U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

20–892 PDF WASHINGTON : 2018

S. HRG. 114-791 

CAMPUS SAFETY: IMPROVING PREVENTION AND 

RESPONSE EFFORTS 

HEARING 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EDUCATION, 

LABOR, AND PENSIONS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

ON

EXAMINING CAMPUS SAFETY, FOCUSING ON IMPROVING PREVENTION 

AND RESPONSE EFFORTS 

JULY 13, 2016 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/ 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

COMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EDUCATION, LABOR, AND PENSIONS 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee, Chairman 

MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming 

RICHARD BURR, North Carolina 

JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia 

RAND PAUL, Kentucky 

SUSAN COLLINS, Maine 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska 

MARK KIRK, Illinois 

TIM SCOTT, South Carolina 

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah 

PAT ROBERTS, Kansas 

BILL CASSIDY, M.D., Louisiana 

PATTY MURRAY, Washington 

BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS (I), Vermont 

ROBERT P. CASEY, JR., Pennsylvania 

AL FRANKEN, Minnesota 

MICHAEL F. BENNET, Colorado 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut 

ELIZABETH WARREN, Massachusetts 

DAVID P. CLEARY, Republican Staff Director 

LINDSEY WARD SEIDMAN, Republican Deputy Staff Director 

EVAN SCHATZ, Minority Staff Director 

JOHN RIGHTER, Minority Deputy Staff Director 

(II) 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

C O N T E N T S 

STATEMENTS 

WEDNESDAY, JULY 13, 2016 

Page 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS

Kirk, Hon. Mark, a U.S. Senator from the State of Illinois, opening statement 1 

Murray, Hon. Patty, a U.S. Senator from the State of Washington ................... 1 

Collins, Hon. Susan M., a U.S. Senator from the State of Maine ....................... 3 

Casey, Hon. Robert P., Jr., a U.S. Senator from the State of Pennsylvania ...... 4 

Baldwin, Hon. Tammy, a U.S. Senator from the State of Wisconsin .................. 56 

Warren, Hon. Elizabeth, a U.S. Senator from the State of Massachusetts ........ 58 

WITNESSES

Amweg, Rick, Security Consultant, Security Risk Management Consultants, 

LLC, Columbus, OH ............................................................................................. 5 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 7 

Allan, Elizabeth, Ph.D., Executive Director of StopHazing.org and Professor 

at the University of Maine, Orono, ME .............................................................. 8 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 9 

Huskey, Melynda, Ph.D., Interim Vice President of Student Affairs and Dean 

of Students, Washington State University, Pullman, WA ................................ 19 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 21 

Krisak, Wendy, M.A., NCC, LPC, Director of The Counseling Center, DeSales 

University, Center Valley, PA ............................................................................. 23 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 25 

Storch, Joseph, Associate Counsel, The State University of New York, Albany, 

NY ......................................................................................................................... 35 

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

Clementi, Jane, Co-Founder, The Tyler Clementi Foundation, New York, NY . 44 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 46 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL 

Statements, articles, publications, letters, etc.: 

Response to questions of Senator Murray by Joseph Storch ........................ 62 

(III) 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

(1) 

CAMPUS SAFETY: IMPROVING PREVENTION 

AND RESPONSE EFFORTS 

WEDNESDAY, JULY 13, 2016 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EDUCATION, LABOR, AND PENSIONS, 

Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:57 p.m., in room 

SD–106, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Mark Kirk presiding. 

Present: Senators Kirk, Collins, Murray, Casey, Bennet, Baldwin, and Warren. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR KIRK

Senator KIRK. I recognize the Ranking Member for her opening 

statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MURRAY

Senator MURRAY. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. Were you 

going to make an opening statement? 

Senator KIRK. No. 

Senator MURRAY. OK. I would like the opportunity to do that, 

and I want to thank everyone, and I’m glad we’re able to be here 

to talk about these very important and pressing issues. I want to 

thank all of our colleagues who are joining us at this hearing as 

well today. I also want to thank the many great advocates here 

who have been working with us on reauthorizing the Higher Education Act and, of course, improving campus safety. It is great to 

see so many new faces as well. 

Today, students are making major investments to pursue higher 

education, which they correctly see as an opportunity to grow and 

challenge themselves and to develop skills that will better prepare 

them for their future. While students work hard to succeed in higher education, the last thing they should ever have to worry about 

is whether they are safe on campus. 

I’d like to begin by saying a few words about the Stanford University rape case as a critical example of why today’s discussion is 

so urgent and of the need for us to acknowledge the reality of violence and fear experienced by too many students on our college 

campuses. I want to make clear that the anger and frustration that 

the sentencing in this case has generated is completely justified. 

Our criminal justice system failed a brave survivor who deserved 

to know her rapist had been held accountable. 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

2 

But, I admire this incredible young woman who has shown so 

much strength in telling her story and giving hope to many other 

survivors across our country and around the world. And I admire 

the two students, strangers and responsible bystanders, who did 

step up and take action, which highlights the critical importance 

of bystander intervention, a prevention strategy for combating all 

types of violence on campus, and something I look forward to hearing about today. Their action shows how important it is to build 

a community and a campus culture that empowers students to step 

in and support students who are being targeted, whether it’s sexual 

assault or bullying or harassment or hazing. A critical part of this 

is dispelling the myth that bullying and harassment are inevitable 

aspects of life. 

I have introduced legislation named in honor of Tyler Clementi, 

a young man who we know took his own life after experiencing bullying and harassment on the Internet. I’m so glad that Jane 

Clementi is here today to talk about her son, Tyler, what he and 

his family have experienced and how we can help protect students 

and all gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender youth so that no 

one has to endure what he did. 

I’m also looking forward to hearing from Dr. Allan today about 

hazing. Seventy-four percent of varsity athletes and 73 percent of 

students participating in social fraternities and sororities have experienced at least one hazing behavior. Alcohol consumption, humiliation, isolation, sleep deprivation, and sex acts are hazing practices common across all student groups. Hazing activities are often 

billed as traditions, but they can have such damaging and lasting 

impacts on young people, even claiming students’ lives. 

I know there are sincere disagreements on what Congress’ responsibilities should be when it comes to sexual assault and violence on campus. But I firmly believe the Federal Government has 

a role to play to hold institutions of higher education responsible 

for providing a safe learning environment for all students. 

Colleges and universities must create a culture that does not accept violence, and to be clear, a flyer or a one-time training in 

freshman year is not enough. We as the Federal Government have 

a responsibility to engage in and support these efforts in every way 

that we can. 

Last, there is a lot of heartache in our cities and our communities right now. We mourn the victims and families impacted by 

the horrific violence in Dallas, the tragic deaths in Baton Rouge 

and Saint Paul, and we are once again reminded that nowhere is 

safe from the epidemic of gun violence, not even at our schools, 

which should be safe havens for our students. My home State of 

Washington is no stranger to this violence, as we saw clearly with 

the shooting at Seattle Pacific University just 2 years ago. 

We know there are steps we can take to make our students safer. 

We should come together on a bipartisan basis at every level of 

government and refuse to accept these horrors as the new normal. 

I’ll conclude here so we can start this discussion. But it’s clear 

we have a lot of challenges before us. Everyone here today has 

stepped up to make a real difference, and, going forward, we must 

challenge ourselves to do even more to make campuses safer. Day 

by day, step by step, we can change not just our laws and policies 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

3 

but our behaviors and our culture. I am committed to making sure 

that happens. I know my colleagues are as well, and I look forward 

to our continued work. 

Thank you. 

Senator KIRK. Ms. Collins. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR COLLINS

Senator COLLINS. Thank you very much. Senator Kirk, Senator 

Murray, I want to thank you for putting together this excellent 

roundtable to explore the issue of hazing. 

I’m delighted to introduce one of our panelists today, Professor 

Elizabeth Allan from the University of Maine. Professor Allan 

teaches courses in higher education at the University in the College of Education and Human Development. Her research focuses 

on college cultures and climates with expertise in student hazing 

and prevention. The professor is president of StopHazing.org, an 

organization focused on sharing information and strategies to promote safe campus climates. 

She also leads the research efforts of the Hazing Prevention Consortium, a partnership of eight colleges and universities engaged in 

a multiyear initiative to build an evidence base for the prevention 

of hazing on college campuses. She has been involved in this issue 

for a number of years. For example, in 2008, Professor Allan was 

the principal investigator of the National Study of Student Hazing, 

which surveyed 11,000 students from 53 universities and colleges, 

and major findings included that hazing exists outside of traditional fraternity and sorority environments and that schools should 

develop hazing prevention efforts that reach a wider range of student groups. 

Professor Allan received her Ph.D. in Educational Policy and 

Leadership from Ohio State University and her Master’s in Health 

Education and Promotion, and bachelor’s degrees in psychology, 

both from Springfield College. It’s a special honor for me to welcome Professor Allan to our panel today. 

Thank you. 

Senator KIRK. Ms. Murray to introduce a witness. 

Senator MURRAY. Thank you so much. I’m very pleased today to 

introduce Dr. Melynda Huskey. She currently serves as the Interim 

Vice President of Student Affairs and the Dean of Students, where 

her goal is, ‘‘to support the determination of students.’’ 

She has served at Washington State University for more than 22 

years, working with students. She has overseen the university’s 

work on student affairs at a time when schools are becoming more 

and more important in the fight against all forms of violence and 

discrimination on our college campuses, while also dedicating herself and her staff to helping all students who walk through the 

doors. 

In 2014, to increase public transparency and accountability, the 

Department of Education for the first time released a public list of 

schools with title IX investigations. Dr. Huskey’s school, which is 

Washington State University, was among the first schools on that 

list. Under her leadership and the leadership of the late president, 

Elson Floyd, WSU forged forward and made a commitment to improve campus safety for our students. 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

4 

She and her staff have worked tirelessly to improve the safety 

and well-being of students at WSU, dedicating themselves to new 

trainings and protocols. I cannot be happier to have her here today 

to talk about what she and her staff are doing. As a Cougar alum 

myself, I’m very proud of this work and how seriously Washington 

State University has taken this responsibility. 

My staff and I have seen Dr. Huskey’s leadership on so many 

fronts, not just on campus safety. She’s a true leader on addressing 

the hurdles that face first-time college students and their families 

and helping students who are facing the severe challenges that 

come with the lack of housing and financial security and medical 

coverage. 

I know there are still things Dr. Huskey would like to see improved to make her school an even safer place for students to learn 

and grow and thrive. But I want to take this opportunity to praise 

her and her team and the university’s leadership for making the 

strides we’ve seen there. 

I look forward to your testimony, and thank you for coming all 

the way to what we call the other Washington here to testify today. 

Thank you. 

Senator KIRK. Let me recognize our Ranking Member. 

I’ll tell members that I put a piece of colored paper before you 

that is an anti-bullying app that I developed with my student leadership advisor. It’s called Back Up Bully that we did with Motorola. 

You’ll notice the Motorola android symbol is in there. They put that 

in because they pretty much did all the back end of the work. 

That’s to encourage you to—you can even do some software development on this subject in your own office. It would help if my 

fellow members would take me up on that. But we’ve passed out 

the Back Up Bullying app. It’s a little bit—it looks a bit like Donkey Kong there. 

Mr. Casey. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR CASEY

Senator CASEY. Thanks very much, Senator Kirk. 

I want to thank those who are here today for this hearing. We 

want to thank all the witnesses who are here to talk about an issue 

that I believe is a crisis that we need to take action against. I know 

there’s been some progress made in the last couple of years, but we 

have a long way to go to get this right. 

I am privileged today to introduce a Pennsylvania witness, 

Wendy Krisak, who is the Director of Counseling at DeSales University. Wendy is also the faculty adviser for PACE, which is a program that trains students to be peer counselors. We’re grateful that 

she’s here to testify and to take questions. I’m also looking forward 

to hearing more about PACE itself and the role it’s playing in ensuring a safe and supportive campus climate for all of the students 

on her campus. Wendy has a B. A. from DeSales and a master’s 

in counseling psychology from Kutztown University. 

Wendy, we thank you for being here today and representing not 

only your school but, I guess, in a sense, our State. Thank you. 

Senator KIRK. Ms. Murray. 

Senator MURRAY. All right. With that, we’ll introduce our last 

three witnesses. We have Rick Amweg. He’s a security consultant 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

5 

who has more than 35 years of experience working at the intersection of higher education and public safety, including as the assistant chief of policy and the director of Public Safety Administration 

at Ohio State University. He also served as a negotiator for the 

rulemaking process at the U.S. Department of Education which 

was conducted to develop new regulations to the Clery Act. 

Thank you for being here today. 

We also have Joseph Storch, who is an associate counsel for the 

State University of New York system, or SUNY. In that role, he 

chairs the Student Affairs Practice Group and specializes in legal 

issues around campus safety, domestic and workplace violence policies, admissions, and financial aid. He has written on the issue of 

cyber bullying, and as a member of the Counsel’s office, he helps 

the 26 campuses that are part of the SUNY system implement and 

understand the title IX and Clery Act to help make the campus 

safer. 

Thank you for being here today. 

And as our final witness, I’m very pleased to introduce Jane 

Clementi, who along with her husband, Joe, is a co-founder of the 

Tyler Clementi Foundation, which is an organization that seeks to 

prevent bullying, that she founded on behalf of her son, Tyler. 

Tyler was just a college freshman who was harassed and cyber 

bullied and, sadly, died by suicide. 

Ms. Clementi advocates for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and 

transgender rights and the need for families and communities and 

schools to embrace LGBT students and work to prevent and reduce 

bullying and harassment in our schools. 

Thank you so much for the work that you do and for taking the 

time to be here with us today. We really value your participation. 

Thank you. 

Senator KIRK. I want to thank all of our witnesses for coming 

today, and we really appreciate your expertise and coming for this 

critical topic. 

I thank our Ranking Member, Ms. Murray, for doing this, impelling this committee to action on this key issue. I want to encourage 

all of my colleagues to get into the software development—in this 

with me, to put together an app like this. As we know, with kids, 

we’ve got to speak to them with apps. 

With that, I’ll depart you. Thank you. 

Senator MURRAY [presiding]. Each one of our witnesses is going 

to give statements to begin with. 

Mr. Amweg, we’ll start with you. 

STATEMENT OF RICK AMWEG, SECURITY CONSULTANT, SECURITY RISK MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS, LLC, COLUMBUS, 

OH 

Mr. AMWEG. Thank you. Good afternoon, Senator Kirk, Ranking 

Member Murray, and members of the committee. Thank you for inviting me here today. I’m honored to be here and take part in this 

process. 

I truly do look forward to the discussion and the opportunity to 

specifically discuss the effects of harassment, intimidation, bullying, including cyber bullying, and hazing on the post-secondary 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

6 

learning environment and explore ways to improve campus safety 

by improving prevention and response efforts in those areas. 

There are various definitions of bullying, hazing, and related activities. Most experts agree that there are three conditions that 

must be present for activity to be defined as bullying. 

First, an imbalance of power, wherein people who bully use their 

power to control or harm, and the people being bullied may have 

a hard time defending themselves. Second, an intent to cause 

harm. Actions done by accident are not bullying. The person bullying has a goal to cause harm. And, third, repetition. Incidents of 

bullying happen to the same person over and over by the same person or group. This definition is supported by the U.S. Department 

of Education and Bullying.gov. 

Harassment, intimidation, bullying, and hazing are oftentimes 

thought of as occurring only in the elementary and secondary 

school environments. Until recently, most research in this area has 

focused on students in this environment. Studies now show that 

bullying and related activities, as well as cyber bullying, do not end 

with high school but continue into the post-secondary system. 

It is important to understand these definitions in the context in 

which they are applied. In the elementary and secondary school environments, these activities are generally prohibited by rule and/or 

administrative process. Once individuals reach the age of 18, different protections are provided to victims by law, and laws now address the illegal behavior of the perpetrators. 

Part of the problem stems from the different ways bullying and 

related activities are defined in educational systems. Some behaviors typically labeled as bullying in high school are not treated 

similarly in college. Findings from a recent U.S. Department of 

Education study show that when bullying and hazing do occur in 

college, the consequences for the perpetrators are often harsher 

than for younger students who are less likely to face legal repercussions. 

Two approaches to this issue need to be considered: prevention 

and response. Some measures, such as training programs for campus staff that interact with students, bystander intervention programs, and awareness and familiarity training, could impact the 

prevalence of bullying, hazing, and related activities on campus. 

Changing behaviors and attitudes toward bullying and hazing 

are also important aspects of prevention-focused programming. Colleges and universities already implement similar programs in other 

areas, such as sexual and intimate partner violence and awareness 

and prevention programs. Applying these principles to bullying and 

hazing prevention is a logical step. 

From the response perspective, most if not all States have statutes that address bullying and hazing activities. Similarly, most 

colleges and universities have policies and guidelines related to 

bullying and hazing activities. Some campuses address the issue 

within the context of harassment in general. 

For example, any action that falls generally under the definition 

of bullying or hazing would be considered a violation of the code 

of student conduct and would be dealt with through the student judicial process. Typically, students found responsible and in violation would be subject to immediate disciplinary action. Some instiHELPN-003 with DISTILLER

7 

tutions include suspension as part of that disciplinary process. Any 

case of bullying or hazing that is determined to be a violation of 

criminal statutes can be referred to the campus or local law enforcement authorities. 

Our efforts today and through the continued work of this committee should be to identify ways to positively impact the learning 

experience on our campuses by reducing incidents of bullying and 

hazing, raising awareness of these activities on our campuses, identifying existing and promising prevention programs, and ensuring 

that the application of existing statutes and conduct rules apply to 

these situations. 

Thank you. I look forward to the forthcoming dialog. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Amweg follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RICK AMWEG

Good afternoon Chairman Alexander, Ranking Member Murray, members of the 

committee. My name is Rick Amweg. I have over 35 years of experience working 

on safety and security related matters in the secondary and post-secondary education environments. I am here today to participate in this roundtable discussion 

and specifically discuss the effects of harassment, intimidation, bullying (including 

cyber bullying) and hazing on the post-secondary learning environment and how 

campuses can develop and improve awareness and prevention efforts and positively 

impact safety for their students. 

There are various definitions of bullying, hazing and related activities. Most experts agree there are three conditions that must be present for activity to be defined 

as bullying: (1) An imbalance of power: people who bully use their power to control 

or harm and the people being bullied may have a hard time defending themselves; 

(2) Intent to cause harm: actions done by accident are not bullying; the person bullying has a goal to cause harm; and (3) Repetition: incidents of bullying happen to 

the same the person over and over by the same person or group. This definition is 

supported by the U.S. Department of Education and Bullying.gov. 

Harassment, intimidation, bullying and hazing are often times thought of as occurring only in the elementary and secondary (K–12) school environments. Until recently, most research in this area has focused on students in this environment. 

Studies now show that bullying and related activities as well as cyberbullying does 

not end with high school. Some reports indicate that nearly 25 percent of college 

students are victims of bullying or hazing. 

It is important to understand these definitions in the context in which they are 

applied. In the elementary and secondary school environments these activities are 

generally prohibited by rule and administrative process. Once individuals reach the 

age of 18, different protections are provided to victims by law and laws now address 

the illegal behavior of perpetrators. Part of the problem stems from the different 

way bullying and related activities are defined in educational systems. Some behaviors typically labeled as bullying in high school are not treated similarly in college. 

Findings from a recent U.S. Department of Education study showed that when bullying and hazing do occur in college, the consequences for the perpetrators are often 

harsher than for younger students, who are less likely to face legal repercussions. 

Two approaches to this issue need to be considered: Prevention and Response. 

Some measures, such as training programs for campus staff that interact with 

students, bystander intervention programs, and awareness and familiarity training 

could impact the prevalence of bullying, hazing and related activities on campuses. 

Changing behaviors and attitudes toward bullying and hazing are also important 

aspects of prevention-focused programming. Colleges and universities already implement similar programs in other areas, such as sexual and intimate partner violence 

awareness and prevention programs. Applying these principles to bullying and hazing prevention is a logical step. 

From the response perspective, most, if not all states have statutes that address 

bullying and hazing activities. Similarly, most colleges and universities have policies 

and guidelines related to bullying and hazing activities. Some campuses address the 

issue within the context of harassment in general. For example, any action that falls 

generally under the definition of bullying or hazing would be considered a violation 

of the student code of conduct and would be dealt with through the student judicial 

process. Typically, students found responsible and in violation will be subject to immediate disciplinary action. Some institutions include suspension as part of that disHELPN-003 with DISTILLER

8 

ciplinary process. Any case of bullying or hazing that is determined to be of a violation of criminal statutes can be referred to campus or local law enforcement authorities. 

Our efforts today, and through the continued work of this committee should be 

to identify ways to positively impact the learning experience on our campuses by 

reducing incidents of bullying and hazing, raise awareness of these activities on our 

campuses, identify existing and promising prevention programs, and ensure that the 

application of existing statutes and conduct rules apply to these situations. 

Thank you. I look forward to the forthcoming dialog on preventing and responding 

to harassment, intimidation, bullying and hazing on our college and university campuses. 

Senator MURRAY. Thank you. 

Dr. Allan. 

STATEMENT OF ELIZABETH J. ALLAN, Ph.D., EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF STOPHAZING.ORG AND PROFESSOR AT THE UNIVERSITY OF MAINE, ORONO, ME 

Ms. ALLAN. Senator Kirk, Ranking Member Murray, and members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to participate in 

this roundtable discussion. I’m honored to be here. My remarks are 

grounded in more than 25 years of research and education about 

hazing and its prevention. 

I’d like to begin with a statement shared with me this week by 

a parent who lost her son from hazing. She wrote, ‘‘Hazing is emotionally and physically hurting our youth and young adults and can 

lead to death. My son would be 27 years old. No parent ever expects to send their child off to college and come home in a coffin. 

It is time for each and every one of us to make a difference now 

for our children and for generations to come. My 18-year-old daughter will be leaving for college in the next few weeks, and I worry 

for her and her fellow students, not only for hazing but also for sexual abuse, alcohol abuse, and campus violence.’’ 

Hazing is any activity expected of someone joining or maintaining membership in a group that humiliates, degrades, abuses, or 

endangers them, regardless of a person’s willingness to participate. 

Hazing is widespread, with 55 percent of college students experiencing it and 47 percent in high school. It occurs among athletic 

teams, fraternities and sororities, marching bands, but also in 

recreation clubs, intramural sports, and even honor societies. 

Hazing extends far beyond pranks and antics to include behaviors that are dangerous, demeaning, and abusive. Alcohol use, sexual harassment and assaults, and bullying are commonly involved. 

Further, hazing occurs in context where students are learning how 

to be leaders and team members. While we need to eliminate hazing to enhance campus safety, we also need to eliminate hazing to 

promote educational environments conducive to learning and to 

promote the development of ethical leaders who treat each other 

with dignity and respect. 

Though we now have some solid research about the nature and 

extent of hazing, we are only in the early stages of generating an 

evidence base for its prevention. At this time, it remains common 

for individuals and organizations to promote and implement prevention strategies that have limited, if any, evidence for impact in 

changing behavior. 

My work in recent years has focused on addressing this gap in 

the research. As part of a 3-year, research-to-practice initiative 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

9 

called the Hazing Prevention Consortium, I collaborated with eight 

pioneering universities to test promising hazing prevention strategies and evaluate their impact. Through this consortium, we have 

conducted a considerable amount of research to formalize a datadriven framework for hazing prevention. But as we move forward, 

we remain cognizant that building a rigorous evidence base is necessary but also long-term and resource intensive. 

As we consider hazing prevention in relation to other forms of 

interpersonal violence in this roundtable, I will briefly point to several areas in which there are needs for government support and engagement as we strive to formulate effective approaches to hazing 

prevention as one among many campus safety issues. 

We need ongoing research to continue to improve our understanding of the problem of hazing and continued testing and evaluation of prevention strategies to identify approaches that have 

proven track records for effectiveness. We need the establishment 

of sound laws, policies, and procedures to protect students from 

hazing and address incidents when they occur. 

We need mandates to increase transparency about hazing incidents and reports on campus so that institutions are held accountable for tracking hazing and so that the public has access to accurate information. We need the development of research and prevention frameworks that address the intersections across campus safety issues so that we are not operating in a siloed approach. 

State and Federal support of education and training are needed 

with a focus on ethical leadership development and bystander 

intervention; financial support for disseminating broad-based information campaigns to educate the public about hazing, signs of it, 

and where to report it; and coordination of regional and national 

conferences and meetings to gather scholars, practitioners, educators, families, and other stakeholders to advance the cause of 

hazing prevention. 

In closing, the time is now to ensure that hazing is foregrounded 

as a threat to campus safety and a threat to positive leadership development in our youth. The time is now to prevent further senseless tragedies and loss of human potential as a result of hazing. 

And the time is now to recognize that educational institutions will 

be stronger and safer without hazing. We all have an opportunity 

and responsibility to make a difference by committing to hazing 

prevention and promoting safer schools and campuses for the youth 

of this Nation. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Allan follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ELIZABETH J. ALLAN, PH.D. 

SUMMARY

What is hazing? 

Hazing is defined as ‘‘any activity expected of someone joining or maintaining 

membership in a group that humiliates, degrades, abuses, or endangers them, regardless of a person’s willingness to participate’’ (Hoover & Pollard, 1999). Three 

key components are embedded in this definition: 

1. Hazing is behavior that occurs for the purpose of gaining membership and/or 

trying to maintain membership in an established group, organization, or team. 

2. Hazing involves behavior that risks emotional or physical harm. 

3. Hazing can occur regardless of a person’s willingness to participate. 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

10 

Why is hazing a problem? 

• Hazing is a threat to campus safety. • Hazing can leave lifelong scars and in some cases, it can be lethal. • Hazing can damage relationships, breed anger, mistrust, and resentment that 

erodes the educational and leadership benefits. • Hazing is a problem for leadership development in our Nation’s youth. • Hazing wastes time and precious resources. 

Nature and extent of hazing 

Based on findings from a national study of student hazing (Allan & Madden, 

2008) • 55 percent of college students and 47 percent of high school students experience 

hazing. • Men (61 percent) and women (52 percent) experience hazing on campus. • Hazing cuts across racial identities, meaning all students on campus are at risk. • Hazing occurs across different types of student groups. • Hazing behaviors are dangerous, demeaning, and abusive. • Varsity athletic teams (74 percent) and fraternities and sororities (73 percent) 

haze at the highest rates, but they are far from the only domains on campus where 

hazing is common. • Groups such as club sports (64 percent), performing arts organizations (56 percent), service organizations (50 percent), intramural teams (49 percent), and recreation clubs (42 percent), and even students involved in academic clubs (28 percent) 

and honor societies engage in hazing behaviors. 

Prevention 

• A data-driven framework for hazing prevention was developed through work of 

Hazing Prevention Consortium (http://www.stop 

hazing.org/hazing-prevention-consortium/) and StopHazing (2016). • More support is needed to strengthen and advance current initiatives. Action 

items include: resources for further research and its dissemination, evaluation of 

hazing prevention strategies to continue building evidence-base for prevention, mandates for institutional reporting and transparency; continued work to strengthen 

State laws; support from State and Federal agencies to develop prevention frameworks that address intersections among varied campus safety issues to avoid siloed 

approach; information sharing and coordination through professional associations in 

higher education; funding and mandates for research-informed and evaluated 

trainings, conferences, think tanks. 

‘‘Hazing is emotionally and physically hurting our youth and young adults 

and can lead to death. In the case of my son, [he] would be 27 years old [today]. 

No parent ever expects to send their child off to college and come home in a 

coffin. There is not a day that goes by that I do not think about my son and 

it is time for each and everyone of us to make a difference NOW for our children and generations to come. My 18-year-old daughter will be leaving for college in the next few weeks and I worry for her and her fellow students, not only 

for hazing but including sexual abuse, alcohol abuse, campus violence, etc.’’— 

Lianne Kowiak, mother of Harrison Kowiak killed by hazing in 2008. 

Chairman Alexander, Ranking Member Murray, and members of the committee, 

I would like to thank you for the opportunity to participate in this roundtable discussion about campus safety and violence prevention in higher education. As a Professor of Higher Education and researcher who studies aspects of campus culture 

and climate, I am honored to be invited to talk with you about my research and 

work related to student hazing and its prevention. My remarks are grounded in 

more than 25 years of research and education about hazing and its prevention. Over 

the past two and half decades, I’ve talked with thousands of students and education 

professionals about hazing; I coordinated efforts to pass a State law prohibiting hazing, I founded the first educational website about hazing (www.stophazing.org); have 

led research teams to survey more than 12,000 college students and interview hundreds more about hazing on college campuses (http://www.stophazing.org/hazingview/), and I currently lead a team of prevention specialists who are working to 

guide a consortium of eight universities as well as several high schools across the 

country to implement and evaluate strategies for hazing prevention. 

In preparation for this testimony, I reached out to a network of constituents from 

across the country who are invested in this issue to let them know I would be testifying today and to ask for their input about the most important information I needed to convey to you today. Scholars, educators, prevention practitioners, parents of 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

11 

victims of hazing incidents, and others who are deeply concerned about this issue 

responded. Here is some of what they said, 

‘‘Hazing has no place in any organization . . . the lasting and irrevocable 

damage is permanent. A hazing death is senseless and preventable. Time honored ‘so called traditions’ must be ended. A life lost is a tragedy that can be 

stopped with education and awareness. Hazing is cruel and has claimed innocent lives affecting a family for all time. Nearly 40 years have passed since my 

son Chuck died needlessly. Not a day passes that we don’t remember the loss 

we all suffered. The life snuffed out that would have contributed to society. A 

young and intelligent man who anticipated a bright future—who was denied his 

family, his future, and not by choice.’’— Eileen Stevens, mother of Chuck 

Stenzel killed by hazing in 1978. 

‘‘Hazing is a very serious problem on high school and college campuses. It 

does not have the carnage that gun violence does. However, it does cause tragedy and death at an alarmingly increasing rate. There has been at least one 

death every year as a result of hazing. From 2000 to January 2015, there were 

57 documented fraternity hazing related deaths. This does not take into account 

the numerous lesser, more subtle forms of hazing that happen nor other organizations where hazing occurs. What happened to our oldest son, Gary Jr., should 

have never taken place. His tragic death was totally preventable and avoidable 

had one person done the right thing and stopped the hazing well before this 

deadly night. Had universities been required to report hazing incidents and 

posted on their websites, Gary Jr. would not have been a pledge.’’—Julie 

DeVercelly, mother of Gary DeVercelly Jr. killed by hazing in 2009. 

‘‘Hazing has operated as a secretive, accepted, organized, and institutionalized form of physical, verbal, psychological, and emotional torture affiliated with 

group initiation practices. The urgency is now to prevent hazing before another 

life is lost.’’— Pamela Champion, mother of Robert Champion killed by hazing 

in 2011. 

My comments draw from years of research on hazing, the theories and science of 

prevention, my experience as an educator and student life professional, and my 

most recent work to build an evidence-based framework for hazing prevention in college and high school settings. But as indicated by the previous quotes from parents 

of hazing victims, I am also here to speak on behalf of, and to reflect on, the perspectives of the countless stakeholders from throughout this country who have 

knowledge about and have been deeply impacted by the prevalence of hazing in our 

educational institutions. It is my hope that I can do justice to their views and to 

the sense of urgency they have conveyed to me upon learning that I would be speaking with you today. 

My journey into this field was catalyzed by my role as a campus professional at 

a public university where I worked with talented, capable, and dedicated undergraduate students to promote learning and enrichment outside the classroom 

through student activities, including leadership education and advising for Greekletter organizations. As I coordinated leadership development programs with these 

college students, I also became aware of hazing and its impact. The students with 

whom I worked were intelligent, hard working, and well-liked. Yet, many of these 

rising stars were experiencing the abuses of hazing or watching silently as new 

members of their organizations were hazed. There was the student who visited my 

office after he was hospitalized with kidney damage from paddling; or the students 

burned from being sprayed with oven cleaner, the numerous sexual assaults, the 

‘‘lock-ups,’’ days and weeks deprived of sleep, the alcohol intoxications, the verbal 

abuses and other indignities to name a few. Little did I know, this was only the 

tip of the iceberg. Since then, I have heard hundreds, if not thousands, of similar 

stories from students and their loved ones about the painful and sometimes tragic 

consequences of hazing. 

Early on, as I became more aware that students at my university were both suffering and perpetrating abuses of hazing and not wanting to be a bystander myself, 

I felt compelled to take action. Not sure where to begin, and with no ‘‘best practices’’ 

as a guide, I did whatever I could to educate others about the possible dangers of 

hazing. I brought guest speakers to campus, I helped to develop trainings, peer education, more stringent accountability for hazing, high-risk drinking, and sexual aggression. I worked to add more rigor to hazing investigations and develop innovative 

educational consequences for hazing by working with students to develop alternatives to hazing traditions. We instituted a hotline for anonymous reporting and 

I also led an initiative to enact State legislation—an effort that included press conferences, lobbying efforts at the 

statehouse, and courageous students telling their personal stories of hazing experiHELPN-003 with DISTILLER

12 

ences—all of which eventually culminated in the passage of a State law to prohibit 

hazing. However, as we know, a State law isn’t sufficient to stem the tide of hazing. 

And workshops and trainings may help, but they are not enough. Attitudes and 

practices that sustain hazing are often embedded in campus (and school) culture. 

Like sexual violence, high risk drinking, and other forms of campus violence, hazing 

prevention efforts need to be data-driven, strategic, and comprehensive. 

Hazing is an emerging field of research and prevention practice. Those of us invested in this field still have much to learn about the nature of hazing, challenges 

in hazing prevention, viable and sustainable alternatives to hazing, and promising 

strategies for substantial transformation away from a culture of hazing. Resources 

for further research, trainings, and education about hazing as well as mandates for 

its prevention are vital next steps in achieving educational environments free from 

hazing. 

As a campus safety issue, hazing is problematic because of the harm that can, 

and often does, result. However, it is also particularly troubling because it occurs 

in contexts (clubs, campus organizations, and athletic teams) that are living-learning laboratories for our country’s future leaders and citizens. So while we need to 

eliminate hazing to enhance campus safety, we also need to eliminate hazing to promote educational environments that are most conducive to learning and the development of ethical leaders who treat others with the dignity and respect each deserves. 

Hazing and its prevention as a field of research is in early stages of development. 

However, a recent 3-year long collaboration between researchers and campus professionals has produced a promising framework for hazing prevention. Beginning with 

a brief overview of hazing including research on the nature and extent of hazing 

and a review of some of the particular challenges related to hazing prevention, this 

testimony provides more detail about that framework for hazing prevention and how 

we can continue to build on this foundation to expand the research base and capacity for more wide-reaching and sustainable prevention in higher education and beyond. 

What is hazing? 

Hazing is defined as ‘‘any activity expected of someone joining or maintaining 

membership in a group that humiliates, degrades, abuses, or endangers them, regardless of a person’s willingness to participate’’ (Hoover & Pollard, 1999). Three 

key components are embedded in this definition: 

1. Hazing is behavior that occurs for the purpose of gaining membership and/or trying to maintain membership in an established group, organization, or team. 

2. Hazing involves behavior that risks emotional or physical harm. 

3. Hazing can occur regardless of a person’s willingness to participate. 

In my experience, many well-meaning individuals are quick to dismiss hazing as 

harmless antics or pranks, but in reality, hazing can leave lifelong scars and in 

some cases, it can be lethal. Hazing needs to be addressed because it is a threat 

to campus safety. But further, hazing can damage relationships, breed anger, mistrust, and resentment that erodes the educational and leadership benefits of belonging to student organizations and athletic teams. The ripple-effects of hazing are farreaching; its harm is not limited to the boundaries of campus. We need to prevent 

any more senseless tragedies and loss of human potential as a result of hazing, and 

we also need to care about hazing because it is a leadership issue. Hazing occurs 

in a context where students are learning how to be leaders and team members and 

hazing—humiliating, degrading, and abusive behavior—is not the kind of leadership 

we want to cultivate in future leaders of our country. 

Nature and extent of hazing 

What comes to mind when you think of hazing? 

When asked this question, people often cite prominent examples of hazing from 

popular culture or the media. Many refer to the 1978 movie Animal House and associate hazing with specific types of organizations such as fraternities, sororities, and 

athletic teams. Or they consider hazing to be exceptional and, referring to high profile accounts portrayed in headlines, conclude that hazing is not an issue within 

their community. We know from research, however, that these depictions don’t tell 

the full story. 

In 2008, I led a research team in a national study of student hazing (Allan & 

Madden, 2008). That investigation included more than 11,000 students at 53 colleges and universities throughout the United States. We gathered data with an online survey and followed-up with more than 300 in-person interviews of students, 

staff, and administrators. We found that hazing is widespread on college campuses 

and in high schools throughout the United States with 55 percent of college students experienced hazing and 47 percent in high school—and that it occurs in many 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

13 

different types of organizations including athletic teams, fraternities and sororities, 

and marching bands, but also in other kinds of groups, like recreation clubs, intramural sports, and even honor societies. Indeed, it can be argued that hazing is a 

part of the culture and tacitly supported by individuals, groups, and institutions. 

• Men (61 percent) and women (52 percent) experience hazing on campus. 

• Hazing cuts across racial identities, meaning all students on campus are at risk. 

• Hazing occurs across different types of student groups. 

• Varsity athletic teams (74 percent) and fraternities and sororities (73 percent) 

haze at the highest rates, but they are far from the only domains on campus where 

hazing is common. 

• Groups such as club sports (64 percent), performing arts organizations (56 percent), service organizations (50 percent), intramural teams (49 percent), and recreation clubs (42 percent), and even students involved in academic clubs (28 percent) 

and honor societies engage in hazing behaviors. 

The data also indicate that hazing extends far beyond pranks and antics as often 

assumed—many behaviors are dangerous, demeaning, and abusive. Troublingly, alcohol use, sexual harassment and assault are commonly used in hazing practices on 

campuses. At least one hazing death each year has been documented since 1970 and 

this tally does not account for the many hazing deaths labeled ‘‘accidental but were 

associated with hazing activities’’ (Nuwer, 1990; 2004). Journalism professor Hank 

Nuwer has kept a chronology of the senseless loss of life due to hazing (see: http:// 

www.hanknuwer.com/). And while the physical harm entailed in some hazing is 

highly visible and problematic, hazing also involves forms of psychological and emotional harm that are not necessarily apparent on the surface and can be exceptionally complex to treat. 

It’s vital to remember that hazing is not just defined by a list of behaviors or activities. Focusing solely on a list of behaviors fails to sufficiently address the power 

dynamics involved. Being familiar with problematic and prohibited behaviors or activities as a means to inform yourself or others is important, but not enough to prevent hazing from happening. For example, it would seem absurd to include consumption of water on a list of prohibited activities, however, if it’s implemented in 

an abusive way, consuming excessive water can cause grave harm and can be considered hazing. In fact, tragically, several college students have died from water intoxication in hazing incidents. 

Given the severe nature of many hazing activities, the physical, psychological, and 

emotional harm they can cause, and their prevalence throughout a wide-range of organizations, much more needs to be done to prevent hazing in our colleges and universities. Hazing does not align with institutional missions and can result in tragic 

outcomes. And from a practical standpoint, hazing can also consume a significant 

portion of staff time and resources and stretch already thin budgets. 

Often, despite a willingness to address the issue of hazing, community members 

and campus professionals believe hazing occurs in areas shrouded in secrecy and 

isolation and they are unsure of how and where to begin addressing the problem. 

Hazing, however, is not nearly as underground as many might think. Students talk 

to their friends (48 percent), other group members (41 percent), and family members 

(26 percent) about participating in hazing (Allan & Madden, 2012; 2008). Twentyfive percent of students surveyed perceived their coach or advisor to be aware of 

hazing, with some indicating that their coach or advisor was present and participated in the hazing activity. Twenty-five percent of students also report that alumni 

were present during their hazing experiences and 36 percent indicate that some 

hazing behaviors occurred in a public space. 

While we often associate hazing with college students, another striking finding 

from our study was the high percentage of students (47 percent) who went to college 

having experienced hazing in high school (Allan & Madden, 2012; 2008). As in college hazing, hazing in high school cuts across a range of groups including athletics, 

performing arts groups, class hazing, ROTC, and other types of clubs and organizations. And the types of hazing activities involved cover a similar spectrum, highly 

abusive and physically dangerous as well as seemingly innocuous but degrading and 

emotionally damaging experiences. These findings suggest the critical importance of 

early education and intervention to interrupt the onset of patterns of hazing behavior in high school and even middle school but also to ensure that fewer students 

enter college with the expectation that hazing is an inevitable and acceptable part 

of group participation. 

Taken together, these statistics indicate environments where students are seeing, 

expecting, and normalizing hazing behavior. Those who wish to speak out against 

and/or report hazing might lack the skills to do so, be unsure of where to go, or 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

14 

face considerable barriers such as retribution from their peers and becoming an outsider, amongst other negative consequences. 

Prevention specialists know the first step to preventing a problem like hazing is 

to recognize the behavior. Doing so can be especially difficult for hazing because of 

strong evidence that a gap exists between students’ experiences of hazing and their 

willingness to label it as such. Of students belonging to clubs, organizations and 

teams, 55 percent experience hazing, yet only 5 percent say they were hazed (Allan 

& Madden, 2012; 2008). In other words, when asked directly, approximately 9 out 

of 10 students who experienced hazing do not consider themselves to have been 

hazed. This disconnect reflects a number of challenges related to hazing, including: 

• Students tend to overlook the problematic aspects of hazing if they perceive that 

the activity had a positive intent or outcome for themselves or the group. 

• Hazing is often normalized as an inherent part of organizational culture that 

is accepted by the majority as a tradition, initiation, rite of passage, group bonding, 

or youthful antics, pranks and stunts. 

• Individuals may be more likely to recognize hazing if it involves physical harm. 

• Emotional and psychological harm that can result from hazing is often minimized or overlooked entirely. 

• Hazing is commonly perceived as a positive part of group bonding or ‘‘tradition,’’ 

rather than as a form of interpersonal violence. 

• There is a lack of clarity around consent and factors that create a coercive environment, including the common perception that if an individual ‘‘goes along with’’ 

an activity it is not hazing. 

• Students are challenged to reconcile the cognitive dissonance between their notions of group participation—e.g., cohesion, unity and belonging and the harm of 

hazing. 

The normalization of hazing and the difficulty many people have with recognizing 

when such experiences cross the line into hazing combine to make the problem of 

hazing particularly difficult to address. Hazing is a complex problem that is embedded in campus culture and is extremely resistant to change. 

Intersections: hazing and bullying 

As a common behavior among students from high school to college, hazing is a 

school safety issue in its own right. But as noted, hazing is frequently associated 

with other forms of interpersonal violence such as bullying and sexual assault. The 

complexities of hazing need to be understood as both distinct and connected with 

other forms of interpersonal violence. 

Both hazing and bullying are forms of interpersonal violence, they both involve 

a power imbalance, and they can include abusive behaviors that are verbal, physical, and social in nature. The key distinction is that hazing is part of a membership, induction, or intake process. While the behaviors may look similar when they 

play out in a school or campus, the context and underlying dynamics are what differentiate them. In simple terms: bullying is typically thought of as a means of exclusion—or ostracizing peers whereas hazing is generally for the purpose of inclusion. 

In some cases, incidents of hazing can meet the criteria that define bullying (aggression, intent to cause harm, and repetition) and in those cases, we might refer 

to hazing as bullying (Olweus, 1999). For example, fraternity pledging can involve 

aggressive behavior like paddling, kidnapping, lock-ups, or line-ups where new 

members are screamed and cursed at, and these activities occur over a period of 

weeks culminating in what’s often referred to as ‘‘hell night’’ prior to initiation. In 

that scenario, it seems hazing meets the criteria that commonly define bullying. 

However, most instances of hazing do not fit squarely within the scope of bullying 

as defined by these criteria. For example, sometimes hazing can occur as part of a 

‘‘rookie night’’ or ‘‘initiation night’’ and sometimes the activities are not explicitly aggressive—for instance, scavenger hunts, skits, and requirements to ‘‘get to know’’ 

the older members of the group. Yet frequently those activities cross the line into 

hazing when they include expectations for sexual favors, other forms of personal servitude, or the consumption of alcohol and/or other drugs. 

Why is it important to understand the distinctions? 

I’ve worked with many educators who believe that the bullying policy is sufficient 

to address hazing as well. However, because hazing is more expansive than bullying 

by definition, and because it is associated with inclusion, many hazing incidents 

may go unrecognized or be overlooked if a school simply relies on its bullying policy 

to ‘‘cover’’ hazing. Campus professionals need to be aware of hazing and recognize 

it can cause physical and emotional harm—and even death. 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

15 

Intersections: hazing and sexual violence 

Just as there are some common dynamics between bullying and hazing, there are 

also intersections between hazing and sexual violence. Some of the common elements include issues of power, control, and consent. We’ve heard far too often of 

locker room assaults with broomsticks and similarly heinous scenarios—hazing and 

sexual assault can occur simultaneously. Or put differently, acts of sexual violence 

are among the arsenal of weapons used in hazing. (For more on this topic see my 

blog post: http://www.stophazing. 

org/sayreville-case-yet-another-wake-call-hazing/). 

Prevention 

Given the harm and potential harm of hazing, and the extent to which it is normalized or goes unrecognized, what can be done to prevent it? The problem of hazing is not about a few ‘‘bad actors’’ or anomalous groups; hazing is pervasive, exceedingly complex, deep-rooted, and resistant to change. We know there is no simple 

solution—no ‘‘one size fits all’’ strategy or remedy for any of these problems. Given 

these challenges, the work of hazing prevention requires systemic thinking and creative solutions that both draw from and expand established frameworks in order to 

address the specific characteristics of hazing as a form of interpersonal violence. 

As a relatively new area of research and practice, hazing prevention builds off of 

other fields that address prevention of sexual assault, violence, high risk drinking, 

other substance abuse, among other phenomena, as a public health issue. The public 

health approach informs a ‘‘science of prevention’’ in which strategies to intervene 

and prevent behaviors are grounded in theory and research, including rigorous assessment and evaluation. This approach supports efforts to expand understanding 

and recognition of hazing based on accurate information and analysis. Another 

foundational principle from the science of prevention is that effective and significant 

changes are generated by comprehensive prevention efforts that address the issue 

at multiple levels and through diverse strategies. 

A comprehensive approach that involves collective action on multiple levels is 

needed to create meaningful change. Thanks to dedicated researchers and practitioners, we know a lot more than ever before about what works to advance prevention efforts in many arenas like high-risk drinking and sexual assault. We know it’s 

essential that prevention be data-driven—grounded in assessment and that it be coalition-based, strategic, and synergistic. 

If we want to prevent hazing, we need to analyze the factors that contribute to 

hazing on multiple levels including: individual, group, campus/school, and community. We further need to examine factors that help to mitigate hazing at all those 

levels. We need to work collaboratively with diverse stakeholders to amplify factors 

that protect youth from hazing and at the same time, work to reduce factors that 

foster environments that are conducive to hazing. For example, at the group level, 

a contributing factor may be that students are more likely to engage in hazing if 

they don’t see alternative paths to promote group bonding. Desirable, ‘‘cool,’’ alternatives that meet needs for group bonding and challenge without hazing would 

serve as a protective factor. 

As part of a 3-year research-to-practice initiative called the Hazing Prevention 

Consortium (HPC), my organization, StopHazing, LLC, has collaborated with eight 

pioneering universities to develop a framework for comprehensive hazing prevention 

(http://www.stophazing.org/hazing-prevention-consortium/). This framework is 

grounded in new data and reflects key components and principles that have 

emerged from a research base in prevention science. Building on the Strategic Prevention Framework (http://www.samhsa.gov/capt/applying-strategic-preventionframework), our hazing prevention framework is based on a progressive, synergistic, 

and multi-pronged approach that combines: 

Assessment: Collection and analysis of data on hazing climate, activities and the 

groups and organizations involved in order to identify prevention needs, priorities 

and target audiences. 

Capacity: Building knowledge and capacity in hazing prevention among campus 

stakeholders through formation of hazing prevention coalitions, stakeholder training 

and ongoing technical assistance on hazing prevention. 

Planning: Evidence-based strategic planning for campus hazing prevention strategies using assessment data and coalition engagement to outline campus-specific action plans. 

Implementation: Implementation of multiple hazing prevention programs and 

activities targeted to specific audiences and desired outcomes. 

Evaluation: Evaluation of hazing prevention strategies to inform design and improvement and to measure impact. 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

16 

Cultural Competence: Efforts to ensure that hazing prevention initiatives factor 

in and are responsive to differentials of race, ethnicity, gender, socioeconomic status 

and other cultural variables that inform the attitudes, beliefs, behaviors and impact 

of hazing in specific institutional settings. 

Sustainability: Generation of financial, staff and programmatic resources to sustain hazing prevention initiatives. 

Efforts to prevent hazing that engage and resonate with institutional culture will 

be most effective. And since contributing factors that feed into hazing vary from one 

institution to another, there is no one-size-fits-all solution. Collection of data to assess campus climate and culture is critical. The culture of an institution can both 

reinforce and protect against hazing—meaning that some aspects of institutional 

culture are assets to buildupon for prevention, while others present barriers to 

achieving a hazing-free campus. For further delineation of this framework for campus hazing prevention, please see: Allan, Payne, and Kerschner’s (2016) Hazing Prevention Brief for College and University Professionals: http://www.stop 

hazing.org/we-dont-haze/. 

Core Strategies for Hazing Prevention 

The Hazing Prevention Consortium promotes a comprehensive approach in which 

campuses work to formulate prevention strategies that respond to institutional culture, align with institutional mission, and address hazing in numerous ways and 

through varied modes of intervention. Working with experts to translate what has 

been learned from the research on prevention of sexual assault, bullying, and substance abuse, we have tested are continuing to work with the following strategies: 

Visible campus leadership anti-hazing statement: Development and widespread dissemination of statements from leadership regarding anti-hazing position 

and positive institutional values and mission that supports a safe campus climate. 

Example: President of the college or university provides public statement to make 

it clear that hazing is not an acceptable practice and not in alignment with the mission of the institution. The statement is presented as part of new student orientation 

and included on the campus hazing website along with hazing policies and procedures for reporting and enforcement. 

Coalition-building: Establishment of a hazing prevention coalition or team with 

stakeholders from across multiple divisions and levels of the organization (including 

students), with a mandate to lead institutional efforts in hazing prevention, including oversight of campus climate assessments, stages of planning, design, implementation and evaluation of prevention strategies, and sustainability of prevention efforts. 

Example: A campus hazing prevention coalition is established, with members appointed by the institution’s President or executive level leadership, with meetings on 

a monthly basis of entire group, as well as monthly meetings for subgroups focused 

on Assessment and Evaluation; Coalition Capacity Building; Policy and Procedures 

Review; Educational Program Design and Implementation; and Sustainability. 

Policy and protocol reviews: Regular review and refinement of institutional 

policies on hazing and procedures for addressing hazing incidents, with emphasis 

on widespread dissemination and accessibility, confidential reporting, consistent response protocols, referral systems, professional staff roles and transparency. 

Example: Based on a review of hazing incidents and interviews with Student Conduct staff and a search of other campus resources, campus stakeholders collaborate 

on revising a hazing policy handbook and website to include a clear definition, statement of policy, resources on prevention, information on reporting, protocols for enforcement, response, and accountability, and a list of staff contacts for referrals and 

questions. 

Hazing Prevention Trainings: Programs, presentations, and activities to educate and engage stakeholders in building knowledge and awareness of hazing and 

skills to prevent it. 

Example: A campus with a strong student leadership tradition includes trainings 

on ethical leadership and hazing for all incoming students, with regular update 

trainings for students in group leadership positions that emphasize strategies and 

skills for identifying group values, developing positive group bonding activities, and 

bystander intervention. 

Social norms messaging: Dissemination of research-based information regarding institutional or campus hazing norms, addressing misperceptions regarding 

prevalence of values, beliefs and engagement related to hazing, with focus on positive norms that counteract and are alternatives to hazing. 

Example: Based on survey data, a campus stakeholder group that includes students develops a social norms poster campaign reporting on the percentage of students who believe it is not cool to use coercion or abusive behavior to initiate new 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

17 

members, with posters placed in residence halls, on computer screens, in cafeteria 

table settings, and on bookstore bookmarks, and complementary discussions and/or 

workshops run jointly by staff and student leaders about positive group norms. 

Bystander Intervention: Education, training programs and social norms messaging supporting students, staff, parents, and others to develop skills to intervene 

as bystanders to prevent hazing. 

Example: As part of student organization and athletic team orientation activities, 

student leaders are trained to facilitate discussion on the five stages of bystander 

intervention— 

(1) Notice behavior; 

(2) Interpret behavior as a problem; 

(3) Recognize one’s responsibility to intervene; 

(4) Develop skills needed to intervene safely; and 

(5) Take action—and engage group members in role-play exercises and followup 

discussions about their roles as bystanders (Berkowitz, 2009). 

For a more in-depth discussion of bystander intervention applied to hazing, please 

see Allan, Payne, and Kerschner’s (2016) Hazing Prevention Brief for General Audi- ences: http://www.stophazing.org 

/we-dont-haze/. Communication to broader campus community: Development and dissemination of information on hazing and hazing prevention efforts to stakeholders outside of immediate institution, including online resources, newsletters, trainings and 

other programs targeted to alumni, family and parents, and other people and organizations in local community. 

Example: Drawing upon available campus resources and data, student affairs 

staff and senior administrators host and circulate a bi-monthly online newsletter to 

parents regarding hazing and hazing prevention activities, including the definition 

of hazing, explanation of hazing policies and reporting procedures, information on 

how to be a parent bystander, and ways to be involved in campus prevention efforts. 

What is needed to propel hazing prevention forward? 

Over the course of 3 years, we have worked with members of the Hazing Prevention Consortium (HPC) to implement and evaluate these and other strategies for 

hazing prevention. In doing so, we have begun to identify promising practices in 

each of the domains referred to earlier (assessment, capacity, planning, implementation, evaluation, cultural competence, and sustainability). Although the HPC design 

was informed by evidence about prevention in other fields, we launched this process 

with a goal to begin building an evidence base for hazing prevention. For while 

many have worked diligently to develop hazing prevention activities, resources are 

needed to provide enhanced focus on rigorous evaluation of those activities. Carefully designed and methodically implemented evaluation is critical to measure 

whether and how hazing prevention strategies are actually working. Without evaluation, we have no way of knowing whether certain strategies have an impact in 

changing social norms related to hazing and the beliefs, values and actual behaviors 

of youth. Just as it is essential that the emergent field of hazing prevention be informed by a solid base of research and assessment to inform our understanding of 

the problem of hazing, in our efforts to advance new and innovative strategies for 

hazing prevention, it is incumbent on us to carry out scientifically grounded evaluation of those strategies so that we know what is working and what isn’t working. 

These principles and goals have been the cornerstones of our work on the HPC 

and have guided us to place particular emphasis on supporting our collaborators to 

integrate evaluation into the development of new strategies for hazing prevention. 

As our initial 3-year project draws to a close, we have collected a considerable 

amount of data regarding promising practices to inform a comprehensive and effective approach to hazing prevention. In the coming year, we will be mining this research to formulate and put forth a preliminary framework for hazing prevention. 

While we began with hunches from prevention science about what might work best 

for hazing, we are now in a much better position to assist educational institutions 

with implementing comprehensive hazing prevention. Having said that, one of the 

biggest lessons we’ve learned through the HPC is that comprehensive hazing prevention, and especially its evaluation, is a long term process. So we speak of ‘‘promising’’ approaches to prevention because we know that our work to build an evidence 

base is an emergent process that will continue to evolve as we collaborate with a 

growing cadre of colleges and universities, other organizations, fellow researchers, 

and committed stakeholders, legislators, advocates, parents, and others who are all 

part of the solution. 

In other words, while we’ve made considerable strides to propel hazing prevention 

forward, there is a tremendous amount of work that remains to be done. As we conHELPN-003 with DISTILLER

18 

sider hazing prevention in light of campus safety and in relation to sexual assault, 

bullying, cyberbullying, and other forms of interpersonal violence, I will close by 

pointing to several areas in which there are needs for governmental support and engagement as we strive to formulate effective approaches to hazing prevention as one 

among many areas of interpersonal violence prevention. 

• Research. New and continued research to inform prevention, with the following being but a few sample topics: 

• A followup national study of hazing in postsecondary settings to compare with 

2008 (Allan & Madden, 2012; 2008) data and measure change over time as well as 

other variables. 

• Extent and type of hazing occurring in middle- and high-school settings. 

• Variations in extent and type of hazing across cultural groups. 

• Intersections of hazing and sexual violence on campus. 

• Hazing social norms, with focus on misperceived norms relative to actual beliefs and behaviors. 

• Efficacy of bystander intervention for hazing. 

• Ethical leadership approaches to hazing prevention. 

• Social and psychological motivations for hazing. 

• Desirable and proven alternatives to hazing for promoting group cohesion. 

• Social, academic, and personal costs of hazing for students, families, and 

schools. 

• Effective strategies for working with victims and perpetrators of hazing, with 

focus on ways to implement effective support/healing and sanctions (respectively). 

• Costs and benefits of transparent institutional approaches to hazing (e.g., inclusion of information on hazing incidents, investigations, sanctions, etc. in annual 

reports, institutional websites, and websites associated with involved students organizations). 

• Evaluation. Continued testing and evaluation of hazing prevention strategies 

at both secondary and higher education institutions, including broad dissemination 

of findings. 

• Funding. Provision of State and Federal financial resources targeted to support 

the research and practice of hazing prevention in educational settings. Note that 

while there is interest in hazing at the Federal level under the umbrella of school 

safety, in the Department of Education and to some extent in the CDC, at this time 

there is little dedicated funding for hazing prevention at the State or Federal level 

(one exception being Florida which is the first State to mandate use of an online 

hazing prevention curriculum for first year students in State universities). 

• Policy. Engagement by State and Federal agencies to collaborate with hazing 

prevention specialists to establish policies and procedures for protecting students 

from hazing and addressing incidents of hazing when they occur. 

• Transparency. Mandates for colleges and universities to make hazing reports 

public by posting on a website and including the consequences for organizations 

found responsible for hazing. Cornell University has been on the cutting edge of this 

practice and numerous other universities are following their lead (Cornell University: https://hazing.cornell.edu, Lehigh University: http://studentaffairs.lehigh.edu 

/hazing-prevention, University of Arizona: https://deanofstudents.arizona.edu/safe 

cats/hazing). 

• Laws. Increased State and Federal attention to the legal and criminal issue of 

hazing on its own and in relation to sexual assault/bullying, including continued 

work to promote anti-hazing laws in all States and investigation of the legal and 

criminal dimensions relative to hazing incidents and investigations. 

• Spectrum of Interpersonal Violence. Support from State and Federal agencies to develop prevention frameworks that address distinctions and intersections 

among varied campus safety issues so that resources can be shared and to avoid 

siloed approach to behaviors that are typically interrelated. 

• Training. State and Federal promotion of education and training on hazing 

and hazing prevention. Campus focus on trainings that build skills for bystander 

intervention to prevent hazing as well as ethical leadership development appear to 

be promising approaches. 

• Coordination. Financial support and networking structures to help coordinate 

hazing prevention activities within regional and national professional associations 

related to higher education and student affairs. 

• Dissemination. Financial support for outreach within campus and broader 

community to educate about hazing, the warning signs of hazing, and where to report it. Regional and national conferences and meetings to bring together scholars, 

practitioners, educators, families, legislators, and other stakeholders to advance the 

cause of hazing prevention. 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

19 

Summary 

While the previous bullet points are not an exhaustive list by any means, I believe 

they provide a platform for continuing to move forward in achieving the vision of 

eliminating hazing from our educational institutions and promoting greater campus 

safety. This vision requires a cultural shift that moves beyond intervention and toward shaping communities where healthy group bonding and traditions are the 

norm and where civility, honor, respect, and nonviolence are cornerstones of student 

decisionmaking, participation, and leadership as members of teams, clubs, organizations, and other groups. 

In closing, we must work together to ensure that hazing is no longer overlooked, 

minimized, or ‘‘swept under the rug.’’ The time is now to ensure hazing is 

foregrounded as a threat to campus safety and a threat to positive leadership development in our youth. The time is now to prevent further senseless tragedies and 

loss of human potential that can result from hazing; the time is now to recognize 

that our educational institutions will be stronger and safer without hazing. We all 

have an opportunity and responsibility to make a difference by committing to hazing 

prevention and promoting safe schools and campuses for the youth of this Nation. 

Thank you. 

REFERENCES

Allan, E.J. & Madden, M. (2008). Hazing in view: College students at risk. Retrieved 

from http://www.stophazing.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/hazinglinlview 

lweb1.pdf. 

Allan, E.J., & Madden, M. (2012). The nature and extent of college student hazing. 

International Journal of Adolescent Medicine and Health, 24(1), 83–90. 

Allan, E.J., Payne, J.M. & Kershner, D. (2016). ‘‘We Don’t Haze:’’ A Companion Prevention Brief for Colleges and University Professionals. StopHazing and the Clery 

Center for Security on Campus. http://clerycenter.org/sites/default/files/We 

%20Dont%20Haze%20Companion%20Brief. 

Berkowitz, A. (2009). Response ability: A complete guide to bystander intervention. 

Chicago, IL: Beck & Co. 

Hoover, N. & Pollard, N. (1999). National survey: Initiation rites and athletics for 

NCAA sports teams. Retrieved from http://www.alfred.edu/sportslhazing/docs/ 

hazing.pdf. 

Nuwer, H. (1990). Broken pledges: The deadly rite of hazing. Marietta, GA: Longstreet Press. 

Nuwer, H. (Ed.). (2004). The hazing reader. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University 

Press. 

Olweus, D. (1999). Norway. In P.K. Smith, Y. Morita, J. Junger-Tas, D. Olweus, R. 

Catalano, & P. Slee (Eds.), The nature of school bullying: A cross-national perspective (pp. 28–48). New York, NY: Routledge. 

Senator MURRAY. Thank you. 

Dr. Huskey. 

STATEMENT OF MELYNDA HUSKEY, Ph.D., INTERIM VICE 

PRESIDENT OF STUDENT AFFAIRS AND DEAN OF STUDENTS, 

WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY, PULLMAN, WA 

Ms. HUSKEY. Mr. Chairman, Senator Murray, and members of 

the committee, my name is Melynda Huskey, and I’m the interim 

vice president of Student Affairs at Washington State University. 

We’re proud to have Senator Murray as an alumna, and I’m very 

honored to participate today in this roundtable on the important 

issue of campus safety and violence prevention. 

I’m here on behalf of Washington State University’s leadership 

and our more than 29,000 students. We are the land grant institution of Washington. We are physically present in every county in 

the State, delivering education, research, and core services that 

benefit Washingtonians in their daily lives. My role as Vice President of Student Affairs is to oversee all programs and offices which 

support the out-of-classroom student experience. And in that role, 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

20 

I’ve been asked to share with you the approach we take on our 

campuses toward violence prevention. 

Like many universities, our campus has experienced incidents of 

hazing, bullying, fighting, sexual assault, and cyber bullying. We’re 

deeply committed to using the best evidence-based practices available and have adopted the public health model for violence prevention. In this model, multidisciplinary teams—in our case, 

healthcare providers, human development experts, prevention scientists, student affairs practitioners, law enforcement, compliance 

officers, community members, and students—work together to define the nature and extent of violence on our campus, identify risks 

and protective factors, develop and implement interventions, evaluate their effectiveness, and oversee their broad implementation. 

We look at all levels of interaction—social, community, relationship, and individual—which support healthy choices and promote 

a healthy campus. We also evaluate how well our interventions 

serve distinct populations: veterans, members of the LGBT community, ethnic and racial communities, international students, and 

students with disabilities. 

For example, our hazing prevention efforts are interdisciplinary 

and distributed across campus. While a few campus organizations 

are likely to come to mind, the fact is that hazing occurs in many 

organizations and once established as a cultural practice can be exceptionally resistant to change. We offer preventative training and 

information to all student organizations on this issue, provide 

anonymous reporting, and work with advisers and mentors locally 

and nationally to identify the risks and protective factors which 

change outcomes for students. 

We take the same approach to bullying and harassment, including an educationally focused student disciplinary process. We are 

also now focusing on improving suicide prevention efforts on our 

campus. With support from the Substance Abuse and Mental 

Health Services Administration, in partnership with the Washington State Department of Health, WSU and other institutions of 

higher ed across the State are creating and refining research-based 

suicide prevention plans designed specifically for student life. 

Since 2011, we’ve been fortunate to receive Federal support for 

our work in the area of sex- and gender-based violence through 

competitive funding from the U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of 

Violence Against Women’s Grant to reduce sexual assault, domestic 

violence, dating violence, and stalking on campus. We’ve implemented a suite of required trainings for all incoming students, 

which includes face-to-face, small group workshops on sex- and 

gender-based violence; bystander empowerment and intervention 

strategies; and alcohol and drug impacts on sexual decisionmaking. 

We are committed to creating a safe, supportive environment, 

free from violence, in which all of our students can focus on learning and in which they can graduate as educated citizens ready to 

contribute to their communities. 

Thank you very much for the opportunity to be here today. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Huskey follows:] 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

21 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MELYNDA HUSKEY

SUMMARY

• WSU is Washington’s land grant institution. Through our five campuses, four 

research centers and WSU extension, WSU is physically present in every county in 

the State, delivering education, research, and core services that benefit Washingtonians in their daily lives. 

• We are deeply committed to using the best evidence-based practices available 

and have adopted a public health model for violence prevention. In this model, 

multi-disciplinary teams—in our case, health care providers, human development 

experts, prevention scientists, student affairs practitioners, law enforcement, compliance officers, community members, and students—work together to define the nature and extent of violence on our campus, identify risk and protective factors, develop and implement interventions, evaluate their effectiveness, and oversee their 

broad implementation. 

• We look at the societal, community, relationship, and individual factors which 

support healthy choices and promote a healthy campus. We also evaluate how well 

our interventions serve distinct populations: veterans, members of the LGBT community, ethnic and racial communities, international students, students with disabilities. 

• WSU’s hazing prevention efforts are interdisciplinary and distributed across 

campus. While a few campus organizations are likely to come to mind, the fact is 

that hazing can occur in any organization, and once established as a cultural practice, can be exceptionally resistant to change. We provide preventative training and 

information to all student organizations on the issue, offer anonymous reporting, 

and work with advisors and mentors locally and nationally to identify the risk and 

protective factors which can change outcomes for students. We take the same approach to bullying and harassment, including an educationally focused student disciplinary process. 

• We are now focused on improving suicide prevention on campus. With support 

from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), 

in partnership with the Washington State Department of Health, WSU and other 

institutions of higher education across the State are creating and refining researchbased suicide prevention plans, designed for student life. 

• Since 2011, we have been fortunate to receive Federal support for our work in 

the area of sex- and gender-based violence through competitive funding from the 

U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Violence Against Women Grant to Reduce 

Sexual Assault, Domestic Violence, Dating Violence, and Stalking on Campus. We 

have implemented a suite of required trainings for all incoming students, which include face-to-face small group workshops on sex- and gender-based violence, bystander empowerment and intervention strategies, and alcohol and drug impacts on 

sexual decisionmaking. We are committed to creating a safe, supportive environment free from violence, in which all our students can focus on learning, and in 

which they can graduate as educated citizens who will contribute to their communities. 

• I look forward to answering any questions and to working with you going forward. 

Mr. Chairman, Senator Murray, and members of the committee, my name is 

Melynda Huskey and I serve as the Interim Vice President of Student Affairs at 

Washington State University. We are proud to have Senator Murray as an alumna 

and I am honored to be invited by the committee and Senator Murray to participate 

in the roundtable today on the extremely important issue of campus safety and the 

prevention of all forms of violence on college campuses. Today, I am here on behalf 

of Washington State University’s leadership and more than 29,000 students. 

WSU is Washington’s land grant institution. Through our five campuses, four research centers and WSU extension, WSU is physically present in every county in 

the State, delivering education, research, and core services that benefit Washingtonians in their communities every day. As a premiere tier one research university, 

WSU drives education and innovation in our communities to support and grow the 

State’s economy. 

WSU is led by President Kirk Schulz, who joined our Cougar family in June. We 

are pleased that he supports the WSU land grant mission of advancing, extending 

and applying knowledge through local and global engagement. 

As Interim Vice President and Dean of Students, I oversee the offices and programs which support students in all of their out-of-the-classroom activities and cirHELPN-003 with DISTILLER

22 

cumstances—everything from residence life and dining to student involvement and 

engagement to student conduct to health and wellness to fraternity and sorority life. 

I have been asked to share with you the efforts we are making on our campus 

to prevent violence, and the approach we have chosen to take. Like many universities, our campus has experienced incidents of: 

• hazing, • bullying, • fighting, and more recently; • cyber-bullying. 

We are also deeply concerned with ongoing issues of sexual violence, dating and 

intimate partner violence, and stalking. Sexual violence, in particular, requires a redoubling of effort in order to reduce the incidence on all college campuses. At WSU, 

student survey data, produced by the National College Health Assessment from the 

2014–15 school year, indicates that 10 percent of undergraduate students had experienced some form of interpersonal violence (sexual assault, dating violence, stalking) in the previous 12 months. This is unacceptable. 

WSU is committed to enhancing the safety of our students, faculty, staff, and visitors at all of our campuses. 

To increase campus safety, WSU is engaged in focused efforts across four main 

areas to further reduce sexual violence, including: 

1. improved education and communication regarding acceptable standards and 

conduct; 

2. increased focus on prevention and intervention; 

3. an enhanced reporting and response infrastructure that will provide victims 

with safe and reliable options for ensuring their needs are met; and 

4. deeper collaboration with area non-profits and law enforcement to ensure the 

university is engaging in best practices in confronting and reducing sexual violence 

on our campuses. 

The university has also prepared, and made available, university policies, procedures, statistics, and information relating to campus safety, emergency management, and the health and welfare of the campus community. This includes information on student standards and conduct policies, mental health and counseling services, safety and security policies/procedures for University housing, harassment policies, and sexual assault, domestic violence, and stalking policies. In all of these 

cases, we continue to evaluate how well we are serving distinct populations: veterans, members of the LGBT community, ethnic and racial communities, international students, students with disabilities. Guidance from the Office of Civil 

Rights and Department of Education has helped us meaningfully focus and refine 

these efforts. 

As a research institution, we are deeply committed to using the best evidencebased practices available. For this reason, we have adopted a public health model 

for violence prevention. As many of you know, in this model, multi-disciplinary 

teams—in our case, health care providers, human development experts, prevention 

scientists, student affairs practitioners, law enforcement, compliance officers, community members, and students—work together to define the nature and extent of 

violence on our campus, identify risk and protective factors, develop and implement 

interventions, evaluate their effectiveness, and oversee their broad implementation. 

Within this model, we look at the societal, community, relationship, and individual 

factors which support healthy choices, and those that support violence, and work to 

intervene at all levels to promote a healthy campus. This approach allows us to address violence in all its forms—from bullying in residence halls to the most serious 

cases of assault or sexual violence. 

Our hazing prevention efforts are interdisciplinary and distributed across campus. 

While a few organizations are likely to come to mind—fraternities and sororities, 

marching bands—the fact is that hazing can occur in any organization, and once established as a cultural practice, can be exceptionally resistant to change. We provide 

preventative training and information to all student organizations on the issue, offer 

anonymous reporting, and work with advisors and mentors locally and nationally 

to identify the risk and protective factors which can change outcomes for students. 

Bullying and other kinds of harassment are covered under our Standards of Conduct for students. We are committed to a fair, educational, and developmental student discipline process, recognizing the difference between legal proceedings outside 

our institution and our internal responsibilities to support students’ ethical development and accountability to our university community. 

We are also committed to the prevention of another serious form of violence on 

campus: suicide. With support from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), in partnership with the Washington State DepartHELPN-003 with DISTILLER

23 

ment of Health, WSU and more than 15 other institutions of higher education 

across the State are creating and refining comprehensive, research-based suicide 

prevention plans. Again, the public health model helps us in defining the scope of 

the problem, the risk and protective factors, and the prevention strategies—from 

limiting access to potentially lethal means to promoting strong social connections 

among students and exploring new technologies for delivering support and mental 

health evaluations to the ‘‘digital native’’ generation of students. 

We have been very fortunate to receive Federal funding to support our efforts. 

Since 2011, our work in the area of sex- and gender-based violence has been supported, in part, by competitive funding from the U.S. Department of Justice’s Office 

of Violence Against Women Grant to Reduce Sexual Assault, Domestic Violence, 

Dating Violence, and Stalking on Campus. Our on-campus Violence Prevention Center has supported policy review and revision, mandatory training for employees on 

the university’s policy prohibiting discrimination, sexual harassment and sexual 

misconduct, as well as on reporting obligations. We have implemented a suite of required trainings for all incoming students, which include face-to-face small group 

workshops on sex- and gender-based violence, bystander empowerment and intervention strategies, and alcohol and drug impacts on sexual decisionmaking. We continue to evaluate and refine these efforts for effectiveness. 

WSU also recognizes that the best way to increase safety on our campuses, and 

to support institutional efforts, is to engage directly with our students and community stakeholders in this process. Our student body has created a program called 

‘‘It’s on Cougs,’’ led by students to encourage bystander intervention. The program 

includes trainings, workshops, and social media campaigns around ways to engage 

in campus safety. 

At Washington State University, we are committed to creating a safe, supportive 

environment free from violence, in which all our students can focus on learning, and 

in which they can graduate as educated citizens who will contribute to the State, 

the Nation, and the world. 

Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today about issues we take very 

seriously at WSU. I look forward to answering any questions and to working with 

you going forward. 

Senator MURRAY. Thank you. 

Ms. Krisak. 

STATEMENT OF WENDY KRISAK, M.A., NCC, LPC, DIRECTOR OF 

THE COUNSELING CENTER, DESALES UNIVERSITY, CENTER 

VALLEY, PA 

Ms. KRISAK. Senator Kirk, Ranking Member Murray, and members of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, I 

deeply thank you for this opportunity to testify and share DeSales 

University’s efforts regarding the reduction and prevention of bullying and hazing incidents. 

DeSales is a 50-year-old Catholic institution grounded in the 

teachings of Saint Francis de Sales. In addition to academics, 

DeSales focuses on educating students morally, socially, and spiritually through its out-of-the-classroom programming, which provides students with a moral compass and enriches their lives on a 

deeper level. The university mission places Christian humanism at 

its core and intentionally works to enhance the dignity of the individual. 

As freshmen, students learn our character code, which asks them 

to conduct themselves in a respectful manner and treat others with 

dignity and respect. The code is posted everywhere on campus. Our 

DeSales community is committed to maintaining a healthy and 

conscientiously kind environment. 

Before freshmen arrive on campus, they are engaged in Character U, our first year experience program. This program teaches 

them the basics of navigating college, but also immerses them in 

a character curriculum that focuses on the virtues of patience, trust 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

24 

and cooperation, perseverance, love, forgiveness, and hope. These 

virtues are integrated into their learning experience through keynotes, community service projects, and other programs. 

Through Character U, students learn about themselves, the 

world around them, and the role they play in it. Character U helps 

new students meet new people, form relationships, and communicate with one another. In a texting and twittering world, this is 

not always easy for them. DeSales outside-of-the-classroom programming is committed to instilling the concept that every human 

being deserves to be treated with dignity and respect. 

DeSales University takes a multidisciplinary approach to caring 

for our students. We have an early alert system that places struggling students on our radar so that we can be proactive in supporting them. Early alert prompted the creation of our CARE team, 

an acronym for Concern, Assessment, and Response. This team includes health professionals and staff from all areas of campus. We 

meet bimonthly to investigate and respond to matters of concern 

related to students. We coordinate interventions and make recommendations that will ensure the safety and well-being of our 

students. 

In 2003, one of my colleagues and I created a six-member team, 

PACE. The acronym stands for Peers Advising, Counseling, Educating. PACE programming emphasizes personal responsibility, 

deep respect for others, and concern for the common good. This student team researches and presents on relevant wellness topics to 

their fellow students. In 2012, they created #sorryimnotsorry, a 

program that addressed bullying and hazing in the cyber world as 

well as prevention methods. This program led to a student-driven 

cyber bullying policy which is now official policy in our student 

handbook. 

Since then, PACE has geared its efforts toward addressing the 

root of bullying in a more positive way through it’s kindness programming. From harsh words to ruthless behavior, society has 

tossed aside human compassions for others for their own gain. 

PACE created a week dedicated to demonstrating kindness to others through selfless acts. These programs inspire others to pass on 

those kindnesses to promote positive behavior and a more unified 

campus community. 

Kindness Week is now an annual event, #happierdesales. It includes programs such as Kindness Can Change the World, a program about bullying that motivates students to increase kindness 

measures around campus. It includes tabling activities and giveaways, such as Consent Kisses, where students ask permission to 

give another student a kiss. For their consent, the student receives 

two Hershey kisses, one to keep and one to give away. This promotes consent and respect for relationships. 

Other independent programs have included Write Light, Write 

Life, where community members nominated someone to receive a 

letter of encouragement, support, and gratitude. Everyone was invited to help write the letters, which were then distributed during 

Kindness Week. You Are More Than A Like is a program that encourages students not to rely on how many likes they get on social 

media to define their self-worth. 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

25 

Digging Deeper: The Diversity of Individuality highlights our 

campus-wide solidarity initiative, which focuses on celebrating our 

differences and developing mutual respect for one another as valued human beings. All of these programs have had great impact on 

both students and staff. 

Again, I thank you for your time and the opportunity to share 

with you the efforts being made by our small university to derail 

bullying and unkindness of any kind by nurturing strong character 

development among our student population. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Krisak follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF WENDY S. KRISAK, M.A., NCC, LPC 

Chairman Alexander, Ranking Member Murray, and members of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, I deeply thank you for this opportunity to 

testify and share DeSales University’s efforts regarding the reduction and prevention of bullying and hazing incidents. 

With a mission that intentionally works to enhance the dignity of the individual, 

a philosophy that has Christian Humanism at its core, and a Character Code that 

asks for all to conduct themselves in a respectful manner, DeSales is a distinctive 

University which does not just value educating the minds of our students, but also 

values educating their hearts. 

Many efforts are made to ensure that our community is healthy and conscientiously kind. Before our students even step foot on campus as a freshmen, they are 

engaged in our Character U First Year Experience Program, they have learned the 

concept of bystander intervention through the on-line program Haven, and they 

have been assigned a peer mentor to assist them with their transition into college. 

Once they arrive, and throughout their undergraduate years, they are offered countless opportunities to learn about who they are for themselves, and their role in relation to the greater world around them. Character U emphasizes six fundamental 

character traits: Patience, Trust and Cooperation, Perseverance, Love, Forgiveness, 

and Hope. 

PACE (Peers Advising Counseling Educating), a six-person education team, maintains as its vision to emphasize personal responsibility, deep respect for others, and 

concern for the common good. With this vision in mind, they work hard to research 

and present on relevant wellness topics to their fellow students. In regards to bullying and hazing awareness and prevention efforts, they created a program entitled, 

‘‘#sorryimnotsorry,’’ which focuses on the cyber world, which can often be an ugly 

place. Out of this program, a student-driven cyberbullying policy was created, approved, and is now an official policy in the student handbook. 

Since that time, PACE has chosen to gear their efforts toward the positive. With 

this in mind, they began developing programming around kindness. They now celebrate their own Kindness Week: #happierdesales each year. Every day of kindness 

week includes programs (‘‘Kindness Can Change the World’’), tabling activities 

(‘‘Balloon Compliments,’’ ‘‘RAK Tree,’’ ‘‘A Positive View’’), and give-aways (‘‘Consent 

Kisses,’’ ‘‘Flower Friday’’) that promote a kinder and happier DeSales. Other independent programs have included ‘‘Write Light, Write Life,’’ a letter writing campaign; ‘‘You Are More Than A Like,’’ which encourages us not to rely on how many 

‘‘likes’’ we get on social media to define our worth; ‘‘Digging Deeper: The Diversity 

of Individuality,’’ which highlights our Solidarity Initiative; and ‘‘No One Else Can 

Play My Part,’’ which discourages the use of such words as crazy, suicidal, and mental in casual ways. 

In the event a student gets off-track, DeSales has many programs, policies, and 

procedures, which educate and hold students accountable for their behavior. 

Through educational conversations, community service, reflective assignments, 

counseling, and mediations, students are assisted in getting back on track and finding success as contributing members to the university community. 

DeSales University is a 50-year-old Catholic Institution grounded in the teachings 

of St. Francis de Sales. In addition to its strong academic curriculum, DeSales University also focuses on educating students morally, socially, and spiritually through 

out-of-the-classroom programming that enriches and cares for the entire human 

being. 

Again, I want to thank Chairman Alexander, Ranking Member Murray, and members of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee for this opportunity. 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

26 

Chairman Alexander, Ranking Member Murray, and members of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, I deeply thank you for this opportunity to 

testify and share the efforts of DeSales University regarding the reduction and prevention of bullying and hazing incidents. 

DeSales University is a distinctive institution of higher education. Its culture is 

based upon its mission of Christian Humanism. DeSales prepares its students not 

only with a high quality academic education but a character based education as 

well. Opportunities are created every day for students to explore their vocations, 

critically think about their value system, and improve their social conscience. 

At DeSales University, we not only educate the mind, we educate the heart 

as well. 

The following few pages offer more details about who we are. I assure you that 

everything from our philosophy and mission through our Heritage and our Character Code, serve as the foundation for our low count of bullying and hazing incidents, and, most certainly, provide the spring board for our continued efforts toward 

prevention of such behavior. 

QUICK FACTS ABOUT DESALES UNIVERSITY

• University President—Fr. Bernard F. O’Connor, OSFS (July 1999). 

• Formally named Allentown College of Saint Francis de Sales (opened in 1965). 

• Private, 4 year Catholic university for men and women. 

• Administered by the Oblates of St. Francis de Sales. 

• The enrollment for traditional undergraduate day students is 1,597. 

• Total enrollment (traditional, graduate, and ACCESS adult) is 3,136. 

• There are 125 full-time faculty members of which 84 percent have the highest 

degree in their field. 

• More than 95 percent of undergraduate, full-time day students receive some 

form of financial aid. 

• Accredited by the Middle States Commission on Higher Education (MSCHE). 

• Nineteen athletic teams compete in the NCAA Division III Middle Atlantic 

States Collegiate Athletic Conference (MAC) and the Eastern Collegiate Athletic 

Conference (ECAC). 

PHILOSOPHY OF DESALES UNIVERSITY

DeSales University is firmly and publicly committed to the principles of Roman 

Catholic doctrine and morality. It also fully recognizes that the search for truth requires an atmosphere of intellectual freedom and that love demands an openness 

to all that is good. 

DeSales carefully distinguishes between the free pursuit of truth—which it guarantees every member of the campus community—and its own commitment to the 

teachings of the Catholic Church. 

For DeSales University, Christian humanism means that every aspect of human 

experience is capable of enlightenment by the Gospel of Jesus Christ. This Gospel 

brings light to each dimension of personal existence (physical, intellectual, social, 

moral, aesthetic, and religious) and every environmental domain (natural world, social institutions, cultural achievements, historical periods, and religious societies). 

The encounter between the Word of God and the concrete world of the human person makes a fully meaningful existence possible. DeSales University strives to teach 

the student what it means to be Christian in a Salesian way, what it means to embrace one’s own life, and what it means to bring this Good News to the human family. 

MISSION OF DESALES UNIVERSITY

It is the mission of DeSales University to provide men and women with quality 

higher education according to the philosophy of Christian humanism as developed 

by Saint Francis de Sales and his spiritual heirs. The University imparts knowledge 

about, and develops talents for, personal, familial, and societal living. DeSales University enriches the human community and enhances the dignity of the individual 

through its educational endeavors. In its work, the University fosters a vital and 

respectful dialog between Roman Catholic faith and human culture. 

CHARACTER CODE

‘‘As a member of DeSales University, I will conduct myself in a respectful 

manner with dignity and honesty in the Salesian tradition of humility and 

gentleness.’’ 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

27 

HERITAGE OF DESALES

DeSales University is named for a man who lived more than 400 years 

ago, but whose lessons are still timely and practical for today’s world. 

St. Francis de Sales is admired throughout the Church for his great sanctity, 

learnedness, missionary zeal, gentleness, and understanding of the human heart. 

Scholar, writer, pastor, spiritual guide for souls, diplomat, bishop, and Doctor of the 

Church, he is best described as a Christian Humanist, a potent spiritual force for 

creating a spirituality admirably suited to those in every walk of life, especially the 

common person. 

De Sales was born in Thorens, France, on August 21, 1567. As a member of a 

noble family, he was educated in the humanities at the Jesuit college of Clermont 

at the University of Paris and received his doctorate in both civil and canon law 

from the University of Padua. 

For Francis, love of God naturally lead to love for all persons. His life became a 

model of selfless service to God and the countless individuals who called upon him 

for advice. 

Francis de Sales died in 1622. In 1665, Pope Alexander VII proclaimed him a 

saint. Today, the Oblates of Saint Francis de Sales are one of several religious congregations in the Catholic Church founded under his patronage. 

DESALES UNIVERSITY POLICIES

Cyber Bullying Policy 

Cyber bullying is defined as the use of electronic information and communication 

devices, to include but not be limited to, email message, instant message, text messages, cellular telephone communication, blogs, chat rooms, and defamatory 

websites that: 

• Threaten, harass, intimidate, an individual or groups of individuals; • Place an individual in reasonable fear of harm to the individual or damage the 

individual’s property; and • Have the effect of substantially disrupting the orderly operation of the school. 

Violation of this policy is considered to be an act of intolerance and anyone found 

in violation will be subject to appropriate disciplinary action by the University. 

General Statement 

The University will not tolerate improper actions by University community members or visitors. Actions, which are improper, include, but are not limited to, the following: • Actual or threats of physical violence, or other forms of harassment. • Destruction of University property or other private property. • Interference with entry to or exit from University buildings or facilities, including free movement by individuals. • Disruption of or interference with instructional activities, campus events or 

other University business. • Interference with the rights of others to the freedom of speech and assembly. • Unauthorized entry to a University facility and failure to leave when requested 

by a representative of the University. • Possession of firearms, explosives, chemicals, or fire extinguishers. • Failure to comply with the orders of directives of University officials, police or 

other law enforcement agencies acting within the scope of their duties. 

Hazing Policy 

At DeSales University we believe in the dignity of life and hold a deep respect 

for each individual person as a creation of God. Hazing is contrary to these beliefs 

and will therefore not be tolerated in any form. DeSales University defines hazing 

as any activity suspected of someone affiliating with or joining a group that humiliates, degrades, abuses, or endangers, regardless of the persons willingness to participate. Furthermore, this definition includes any action which DeSales University—2015–16 Student Handbook Page 124 of 162 results in the disruption of the 

educational process, the impairment of academic performance, or failure to properly 

fulfill obligations to University sponsored groups or organizations. DeSales University unconditionally opposes all forms of hazing and adheres to Pennsylvania Penal 

Law which defines hazing as follows: 

‘‘Any action or situation which recklessly or intentionally endangers the mental or physical health or safety of a student or which willfully destroys or removes public or private property for the purpose of initiation or admission into 

or affiliation with, or as a condition for continued membership in, any organization operating under the sanction of or recognized as an organization by an inHELPN-003 with DISTILLER

28 

stitution of higher education. The term shall include but not be limited to, any 

brutality of a physical nature such as whipping, beating, branding, forced calisthenics, exposure to the elements, forced consumption of any food, liquor, drug 

or other substance, or any other forced physical activity which would subject the 

individual to extreme mental distress, such as sleep deprivation, forced exclusion from social contact, forced conduct which could result in extreme embarrassment, or any other forced activity which could adversely affect the mental 

health or dignity of the individual, or any willful destruction or removal of public or private property. For purposes of this definition, any activity as described 

in this definition upon which the initiation or admission into or affiliation with 

or continued membership in an organization is directly or indirectly conditioned 

shall be presumed to be ‘forced’ activity, the willingness of an individual to participate in such activity notwithstanding. (Penal Law, P.S. 5352) 

‘‘Any person who causes or participates in hazing commits a misdemeanor of 

the third degree.’’ (Penal Law, P.S. 5353) 

Any violation or suspected violation of this hazing policy should be reported to any 

of the following: the Student Affairs Office, the Director of Athletics, or the Director 

of Student Engagement and Leadership. In addition, students may also report incidents of hazing to University Police dial ext. 1250 from any on campus phone or 

direct dial 610.282.1002. Any person or organization in violation of this policy will 

be subject to University disciplinary action. 

Intolerance Policy 

Intolerance, harassment, or any other conduct that diminishes the dignity of a 

human person is incompatible with our fundamental commitment as a Catholic university in the Salesian tradition. Every person shall be treated with respect and dignity. No person shall be subject to any sexual, racial, psychological, physical, verbal, 

or other similar harassment or abuse. Those who treat others with such intolerance 

will be subject to appropriate disciplinary action by the University. 

Disciplinary Efforts 

• Harassing, stalking or hazing any person, including sexually harassing and 

cyber bullying. 

• Minimum—Disciplinary probation 

• Maximum—Expulsion 

• Engaging in disorderly conduct, disruptive, lewd, or indecent conduct. 

• Minimum—Community service 

• Maximum—Expulsion 

• Physically harming or threatening to harm any person, intentionally or recklessly causing harm to any person or reasonable apprehension of such harm or creating a condition that endangers the health and safety of self or others. 

• Minimum—Disciplinary probation 

• Maximum—Expulsion 

OUR NUMBERS

According to our Director of Student Conduct, our numbers for bullying/hazing are 

relatively low. The majority of the numbers do revolve around social media, where 

students feel that they can ‘‘hide behind the screen.’’ Many times, these violations 

are very hard to address because it is unknown who was involved. Other times, the 

violators are unknown, but other students will come forward with information because they feel that what was done was wrong. For instance, there was an incident 

in which derogatory remarks were written on flyers promoting a student program. 

The remarks were personally attacking the individual on the flyer. Several students 

came forward and shared that the student who wrote these remarks was bragging 

about it on his social media (Twitter). The students who came forward said that 

they did not feel what he did was right and that the students of DeSales are better 

than that. Our students so often pull together and protect one another. 

The following is from the Student Conduct 2015–2016 annual report. 

Total Year 2011–12 2012–13 2013–14 2014–15 2015–16 

Engaging in disorderly conduct, disruptive, lewd, or indecent conduct ............................................................................................... 5 6 3 4 11 

Harassing, stalking, or hazing any person, including sexually 

harassing and cyber bullying ....................................................... 0 3 0 0 0 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

29 

Total Year 2011–12 2012–13 2013–14 2014–15 2015–16 

Physically harming or threatening to harm any person or creating 

a condition that could endanger self or others ........................... 0 1 2 0 0 

TOTAL ........................................................................................ 5 10 5 4 11 

THE STUDENT CONDUCT PROCESS

Our student conduct director takes an educational, as opposed to punitive approach when addressing student behavior. She knows that everyone in life makes 

mistakes. Her goal is to work with the students to get them back on track. Students 

do receive sanctions for violations of policy, however, the key aspect of student conduct meetings is what the student learns and applies to future situations. The minimum and maximum sanctions are listed above. The following are some of the educational sanctions that are often given: 

• Educational conversation 

• Mediation with both parties (similar to restorative justice) 

• Counseling session to process (extended counseling depends on the counselor) 

• Educational assignment (student may be asked to research policies/impact and 

write a paper with a section for reflection of how their violation may have impacted 

others 

• Community service (when possible, the service has relevant connection to the 

violation) 

PREVENTION

Early Alert Process 

• Purpose: To provide a confidential referral system which will enable the Counseling Center to be proactive in the support of our students. 

• Reasons to Use an Alert: Some suggestions for use of an Early Alert Form 

would be: changes in behavior, depression, eating disorders, attendance irregularity, 

drug or alcohol use, unusual behavior, loneliness, abuse, rape, death, relationship 

conflict, and family conflict. 

Care (Concern Assessment REsponse) Team 

This team provides a confidential resource to the DSU community to which faculty and staff direct concerns they may have about a student. Such as: 

• Attendance Concerns 

• Academic Decline 

• Emotional Issues 

• Behavioral Problems 

The team investigates and responds to matters of concern related to students, coordinates interventions, and makes recommendations for further action. The team 

provides assistance to students through consultation with appropriate faculty or 

staff, and referral to on-campus and off-campus resources. 

Areas of Focus 

• Concerns: through consultation with faculty, staff, and students the team ensures appropriate information exchange and provides support for campus personnel, 

and attempts to identify behaviors of concern to provide earlier intervention. 

• Assessment: when additional information is needed, the team functions as an 

investigative body, charged with gathering relevant and confidential information to 

assess whether further action is required. 

• Response: when warranted, the team makes referrals to on-or off-campus resources. University policy, along with other legal and regulatory requirements, 

guide the team’s actions. The team can also serve as a resource to educate the campus community on effective intervention strategies when concerns arise. 

Character U (First Year Experience Program) 

Character U is designed to ease the transition from high school to college and to 

help students develop core character values that will set them up to succeed at 

DeSales and in life after college. Through Character U, they enjoy a close relationship with a peer mentor assigned to guide them through their first year, an instant 

social group in their dedicated pod of classmates, and a variety of Character U programing. Programming throughout the year reflects character traits inspired by the 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

30 

Golden Counsels of Saint Francis de Sales. Each month, a trait is highlighted at 

Character U meetings and at various events across campus: 

• September: Patience 

• October: Trust and Cooperation 

• November: Perseverance 

• February: Love 

• March: Forgiveness 

• April: Hope 

Haven 

Haven is the premier online program addressing the critical issues of sexual assault, relationship violence, stalking, and sexual harassment—among students, faculty and staff. It was created in collaboration with leading campus practitioners and 

researchers and national thought leaders, including renowned expert Dr. Alan 

Berkowitz, Haven reaches 700,000 individuals at over 650 institutions across the 

country. Haven is required for all first-year students (freshmen and transfer students) to complete and introduces and focuses on Bystander Intervention. This empowers our students with the understanding that DeSales University is a community that cares for all. 

Solidarity Initiative 

Solidarity is an action on behalf of the one human family, calling all of us to help 

overcome the divisions in our world. The DeSales Solidarity Initiative is to provide 

students, faculty, and staff with a new understanding of this human family, while 

encouraging them to ‘‘be who they are and be that well.’’ We inspire mutual respect, 

the development of friendships, and learning about the realities of each other’s lives 

through compassion and patience. We commit to fostering the ‘‘holistic’’ growth of 

the DeSales community by opening a dialog and investing in the good of one’s neighbor. Goals of the Solidarity Office: 

• Welcome and accept all at DeSales. 

• Welcome, recognize, and respect cultural differences among the student body. 

• Provide a comfortable environment where differences are met with love. 

• Highlight those who have paved the path to equality. 

• Teach one how to accept/love themselves while continuing their journey to ‘‘holistic’’ growth. 

Positively DeSales 

Positively DeSales is an anonymously created and run Facebook page that was 

student initiated. Its goal is to spread positivity around campus. Students, faculty, 

and staff can post positive words about any other member of the campus community. Positively DeSales then posts these words for all to see on the page. This is 

a wonderful way to anonymously highlight others. 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

31 

PACE (PEERS ADVISING COUNSELING EDUCATING)

In keeping with the wellness model of college health, the PACE (Peers Advising 

Counseling Educating) program was born out of a need expressed by the university 

for peers teaching peers how to lead healthier lifestyles; and this remains their mission today. Following the piece of the DeSales University’s mission, ‘‘enriching the 

human community and enhancing the dignity of the individual through its educational endeavors,’’ the PACE team maintains as it vision to emphasize personal 

responsibility, deep respect for others, leadership development, and concern for the common good. Through program development, activities, practices, 

and policies, PACE reinforces these values and offers students opportunities for personal growth, self-assessment, and success in all aspects of their lives. 

PACE also works hard at enhancing our University’s Character Code through 

their programming: 

As a member of DeSales University, I will conduct myself in a respectful manner, with dignity and honesty, in the Salesian tradition of humility and 

gentleness. 

The PACE team is comprised of six students. The team includes seniors, juniors, 

and sophomores. Their majors range from marriage and family studies, psychology, 

communications, and biology. They represent many leadership roles beyond PACE 

including, DAWG (DeSales University Welcoming Guides), peer mentors, rugby, tutors, student government reps, yearbook, L.E.A.D.S.U. (leadership program), etc. 

As for the brief history, PACE was created in 2003/2004 with a group of six students. Their focus was on wellness education across the campus community. Over 

the years, this has grown in many ways. Through the years, PACE has broadened 

its scope from programming on campus to offering ‘‘PACE Academy,’’ a leadership 

course for high school students, ‘‘Character Quest,’’ a character-based scavenger 

hunt for middle school students, and ‘‘Bully Busters,’’ an anti-bullying program for 

elementary school students. 

In 2006, ‘‘Character U, the First Year Experience Program’’ was launched at 

DeSales with each PACEr leading a group of five DSU mentors and 50 freshmen. 

This led to a global initiative, ‘‘Destination: South Africa’’ which took a group of 

first-year students, led by PACErs, to do service work in South Africa. Over the 

years, PACE has continued to create new programs, including expanding the Safe 

Spring Break initiative, the Journey to Wellness Fair, the Walk-A-Mile In Her 

Shoes (Sexual Assault Awareness Program), To Write Love on Her Arms (Suicide 

Awareness Program), and on and on. Since its inception, PACE has effectively extended its reach to elementary schools, middle schools, secondary schools, and proHELPN-003 with DISTILLER


20892-1.eps
32 

fessional groups on campus and internationally. In their short existence PACE grew 

from nothing to a powerful, positive force on and off campus. 

From its beginning, the PACE team has always had a major impact on the campus community, particularly with the offices of Residence Life, Student Engagement 

and Leadership, Dean of Students, Student Conduct, Career Development, and 

Health Services. PACE currently has many ‘‘canned’’ programs, which members are 

willing to present at any time and to any group on campus. All of the programs 

have their own unique activities and lessons attached to them and are offered periodically through the year. The PACErs are some of the first people that our freshmen meet when they move to campus. The Office of Student Engagement and Leadership (SEAL) truly values the PACE program because they realize that peers can 

sometimes reach their peers better than staff members, particularly in certain areas 

of education. Because of this, SEAL requests the PACErs for several key programs 

throughout freshmen orientation, including alcohol and personal safety. PACE has 

impacted the campus by bringing awareness to so many important (and sometimes 

forgotten topics), including alcohol, body image, nutrition, personal safety, sexual assault, ‘‘Mean Girl’’ behavior and cyber-bullying. There is little doubt that their energy and enthusiasm are infectious and will pervade our community for years to 

come. It is certain that the PACERs will continue to test themselves with new and 

exciting programs and find ways to better reach the DeSales students and faculty 

as well as the greater community. With so much accomplished in their years of existence, the DeSales University PACE team is certainly destined to a future of continued success in wellness programming. 

What sets PACE apart from other efforts on our campus is first, the name that 

they have made for themselves. PACE has become synonymous with genuineness, 

positivity, truthfulness, ‘‘down-to-earth,’’ etc. PACE has worked very hard over the 

years to become a ‘‘go to’’ when a person, or group, needs to be educated on a topic. 

Because they are in a fish bowl, PACErs also work hard at living the messages that 

they teach. They are just a solid, good group of students, with only the best intentions at their very core. When they say they will do something, they follow through. 

This does not mean that they do not make mistakes every once in a while. Obviously, they do. Nobody is perfect. But, they are willing to admit their mistakes and 

turn them into something positive (which explains why their Booze Busters first 

time alcohol offenders program has been so successful). 

Awareness and Prevention Efforts and Programming (and Impact) 

In the 2011–12 academic year, one of the PACE students created an original program entitled, ‘‘#sorryimnotsorry.’’ This program takes a whole different approach 

to cyber bullying by introducing the most fundamental part of our education; the 

alphabet. The alphabet, in itself is simply 26 letters, but when rearranged, can be 

used to spell out words. The Internet has provided a new use for the alphabet, 

shortening words to save time (i.e., LOL, BRB, LMAO, etc.). While these terms 

might provide a humorous gesture to some, there can also be an extreme to it. Social Networks have been providing ways to communicate across the world, allowing 

us all to stay connected at all times. Cell phones, iPads, and laptops, are all easy 

ways to access websites to update Facebook, Twitter, MySpace, and more. However, 

the use of the social network for its original purpose of bringing people together, 

has now changed. In recent years, these ‘‘updates’’ to status have become more of 

attacks on certain people, races, ethnicities, and more. Bullying is no longer just 

limited to the schoolyard playground. With technology easily available to record, 

capture, or send messages, cyber bullying has no limits, and assumes it has no 

‘‘real’’ victims. The ‘‘#sorryimnotsorry’’ program provides real life examples using 

tweets, Facebook, and other real messages to show the severity of the issue. 

The student who created this program had a strong passion for this topic. 

Through several incidents that he handled as a Resident Advisor, he knew that 

DeSales was impacted by cyber bullying. In researching for his program, he realized 

that DeSales did not have a policy regarding cyber bullying. As a result, he decided 

to take the pen to paper and write one. This policy made its way through the correct 

chain of command and was approved by the administration to be added to the 2012– 

13 handbook. 

Although #sorryimnotsorry was an extremely successful program which led to new 

policy, the PACE team felt that they needed to take a different approach to educating on the topics of bullying, hazing, etc. Taking from our mission, philosophy, 

and heritage, PACE began to create programming that would focus on the other 

bookend of the spectrum—kindness. They chose to title their first program 

#happierdesales. The following are some of the programs and initiatives that PACE 

created to make a kinder and happier DeSales: 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

33 

Kindness Week: #happierdesales 

Imagine a world without conflict and everyone coming together. With all of the 

negativity that is portrayed in the media today, it is hard to be motivated to make 

a change. Bullying affects people of all ages. From harsh words to ruthless behavior, 

our society has gone down a path of not caring about other people’s feelings for their 

own gain. Our goal is to create a week solely dedicated to being kind to one another 

through selfless acts that inspire everyone to pass on the smiles and happiness 

which will promote positive behavior and a more unified campus community. 

Bullying does not go away when students enter their college years, especially with 

new technology and the opportunity for cyber-bullying. It is important to educate 

college communities on the types of bullying that can occur, along with the negative 

effects that accompany it. In the beginning of ‘‘Kindness Week 2014 

#happierdesales,’’ students will be flooded with information regarding the commonness of bullying and the increasing risk for low self-esteem, depression, and suicide 

that coincides with it. As the week progresses, various activities and events will be 

held in order to promote kindness to combat the negativity of bullying. The main 

goals in carrying out this project include making students aware of the effects of 

bullying as well as promoting kindness through the use of activities, giveaways, programming, and events. We hope to instill a sense of positivity on campus that will 

continue throughout the semester and into the future. ‘‘Kindness Week: 

#happierdesales’’ includes: 

• ‘‘Kindness Can Change the World’’: An educational bullying program to motivate students to increase kindness measures around campus. 

• Tabling activities in the dining hall to promote kindness & gratitude: 

• ‘‘Balloon Compliments’’ where students wrote down compliments to send to 

anyone they chose. These compliments were placed in deflated balloons and placed 

in the recipients’ mailboxes. The recipients were instructed to blow up the balloon 

and then pop it to receive their compliment. Also, PACErs walked around campus 

and randomly handed out helium-filled balloons that had compliments in them for 

students. 

• ‘‘Random Acts of Kindness Tree’’ where students wrote down random acts of 

kindness that they performed or were shown to them. These were all placed and 

displayed on a tree in the student union building. 

• ‘‘A Positive View’’ where the DeSales community could write positive statements and quotes on the windows in the cafeteria for all to see. 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER


20892-2.eps 20892-3.eps
34 

• ‘‘Consent Kisses’’ where our students asked other students if they could give 

them a kiss to promote consent. When they received a ‘‘yes,’’ they handed the person 

two Hershey kisses . . . one for them to keep, and one for them to give someone else. 

• ‘‘Flower Friday’’ in which locally donated carnations and other flowers were 

randomly handed out to students. 

‘‘Write Light, Write Life’’ 

This letter writing campaign asked the DeSales community to take a few moments to fill out an on-line form nominating any member of the DSU community 

to receive an anonymous letter of encouragement, gratitude, etc. A day was chosen 

and all were invited to come and help write the letters, which were distributed during kindness week. People from all across campus called PACE to thank them for 

initiating such a thoughtful program. 

‘‘You Are More Than Just A Like’’ 

This program had us take a look at the emphasis we put on the amount of ‘‘likes’’ 

we receive on social media. So often we feel our self-worth depends on what people 

think of words or pictures we post and tweet. Worst yet, we are devastated when 

negative comments are made. This program illustrated that we are more than a 

like, more than a filtered picture, and that our self-worth should only be defined 

by what we know of ourselves. 

‘‘Mean Girls’’ 

This program came about after several female students met with one of our male 

PACErs regarding some ‘‘mean girl’’ behavior that was occurring in the freshmen 

residence hall. There were two distinct groups of students who were not getting 

along, but no one seemed to know how it started. The male PACEr created this program at which there was a viewing of the movie, ‘‘Mean Girls.’’ Afterward there was 

a roundtable discussion about the movie and the freshmen females were able to 

share their concerns in a healthy, mediated dialog. 

‘‘Digging Deeper: The Diversity of Individuality’’ 

This program helps us realize that as humans, our individual differences are what 

make us unique, special, and worthy of respect. 

‘‘No One Else Can Play My Part’’ 

During lunch hours in the dining hall students answered the question why ‘‘No 

One Else Can Play My Part.’’ The papers were later displayed in the Student Union 

to show that each student’s life is a story; and the part in the story he or she plays 

cannot be replaced with anyone else. On the second day, students pledged to no 

longer use words such as crazy, suicidal, mental, and others in a casual or hurtful 

way. When the words are now used in their proper context, the stigma surrounding 

mental health illnesses can be eliminated over time. 

‘‘The Secret We All Share’’ 

This program is presented in residence halls in lecture format to bring awareness 

to the fact that 1 in 3 people will be diagnosed with a mental health illness in his 

or her lifetime, but how no one talks about this commonality, making it a secret 

we all share. The program detailed the signs and symptoms of the most common 

mental health illnesses and how to break the stigma surrounding them. The program taught that the most valuable tool to breaking the stigma by talking about 

mental health illness (i.e. share stories). This can be done by having real, honest 

conversations and by taking the lead, as so many celebrities have done, to speak 

up about a mental health illness. This openness will start other conversations that 

will help to break the stigma. 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER


20892-4.eps
35 

‘‘To Write Love On Her Arms’’ Open Mic Night 

The event consisted of four different student performers throughout the night. 

Money was raised in a raffle to benefit To Write Love on Hers Arms (TWLOHA), 

which works to provide funding for mental health research and treatment for those 

struggling with mental illnesses and suicidal ideation. Between performances, the 

coordinating PACEr spoke about mental health illness and suicidal ideation. Before 

the entertainment began the coordinating presenter educated the students on the 

purpose of the program. The student had a friend who took his life; she wanted to 

do something in his memory and to raise awareness about mental illnesses in the 

hope that someday suicide, as an end to depression, might be erased. She also spoke 

about the signs and symptoms of the most common mental health illnesses and the 

work of TWLOHA. She shared the story of her friend’s struggle with depression, 

and reminded students that no matter their situation, there is hope. During the 

event, students had the opportunity to write ‘‘love’’ on their arms, write letters of 

thanks to their support groups of friends and family, and to describe their greatest 

fears and dreams in order to offer insight about the real, honest conversations that 

should be occurring to promote openness and discussion on mental health illnesses. 

Bystander Intervention 

Although this is not a formal program, PACE makes sure to always include this 

concept into every program they present. They want their peers to take as much 

pride and ownership in their university community as they do. 

Multi-Disciplinary Approach 

PACE knows that tackling this issue is not a ‘‘one group’’ effort but requires the 

efforts of the entire DeSales University community. Therefore, PACE utilizes every 

opportunity to partner with as many other offices on campus as possible. They have 

worked with everyone from Student Conduct to Campus Ministry, from the Center 

for Service and Social Justice, to Student Engagement and Leadership and many 

others. Most often will work directly with Residence Life to provide in-residence programs. 

The ‘‘C’’ in Pace 

Pace serves as peer counselors for those students who are more comfortable talking to a peer rather than a professional counselor. In particular, they are sure to 

attend as many programs as possible in order to be able to process difficult topics 

with students following speakers and presentations. 

SUMMARY

DeSales University is a 50-year-old Catholic Institution grounded in the teachings 

of St. Francis de Sales. In addition to its strong academic curriculum, DeSales University also focuses on educating students morally, socially, and spiritually through 

out-of-the-classroom programming that enriches the entire human being. 

In a world that has become increasingly desensitized to how we as human beings 

treat others and how we perceive others who have different beliefs, cultures, lifestyles, etc., every division within the University’s student life department is intentionally committed to cultivating an environment based on Christian Humanism, 

kindness, selflessness, tolerance, service to others, social awareness, moral consciousness, ethical leadership, and responsibility. Through its intentional programming, DeSales seeks to instill in its students the personal role they play within their 

local and global communities. 

Again, I would like to thank Chairman Alexander, Ranking Member Murray, and 

members of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee for this opportunity to showcase the student driven prevention efforts of DeSales University. 

Senator MURRAY. Thank you. 

Mr. Storch. 

STATEMENT OF JOSEPH STORCH, ASSOCIATE COUNSEL, THE 

STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK, ALBANY, NY 

Mr. STORCH. Thank you. Senator Kirk, Ranking Member Murray, 

and members of the committee, on behalf of the State University 

of New York, the largest comprehensive higher education institution in the Nation, its Chancellor, Nancy Zimpher, and it’s General 

Counsel, Joseph Porter, I thank the committee for convening this 

important hearing. 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

36 

Fifty-five years ago next month, the Fifth Circuit issued a seminal decision in Dixon v. Alabama requiring that public colleges 

offer due process to students charged with violation. St. John Dixon’s alleged crime was that he sat in at a lunch counter. He was 

dismissed with no hearing and no process, and the court said that 

just won’t do. Forty-four years ago last month, this Congress added 

title IX to the education amendments of 1972, and the law that became the Clery Act recently turned 25. 

In the decades since, we have learned much, and much has 

changed. Students charged with violations receive robust due process, including notice of charges and an opportunity to be heard, at 

a level unimaginable five decades ago. The Clery Act’s attention to 

crime on campus has led to a complete overhaul such that our students are far safer on campus than in the surrounding communities. Congress and the Department of Education have drawn attention to sexual and interpersonal violence and other violence and 

the need for colleges to respond robustly. 

But there is far more work to be done. We like to say that the 

best response to bullying, hazing, and other violence is when you 

don’t need to respond at all since it didn’t happen in the first place. 

While a trauma-informed, balanced response with clear neutral 

policies and due process are important, SUNY was most excited by 

this Congress’ shift in the Violence Against Women Act’s amendments to Clery to require significant prevention work, not just at 

orientation but at a campaign across the year. 

Traditionally, the Clery Act and title IX guidance looked backward: respond to violations, report them, count them, warn of past 

crimes. Congress in VAWA said institutions must look forward: 

prevent. 

But at SUNY, we went farther than VAWA. While VAWA requires that training be offered to all students, at SUNY, we require 

that our student leaders and our student athletes complete training 

before they can compete in intercollegiate athletics or before their 

club or organization can be registered or recognized. Why? Because 

we think that they’re more likely to be offenders? Because we think 

that they’re more likely to be victims? No. Because we think they’re 

most likely to be leaders and leaders who could model pro-social behavior to their fellow students. 

We partnered with the Department of Health to offer Green Dot 

and Bringing in the Bystander training to all SUNY campuses. We 

worked closely with the New York State Police, the Office of Campus Safety, and the State Coalitions Against Sexual Assault and 

Domestic Violence to develop cutting edge programs for response 

and prevention. 

We take threat assessment and behavioral analysis seriously and 

have trained with the FBI and U.S. Marshals to help us appropriately identify and respond to student threats before violence occurs. SUNY partnered with New York’s Governor Cuomo who took 

SUNY policies and proposed them as laws across the State. Now, 

all New York college students have those same protections. 

As a public institution, we spent significant resources training on 

constitutional due process, including model policies, live trainings, 

and webinars. In every case, we strive for a fair and equitable process. 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

37 

But like anything 25 years old, some minor repairs to the Clery 

Act are in order. While Congress has appropriately added additional requirements for colleges, it hasn’t cleaned up ones that are 

no longer effective or whose bureaucracy outweighs its effectiveness. Make no mistake. SUNY wants to do more to prevent bullying, hazing, and other violence. We just want to do it more effectively. 

Ultimately, there is much good work to be done on college campuses. But to be effective, training and prevention of bullying, hazing, and other violence must begin long before college orientation. 

Students form their habits and interpersonal norms in high school 

or middle school, and colleges sometimes fight an uphill battle to 

change those views. 

Further, many high school students will graduate or not graduate and never attend college and never have access to the protections that only apply in the Higher Education Act. But we believe 

they still need education, and that education must take place earlier. 

SUNY hears and actively embraces the call to provide the best 

tools, resources, and services to protect our students from campus 

violence and support them in the event that an incident occurs. In 

all the areas described in this oral and my written testimony, we 

in higher education and the Congress are moving in the right direction, but there is more work to be done. 

We’re not afraid of taking on tough challenges. But we want to 

address these issues in ways that are proven with evidence to 

make a real difference in the lives of our students so that the next 

25 years of college attendees will be even safer than the last 25 

years, which, with your work, were even safer than the 25 years 

before that. 

Thank you for the deep honor of addressing this committee. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Storch follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOSEPH STORCH

SUMMARY

SUNY is the Nation’s largest comprehensive public university system, with nearly 

500,000 students at 64 institutions, including community colleges, technology colleges, comprehensive colleges, and doctoral degree granting universities. SUNY exhibits a strong commitment to ensuring student safety, and strongly supports the 

Senate’s efforts to prioritize this issue. 

Bullying and hazing have significant negative impact on our students. SUNY 

works diligently on training, policies, and methods to cut down on bullying and hazing and to quickly respond when it does occur (including partnering with national 

and State groups). But as with sexual and interpersonal violence, education and cultural change must begin earlier. Bullying is all but free, but responding is cost-prohibitive. Since a high percentage of bullying occurs through digital and social media, 

Congress should examine the Communications Decency Act and consider empowering victims through a notice and takedown, with review provision for harmful bullying content posted online, that balances protected speech with protections against 

defamation. 

While the Clery Act and Title IX guidance traditionally looked backward toward 

response and reporting, the Violence Against Women Act amendments require colleges to look forward and train in preventing incidents before they occur. SUNY applauds Congress’ shift toward robust prevention requirements. 

SUNY proudly partnered with New York State Governor Andrew M. Cuomo to develop Education Law § 129-B which, in addition to the most comprehensive response 

requirements of any State, builds upon the VAWA prevention shift to require that, 

while programming is offered to all new and continuing students (as VAWA reHELPN-003 with DISTILLER

38 

quires), student-athletes and leaders must complete prevention training. In this 

way, campus leaders will be well trained to model positive behavior to their fellow 

students. Additionally, working with State and national partners, we have provided 

many live and webinar trainings on response and prevention, including partnering 

with the Department of Health to provide each SUNY campus with a choice of 

Green Dot or Bringing in the Bystander/Know Your Power training. 

SUNY has proudly worked with members and staff in the Senate and House on 

common-sense amendments to the Clery Act to clarify confusing elements and add 

additional requirements that will bring forward more reports, address reports in a 

balanced but serious manner, and provide meaningful sanctions for violators. 

But to meaningfully reduce violence, education must begin long before college. Attitudes and interpersonal norms begin and become reinforced in high school and 

middle school, we cannot succeed if training to change these habits begins at college. 

Requiring earlier education will reduce violence at colleges and provide vital education for those who don’t go to college. 

THE STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK, 

OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL, 

ALBANY, NY 12246, 

July 11, 2016. 

Hon. LAMAR ALEXANDER, Chairman, 

Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee, 

U.S. Senate, 

Washington, DC 20510. 

Hon. PATTY MURRAY, Ranking Member, 

Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee, 

U.S. Senate, 

Washington, DC 20510. 

Re: Campus Safety: Improving Prevention and Response Efforts 

DEAR CHAIRMAN ALEXANDER, RANKING MEMBER MURRAY, AND MEMBERS OF THE

COMMITTEE: On behalf of The State University of New York (SUNY), I thank the 

committee for convening this important hearing on Campus Safety: Improving Prevention and Response Efforts. SUNY is the Nation’s largest comprehensive public 

university system, with nearly half a million students at 64 campuses, including 

community colleges, technology colleges, comprehensive colleges, and doctoral degree-granting universities. Indeed, SUNY is a microcosm of the national higher education sector. As such, this testimony stems from the system’s extensive experience 

in creating policies that both fit the needs of diverse institutions and support system-wide objectives. 

As an Associate Counsel in the Office of General Counsel for the SUNY system, 

I view campus safety issues through the laws that govern institutions of higher education, which are primarily the Higher Education Act (including the Clery Act), Title 

IX, and State and local laws that apply to campuses. We play a central role in interpreting what the law means for students, faculty and staff, on the 64 campuses 

within the SUNY system. 

While this hearing will focus on campus safety, I will concentrate my comments 

on the prevention of and response to violence on college campuses, a field that has 

been my professional focus and is essential for campus safety. SUNY has an unwavering commitment to ensuring student safety, and we strongly support the Senate’s 

efforts to make this issue a national priority, as we have done in New York State. 

We were proud to work with New York’s Governor and legislature to develop the 

Nation’s most comprehensive State law addressing interpersonal violence on campus. 

Reducing and Preventing Bullying and Hazing: Bullying and hazing have 

significant negative impacts on our students. SUNY has worked hard on training, 

policies, and methods to cut down on bullying and hazing and to quickly respond 

when it does occur. On SUNY campuses, we train our student groups, deal seriously 

with those who engage in hazing and bullying, and treat multiple violations with 

the utmost gravity. But as with prevention and response to sexual and interpersonal 

violence, colleges need this education and cultural change to begin earlier. Ideas and 

ideals are ingrained in children long before they start taking college admissions 

tours. A casual glance at television shows, news media, and social media shows bullying and defamation proceeding at a breathless pace. Institutions can best address 

bullying if Congress requires educational changes that occur earlier in students’ 

lives. 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

39 

1 Joseph Storch, Sexual Violence: Responding to Reports Is Not Enough, INSIDE HIGHER ED, 

https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2016/03/14/colleges-must-not-only-respond-reports-sexual-violence-also-prevent-it-essay (Mar. 14, 2016). 

SUNY has engaged campus leadership at different levels to address bullying and 

hazing. SUNY has a number of ‘‘role-alike’’ groups where Title IX Coordinators, various student affairs professionals, and many others from the same position within 

a campus will meet to cross-train and develop best practices. Many of these meetings have focused on bullying and hazing, the need to respond appropriately to protect victims and witnesses while seriously addressing allegations. Where we can, we 

have engaged New York State and national partners (for instance, conducting a 

training with the FBI and U.S. Marshalls) to learn and implement best practices. 

As a high percentage of bullying occurs through digital and social media, Congress 

should look at the role of the Communications Decency Act in providing immunity 

to providers for content that they do not create (a good idea) while not requiring 

them to temporarily take down and review harmful content when they receive a notification (a bad idea). Some victims of online and social media bullying can afford 

expensive attorneys and investigators to act against their bullies; most cannot. The 

cost of bullying is all but free; the cost of fighting back is prohibitive. Congress may 

wish to consider a system similar to the notice and takedown provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, allowing a victim to notify a website about defamatory material, then have that material temporarily removed and analyzed to ensure 

that it is defamatory and not protected speech, and either kept off or returned to 

the site. Some companies are, by necessity, already reviewing comments or prohibiting anonymous commenting. Congress can require or promote consistency in a way 

that balances speech with preventing brutal bullying and defamation online. 

The Clery Act, which turned a quarter century late last year, has traditionally 

aimed at reporting, and in recent years responding to, certain crimes that occur in 

certain designated geographic locations. Congress changed that focus in 2013 adding 

the new requirements to count and classify gender-based violent crimes, and focus 

on prevention, training, and education, long a hallmark of our own programming. 

Although we had devoted resources and time to prevention in the past, the legislative shift has given SUNY access to partnerships and new ideas as colleges and 

community organizations devote more resources and attention to prevention. SUNY 

takes the issues of harassment and discrimination, including sexual violence, extremely seriously. We believe that this focus has allowed SUNY to emerge as a leader, providing resources to students. We partner with national, State, and local organizations, as well as colleges and universities across the country, to advance our 

mission of ending violence on campus. 

Title IX and its implementing regulations prohibit discrimination based on sex. 

Alongside other civil rights law, this has been read to include gender-based violence 

and peer harassment based on race, color, sex, national origin, or disability. Several 

of these behaviors are common forms of bullying or hazing. The Department of Education (ED) Office for Civil Rights has issued guidance to colleges and universities 

to provide clarity around the law, and ensure it is enforced properly, guiding campuses to limit the effects of violence and prevent its recurrence. In other words, at 

least traditionally, both the Clery Act and title IX guidance looked backward: respond to violence, count it, report it. There were some minor calls for training, but 

both laws were primarily reactive, not proactive, to violence. 

Shifting From Response to Prevention: Truth be told, SUNY does not want 

to be a leader in developing programs, processes, and trainings to respond to violence; rather, we look to the day when our dedicated professionals have no violence 

to respond to. That, quite simply, is our goal. As colleges progressively do a better 

job of notifying students how to report violence, reports will increase, flooding the 

offices assigned and requiring additional resources.1 If we are ever to reduce reports, it will have to be through reducing violence by shifting to a regime of prevention training. That, in turn, will require additional resources and emphasis on the 

issue from the top down. Without such resources, reports will stay high even as violence stays high. The graph below exemplifies this curve: 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

40 

2http://www.suny.edu/about/leadership/board-of-trustees/meetings/webcastdocs/Sexual%20 

Assault%20Response%20and%20Prevention %20REVISED-Merged.pdf. 3http://system.suny.edu/sexual-violence-prevention-workgroup/. 

To bend that curve, colleges must continually look ‘‘upstream,’’ as shown in the 

graphic below. Good work after the incident occurs is not enough. We must strive 

to take ‘‘water’’ out of the ‘‘stream’’ in the form of fewer incidents that necessitate 

responses. 

In 2015, SUNY continued its partnership with the New York State Department 

of Health, working together to provide each SUNY campus with a choice of Green 

Dot or Bringing in the Bystander/Know Your Power training at no cost to the SUNY 

attendees. Hundreds were trained in one program or both. In addition, SUNY has 

a strong relationship with the One Love Foundation, with thousands of administrators, faculty, and students trained using their dating violence prevention curriculum. Students have been moved by the program and it has caused them to question how they would help a friend in a violent relationship. The SUNY Athletic Conference (SUNYAC) decided to take a leadership role in dating violence prevention, 

and SUNYAC student-athletes have undergone several trainings and engaged in 

programming on their campuses. In April 2017, the student-athletes will lead a conference-wide single day event that will raise awareness of dating violence amongst 

tens of thousands of students. 

New York Education Law 129-B: In October 2014, New York State Governor 

Andrew M. Cuomo met with the SUNY Board of Trustees about sexual assault on 

campus, and the Board passed a resolution that would ‘‘establish a comprehensive, 

system-wide, uniform set of sexual assault prevention and response practices at 

SUNY campuses, which can be a model for colleges and universities across the State 

and the Nation.’’ 2 SUNY Chancellor Nancy L. Zimpher, a leader on this issue, convened a working group 3 comprised of campus presidents, counsel, student life leadHELPN-003 with DISTILLER


20892-5.eps 20892-6.eps
41 

4https://www.ny.gov/programs/enough-enough-combating-sexual-assault-college-campuses. 5http://system.suny.edu/sexual-violence-prevention-workgroup/training/webinars/. 6http://system.suny.edu/media/suny/content-assets/documents/generalcounsel/SUNYVAWA-Guidance-2014.pdf. 

ership, title IX coordinators, University police and public safety representatives, students, faculty, and nationally recognized external experts to take five-dozen very 

good policies and develop a single cutting-edge set of policies. In fewer than 60 days, 

the group ably fulfilled its mandate, and as of December 1, 2014, those policies 

began to roll out on campus. Governor Cuomo soon took SUNY’s policies to the next 

level, proposing them as State law. After extensive, valuable input from victim advocates, students, private and public colleges, and other experts, the bills passed nearly unanimously, and Education Law § 129-B 4 was enacted. This practice and the resulting law, can be a model for colleges and universities, and key stakeholders to 

come together and improve campus safety prevention and response on broader 

issues. 

Prevention and Response Webinar Series: SUNY co-produces a webinar series 5 with the New York State Department of Health, New York State Office for 

the Prevention of Domestic Violence, the New York State Coalition Against Sexual 

Assault, and the New York State Coalition Against Domestic Violence to provide 

training in prevention and response. Webinars are open to colleges, community partners, and government agencies. Topics include explaining title IX to beginners, cultivating a peer-educator program, efficiently educating members of Greek letter organizations, developing different types of campus-wide violence-prevention campaigns, 

de-mystifying the sexual assault forensic exam, addressing sexual and interpersonal 

violence in study-abroad settings, reaching out to nightlife establishments to partner 

in violence prevention, a conversation with Missoula author Jon Krakauer, and 

many more. Webinars are offered completely free of cost and can create a strong 

sense of community for students by helping raise awareness and educating students. 

Sworn Law Enforcement and Local Law Enforcement Memoranda of Understanding: SUNY campuses have title IX coordinators, professionals responsible 

for Clery Act compliance and training, and trained counselors. State-operated colleges have sworn law enforcement: University Police officers who train alongside 

local law enforcement but also have at least 60 college credits prior to starting their 

role. University Police are knowledgeable and recognized in their field, trained in 

community policing and trauma-informed response. SUNY campuses maintain 

MOUs with local law enforcement regarding response to crimes of violence and 

other matters. SUNY has a strong relationship with the New York State Police, and 

we routinely partner on initiatives to promote safety on campus and in the community. 

Training: In recent years, SUNY conducted hundreds of general and specialized 

trainings for campus personnel in complying with the Higher Education Act (including the Clery Act as amended by VAWA), title IX, and New York Education Law 

129–B, and in going beyond these laws to best serve students. Some live trainings 

have drawn hundreds of participants. Audience members have included University 

and campus leadership, administrators, faculty, and students. 

In the months after Congress reauthorized the Violence Against Women Act 

amending the Clery Act, SUNY worked diligently to advise negotiated rulemakers 

on relevant issues, and to develop guidance and training for SUNY professionals 

and others in higher education (including several national live trainings and 

webinars). ED issued its proposed regulations on June 19, 2014. On June 26 and 

July 9, SUNY conducted two live trainings for over 250 SUNY professionals on how 

to comply with the law and regulations (even though the regulations were not to 

take effect until the next summer). The training team wrote a 93-page guidance document 6 in the 1-week before the first training and, following the trainings, SUNY 

made the guidance free and public; it was shared by several national higher education groups and has since been accessed over 30,000 times. SUNY is partnering 

with the City University of New York and with State agencies and community organizations to develop cutting-edge prevention resources and trainings. We would like 

to make them available to the higher education and larger communities, in order 

to maximize the impact on campus safety. In the years to come, with the support 

of Congress, we could do even more to reduce violence before it occurs. 

Amendments to the Clery Act: SUNY works diligently to comply with the Clery 

Act and related obligations. We have been privileged to work with members and 

staff in the House and Senate—from both parties—on amendments to the law that 

will allow colleges to comply more efficiently. While some minor changes can ease 

compliance, below are several major changes Congress could enact to make compliHELPN-003 with DISTILLER

42 

7https://www..ed.gov/admins/lead/safety/handbook.pdf. 

8http://system.suny.edu/media/suny/content-assets/documents/compliance/Crime-andIncident-Reporting-Guidelines-for-CSAs-and-Responsible-Employees-FINAL.pdf. 

ance more effectual, permitting institutions to devote time saved to prevention education: 

• Clarify Clery geography: ED has given conflicting guidance regarding how 

and where to count crimes when students study abroad. This has led to confusion 

and high compliance cost. In their most recent guidance,7 ED writes that if a college 

rents hotel rooms for one night, they do not count for Clery, unless two different 

groups use that same hotel for one different night each in 1 year; two nights would 

count, but only if there are certain agreements in place, and only for the days the 

college has ‘‘control,’’ and colleges would only count crimes in the students’ rooms, 

hallways, and public areas. A student killed in a non-student hotel room would not 

be reportable, a non-student killed in the hotel pool would be reportable. A heinous 

triple homicide occurring 3 days before students arrive would not be reportable, nor 

would the same crime occurring on the sidewalk just outside the hotel. And even 

if colleges are able to organize and count all covered trips taken by study abroad, 

academic programs, athletics, and certain student organizations, ED would have the 

college combine those statistics with certain crimes occurring at certain off-campus 

student organization houses (mostly Greek letter organizations) that have little or 

nothing to do with these trips. This leads to confusion and very costly compliance, 

while there is no evidence that it makes students safer. • Clarify Local Law Enforcement Letters for Study Abroad: ED requires 

that colleges write to local law enforcement for every jurisdiction that includes Clery 

geography. This means that for the hundreds (even thousands) of hotels, classrooms 

and other sites that must be included in Clery geography under ED’s June 2016 interpretation, institutions must write detailed letters to local law enforcement asking 

them to report certain crimes using United States Uniform Crime Reporting definitions, in certain pinpoint locations and only for certain days. Unfortunately, this has 

simply become an exercise in futility, as international police agencies rarely respond 

with useful numbers. ED audits against what letters are sent, and a college could 

run afoul by not having sent a specific letter (even if no answer would ever be received). Institutions are spending significant time and resources developing and 

mailing letters that bear no fruit. Further, sending letters asking about sexual assault and dating violence to certain localities puts our students in more danger. To 

date, ED has declined to allow for an exception where college professionals have a 

good faith belief that such letters will endanger our students. • Policy Statements: ED insists that the Annual Security Report include full 

policy statements and (with a single exception) does not allow colleges to link to the 

relevant policies. That leads to longer reports which are less likely to be read. Congress could offer flexibility to educate students efficiently, including links to relevant 

documents. • Campus Security Authorities and Responsible Employees: ED’s Federal 

Student Aid office has defined ‘‘Campus Security Authority’’ in a manner that differs 

significantly from ED’s Office for Civil Rights definition of ‘‘Responsible Employee.’’ 8

Institutions scramble to determine what employees meet the definition of one, the 

other, or both. Further, the language used in both terms is confusing. SUNY has 

suggested combining both concepts into a single new term called ‘‘Mandatory Reporter’’ and defining that term broadly. As a matter of policy and in practice, we 

want more reports of crime to come forward, and Mandatory Reporter is a term that 

has a clear meaning and societal understanding. Except for those with legal privilege or confidentiality restrictions (including medical, mental health, legal, or religious professionals), all compensated employees should be mandatory reporters who 

must, as soon as reasonably practicable, report all crimes covered by the law to the 

appropriate office or offices as determined by the institution. Reporting to the title 

IX coordinator would meet this requirement. This will result in more crimes being 

brought forward (and higher but more accurate numbers reported), more consistency 

in reporting, and the ability of institutions to offer a blanket training to employees, 

rather than spending significant time identifying and narrowly training certain employees as Campus Security Authorities, others as Responsible Employees, and still 

others as both. • Reduce double counting of crimes: ED has earnestly tried to ensure that 

all crimes are reported and do not fall through the cracks. Over time, it has modified its use of the Uniform Crime Reporting hierarchy rule, such that certain incidents are double or triple counted or more. The undersigned has identified an example of a single incident that would be counted close to three dozen times for Clery 

Act purposes. Over-counting crimes provides students with no more of an honest reHELPN-003 with DISTILLER

43 

port than under-counting of crimes. SUNY therefore has suggested that crimes be 

reported once in the most appropriate category, and that colleges retain documentation for their decisions. 

• Modernize missing student reporting: ED, while trying in good faith to develop a method to comply with this 2008 addition, created a complex and confusing 

regime for reporting missing on-campus students (the ED 2016 Handbook devotes 

seven pages and more than 2,000 words to complying with its current system). 

SUNY suggests a return to the plain congressional intent. The requirement can simply read: 

‘‘if a student is reported missing for 24 hours, within the next 18 hours, the 

college must contact local law enforcement, the student’s emergency contact, 

and the student’s parents, if under 18.’’ 

This will accomplish the important goals (which we firmly support) without adding 

unhelpful bureaucratic requirements. 

NEW ADDITIONS TO THE CLERY ACT

• Double down on prevention: As stated earlier, SUNY applauds Congress’ 

2013 shift from response only to response and prevention. And at SUNY and in New 

York, we have gone further. While programming is offered to all new and continuing 

students, we require that student leaders and student-athletes complete training. 

This is not because we believe they are more likely to be victims or offenders; rather, it is because we believe they are most likely to be leaders on campus. By training 

leaders who can model pro-social behavior, we can efficiently educate an entire campus. 

• Transcript notations: New York State law requires uniform transcript notations for students found responsible and suspended or expelled after a student conduct process for conduct code violations that are equivalent to Clery Act Primary 

Crimes. Institutions to which the student transfers are not prohibited from admitting the student, but are on notice of past violations and can request additional documentation under FERPA. While New York colleges provide notations for students 

transferring out, they do not benefit from notations for students transferring in from 

out-of-state. A uniform standard will allow colleges to consider admitting students 

with full knowledge of past transgressions. 

• Amnesty: SUNY supports adding a plain-language amnesty from drug or alcohol use charges to encourage reporting and reduce the fear of a victim or bystander 

that they will get in trouble, not the person who committed the violence. SUNY’s 

amnesty policy became law in New York and states: 

‘‘A bystander acting in good faith or a reporting individual acting in good 

faith that discloses any incident of domestic violence, dating violence, stalking, 

or sexual assault to [College/University] officials or law enforcement will not be 

subject to [College/University’s] code of conduct action for violations of alcohol 

and/or drug use policies occurring at or near the time of the commission of the 

domestic violence, dating violence, stalking, or sexual assault.’’ 

Training Must Begin Before College: SUNY firmly believes that colleges and 

universities must play a major role in the effort to prevent violence, including bullying, hazing, harassment, and sexual and interpersonal violence, and must respond 

appropriately to any violence that does occur, but the process cannot succeed if it 

begins at college orientation. While title IX applies equally to elementary, secondary, and postsecondary education, the Clery Act as a part of the Higher Education Act does not apply to elementary and secondary schools. This is not to say 

that the entire reporting regime of the law must be applied to high schools, but requiring prevention education elements earlier will go a long way toward reducing 

violence on college campuses. Many young people develop their habits and interpersonal norms during high school or even middle school. By the time they arrive 

at college, some of those (mis)understandings are deeply ingrained and colleges fight 

an uphill battle to change their minds. Earlier education will prepare them for the 

additional training at college, and help to lower incidents of violence that occur before the student ever sets foot on a college campus. 

Further, the large number of high school students who graduate (or do not graduate) and never attend college do not benefit from the response, reporting, or newer 

prevention elements of the Clery Act. Their apartment complex will not issue an Annual Security Report, they will not receive Timely Warnings of dangerous crimes, 

and they will not be taught the elements of consent and how to prevent sexual and 

interpersonal violence. These young people are at equal or greater risk of committing or becoming victims of these crimes, but the law does not reach them. While 

Congress may have difficulty legislating the response and reporting elements of the 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

44 

Clery Act for private landowners, by requiring more, better, and earlier training and 

education in consent, bystander intervention, and other elements required by 

VAWA, we will have a fighting chance of keeping all young people safe, whether 

or not they attend college. 

Congress should consider funding for institutions to partner with school districts 

to develop and implement training that is research based, creative, and consistent 

across the students’ time in middle school, high school, and college. By taking advantage of scale, targeted funding toward such partnerships can significantly reduce 

incidents of violence in college, before college, and for students who will never attend college. 

CONCLUSION

In 2016–17, SUNY will conduct a University-wide climate survey on all campuses. 

It will be the largest such survey conducted anywhere in our Nation to date. We 

will conduct the survey every 2 years, and thereby gather data that, in coordination 

with State and national partners, will help us understand what works and what 

doesn’t work in reducing violence, so that we can turn those lessons into more effective training and policy. SUNY Chancellor Zimpher is well known for saying we 

need real data to know what works. This climate survey, in addition to our work 

with State and national partners on research into effectiveness of different programming, will aid colleges and universities across the Nation in addressing violence on 

campus. 

SUNY hears and actively embraces the national call for providing the best tools, 

resources, and services to protect our students from campus violence and support 

them in the event that an incident occurs. We must, in short, get down to the business of making our campuses as safe as possible while ensuring more accountability 

and transparency. In all of the areas described throughout my testimony, we are 

moving in the right direction, but there is much more work to be done. We are not 

afraid of taking on tough challenges, but we want to address these issues in ways 

that are proven to make a real difference in the lives of our students. Thank you 

for the honor of addressing this committee. 

Sincerely, 

JOSEPH STORCH, Associate Counsel, 

The State University of New York. 

Senator MURRAY. Thank you very much. 

Ms. Clementi. 

STATEMENT OF JANE CLEMENTI, CO-FOUNDER, THE TYLER 

CLEMENTI FOUNDATION, NEW YORK, NY 

Ms. CLEMENTI. Thank you, Senator Murray and esteemed members of the HELP Committee. I am grateful for the opportunity to 

share my son, Tyler Clementi’s, story today with you with the hope 

that you will learn from our family’s pain, a family that is not very 

different than some of your own. Maybe we could even be your 

neighbors or your friends. I certainly think that we could be your 

voters and your constituency, because everywhere I go, I hear people that relate to some part of Tyler’s story. 

As a family, we are like most families. We once had many hopes 

and dreams, especially for our children. We are very private and 

simple, and we enjoyed the simple pleasures of spending as much 

family time together as we could, whether at home in Ridgewood 

in the beautiful garden State of New Jersey or as we traveled on 

vacation. 

Our family consists of my husband, Joseph, who is a civil engineer by education; myself, a registered nurse; my oldest son, 

James, who graduated from Skidmore College in 2009 and works 

full time for the Tyler Clementi Foundation; my middle son, Brian, 

who graduated from Cornell University in 2010 and is a mechanical engineer, a thermal dynamic specialist; and my youngest son, 

Tyler, who graduated Ridgewood High School in June 2010. 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

45 

Tyler was a very kind, caring, and thoughtful young man. He 

had a great sense of humor and a cheerful, easy-going disposition. 

He always had a great smile on his face. He always woke up with 

this huge smile, as if to welcome the day and say, ‘‘I can do anything today. Today is a day with many great possibilities, many 

great opportunities.’’ 

He was also very, very creative and very smart and curious. He 

liked to explore and investigate, and he especially liked to travel. 

He was very full of life and energy and lots of ideas. Tyler had 

many interests in his short life, as most children do as they go 

through many phases and stages. But his one true passion was 

music. He was an accomplished and gifted violinist. 

Tyler was very special and precious to us. But he was unknown 

to the world until September 2010, when he made national headlines. Shortly after he started his freshman year at Rutgers University, Tyler’s roommate web-cammed him in a live stream of him 

in a sexual encounter with another man. And then Tyler’s roommate tweeted about Tyler’s encounter, inviting many others to 

come and join in and watch, inviting them into a very private personal moment. 

I can only imagine that these bullying actions by his roommate 

must have humiliated Tyler in front of his new dorm mates. He 

must have even thought, maybe, possibly, that his sexual orientation was something to be laughed at or ashamed of. At this point, 

Tyler’s reality became very twisted and distorted. Tyler could no 

longer see how special and precious he was, and he could not even 

see or find the support and resources that he had available to him. 

Tyler became totally consumed and only concerned about the 

words of people who were out there trying only to humiliate him. 

These bullying actions must have caused Tyler to feel isolated, 

alone, worthless, and so very desperate, because it was at this 

point that Tyler made a decision that we can never change or undo. 

On September 22, 2010, Tyler died by suicide. He was 18 years old. 

Tyler made a decision that we can never change or correct, a decision that not only affected Tyler, but also our entire family and 

many others who knew and loved him. We will forever be missing 

a part of our family. Our family will never be whole again, and the 

simple pleasures of family time together are not simple anymore. 

Every holiday and special family event is unbearable and incomplete because Tyler is missing, and a part of us is missing. 

As much as we would like to go back and change Tyler’s actions, 

the reality is we can’t. Instead, we have decided to move forward 

and work to change the mindsets and attitudes of people who think 

that the actions of setting up a camera or sending out tweets that 

say ‘‘come and join in and watch the show’’ are acceptable, because 

those are not acceptable actions. This is why my husband, Joe, and 

I started the Tyler Clementi Foundation to put an end to all online 

and offline bullying in schools, workplaces, and faith communities. 

As an organization, the Tyler Clementi Foundation has initiated 

several awareness programs based on Tyler’s story, as well as partnerships to provide anti-bullying research, information, and tools 

for youth, parents, and youth-serving professionals. Our Day One 

Campaign is a simple, innovative, research-based, and effective 

intervention designed to prevent bullying before it happens. Day 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

46 

One Campaign creates a safe, inclusive atmosphere within a community where everyone is embraced, not despite their differences, 

but because of their differences. We are also committed to turn bystanders into upstanders, a person who speaks up when they see 

someone being humiliated or bullied. 

I am not sure why Tyler’s story attracted so much attention. But 

one thing I have learned is that it is not an isolated occurrence. 

Everywhere I go, people share with me how they connected to some 

part of Tyler’s story, maybe not the exact situation, but some part 

of the circumstances as well as the emotional toll that Tyler must 

have experienced. 

Research shows that over 3.2 million students report that they 

have been a victim of some form of bullying every year, and that 

number is astronomical and unacceptable. This is not a rite of passage or simply kids being kids. This is a public health threat. 

But don’t be deceived also by thinking that bullying only occurs 

in school age children or that it is something that is less serious 

than it truly is, because bullying behaviors do not magically disappear at a certain age. It can and will continue into adulthood unless there are behavior modifications, and bullying behaviors are 

serious and can sometimes rise to the level of criminal hazing, harassment, invasion of privacy, and/or stalking. And to my knowledge, at this point in time, there are no Federal laws that address 

the full effects of bullying behaviors or promotes any type of prevention measures. 

I do believe that every classroom and institution of higher education can and should be a safe place to learn and thrive. But in 

order for that to happen, we need Federal legislation to help create 

safe campus climates for all students in higher education across 

the country. It is my urge today that I really would love to ask you 

to include the Tyler Clementi Higher Education Anti-harassment 

Act in the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. 

The Tyler Clementi Higher Education Act would include initiatives to expand and improve programs to prevent harassment of 

students, as well as counseling for targets and perpetrators and 

training for faculty, staff, and students. Book knowledge is important, but the wisdom of empathy and compassion is priceless, and 

empathy is one of the best tools that we have to make the world 

a better place. 

So the time is now to create safe spaces for all young adults to 

learn and thrive in our higher education system, because we can’t 

let Tyler’s story continue to repeat itself. Action must be taken 

now, because we have already seen far too many Tylers already. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Clementi follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JANE CLEMENTI

SUMMARY

In September 2010, my son Tyler Clementi made national headlines. Not for his 

musical gifts or his thoughtful kindness but because of a decision he made following 

an incident of cyber harassment/bullying. He had just started his freshmen year at 

Rutgers University, when he was web-cammed by his roommate while engaging in 

a sexual encounter with another man. His roommate then tweeted about Tyler’s encounter inviting many others to join in and watch. Announcing to the entire world 

a very personal moment that should have remained just that, a private encounter. 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

47 

At this point Tyler’s reality became twisted and distorted, as he became consumed 

with and only concerned about the words of people who were interested only in 

humiliating him. He could not see how special and precious he was or find the resources and support that was available to him. Because it was at this point that 

Tyler made a decision that we can never change or undo. On September 22, 2010 

Tyler died by suicide. He was 18 years old. 

Tyler’s situation and the end result may have been the extreme, but it is important to remember that no matter what the immediate outcome, all bullying and harassment hurts and almost always leaves painful physical and emotional scars, 

which can sometimes last a life time. The painful physical and emotional effects of 

bullying can manifest with emotional distress leading to self-harming behaviors 

such as alcohol and drug use and/or abuse, cutting, unprotected sex, anxiety, low 

self-esteem, depression and suicidal ideation. It can also interfere in productivity 

and attendance at school and work. 

I am not sure why Tyler’s story attracted so much attention but one thing I have 

learned is it is not an isolated occurrence. Everywhere I go people share how they 

connect to some part of Tyler’s story, maybe not the exact situation but some part 

of his circumstances as well as the emotional toll that Tyler must have experienced. 

Over 3.2 million students report that they have been the victim of some form of bullying every year, that number is astronomical and unacceptable. This is not a rite 

of passage or simply kids being kids, this is a public health threat. 

Our personal response has been to create the Tyler Clementi Foundation, which 

is working to put an end to all online and offline bullying in schools, workplaces 

and faith communities. As an organization, The Tyler Clementi Foundation has initiated several awareness programs based on Tyler’s story as well as partnerships 

to provide anti-bullying research, information and tools for youth, parents and youth 

serving professionals. 

Our Day One Campaign is a simple, innovative, research-based and effective 

intervention designed to prevent bullying before it happens. Day One Campaign creates a safe inclusive atmosphere within a community where everyone is embraced 

not despite their differences but because of their differences. We are also committed 

to turn bystanders into ‘‘Upstanders.’’ A person who speaks up when they see someone being harassed, intimidated or bullied. 

I believe that every classroom and institution of higher education can and should 

be a safe place to learn and thrive but in order for that to happen we need Federal 

legislation to help create safe campus climates for all students in higher education 

across the country. 

I urge you to include The Tyler Clementi Higher Education Anti-Harassment Act in the reauthorization of the higher education act. The Tyler Clementi 

Higher Education Anti-Harassment Act would: 

1. Initiate, expand and/or improve programs that prevent the harassment of students. 

2. Provide counseling to targets and perpetrators. 

3. Train and educate students, faculty and staff about ways to prevent or address 

harassment. 

4. Promote ongoing research as to what is the best methods to combat this epidemic. 

I believe this bill will allow institutions of higher education to take a fresh look 

and reexamine their policies and procedures that are and are not in place. In addition this legislation is your opportunity to not only keep our own young adults safe 

but to also have a global influence as many students come from all over the world 

to study at our fine institutions of higher education. Book knowledge is important 

but the wisdom of empathy and compassion is priceless. 

Bullying does not magically disappear when someone turns 18. We must continue 

to provide safe and supportive learning environments for all students in all learning 

environments including higher education. The time is now, we can’t let Tyler’s story 

continue to repeat itself. Action must be taken now because there have been far too 

many Tyler’s already. Thank you. 

Chairman Alexander, Ranking Member Murray and the esteemed members of the 

HELP Committee, thank you for the opportunity to share my son, Tyler Clementi’s 

story today. I hope you will learn from his experiences and allow his story to motivate you to create safe spaces in our higher education system, so that no other 

young person will ever have to experience or endure the pain, hurt, shame and humiliation that Tyler endured. 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

48 

TYLER’S STORY

We were and are a very private and quiet family, who like many families once 

had many hopes and dreams, especially for our children. We enjoyed the simple 

pleasures of spending as much family time together as we could, whether at home 

in Ridgewood, NJ or traveling on vacation. Our family consists of my husband, Joseph who is a civil engineer by education, myself a registered nurse, James my oldest son who graduated from Skidmore College in May 2009 and now works for The 

Tyler Clementi Foundation, Brian our middle son who graduated from Cornell University in May 2010 and is a mechanical engineer, and our youngest son Tyler, who 

graduated Ridgewood High School in June 2010. 

Our youngest son Tyler was a loving son, a kind and caring brother, a thoughtful 

friend, and a compassionate young man. He had a great sense of humor and a 

cheerful easy going disposition. He always woke up with a smile on his face. A 

warm welcoming smile that seemed to announce that the new day was going to be 

good no matter what came along. Tyler was also very creative, smart and curious. 

He loved to investigate, explore and travel. He was so full of life and energy. Tyler 

had many interests in his short life, as most children do, as they move through different phases and stages. But Tyler’s one special love that remained constant was 

music. He was a gifted musician and his instrument of choice was the violin. He 

was an accomplished violinist. 

Tyler was very special and precious to us, his family, but he was unknown to the 

world until the fall of 2010 when he made national headlines. He had just started 

his freshmen year at Rutgers University. Tyler’s roommate web-cammed Tyler in a 

sexual encounter with another man and then Tyler’s roommate tweeted about Tyler’s encounter inviting many others to join in and watch, announcing to the entire 

world a very personal moment that should have remained just that, a private encounter. 

I can only imagine that these bullying actions by his roommate must have humiliated Tyler in front of his new dorm mates. This may have even caused Tyler to 

think that his sexual orientation was something to be laughed at and ashamed of. 

At this point Tyler’s reality became twisted and distorted. Tyler could no longer see 

how special and precious he was. He was not able to see or find the support and 

resources he had available to him. Tyler became totally consumed with and only 

concerned about the words of people who were interested only in humiliating him. 

These bullying actions must have caused Tyler to feel isolated, alone, worthless, and 

so very desperate. 

Because it was at this point that Tyler made a decision that we will never be able 

to undo or change. On September 22, 2010 Tyler died by suicide. He was 18 years 

old. 

Tyler made a decision that cannot ever be changed or corrected, a decision that 

not only affected Tyler but our entire family and many others who knew and loved 

him. My world crashed to a stop and then crumbled apart with the devastation and 

trauma of the loss of my son. The anguish and despair has been overwhelming at 

times. It has been a long dark journey of much sadness and many tears. It remains 

an ongoing battle to push back the sadness and hold on to the peace. A peace that 

only recently I have been able to find, now that the fog and haze of the trauma has 

finally lifted, now after almost 70 months. My life’s journey is one I hope no one 

else will ever have to travel, live through or endure. A piece of me has died and 

I have been left with an empty space deep within. I will be forever missing a part 

of me. All memories and photos were excruciating to look back on. It was strange 

but all of my memories, my happy moments from the past quickly turned and twisted in my head to a future that would never happen. Tyler was gone and our family 

would never be whole again. The simple pleasures of family time together are no 

more. Every holiday or special family event is unbearable and incomplete because 

Tyler is missing. 

Also adding to our family’s pain was the added torment of enduring a criminal 

trial against Tyler’s roommate for invading Tyler’s privacy during a sexual act, hindering an investigation and tampering with evidence. The pain and anguish that 

I felt during the trial, was overwhelming at times, as I seemed to be listening and 

watching through Tyler’s ears, eyes and mind. As different pieces of evidence were 

presented they would trigger memories, both good and bad, but none the less all 

bittersweet and sad. Even simple things such as Tyler’s laptop, reminded me how 

he carefully explored his options and then chose the different features he liked best, 

including the blue color for the case. And the photos of his dorm room, reminiscing 

on how carefully we had shopped for all the components of his room, like the lamps 

and the bedding and all the other accessories and how excited he was to be setting 

it up and settling in at college. How quickly this all changed. 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

49 

As much as we would like to go back and change Tyler’s actions we can’t, but we 

can move forward by working to change the mindsets and attitudes of people who 

think that actions like setting up a camera and tweeting messages like ‘‘come join 

in and watch the show’’—are acceptable, because they are not. This is why my husband, Joe and I started the Tyler Clementi Foundation, to put an end to all online 

and offline bullying in schools, workplaces and faith communities. 

BACKGROUND INFORMATION ABOUT BULLYING

According to Stopbullying.gov, 

‘‘bullying is unwanted, aggressive behavior among school aged children that 

involves a real or perceived power imbalance. The behavior is repeated, or has 

the potential to be repeated, over time. Bullying includes actions such as making threats, spreading rumors, attacking someone physically or verbally, and excluding someone from a group on purpose.’’ 6

This can be deceiving to many young adults who associate the term bullying with 

school-aged children and something that is less serious than it truly is. This definition can be misleading and might even be seen as a middle class suburban problem. 

But bullying behaviors do not magically disappear at a certain age, it can and will 

continue on into adulthood unless there is behavior modification. Bullying behaviors 

are serious and can sometimes rise to the level of criminal hazing, harassment, invasion of privacy and/or stalking. And to my knowledge at this point in time there 

are no Federal laws that address the full effects of bullying behaviors or promotes 

any type of prevention measures. 

Tyler’s situation and the end result may have been the extreme, but it is important to remember that no matter what the immediate outcome, all bullying and harassment hurts and almost always leaves painful physical and emotional scars, 

which can sometimes last a life time. The painful physical and emotional effects of 

bullying can manifest with emotional distress leading to self-harming behaviors 

such as alcohol and drug use and/or abuse, cutting, unprotected sex, anxiety, low 

self-esteem, depression and suicidal ideation. It can also interfere in productivity 

and attendance at school and work. 

I am not sure why Tyler’s story attracted so much attention but one thing I have 

learned is it is not an isolated occurrence. Everywhere I go people share how they 

connect to some part of Tyler’s story, maybe not the exact situation but some part 

of his circumstances as well as the emotional toll that Tyler must have experienced. 

Over 3.2 million students report that they have been the victim of some form of bullying every year, that number is astronomical and unacceptable. This is not a rite 

of passage or simply kids being kids, this is a public health threat. 

Here Are Just a Few Statistics 

28 percent of U.S. students in grades 6–12 have experienced bullying.1

20 percent of U.S. students in grades 9–12 have experienced bullying.3

9 percent of students in grades 6–12 experienced cyberbullying.1

15 percent of high school students (grades 9–12) were electronically bullied in the 

past year.4

55.2 percent of LGBT students experienced cyberbullying.5

30 percent of young people admit to bullying others in surveys.2

70.6 percent of young people say they have seen bullying in their schools.2

62 percent witnessed bullying two or more times in the last month and 41 percent 

witness bullying once a week or more.2

THE TYLER CLEMENTI FOUNDATION

As an organization, The Tyler Clementi Foundation has initiated several awareness programs based on Tyler’s story as well as partnerships to provide anti-bullying research, information and tools for youth, parents and youth serving professionals. 

DAY ONE CAMPAIGN

Our Day One Campaign is a simple, innovative, research-based and effective 

intervention designed to prevent bullying before it happens. Day One Campaign creates a safe inclusive atmosphere within a community where everyone is embraced 

not despite their differences but because of their differences. One of the pieces of 

knowledge I learned, is that bullying is a power imbalance or struggle. People are 

usually targeted because they are different. The difference can be real or perceived 

or even at times fabricated. We must change our culture to embrace our differences 

and not use them to humiliate someone else. I believe a diverse group of people will 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

50 

make a community successful and thrive. The truth is we need many different interests, gifts and talents to have a truly great country, one that will lead in areas of 

technology, business, education and health care. We do not need to like or agree 

with everyone but we must be respectful and treat everyone with the dignity they 

deserve. 

Our Day 1 Campaign is simple, just visit our website and download the script 

which states specifically what behaviors, words and actions are acceptable and what 

are not. Have a leader read the script to the group and get an acknowledgement 

back from the group that they understand. By verbally calling out and naming specific words and actions that are not acceptable within a certain group, the leader 

sets the tone and the group understands that this community will be a safe supportive space for everyone. 

UPSTANDER PLEDGE

The next step would be to allow individuals in the group or community to pledge 

to be an Upstander. An Upstander is someone who stands up and speaks out when 

they see someone being humiliated, harassed or bullied. Another piece of information that I learned is that in 80 percent of all bullying situations there are 3 components, the bully, the target, and the bystanders. This was true in Tyler’s situation, 

there were many witnesses called up during the trial and I couldn’t help but think, 

if just one of those people had reached out to Tyler or had reported what was happening, there might have been a very different ending to Tyler’s story. 

The good news is, this knowledge creates a great opportunity to enable us to 

change the power dynamics in future bullying situations, as we turn the bystanders 

into Upstanders. There are several ways someone can become an Upstander, and 

of course we never ever want anyone to put themselves in harm’s way. If the bystander knows the people involved or they feel safe, they can simply speak up at 

the time of the incident. Letting the aggressor know that those words, actions or 

pictures are hurtful and offensive and that they will not be tolerated in this place 

or space. Sometimes just calling it out can change the tone and atmosphere and is 

all that is needed. But if that doesn’t have impact or if you are not safe speaking 

up then it is essential to tell a trusted adult and/or a person in authority. Telling 

is not the same as tattling if the motive is to help and keep someone safe. Most 

importantly is to speak to the target, especially if you know the target. Make sure 

the target is safe, and that they know where to go for help and support, as well 

as letting them know that you are a resource for them if need be. 

STEPS FOR BULLYING PREVENTION

The Tyler Clementi Foundation believes that every classroom and institution of 

higher education can be a safe place to learn and thrive, but in order for that to 

happen, we need to change the culture in many of these institutions. There may 

never be a one-size-fits-all solution to the epidemic of bullying. But the simplest and 

best place to start is to teach and encourage empathy. To encourage people to only 

do and say what they would want done and said to them. Empathy is one of the 

best tools we have to make the world a better place. 

My personal goal is to change hearts and minds to ignite this culture shift to a 

society that is empathetic, respectful, considerate and kind but I also understand 

that sometimes that cannot happen quickly enough without or in isolation of legislation. Legislation is a necessary part of the process to help create that change. Because some people may be blinded or unaware of the harm and pain that is caused 

by their own biases and prejudices, there is a need for laws that can set a minimum 

for acceptable behavior and shine a spot light on those injustices and inequalities 

present on some of our university and college campuses. Federal legislation is urgently needed to help create safe campus climates for all students in higher education across the country. 

Because our higher education system is so highly recognized around the world, 

our colleges and universities attract students from all parts of the world. Students 

who come with many different thoughts and ideas including ethnic and cultural biases. This further supports the idea that we need to have legislation that will provide a safe campus climate for all students, especially the most vulnerable. 

FEDERAL LEGISLATION

My request of you today is simple, I urge you to include The Tyler Clementi 

Higher Education Anti-Harassment Act in the reauthorization of the higher 

education act. The Tyler Clementi Higher Education Anti-Harassment Act would: 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

51 

1. Initiate, expand and/or improve programs that prevent the harassment of students. 

2. Provide counseling to targets and perpetrators. 

3. Educate and train students, faculty and staff about ways to prevent or address 

harassment. 

4. Promote ongoing research as to what is the best methods to combat this epidemic. 

I believe this bill will allow institutions of higher education to take a fresh look 

and reexamine their policies and procedures that are and are not in place. In addition this legislation is your opportunity to not only keep our own young adults safe 

but to also have a global influence. Book knowledge is important but the wisdom 

of empathy and compassion is priceless. 

Bullying does not magically disappear when someone turns 18. We must continue 

to provide safe and supportive learning environments for all students in all learning 

environments including higher education. The time is now, we can’t let Tyler’s story 

continue to repeat itself. Action must be taken now because there have been far too 

many Tyler’s already. Thank you. 

REFERENCES

1. National Center for Education Statistics and Bureau of Justice Statistics, 

School Crime Supplement, 2011. 

2. Bradshaw, C.P., Sawyer, A.L., & O’Brennan, L.M. (2007). Bullying and peer victimization at school: Perceptual differences between students and school staff. 

School Psychology Review, 36(3), 361–382. 

3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance 

System, 2013. 

4. Hawkins, D.L., Pepler, D., and Craig, W.M. (2001). Peer interventions in playground bullying. Social Development , 10, 512–527. 

5. Kosciw, J.G., Greytak, E.A., Bartkiewicz, M.J., Boesen, M.J., & Palmer, N.A. 

(2012). The 2011 National School Climate Survey: The experiences of lesbian, gay, 

bisexual and transgender youth in our Nation’s schools. New York: GLSEN. 

6. Stopbullying.gov. 

Senator MURRAY. Thank you very much, and thank you to all of 

our witnesses today. In the absence of our chairman, Senator Kirk, 

I’m going to ask some questions and we’ll go back and forth. But 

we really appreciate everyone’s participation today. 

Ms. Clementi, I just want to thank you for sharing your personal 

story and for all the work you’re doing to stop bullying on our college campuses, especially as it affects our LGBT youth. As a mother, I can only imagine what you’ve gone through. 

I am very proud to lead the Tyler Clementi Higher Education 

Anti-harassment Act here in the Senate, along with my colleague, 

Senator Baldwin. But I think we should also recognize my colleague, the late Senator Frank Lautenberg, who originally wrote 

this and introduced it, and we appreciate his tremendous lead on 

this. 

What this bill does is it actually requires colleges and universities that receive Federal aid to establish anti-harassment policies 

and specifically recognize the cyber bullying, and creates a grant 

program to prevent bullying and provide counseling to our students. When I first sponsored this bill, I was actually surprised to 

learn that there aren’t universal policies in place in our colleges 

and universities across the country, because no student should ever 

have to face discrimination or harassment when they’re pursuing 

a degree. I just really believe that colleges should be safe places for 

our students to learn, and it should be all of our responsibility to 

create that environment. 

Ms. Clementi, through the Tyler Clementi Foundation, you have 

collaborated with many institutions and organizations that are engaging in this work. I wanted to ask you, in your opinion, what 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

52 

would be the single most impactful thing the Federal Government 

could do to stop bullying on our campuses? 

Ms. CLEMENTI. I’m not sure that there would be one single answer, because I’m not sure that one issue relates to everyone. But 

I certainly think that the legislation that is put before—that you’ve 

spoken about addresses many different issues. I think it talks 

about prevention, which is key, but also in the event that bullying 

does happen, we want to have programs in place, and I think it’s 

essential that we have policies in place at colleges and universities. 

Many colleges and universities do not have any policies, or they 

haven’t been even updated to fully use the proper research that is 

out there currently. I think this bill would give colleges a reason 

to reevaluate their programs and policies and reinstitute and, hopefully, come up with some new ideas that will address the issues. 

Senator MURRAY. Thank you, and thank you for your tremendous 

advocacy on this. 

Research on the causes of bullying and hazing and sexual harassment and sexual assault and intimate partner violence indicates 

that bystanders are a key piece of prevention work. And as I mentioned when I began—Stanford University and what happened 

there—it really became clear to many of us how important it is to 

train students on intervening as bystanders. If not for those two 

Stanford graduate students who were strangers to the victim but 

were willing to intervene and help, the situation could have been 

a lot worse. 

I think it’s really essential that the Federal Government and 

schools invest in violence prevention programs that help to build 

self-awareness and responsibility and confidence. I want to start 

with Dr. Huskey and Dr. Allan. What are some of the promising 

programs and activities and practices that work to prevent violence 

on our campuses and really change campus culture? 

Dr. Huskey or Dr. Allan, whichever one. 

Ms. ALLAN. OK. I’ll jump in here. Promising programs and practices that work to prevent violence and change campus culture— 

I think we know from prevention science that it’s important to 

have a prevention framework. 

It’s very important to assess the climate, gather data, have datadriven approaches, and to evaluate what you’re doing; to have staff 

who are dedicated or designated to do the work so it’s not all on 

one person’s shoulders or on no one’s shoulders; to have a coalitionbased approach, an approach that is considered comprehensive, and 

what we mean by that and what the literature means is that it’s 

not just one training or one type of workshop or a speaker coming 

in to campus or a 1-week awareness week. It needs to be something 

where there’s high dosage. 

It’s a comprehensive, multi-pronged approach that is looking at 

the problem, the contributing factors, and the protective factors at 

multiple levels. What’s contributing to hazing or bullying, sexual 

violence, and other issues at the individual level, at the group level, 

at the institutional level? You’re looking at policies, you’re looking 

at individual behaviors, and then also you’re looking at the community level as well. The social, ecological approach is critical, we 

know from the research. 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

53 

We also know that a social norms approach as well as bystander 

intervention both have some evidence base to back them up in 

terms of effectiveness, and a social norms approach works to emphasize rates of positive behaviors that we want to emphasize, 

positive attitudes and behaviors. We also know bystander intervention—the Know Your Power Program has built a strong evidence 

based platform for that bystander intervention program, and there 

are other programs as well. 

Of course, training, engagement of students in the planning and 

design of these efforts, and outreach to the broader community, so 

in the case—I think in all these cases, it’s really important to not 

only focus on the immediate campus community and the students, 

but include all the constituencies on campus and other stakeholders as well, including family, parents, caregivers, alumni, and 

the local community who may come into contact or see warning 

signs of these kinds of behaviors. And if they know what they’re 

looking for and they know where to report it, they can be very helpful in terms of bystander intervention. 

Senator MURRAY. Dr. Huskey. 

Ms. HUSKEY. There are a couple of pretty robustly researched 

programs. Green Dot and Know Your Power are two of those. Both 

of those really work at the cultural level by norming intervention 

and pro-social behavior but also by giving students very concrete 

skills and the opportunity to practice those skills. What we know 

is that students often don’t have many opportunities. Some folks 

are naturally gifted in intervention and being an upstander. Others 

are not and really benefit from the opportunity to practice some 

basic skills. 

So we require our new students to attend bystander intervention 

training as early as possible in their first semester, and then we 

reinforce that in a variety of environments so that students have 

many opportunities to practice. We’ve been very fortunate that our 

student government has embraced this effort and as student leaders has really been engaged in promoting and extending our work 

around intervention. 

We also know that students would benefit from early and frequent conflict resolution training. As I think we’ve all agreed, most 

of this work needs to start in elementary school. By the time we 

have an 18-year-old student who is facing a major developmental 

event in coming to college, the ability to generate new behavior is 

limited just by the incredible cognitive capacity that’s taken up by 

being at college. 

If we could introduce more broad-based conflict resolution training early to teach students to deescalate, to intervene, to think 

about ways of moving away from violence and toward creative 

problem solving, we know that that would be very helpful. We do 

our best to provide that in the college experience, and I think we 

do a good job. But we could certainly—it would be so helpful to be 

able to build on a strong base of bi-standard training and conflict 

resolution training that happened early and that we could reinforce. 

Senator MURRAY. Very good. 

Senator Casey. 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

54 

Senator CASEY. I want to thank Senator Murray for her leadership today for this roundtable, but also for her work on these issues 

for a long, long time, and we’re grateful for that leadership. It’s 

probably needed now more than ever, and we’re grateful for that. 

I want to make a preliminary comment and then direct maybe 

one basic question to both Dr. Huskey and to Mr. Storch. I guess 

the first comment is when you consider this problem of sexual assault and sexual violence on campus in addition to the related 

problem of bullying, which seems to occur at all ages in a lot of different circumstances, but especially when children are very young 

where it can be particularly destructive, I guess in both cases, the 

tolerance of that activity is the ultimate betrayal. 

We told children to study hard, go to school, and you’ll succeed. 

Well, they study hard and they go to school and they get bullied 

over and over and over again. A lot of adults don’t do a damned 

thing about it. We tell young women to study hard so you can go 

to college, and you’ll be on a college campus and you’ll learn a lot. 

Your life will be improved if you get that college education. And 

then, once again, people in authority, from politicians to leaders of 

all kinds and some of them on campuses, don’t do very much. 

Then you have the horrific circumstances where someone who 

happens to be gay or lesbian or has a disability becomes the subject 

of bullying to the extent where they feel that the only way for them 

to deal with it is to take their own life. I want to thank Ms. 

Clementi for being here. We can’t even imagine what you’ve been 

through, but your presence here gives us hope that we can find 

some answers that will lead us in the right direction. 

But it is a betrayal, and for too long, we’ve, I think, as a society 

have kind of shrugged our shoulders. Politicians need to do more. 

Campus or university leaders need to do more. Employers need to 

do more, and certainly parents need to do more. I think we have 

to push hard enough to where people get a little bit uncomfortable 

with some of the things we’re proposing, because if people aren’t 

uncomfortable, not much is going to happen. 

I’ve had the chance to work on two parts of this, one to lead the 

effort to have enacted into law the Campus Save Act, which did a 

whole host of things, but it’s only been in practice for a year. We 

had to, first of all, get it done as part of the reauthorization of the 

Violence Against Women Act, and then get the regulatory process 

done, and then in September 2015, or, I should say, technically, 

July 2015, it went into effect. So I want to ask about what the experience is by universities. 

I want to thank Senator Murray for her leadership on the Tyler 

Clementi Higher Education Anti-harassment Act. I’m a co-sponsor 

of that, and I’m also leading the effort on the Safe Schools Improvement Act, which means that local school districts have to do more 

when it comes to bullying. 

But I guess one question only, because we don’t have time, for— 

Dr. Huskey, I’ll start with you. In terms of Campus Save, it’s been 

a reality now for just a year. What steps has your institution taken 

to implement the Campus Save Act? 

Ms. HUSKEY. Thanks very much for the question. Because we 

have been fortunate enough to receive the Department of Justice 

grant, we were actually in compliance with almost all elements of 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

55 

the Campus Save Act before it was enacted, so we had the opportunity to extend our work. We were fortunate enough to receive an 

extension of that grant. So we have been able to really strengthen 

our Campus Community Relations Team, to provide more education, and to do that work that allowed us to be in compliance. 

Senator CASEY. That’s great. I should have mentioned some of 

the elements. We are trying to do a number of things. Increasing 

transparency is one; promoting bystander responsibility which was 

talked about today; making sure that victims get the help that they 

need, that schools have to have in place procedures and policies to 

help victims; clear procedures for institutional disciplinary proceedings; and assistance to institutions to implement the requirements. 

Mr. Storch, maybe you can give your perspective from a major 

institution like yours. 

Mr. STORCH. Thank you, Senator. As I said in my testimony, we 

dove into the changes in the Campus Save Act, the VAWA amendments to Clery, head first. The Department of Education issued its 

proposed regulations on June 19th of 2014. On June 26th, we held 

the first of two trainings for all of our campuses. We had over 250 

people between the two trainings. 

I had seven of my colleagues, a total of eight attorneys, and we 

had two very good interns. We wrote a 93-page guidance on how 

to comply with all aspects, from exactly what you have to do to report on what the State laws are in the annual security report, to 

policies on bystander intervention, to polices on confidentiality. We 

took a lot of things that were already working with SUNY and we 

spun them up to things that would work well across the board. 

We wrote 93 pages in a week, written, edited, ready for our 

trainings. Like I said, we had 250 people between those two 

trainings, and we wanted to be sure that even though the laws 

would go into effect in July 2015, by July 2014, all of our SUNY 

campuses would be trained, and we met that goal. So other colleges 

were waking up that this was there, and nothing against them. But 

we were completing our trainings on it, because it is that much of 

a thing that the entire university thinks about, from our chancellor 

to our student affairs practitioners, our title IX practitioners, and 

the like, and we’ve continued to build on that. 

In New York State, we had our SUNY policies—the Governor 

worked extremely well with SUNY, took those SUNY policies and 

proposed them. They passed almost unanimously in both houses, 

and that went way beyond the requirements of VAWA, explaining 

confidentiality, an affirmative consent definition that is really a 

model definition, amnesty when bystanders or victims come and report, and a number of really important training things, because, as 

we said, we encourage you to double down on prevention. 

Everybody up here, you’ve heard about it. SUNY doesn’t want to 

be the leader in responding to bullying, hazing, and violence. We 

want to have fewer incidents to respond to, and I know all my colleagues up here share that. We really liked what the Congress did 

with VAWA, and we hope that you continue down that path. 

Senator CASEY. Great. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. 

Senator MURRAY. Senator Baldwin. 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

56 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR BALDWIN

Senator BALDWIN. Thank you very much, Senator Murray, for 

convening this roundtable. This is very, very helpful to all of us, 

and I appreciate the presence of all of our witnesses here. 

I wanted to start with you, Ms. Clementi, and start by also sharing my gratitude to you and your family, all of your family, for, as 

you said, helping others learn through your family’s pain, but, really, taking serious action so that the tragedy that you experienced 

doesn’t happen to other families. I very much appreciate that. I 

know I’m not alone in being inspired by your strength and your 

family’s strength. 

You said in your testimony that through your efforts on this bill 

that you’ve learned that Tyler’s experience was far from an isolated 

one. And, in fact, you cited some research, I believe, that counts 

over 3 million instances of cyber bullying, I think you said. But it 

strikes me that this is probably an area that’s under-researched, 

that we don’t have as much information about the prevalence of 

bullying in higher education and, particularly, that directed at 

LGBT students. 

However, I imagine from your own experience that you’ve heard 

a lot anecdotally, and you’ve begun to understand how widespread 

this is. I wonder if you could speak to that. 

Ms. CLEMENTI. Sure. Thank you. Yes, I have definitely heard— 

everywhere that I go to speak, people come up to me from all ages. 

Whether it’s in a workplace that we’ve spoken or in high schools 

or colleges, people seem to like to share what it is that attracts 

them to Tyler’s story and what their own experiences are. I do 

think that it is definitely an under-researched area. 

I know as a foundation, we are working with Rutgers University, 

as we have a Tyler Clementi Center at Rutgers University, and we 

are working also on research in that area. We are also doing polling in that area, because it’s important to not only know that it exists, but also what will work best, like what do you want to hear? 

Do they want to hear me share Tyler’s story, or do they want to 

hear Beyonce ́ say, ‘‘girls don’t put other girls down’’ or—what are 

the words that work? Because we want it to work. We want something that will work. 

It might not be the same for everyone. There might be different 

messages for different people. Some people don’t even want to call 

it bullying in the higher education area, but it is. It’s harassing. 

It’s ongoing actions that are hurtful to another person. Some inner 

city youth may not consider it bullying, either. They may just call 

it a rite of passage or hazing. But whatever it’s called, it’s behavior 

that’s unwanted, and we need to change it, and we need to address 

it. 

We definitely need more research, more polling, and to survey 

the area. That’s one of the activities that I think our new executive 

director at the Tyler Clementi Center at Rutgers—it plans to survey colleges and find what’s being done for LGBT students, specifically, in the college area, what is working and what is not working, 

and which schools have programs in place. 

Senator BALDWIN. Thank you. With regard to where you left it, 

which schools have programs in place and policies, we have two 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

57 

witnesses here whose universities have taken a number of steps to 

address bullying, hazing, and other threats to campus safety. I’d 

like to ask this of Dr. Huskey and Mr. Storch. 

Can you each talk briefly about how your universities are specifically addressing bullying targeted at LGBT students and why it’s 

important for your schools to have affirmative policies addressing 

bullying, and what the positive impacts of those policies have been 

so far on the learning environment? 

I’ll start with you, Dr. Huskey. 

Ms. HUSKEY. I’d be glad to start. Thank you. This is a matter 

that is very dear to my heart, as a lesbian, as a parent. 

I really honor your capacity to be here and to talk about this 

tragedy. It’s astonishing to me, and I have so much respect for 

what you’re doing. 

Washington State University has been a leader in LGBT services. We were the first university in the State to have a professionally staffed center. I was the inaugural director of the center, 

as a matter of fact, and from the very beginning of that time, we 

have had inclusive policies which acknowledged the value of LGBT 

students and their full inclusion in our institution. So we do not 

have policies which specifically prohibit LGBT harassment, because 

the inclusion of LGBT students in every element of our policy and 

practice has been established for 20 years. 

We’ve seen changes over time. Certainly, issues around Trans 

students are much more prevalent now than they were when I first 

came to the institution, and we are very attentive to the changing 

student populations and the changing needs. 

But we do know the work of the Safe Schools Coalition in Washington for years documented that LGBT students are at higher risk 

for all forms of harassment from unkind words to physical assault, 

and we need to be very aware that we have a special responsibility—because we know those students are more at risk—to outreach to them and to ensure that everyone on our campuses understands that we value and include all of our students because of who 

they are, not in spite of, but because of who they are. 

Mr. STORCH. Thank you, Senator. Like Washington State, this is 

something that we think about a lot at the State University of New 

York. SUNY is, beginning this past year, conducting a survey of all 

incoming students with questions about, among many other things, 

sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, with a number 

of different choices and the option to fill in additional choices. Because we need to know more in order—we need more data in order 

to be able to most appropriately respond. 

We have done a number of trainings. When the Office of Civil 

Rights issued its recent letter on transgender students, we read 

that in the counsel’s office and said, ‘‘Yes, I mean, we’ve been there 

for a long time.’’ And if you read some of their past resolution 

agreements, we weren’t surprised by anything that we saw in 

there. In general, specific to our transgender student population, 

we have taken an approach where we try to make those students 

comfortable. We know that for our transgender students, they have 

been hassled at every point in their life, in elementary school, in 

high school, their homes, their churches, everywhere they’ve gone. 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

58 

When I work with my campus clients and we have a request 

from a transgender student who wants something different, something to change to make them more comfortable, we take a look 

and we say, ‘‘Is this something that—yes, we’ve been doing it this 

way for a long time, but is it something that we really need to do 

this way? You know, the full name on the class roster—do we really need it that way? Can we just use a preferred name? Yes, let’s 

just use a preferred name.’’ That is how our SUNY clients look at 

it, in a really student-centered way, and I’m very proud of them for 

that. 

A slight shift on your question, but I think it gets to the same 

concept. When SUNY’s chancellor put together a working group in 

2014 to look at issues of sexual and interpersonal violence, I was 

one of the co-coordinators, and I was working with the committee 

that was writing our affirmative consent definition. We had a 

bunch of outside experts in our committee. 

We had one expert who is one of the co-founders of Equal Justice 

New York, a woman named Libby Post, and she said, ‘‘You know, 

in your affirmative consent definition, you should say affirmatively, 

as it were, that this applies regardless of sexual orientation, gender 

identity or expression, because a lot of students don’t think that it 

applies to them.’’ And I said, ‘‘OK. Well, what should the sentence 

say?’’ She said, ‘‘This definition applies regardless of sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression.’’ 

We typed it in. It was in there. Passed all the way through the 

SUNY policies. Passed all the way into the legislation, went into 

the legislation. There were a lot of changes to a lot of points in the 

legislation. Both parties let that go, and when that passed, when 

Governor Cuomo signed that into law in 2015, it was the first time, 

as I’m told by another activist, that any State had passed a law 

saying rights are going to be given equally regardless of gender 

identity or gender expression. 

We didn’t know as we were going through it. It was a no-brainer. 

Libby Post said it and—OK. We put it in. We had no idea how historic it was. But that’s the kind of commitment we have at SUNY. 

We’re not trying to make history. It’s just business as usual to try 

to treat students equally. 

Senator MURRAY. Thank you. 

Senator Warren. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR WARREN

Senator WARREN. Thank you very much. Thank you, Ranking 

Member, and I offer my apologies. We’re trying to cover multiple 

things at the same time, so we’re a little bit come and go here. 

When I was preparing for this roundtable, I was thinking about 

the fact of the Boston Pride Parade, which we love in Boston. And 

for years, when I have gone to the Pride Parade, I don’t march. I 

dance in the Pride Parade. I love it as much as any single thing 

I get to do as a Senator, because Pride shows what this Nation 

looks like when we are at our best, celebrating who we are. 

Last month, I danced in the Pride Parade, and the next day, we 

woke up to find out that a gunman had massacred dozens at an 

LGBT club in Orlando. It reminded us that the struggle for acceptance is far from over. But this is certainly true on college camHELPN-003 with DISTILLER

59 

puses. A Campus Pride survey found that nearly a quarter of lesbian, gay, and bisexual students, staff, faculty, and administrators 

were harassed on college campuses based on their sexual orientation, and over 40 percent of transgender respondents reported fearing for their physical safety. 

Ms. Clementi, I think about the harassment that your son experienced and about others on college campuses who live with bigotry, who live with hatred, who live with injustice, and I refuse to 

believe that we cannot make our campuses safe or more welcoming 

places. You have tried to draw attention to the importance of collecting better data about harassment and bullying of LGBTQ students. Can you just tell this committee a little bit more about why 

you believe that is so important? 

Ms. CLEMENTI. Yes. Thank you, Senator Warren. I think that it’s 

very, very important, because, basically, people in the power struggle and the bullying situation—it’s usually because of someone’s 

difference. And, unfortunately, because of some people’s cultural or 

religious biases that they bring with them to the college campus, 

they like to target LGBT youth, and that’s what I think I have 

found in the work that I’ve done and in the stories that I’ve heard 

from many people who have shared them with me. 

That is why I think we really need to work strongly in this area 

for LGBT youth. We need to collect this data so that we have the 

input, so that we can do the assessment, and then we can implement a plan, and then we can help correct those actions. 

Senator WARREN. I just want to say thank you for throwing your 

heart into this very difficult fight. It is courageous, it is selfless, 

and it presses all of us to do better. I am a huge believer in data, 

that data help us understand what’s happening. If you don’t count 

it, you’re a lot less likely to be able to—— 

Ms. CLEMENTI. And that’s one of the things I mentioned before 

with Senator Baldwin. At Rutgers University, we have a Tyler 

Clementi Center, and we have a new executive director, and that’s 

one of her main goals at this point in time, to survey the 4,000, 

5,000 higher education institutions and find out what services they 

have and who are providing what and what’s working in those 

places. 

Senator WARREN. Senator Baldwin has been a real leader—— 

Ms. CLEMENTI. Yes, I think it was a great point to make. 

Senator WARREN. Good. There’s another issue that I also would 

like to raise today. In recent years, we have seen a wave of State 

legislative proposals that make it easier for college students to 

bring guns to school despite the fact that students, faculty, and 

campus law enforcement officials overwhelmingly say this is a bad 

idea. Of course, the NRA doesn’t care that it is a bad idea. They 

actively boast of their efforts to eliminate some State laws banning 

concealed weapons on college campuses, and they have had some 

successes. Just last year, they released a report, and the title of the 

report is On Campus Carry, We Have Only Begun to Fight. 

Mr. Amweg, you’ve spent 35 years in campus law enforcement. 

In your expert opinion, will allowing more guns on college campuses increase or reduce the risk of violence on campus? 

Mr. AMWEG. Thank you, Senator Warren. I think inasmuch—and 

to highlight what you said—that this is an issue that is taken up 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

60 

State by State, but in some cases, even institution by institution 

within those States. I think most educators would agree that introducing firearms into the teaching and learning environment of a 

higher education institution is counterproductive to the mission of 

the institution. 

For example, in an active shooter situation, introducing more 

firearms into that incident, into that already armed encounter, 

would lead, certainly, to creating a less safe, not a more safe environment for that institution. There have been only a few studies 

that have looked at that as something similar to this, in other 

words, introducing armed citizens into an already armed encounter, and none of those studies have shown that a positive impact 

will come from that kind of a mix. 

Additionally, law enforcement responding to the scene of an active shooter, particularly on a university campus, are now faced 

with a mixed environment. Both the, if you will, good guys and bad 

guys have guns. So while law enforcement officers are certainly 

trained to evaluate those encounters before using or employing 

deadly force, it still takes time to determine if the person that 

they’re encountering is, in fact, a good guy or a bad guy, and that’s 

the time officers could be using to eliminate the threat and save 

lives otherwise. 

Senator WARREN. Thank you, Mr. Amweg. I think that’s a very 

powerfully made point. I appreciate that. 

Dr. Huskey, you’re a current campus administrator. Could you 

weigh in on this, please? 

Ms. HUSKEY. We’re fortunate that Washington currently has 

laws which govern that. Firearms and other dangerous weapons 

are currently prohibited by statute on our campus. It’s not an issue 

that we have had to consider. 

My concern is, consequently, primarily with suicide prevention. 

We know that young people die much too frequently from suicide. 

It’s the second leading cause of death for young people 19 to 25, 

just under accidental death, and firearms are the most lethal 

means available. The use of a firearm is about 85 percent lethal 

for students attempting suicide as opposed to about 5 percent for 

overdose or poison. 

Reducing access to lethal means is an important part of research 

prevention programs around suicide, and we will continue to consider that a very important part of our work. Our goal is always 

to keep students safe, and whatever our legislative and legal environment is, that will be our primary responsibility. 

Senator WARREN. Thank you, Dr. Huskey. I appreciate that. Actually, I’d like to go there. Whatever you think about the NRA’s unsupported claim that somehow more guns is going to reduce campus violence, the suicide aspect of this and how lethal suicide attempts are with guns is something that we’ve got to address, and 

we’ve just got to address it honestly. 

I know, Ms. Clementi, that you have devoted your life to the 

cause of reducing bullying, harassment, and suicide, which, as Dr. 

Huskey noted, is the second leading cause of death among college 

age adults. In your opinion, if we introduced more guns on college 

campuses, what do you think would be the effect on suicides? 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

61 

Ms. CLEMENTI. It definitely would increase the number, especially, of completed suicides. It’s a no-brainer, a common sense 

question. You don’t want to give a youth who is impulsive and 

spontaneous a weapon that’s going to cause so much self-harm or 

even harm to other people. I think you need to eliminate as many 

possible weapons in their arsenal that they can have, and I think 

that would be an easy answer for that. 

Senator WARREN. Thank you very much. I appreciate all of you 

being here for this. The way I see this, it is up to law enforcement, 

teachers, campus officials, parents, kids to demand that politicians 

put the safety of our children above the demands of NRA lobbyists. 

I will keep fighting, too. 

But I want to be clear. Elected officials don’t answer to me. They 

answer to the public, and I very much hope that all of you and everyone else who hears this will be pushing back and pushing our 

Congress to do more about gun safety. Thank you. Thank you for 

being here. 

Senator MURRAY. Thank you very much. I want to thank all of 

our colleagues and our witnesses who joined us here today. This is 

really a good step in laying the groundwork that we need to do to 

make sure that we have strong reauthorizing language in the 

Higher Education Act, and I hope that we can do it in a bipartisan 

way and move it forward. This is obviously a very critical issue, 

and today is just one part of this conversation. I appreciate everyone being here and participating. 

The hearing record is going to remain open for 10 days. Members 

may submit additional information for the record. 

I particularly want to thank all of our roundtable participants 

today for being here and sharing your knowledge, and I appreciate 

you working with us to get this done and get it done right. Thank 

you very much. 

With that, the hearing is closed. Thank you. 

[Additional material follows.] 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

62 

1https://www..ed.gov/admins/lead/safety/handbook.pdf. 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL 

RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS OF SENATOR MURRAY BY JOSEPH STORCH

THE STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK, 

OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL, 

ALBANY, NY 12246, 

August 29, 2016. 

Hon. LAMAR ALEXANDER, Chairman, 

Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee, 

U.S. Senate, 

Washington, DC 20510. 

Hon. PATTY MURRAY, Ranking Member, 

Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee, 

U.S. Senate, 

Washington, DC 20510. 

Re: Campus Safety: Improving Prevention and Response Efforts 

DEAR CHAIRMAN ALEXANDER, RANKING MEMBER MURRAY, AND MEMBERS OF THE

COMMITTEE: On behalf of The State University of New York (SUNY), I am honored 

to provide written responses to the questions asked by Ranking Member Murray. 

Below please find the questions as well as testimonial responses. 

Question 1. What recommendations do you have to address problems related to 

campus safety, such as reducing bullying, harassment, gun violence, and campus 

sexual assault, in the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act? 

Answer 1. The Higher Education Act not only prescribes the law and compliance 

requirements, but also serves as a moral compass to encourage colleges to best serve 

students. As we said during our recent testimony, when Congress reauthorized the 

Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) and amended the Clery Act in 2013, it added 

significant prevention and training requirements. The Clery Act had traditionally 

looked backward (report what happened, respond to what happened). For the first 

time, the VAWA amendments to the Clery Act require a look forward, which adds 

an element of prevention, not just reaction. As Congress considers amendments to 

the Higher Education Act, we urge you to double down on prevention measures, including assisting campuses to provide more focused training and authorizing additional Federal resources for colleges to meet their prevention goals. 

Legislatively, we should not look at bullying, harassment, gun violence, and sexual assault as completely separate issues with distinct solutions, but as a continuum 

of harm conducted by some against others. There are no simple solutions to any of 

these problems, but to make progress in preventing any of them we must work efficiently to address all of them simultaneously. 

Each issue can be addressed, in part, through prevention programming that encourages respect between and among our students and staff. This is much easier 

to say than to do, but addressing the issues together and consistently will allow for 

more progress toward safe campuses than requiring a separate compliance, response, and prevention regime for each issue. 

Building upon my initial written testimony, we would also recommend the following changes to strengthen the Higher Education Act and help make campuses 

safer for students, staff, and members of the community. As Congress adds additional requirements for colleges, it should also consider changes to outmoded requirements whose bureaucratic requirements outweigh any safety gains. 

While some minor changes can ease compliance, below are several major changes 

Congress could enact to make compliance more effectual, permitting institutions to 

save time and devote more attention to prevention education: 

• Clarify Clery geography: The U.S. Education Department (‘‘ED’’) has given 

conflicting guidance regarding how and where to count crimes when students study 

abroad. This has led to confusion and high compliance cost. In its most recent guidance,1 ED writes that if a college rents hotel rooms for one night, those rooms do 

not count for Clery unless two different groups use that same hotel for one different 

night each in 1 year; two nights would count, but only if there are certain agreements in place, and only for the days the college has ‘‘control,’’ and colleges would 

only count crimes in the students’ rooms, hallways, and public areas. A student 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER

63 

killed in a non-student hotel room would not be reportable, a non-student killed in 

the hotel pool would be reportable. A heinous triple homicide occurring 3 days before students arrive would not be reportable, nor would the same crime occurring 

on the sidewalk just outside the hotel. And even if colleges are able to organize and 

count all covered trips taken by study abroad, academic programs, athletics, and 

certain student organizations, ED would have the college combine those statistics 

with certain crimes occurring at certain off-campus student organization houses 

(mostly Greek letter organizations) that have little or nothing to do with these trips. 

This leads to confusion and very costly compliance, while there is no evidence that 

it makes students safer. 

The statistical validity of assessing safety in a town or village in a holistic way 

based on crimes collected through certain limited sources during only 24 or 48 

hours, and only in parts of a single hotel is little better than polling three people 

at a political rally and using that to predict an election. In other words, not a good 

predictor at all. Does the fact that a crime did or did not occur during a day or two 

in a hotel serve as a predictor of whether the same or another crime would occur 

in a different day years later in that same hotel? And what, if anything, does that 

say about the surrounding neighborhood, city, State, or province? The clear answer 

is little or nothing. The United States possesses assets, including reports by the 

State Department and Central Intelligence Agency, that provide a holistic and statistically meaningful assessment of safety in a given area. Congress can require that 

ED work with other agencies to provide information about the given safety of an 

area, without requiring tedious collection of miniscule data points that do not provide statistically sound information about the safety of a location. • Clarify local law enforcement letters for Study Abroad: ED requires that 

colleges write to local law enforcement for every jurisdiction that includes Clery geography. This means that for the hundreds (even thousands) of hotels, classrooms, 

and other sites that must be included in Clery geography under ED’s June 2016 interpretation institutions must write detailed letters to local law enforcement asking 

them to report certain crimes using United States Uniform Crime Reporting definitions, in certain pinpoint locations and only for certain days. Unfortunately, this has 

simply become an exercise in futility, as international police agencies rarely respond 

with useful numbers. ED audits against what letters are sent, and a college could 

run afoul by not having sent a specific letter (even if no answer would ever be received). Institutions are spending significant time and resources developing and 

mailing letters that bear no fruit. Further, sending letters asking about sexual assault and dating violence to certain localities, which do not recognize sexual and 

interpersonal violence as a crime and which may choose to arrest or retaliate 

against reporting victims, puts our students in more danger. To date, ED has declined to allow for an exception where college professionals have a good faith belief 

that such letters will endanger our students. SUNY campuses have been working 

with national and New York State organizations to better prepare students to prevent violence overseas and to address violence in a careful and tailored manner, but 

time spent on technical Clery compliance at sites overseas (for which there is no 

evidence of safety gain) is time not spent on thoughtful, cutting-edge programming 

to prevent and respond to violence overseas. 

• Policy statements: ED insists that the Annual Security Report include full 

policy statements and (with a single exception) does not allow colleges to link to the 

relevant policies. That leads to longer reports that are less likely to be read. Congress could offer flexibility to educate students efficiently, including links to relevant 

documents. 

• Campus Security Authorities and Responsible Employees: ED’s Federal 

Student Aid office has defined ‘‘Campus Security Authority’’ in a manner that differs 

significantly from ED’s Office for Civil Rights definition of ‘‘Responsible Employee.’’ 

Institutions scramble to determine which employees meet the definition of one, the 

other, or both. Further, the language used in both terms is confusing. SUNY has 

suggested combining both concepts into a single new term called ‘‘Mandatory Reporter’’ and defining that term broadly. As a matter of policy and in practice, we 

want more reports of crime to come forward, and Mandatory Reporter is a term that 

has a clear meaning and societal understanding. Except for those with legal privilege or confidentiality restrictions (including medical, mental health, legal, or religious professionals), all compensated employees should be mandatory reporters who 

must, as soon as reasonably practicable, report all crimes covered by the law to the 

appropriate office or offices as determined by the institution. Reporting to the Title 

IX Coordinator would meet this requirement. This will result in more crimes being 

brought forward (and higher but more accurate numbers reported), more consistency 

in reporting, and the ability of institutions to offer a blanket training to employees, 

rather than spending significant time identifying and narrowly training certain emHELPN-003 with DISTILLER

64 

2http://www.suny.edu/violence-response/. 

ployees as Campus Security Authorities, others as Responsible Employees, and still 

others as both. 

• Reduce double counting of crimes: ED has earnestly tried to ensure that 

all crimes are reported and do not fall through the cracks. Over time, it has modified its use of the Uniform Crime Reporting hierarchy rule, such that certain incidents are double or triple counted or more. The undersigned has identified an example of a single incident that would be counted close to three dozen times for Clery 

Act purposes. Over-counting crimes can skew reports, and thus misinforms students, just as much as under-counting crimes. SUNY therefore has suggested that 

crimes be reported once in the most appropriate category, and that colleges retain 

documentation for their decisions. 

• Modernize missing student reporting: ED, while trying in good faith to develop a method to comply with this 2008 addition, created a complex and confusing 

regime for reporting missing on-campus students (the ED 2016 Handbook devotes 

seven pages and more than 2,000 words to complying with its current system). 

SUNY suggests a return to the plain congressional intent. The requirement can simply read, 

‘‘If a student is reported missing for 24 hours, within the next 18 hours, the 

college must contact local law enforcement, the student’s emergency contact, 

and the student’s parents, if under 18.’’ 

This will accomplish the important goals (which we firmly support) without adding 

unhelpful bureaucratic requirements. We would change the second period to 18 

hours to reduce confusion from the current 24 hours/24 hours regime. 

NEW ADDITIONS TO THE CLERY ACT

• Double down on prevention: As stated earlier, SUNY applauds Congress’s 

2013 shift from response only to response and prevention. And at SUNY and in New 

York, we have gone further. While programming is offered to all new and continuing 

students, we require that student leaders and student-athletes complete training. 

This is not because we believe they are more likely to be victims or offenders; rather, it is because we believe they are most likely to be leaders on campus. By training 

student leaders who can model pro-social behavior, we can efficiently educate an entire campus. 

• Transcript notations: New York State law requires uniform transcript notations for students found responsible and suspended or expelled after a student conduct process for conduct code violations that are equivalent to Clery Act Primary 

Crimes. Institutions to which the student transfers are not prohibited from admitting the student, but are on notice of past violations and can request additional documentation under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). While 

New York colleges provide notations for students transferring out, they do not benefit from notations for students transferring in from out of State. A uniform standard will allow colleges to consider admitting students with full knowledge of past 

transgressions. 

• Amnesty: SUNY supports adding a plain-language amnesty from drug or alcohol use charges to encourage reporting and reduce the fear of a victim or bystander 

that they will get in trouble, not the person who committed the violence. SUNY’s 

amnesty policy became law in New York and reads, 

‘‘A bystander acting in good faith or a reporting individual acting in good 

faith that discloses any incident of domestic violence, dating violence, stalking, 

or sexual assault to [College/University] officials or law enforcement will not be 

subject to [College/University’s] code of conduct action for violations of alcohol 

and/or drug use policies occurring at or near the time of the commission of the 

domestic violence, dating violence, stalking, or sexual assault.’’ 

• Mobile Resource: SUNY has launched a mobile website 2 that allows victims 

and survivors to anonymously access confidential and private resources 24/7. The 

SAVR (Sexual Assault and Violence Response) site instantly displays on-campus 

and off-campus resources (these can be sorted by campus, zip code, or map location), 

and with a single additional click, opens Google Maps to find the resource. Where 

appropriate, resources are highlighted as being confidential, open 24 hours per day, 

or legal in nature. SAVR also includes all relevant policy information plus information specific to victims needing medical assistance. SUNY has the only such system 

in the Nation, but has made its data base public for others to create additional reHELPN-003 with DISTILLER

65 

3https://docs.google.com/document/d/1E3ZZqQ03ah3RVlqhrUrdv3TNh5cNSQiq9N8BB 

21Ij-Y/pub. 4Krebs, C.P., Lindquist, C.H., Warner, T.D., Fisher, B.S., & Martin, S.L. (2007). The Campus 

Sexual Assault (CSA) Study. Washington, DC.: National Institute of Justice. 5 J.C. Campbell, D.W. Webster, J. Koziol-McLain, et al. (2003). ‘‘Risk factors for femicide within physically abusive intimate relationships: results from a multi-site case control study,’’ 93 

Amer. J. of Public Health. 

sources and has developed a Toolkit 3 for other colleges and States to develop a similar system at low or no cost. Congress can fund a national system or require that 

States adopt similar systems. 

Question 2. In recent years, from Virginia Tech to Seattle Pacific University in 

my home State of Washington, there have been too many horrific instances of gun 

violence on college campuses. Despite these tragedies, more and more States have 

passed legislation that overrides campus policy that ensures that the campus is a 

gun-free zone. 

Colleges and universities have reported to the committee how they battle the epidemic of sexual assault, stalking, harassment, and domestic violence on a daily 

basis. According to the Department of Justice, 19 percent of college-aged women 

have experienced dating violence.4 In a domestic violence situation, when a gun is 

present, the risk of a homicide for a woman increases by 500 percent.5 Intimate 

partners are in fact more likely to be murdered with a firearm than by all other 

means combined. These realities raise concerns about the implications of overriding 

campus gun-free-zone policies, suggesting that increasing the availability of guns 

makes a campus a less safe place for all students, especially women. 

Mr. Storch, what preventative measures does SUNY take to protect their students 

against on-campus gun violence? 

Answer 2. For almost 50 years, New York State law and regulations have proscribed the possession of weapons on college campuses, except for sworn law enforcement. SUNY enforces these rules at our State-operated and community colleges. 

More than 15 years ago, New York State law converted our campus officers to police 

status. As sworn law enforcement, our University Police officers receive the highest 

level of training equivalent to sister police agencies, plus additional campus-specific 

requirements. SUNY also requires officers to have college or military experience. 

SUNY campuses practice community policing, engaging students and staff constantly through involvement in the community—bike patrols, attendance at residence hall programs, assisting with student events—that help bridge the gap with 

students. In turn, students can discuss a crime or a danger with a police officer they 

know, not one at the other end of a phone line. 

SUNY campuses coordinate the assessment of students and staff that may pose 

a risk via threat assessment or behavioral assessment teams. Information is shared 

in compliance with laws among professionals who are trained to evaluate which factors show a real risk and which constitute normal behavior among college students. 

We believe that the best time to protect students from violence or an active shooter is long before the violence occurs or the active shooter arrives. The University 

expends significant resources training campus professionals and building capacity to 

address students who pose a risk to themselves or others. SUNY regularly crosstrains with local and State law enforcement. We conducted a major conference on 

the topic with the highest-level threat assessment professionals from the FBI and 

U.S. Marshalls. We will continue to train and build capacity in this area. 

While there are no guarantees, SUNY, its campuses, and its sworn law enforcement and student affairs professionals work diligently and, more importantly, work 

together—in a coordinated manner to try to keep our students safe from violence, 

including gun violence. 

Please let me know if I can provide any additional information. 

Sincerely, 

JOSEPH STORCH, Associate Counsel, 

The State University of New York. 

[Whereupon, at 4:19 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

Æ 

HELPN-003 with DISTILLER