 entitled ‘‘Preventing Alcohol-Related Problems on Campus:

Acquaintance Rape.’’

Informing students and parents through student guide.—The Department has included information in the Student Guide to Financial Aid Programs highlighting

how to obtain Campus Security reports and how to lodge complaints of noncompliance with CSA. Over 9 million of these guides are disseminated each year.

Program participation agreement.—All schools must certify in the Program Par- ticipation Agreement that they are complying with CSA. This was executed in the

summer of 1991.

Negotiated rulemaking.—CSA regulations were subject to Negotiated Rulemaking. Throughout the process of developing the implementing regulations for CSA, extensive outside input was solicited and incorporated into the regulations. Coordination with FBI.—Department staff coordinated CSA regulations with the FBI, especially with regard to Hate Crimes Statistics Act, schools’ use of the FBI’s

Uniform Crime Reporting procedures, and other issues. This is an ongoing activity. Dear colleague letters.—Four letters have been sent to schools regarding institu- tional responsibilities under CSA. (March 1991; August 1991; October 1992; May

1996).

Program reviews.—Program reviewers are directed to check compliance with all laws and regulations, including CSA. If the program reviewers have reason to believe that the institution is not in compliance, they look deeper into the issue. Consumer complaint procedure.—The May 1996 Dear Colleague Letter refers indi- viduals with complaints of noncompliance to the Directors of the Department’s Regional Offices. The letter included a list of names and phone numbers of the regional offices. Focused program reviews.—Valid complaints will trigger a focused program re- view. Six formal complaints have been received to date.

Supplemental guidance to program reviewers.—The Department issued supplemental guidance to program reviewers detailing how to check compliance with CSA.

This guidance was issued in September 1996. Compliance audits.—Outside auditors conducting compliance audits are directed, by the Audit Guide, to three places where information about CSA is located, and

told to assure schools compliance with these laws and regulations: CFR 668 (and

other sections), which contains the CSA regulations; Dear Colleague Letters, of

which 4 have been issued about CSA; and, the Student Financial Aid Handbook,

which contains extensive information about CSA.

Explicit inclusion in audit guide.—The Inspector General, with the encourage- ment of the Secretary, included explicit language regarding checking compliance

with CSA in the Audit Guide. This is expected to raise the awareness of the CSA

requirements in the audits that are performed for every school that participates in

the Title IV Student Financial Assistant Programs. The revised Audit Guide was

issued in July 1997.

Grant program to combat drugs and violence.—The Department’s fiscal year 1996

Drug and Violence Prevention Grant Program had an invitational priority for proposals dealing with violence against women on college campuses.

Teacher education in school mediation.—This FIPSE project awarded funds to

Goucher College. The project develops, in partnership with 20 Baltimore City Public

Schools, a program of conflict mediation designed to reduce violence in the schools.

Three teachers from each school will be trained to implement programs of mediation

in their schools. Forty students from each school will be trained and used as peer

mediators.

Conflict Mediation Program.—This FIPSE project awarded funds to the University of California-Los Angeles. The project establishes a program to help the campus

community conflict prevention and mediation deal with diversity-related tensions.

Students, faculty, and staff are trained in mediation and conflict resolution, and,

working as teams, use this approach to prevent and intervene in diversity-related

conflicts in various campus settings and in the local community.

Mentors in violence prevention project.—This FIPSE project awarded funds to

Northeastern University. The project delivers programs on nine campuses designed

to help males better understand what constitutes sexual violence and rape; and to

assist women and men to intervene in situations of risk. The programs will specifically target groups of males in residence halls, in fraternities, and on athletic teams.

Dispute resolution and diversity multimedia packages.—This FIPSE project

awarded funds to Carnegie Mellon University. The project develops two interactive

multimedia packages to help students learn dispute resolution skills. The first package will teach basic dispute resolution skills, and the second will teach students to

apply the skills in culture, race, and gender-based conflicts on a campus. The materials developed in this project will be used in a variety of settings, including numer-
39

ous courses and student life activities. The project will look at classroom rapport as

a measure of the change in campus climate caused by the videodiscs.

Regional office training.—Department Headquarters’ staff provided training to regional office staff during scheduled conference calls about enforcement of CSA regulations in 1991, 1992, and 1994.

Technical assistance—IACLEA Convention.—The Department sent a representative to the IACLEA (campus law enforcement organization) convention in 1993 in

Seattle to provide assistance and training with CSA.

Technical assistance—IACLEA Convention.—Department staff participated in a

teleconference at the IACLEA regional conference regarding CSA and FERPA questions in 1995.

Technical assistance—AACRAO Conventions.—The Department sent a representative to several regional and national AACRAO (Registrars and Admission Officers)

conventions in 1994 to provide assistance and training about CSA.

Technical assistance—NASFAA Convention.—The Department sent a representative to the NASFAA annual convention to provide assistance with CSA in 1994.

Technical assistance—Annual Campus Crime Conferences.—The Department sent

a representative to the annual Campus Crime Conference convened at Towson State

University to provide assistance and training about CSA in 1994 and 1995.

Technical assistance—Virginia State Convention.—The Department sent a representative to the annual Virginia State Higher Education Association Crime Prevention convention to provide assistance and training about CSA in 1993.

Technical assistance—schools.—The FBI Uniform Crime Reporting Handbook was

sent to all schools to assist in complying with CSA in 1994.

Technical assistance—informal.—The Department has provided extensive technical assistance to schools with questions about implementation of CSA.

Technical assistance—customer support.—The Department’s Customer Support

Branch has been trained to provide technical assistance to schools with questions

regarding CSA. The May 1996 Dear Colleague Letter refers schools to Customer

Support for technical assistance. They have received 165 calls for assistance since

May 1996.

Cultural awareness.—This FIPSE project awarded funds in 1997 to CUNY,

Queens College to help integrate freshman—especially recent immigrants—into the

Queens community and foster tolerance and learning of varying cultural backgrounds.

Curriculum development.—This FIPSE project awarded funds in 1997 to Fisk University in order to revamp their core curriculum to emphasize multicultural studies,

cultivate an eagerness to give critical attention to unfamiliar ideas, and develop students’ capacity for critical thinking.

Student values multimedia package.—This FIPSE project awarded funds in 1996

to Ball State University to school students on ethical decision-making, values clarification, the consequences of cheating and risk recognition and reduction through a

multi-media program.

Faculty development.—This FIPSE project awarded funds in 1996 to California

State Polytechnic University, Pomona to educate teachers about Asian culture so

that they may be better attuned to the needs of minority students and help them

transcend cultural boundaries to attain academic success.

Research grant.—This FIPSE project awarded funds in 1996 to the Coalition of

Christian Colleges & Universities to assess how colleges and universities influence

values.

Curriculum development.—This FIPSE project awarded funds in 1996 to Tufts

University to develop an interactive multimedia simulation of the criminal sentencing practice in American felony courts. This program exposes students to ‘‘extralegal’’ influences—such as race or gender of the defendant—and how they affect judicial outcomes.

Curriculum development.—This FIPSE project awarded funds in 1995 to the Atlanta College of Art in order to help students understand the dynamics of cultural

encounters and adapt a more inclusive narrative of history.

Sensitivity training.—This FIPSE project awarded funds in 1994 to the University

of Central Florida. Focusing efforts on student athletes, the program addressed

growing concerns regarding issues of race, gender and ethnic differences on college

campuses.

Program development.—This FIPSE project awarded funds in 1994 to Colgate

University in order to establish an Office of Intercultural Resources (OIC) to develop, support and implement programs designed to build bridges between international and multicultural programs.
40

Sensitivity training.—This FIPSE project awarded funds in 1994 to Stanford University (Medical School) to train students to deal effectively with acts of sexism and

gender insensitivity and increases the sensitivity of those in leadership positions.

Community activism.—This FIPSE project awarded funds in 1994 to the Oregon

Coalition Against Domestic & Sexual Violence in order to train and supervise students to assist domestic violence victims with temporary restraining orders, enable

students to observe how criminal and civil cases involving issues of domestic violence are handled by the legal system, and recruit attorneys to do pro bono cases

dealing with domestic violence.

Research grant.—This FIPSE project awarded funds in 1993 to the Center for

Women Policy Studies in order to develop and disseminate a classroom report on

gender discrimination, the effects of race and sex bias in the classroom, and provide

recommendations and strategies for improving the learning climate.

Curriculum development.—This FIPSE project awarded funds in 1993 to HustonTillotson College, a historically Black college to develop an honors program with a

focus on Mexican-American/African-American culture.

Faculty development.—This FIPSE project awarded funds in 1993 to Keene State

College help faculty develop new approaches to learning which expose students to

information from more diverse perspectives.

Program development.—This FIPSE project awarded funds in 1993 to the University of Minnesota to promote a greater sense of community by coordinating extracurricular services with academic experiences, affirm diversity within the campus

and provide more opportunities for out-of-classroom association among faculty and

students.

Dissemination of alcohol related crimes publication.—The Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention, with Department funding, published a

guide in their ‘‘Preventing Alcohol-Related Problems on Campus’’ series on both vandalism and impaired driving.

Institutional recognition.—In March of 1998, the Department’s sub-panel on the

Prevention of Sexual and Racial Harassment and Violence Against Students in

Higher Education will announce a new recognition program for institutional initiatives that confront these issues.

Technical assistance.—In October of 1998, the Department will host the 12th Annual National Meeting on Alcohol, Other Drugs and Violence Prevention. At this

meeting, institutions that have initiated ‘‘exemplary’’ programs combating these

problems will share their experiences and insights.

CAMPUSES

Senator SPECTER. Mr. Longanecker, is there any doubt on the

definition of campus under the statute that it would include the

sidewalks within the university?

Mr. LONGANECKER. Generally the issue of campus is one of the

foremost difficult areas that we have found campuses are having

a difficult time with, and it is a particular issue for an urban institution like the University of Pennsylvania. The law says that the

definition of campus is——

Senator SPECTER. I know what the law says. I have the statute

before me.

Mr. LONGANECKER. Yes.

Senator SPECTER. My question pending to you is on a sidewalk——

Mr. LONGANECKER. That is right. A sidewalk and a street are

not——

Senator SPECTER. Excuse me. Excuse me.

Mr. LONGANECKER. I am sorry, sir.

Senator SPECTER. Is there any doubt that a sidewalk is part of

the campus?

Mr. LONGANECKER. Yes; the law explicitly says it is not.

Senator SPECTER. Well, what provision of the law does that?
41

Mr. LONGANECKER. It says property that is owned and controlled

by the university. The university does not own or control public

lands.

That may be an area we should examine because one could say

those properties that are wholly contained within the parameters

of a campus should be considered part of the campus.

Senator SPECTER. I am not sure you are right about that. If there

is a defect in the sidewalk, if there is snow on the sidewalk, the

property owner adjacent is liable for control for those purposes.

Mr. LONGANECKER. Well, you are certainly more expert in that

area of the law.

Senator SPECTER. I may be about sidewalks generally.

Mr. LONGANECKER. Our interpretation of the law is that those

are publicly owned, that those are not university owned and controlled and——

Senator SPECTER. I do not know that is so. The public has an

easement to walk over sidewalks, but when a sidewalk is within

the campus of the university, if you make the distinction that the

crime has to be reported if it is on the grass but not reported on

the sidewalk, I do not think you are right about that.

But if there is a doubt about it, we can change the law.

Mr. LONGANECKER. Yes; clearly there is a doubt about it because

you and I clearly differ on our interpretations.

Senator SPECTER. I do not know that our differing interpretations shows a doubt about the law, but we can change the law.

Are you saying to me that the Department of Education is interpreting the statute to exclude sidewalks?

Mr. LONGANECKER. That would be correct.

Senator SPECTER. OK. That is good to know because that is

something that I will try to change so there is no doubt about it.

There is a specific issue arising as to the University of Pennsylvania on the food court. It is a building owned by the university.

There are university functions within the building. Do you take the

position that if a crime occurs in the food court within the overall

territorial confines of the university, that that is not on the campus?

Mr. LONGANECKER. That would be correct. In that particular

case, that food court is contiguous but not on the specific campus.

The university property, again using the definition in the law——

Senator SPECTER. Contiguous but not on, but underneath. There

are university functions in the building on top of——

Mr. LONGANECKER. One of the requirements of the law is that it

be used in a manner consistent with the educational mission of the

university. The food court there is a general food court available to

the entire community, it is our understanding, and therefore was

not considered to be part of the university for this purpose.

Senator SPECTER. Well, the Pennsylvania Superior Court took up

the issue of campus and said it was not limited—this is beyond my

own interpretation—to education and residential grounds, but also

including commercial property of a college or university used for investment purposes. Are you familiar with the case of Commonwealth versus Mitchell?

Mr. LONGANECKER. No; I am not.
42

Senator SPECTER. Well, I will make it available to you. I would

like you to take a look at it because I think it is fair to say that

there is a sharp disagreement between this committee, and I think

the Congress, with the interpretation the Department is making.

Have you issued a regulation which illustratively excludes sidewalks from the campus?

Mr. LONGANECKER. We have. I would need to get back to you on

explicitly what the regulation is. I believe so.

Senator SPECTER. Mr. Clery, I believe you want to make a comment there.

Mr. CLERY. Yes; I wanted to make a comment coming from the

Pennsylvania area, and the University of Pennsylvania did report

100, I think, armed robberies because it was on streets that they

exclusively patrol, is my understanding, by their police. I think

that that would be to your point that that is part of the campus.

Why are they patrolling areas where students congregate and use

regularly? You have to cross the street to get to the library and you

have to cross the sidewalk. I think it is a lot of sophistry very

frankly and it is violating the spirit of the law.

Senator SPECTER. Do you care to comment, Mr. Longanecker?

Mr. LONGANECKER. Please, if I might. In defense of the University of Pennsylvania, what I believe they have tried to do in their

patrolling is to assure that there are additional patrols in the areas

proximate to campus that are used significantly by students. Now,

think of the idiocy, if you will——

Senator SPECTER. The what?

Mr. LONGANECKER. The idiocy in providing a disincentive for

them to try to patrol areas clearly outside their area of purview but

where they are trying to provide protection to the students.

What we want to do is to provide greater prevention efforts. We

want to increase security, and I think we would love to work with

you on trying to find a more clear definition of campus.

Senator SPECTER. Are you saying it would be a matter of idiocy

to call on the university to report crimes on the streets within their

campus?

Mr. LONGANECKER. No, no; absolutely not.

Senator SPECTER. What was——

Mr. LONGANECKER. They patrol areas——

Senator SPECTER. Excuse me. Excuse me. What was the idiocy

reference?

Mr. LONGANECKER. Requiring them to report crime in the entire

patrol area of the campus security of the University of Pennsylvania which runs blocks and blocks off campus.

Senator SPECTER. Well, we are not talking about that. I do not

think Mr. Clery is talking about that. Mr. Clery——

Mr. LONGANECKER. That is precisely what he said.

Senator SPECTER. Excuse me. No; that is not what he said. What

did you say, Mr. Clery?

Mr. CLERY. I said that sidewalks and streets that intersect the

campus are really part of the campus. The college that I went to

was out in a rural area and I had to cross the street and a sidewalk to get from my dorm to the library. Also, that their campus

security patrol, in conjunction with the Philadelphia police, areas

that the students use, and I would consider that part of life of
43

going to the University of Pennsylvania. They had 100 armed robberies there that they did not report.

Senator SPECTER. That is what I understood you to say. I start

with the sidewalk because it seems to me that that is the clearest

proposition.

Do you consider it a sidewalk if you move from Walnut Street,

up to College Hall on a sidewalk that goes through the university,

Mr. Longanecker?

Mr. LONGANECKER. I think we ought to have a serious discussion

about that. I do not think there would be much disagreement with

that. Currently we would not consider it as a part of the campus.

Senator SPECTER. Mr. Longanecker, we are having a serious discussion about it.

Mr. LONGANECKER. Yes.

Senator SPECTER. That is what we propose to do at this hearing.

Mr. LONGANECKER. Yes; pardon me, but I do not think the Department would disagree, but the law from our interpretation of it

currently does. We enforce the law——

Senator SPECTER. You do not think that the Department would

disagree but the law that the Department interprets disagrees?

Mr. LONGANECKER. We do not interpret law. We follow law.

Senator SPECTER. It seems to me you are doing a lot of interpreting, Mr. Longanecker.

Let us come back to the streets and the highways. If you have

a highway, if you have Walnut Street and you move from the library, which is immediately south of Walnut. Immediately west of

34th, you have the law school, which is on Chestnut, and you have

Sampson Street—take that as a street aside from Walnut Street,

which is very narrow. It is traveled but very lightly. You have the

sidewalk there between two university buildings, would you say

that there is not an obligation to report campus crime on the sidewalk?

Mr. LONGANECKER. That is how we would interpret.

But let me also say that I think that is an area that logically we

should address. That is different than——

Senator SPECTER. That is what I am trying to do.

Mr. LONGANECKER. Yes. No, I agree.

That is different than the campus security patrolling some blocks

away, and if I——

Senator SPECTER. We are not talking and Mr. Clery was not. If

you take the college campus very distended, that is not what is

being questioned here. What is being questioned here is a sidewalk

which is right next to the grass and that is leading right to the

building. Then you have a road. You have 36th Street actually

closed off. Now, cars can go through there, but it is actually closed

off.

I do not want to get involved with you on every inch of the

grounds, but I am just a little surprised to hear you say that it

would be idiocy to classify——

Mr. LONGANECKER. I did not mean to imply that.

Senator SPECTER. Just a minute. Just a minute, please, Mr.

Longanecker. Just a minute, please.

Mr. LONGANECKER. Sure.
44

Senator SPECTER. I am just a little surprised to hear you say it

would be idiocy to impose an obligation on the college to do a reporting on areas which they patrol because that would discourage

patrolling. I am just a little surprised to hear you use language like

‘‘idiocy’’ when we are trying to find out what your interpretation is

where I find it to be extremely restrictive, not in accordance with

the letter of the law, let alone the spirit of the law.

But the question here which has been addressed broadly has

been how you reduce campus crime which is very vital and very

important, but the thrust of college reporting of crime is to tell people what has happened. Now, you may reduce crime if people know

what has happened and they can protect themselves.

But the reporting requirement is just a little different from reducing crime. Your patrols reduce crime. The police reduce crime

by being on the spot. You reduce crime by taking appropriate prosecutorial action if somebody seriously assaults a young man like

Mr. McKee, but it is a little different when you are talking about

reporting. That is a very different proposition.

The University of Pennsylvania got into a rhetorical dispute with

the Philadelphia Inquirer. The president of the university, Dr.

Roden, was reported as saying that they found no evidence that the

university was hiding anything or distorting campus crime. Ms.

Goldfarb, do you know if that is an accurate quotation from Dr.

Roden?

Ms. GOLDFARB. With your permission, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Peter

Erichsen, who is the general counsel of the university, is here and

could probably speak to that question better than I could. I do not

know that that is a quote from Dr. Roden.

Senator SPECTER. Mr. Erichsen, do you know the answer to that?

Mr. ERICHSEN. I believe it is an accurate quote, Senator.

Senator SPECTER. With respect to the issue of the hospital of the

University of Pennsylvania, Ms. Goldfarb, is there any question

that should have been included as part of the university’s report?

Ms. GOLDFARB. I do not think there is any question about that,

but again Mr. Erichsen can answer that question better than I can

since I am here to talk about——

Senator SPECTER. OK, Mr. Erichsen. Any question about the inclusion of the hospital of the University of Pennsylvania as part of

the report?

Mr. ERICHSEN. There is no question that we are going to accede

to the Department. Obviously there was some question in our mind

beforehand, so we did not include it.

Senator SPECTER. There was a question in your mind beforehand.

So you considered the hospital of the University of Pennsylvania

and omitted it?

Mr. ERICHSEN. No, Mr. Chairman. I think it would be safer to

say the issue was not considered as seriously as it might have been

when we were first seeking to comply with the law.

Senator SPECTER. I do not understand that answer, Mr.

Erichsen. Did you exclude the hospital of the University of Pennsylvania after thinking about it or did you just not think about it

or what?
45

Mr. ERICHSEN. It is impossible for anybody, much less me, to reconstruct all of the deliberations that went into initial compliance,

Mr. Chairman.

Senator SPECTER. We need one more witness from Penn.

Mr. ERICHSEN. There is some evidence that consideration was

given. It is not clear that it was considered as carefully as it might

have been.

Senator SPECTER. But, Mr. Longanecker, do you think Congress

should consider adding penalties for failure to have accurate reporting under this Campus Security Act?

Mr. LONGANECKER. Mr. Chairman, we have the authority today

to levy fines or take more serious actions.

Senator SPECTER. Have you done that at all?

Mr. LONGANECKER. We have not done so. Because this is new

law, we have been leading with a carrot and following with a stick.

Senator SPECTER. Where have you followed with a stick?

Mr. LONGANECKER. We have not yet because we have not found

an institution that was unwilling to work with us to come into compliance, nor have we found ones that we felt were intentionally in

noncompliance.

And if I might just respond earlier, I owe you and Mr. Clery an

apology. That was a terrible choice of words, and for lack of something else, I used it and I apologize for that. Mr. Clery and his wife

are heroes of mine. I mean, I do not think there are people who

have demonstrated the power that an individual can have in basically changing law for public good. So, I want to personally and

publicly apologize.

Senator SPECTER. I thank you for that. I agree with your last

statements, especially about the Clerys’ contribution.

Senator Torricelli.

Senator TORRICELLI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator SPECTER. Senator Torricelli, are you due at the Government Affairs Committee hearing at this moment for which you and

I are 24 minutes late?

Senator TORRICELLI. I am, but missing hearing discussions of

President Clinton’s fund raising activities in 1996 is something I

am prepared to endure. [Laughter.]

Senator SPECTER. In that event, goodbye, everyone. I am not prepared to miss that. Do you think that it is an offset if you and I

are both absent?

Senator TORRICELLI. It probably is, yes.

How would you like to proceed, Mr. Chairman? I am at your disposal.

Senator SPECTER. Well, I would like to give you 5 minutes to

make a presentation. Then I think we are going to move on to the

next hearing.

STATEMENT OF SENATOR ROBERT G. TORRICELLI, U.S. SENATOR

FROM NEW JERSEY

Senator TORRICELLI. Very good. Mr. Chairman, thank you very

much for this unusual opportunity to be with the committee. I am,

indeed, very, very grateful.

I do so for what I know is a common interest and from this discussion even more so than I might have suspected. I came here to
46

discuss your legislation actually, the Campus Security Act, which

you successfully authored some time ago. Recognizing that 10 million young Americans every year are making a choice about where

to go to college, they make this judgment with their families, and

even after the Campus Security Act, in my judgment, for a variety

of reasons are still not getting the kind of information they need

for their families to make the right choices.

As you know—I can tell from your conversation—the GAO reported that colleges across the Nation simply are not complying

with the reporting requirements. The Department of Education is

also in my judgment failing to enforce them. From your discussion,

that is also clear today. In fact, the Department of Education only

recently began a systematic effort to even monitor compliance with

these reporting requirements.

My point in being here today is that even after they began monitoring and if they go to compliance, for many American families

it still will not be enough. That is why I wanted to bring this to

your attention.

Under your legislation, three categories of crime are being reported—should be reported: Murder, rape, aggravated assault. But

these represent only 16 percent of the total number of hate crimes

that actually occur on college campuses every year. Over 80 percent

of these crimes actually take the form of vandalism, harassment,

or simple assault. According to the Department of Education’s most

recent statistics, not one college campus reported a hate crime that

resulted in murder in 1992–94, and less than one-half of 1 percent

of the colleges reported hate crime that resulted in rape or aggravated assault.

Current law also does not require colleges and universities to report hate crimes against women and the disabled.

Senator SPECTER. Senator Torricelli, I am going to have to interrupt you for a minute. I have to go to the other hearing and I will

return here. So, I am going to leave you in Senator Torricelli’s

hands. When you conclude, we will be in recess and I shall return.

Senator TORRICELLI. For all of you present, this is of course a

historic moment. I would be the only Democrat in the 105th Congress to actually be here running my own hearing. [Laughter.]

Consider the legislative possibilities, Mr. Chairman, of what we

can do here. [Laughter.]

Senator SPECTER. We are voting right now on the report.

Senator TORRICELLI. So much for my opportunity. [Laughter.]

Senator SPECTER. It was the opportunity that I wanted to avoid,

and I do not want Senator Torricelli to miss the vote. He is up for

reelection in the year 2002.

We stand in recess for just a few minutes.

[A brief recess was taken.]

Senator SPECTER. The hearing will resume.

Senator Torricelli, you have the floor.

Senator TORRICELLI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much.

Mr. Chairman, as I was suggesting earlier, the problem before

us, in addition to the fact that there has been improper reporting

and enforcement, is that in my judgment your legislation could go

further with a list of crimes that are actually requiring of such reporting.
47

In the Campus Hate Crimes Right to Know Act of 1997 which

I authored, I propose expanding the list by doing two very important things. First, the colleges have to require all hate crimes and

not simply murder, rape, or aggravated assault and that the list include gender and disability in the class protected by the reporting

requirements.

I noted in offering the act that a recent study by the Maryland

Prejudice Institute reported that 25 percent of minority college students attending predominantly white colleges have been victims of

hate crimes. The 25 percent is an extraordinary statistic. In 1996

there were 90 incidents of anti-Semitic activity on college campuses, and in 1996 alone, a California university student sent

threatening e-mail messages to 60 Asian-Americans.

These kinds of activities sadly continue on American college campuses, and they may not have some of the physical impact of the

crimes that are now being required to be reported, but psychologically, the impact on a student’s education, in many ways they

can be just as devastating.

For all the reasons, Mr. Chairman, that you wanted parents and

students to know whether they would be physically endangered if

they went to certain campuses—and I suspect you wanted those

colleges to have an incentive to protect their students and end this

criminal activity by the reporting requirements. I can only suspect

that was part of your motivation.

So too I would like to give that same motivation to college administrators. If there are acts of vandalism, if there is graffiti, if there

are other hate crime activities that victimize certain racial, religious, or gender groups, I would like parents and students to know

about it. The incentive to college administrators to be serious about

punishing students who commit these acts and indeed ensuring

that they do not continue I believe would be our best weapon in

ending this kind of prejudicial activity.

So, Mr. Chairman, I leave it for consideration in hopes that in

some way the efforts that you began which I believe with proper

enforcement can be so significant on college campuses, I think together we could take this the next step.

I am very grateful for giving me this opportunity today to

present my views to you and members of this committee. I thank

you.

Senator SPECTER. Thank you very much, Senator Torricelli.

We will be glad to consider the additions which you have suggested. I think we are going to have to revisit the statute in some

substantial detail.

My own sense is that the Department of Education has interpreted this statute much too narrowly, unreasonably narrowly, Mr.

Longanecker. I do not see how you can separate out sidewalks. If

you are talking about a sidewalk that goes, say, from Walnut

Street up to College Hall, that actually goes within the university

property, and if you saw that, you might not exclude that or you

might. I do not know. If you have a sidewalk where the university

property is on each side or a street where the university property

is on each side, we are not talking about patrolling. We are talking

about reporting. That is a big difference.
48

I understand your apology on the use of the word ‘‘idiocy,’’ but

I am concerned about your mind set quite frankly. We can clarify

it to some extent, but we can never write it so that there will not

be any interpretation. When you say your job is to follow the law

and not interpret the law, you are not right about that. It is just

not possible for Congress to write the law to consider every contingency. Then you do interpret the law because you write regulations, so you are definitely interpreting the law when you write

regulations. It is not possible for you to write regulations to consider any contingency.

I think you have to be a lot tougher than you have been, and I

will take a look at what your authority is on the fines. We may set

up some mandatory requirements. We do that with judges. We can

do it with the Department of Education because I think the underreporting is very substantial. I would like to see compliance with

this statute before we move on to other statutes. There are people

who want to move on to other statutes, and I have concerns.

I think Ms. Goldfarb may be right when she talks about victims

who will not want to report crimes if the internal proceedings are

going to be reviewed by the public. She may be right about that.

I can understand the demand for it in the face of failure to comply

in a pretty obvious way. I think there has been failure to comply

in a pretty obvious way.

So, we thank you for coming today. It is a complicated subject,

and we have got a lot on our agenda, but we will attend to this.

Senator TORRICELLI. Mr. Chairman, could I address Mr.

Longanecker for one moment and try to offer some perspective on

this problem?

About 25 years ago I was a college student at Rutgers University

in New Brunswick and was the victim like Mr. McKee of some

campus violence. A few years later, the Governor of New Jersey put

me on the board of governors of Rutgers University, and I learned

something very startling.

When I decided where to go to college, whether or not my dormitory or the university setting or even the streets around the

campus were safe, it never entered into my calculation of where I

would attend a school. I assumed all universities were safe. I

looked at the departments, the testing, the quality of the faculty,

not whether or not I would be safe of life and limb.

When I became a member of the board of governors, I came to

understand why that never entered into my calculations. Even a

great university like Rutgers University would go to any length

after any crime to ensure that it never became public. That is the

value of what Senator Specter has done.

When I served on the board of governors, we changed that policy.

We ensured that the local police were called every time there was

a crime so that it got in the newspapers, and when it did, that university administration became very serious, deadly serious about

patrolling, security lights, ensuring that crimes were prosecuted,

ensuring that students that committed crimes against other students were removed from the university setting.

Truth and revealing of the facts is the only sure means of enhancing security. That is the value of what Senator Specter has
49

done and why I share his frustration if the reporting and the enforcement is not taking place.

But I went through this on a personal experience as apparently

Mr. McKee did, and to all of us, it is a very important thing to happen. If there is one place in American life we should be able to

have some sanctuary where people can be free of the normal life

concerns and pursue academic and intellectual pursuits, it is a university setting. Certainly we can secure those few acres of everybody’s life to make this right.

Mr. Chairman, thank you for allowing me to be part of this hearing.

CONCLUSION OF HEARING

Senator SPECTER. Thank you, Senator Torricelli. That concludes

our hearing. The subcommittee will stand in recess subject to the

call of the Chair.

[Whereupon, at 4:47 p.m., Thursday, March 5, the hearing was

concluded, and the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of the Chair.]

Æ