Rape suit carries far-ranging implications

The suit raised concerns about Penn's crime reporting procedures. A recent lawsuit against the University by a former student who claims to have been raped on campus in November 1994 hinges on legal issues surrounding government investigations into the University's crime reporting practices, as well as the doctrine of in loco parentis. In her complaint, the student alleges that she was raped in High Rise South after returning from Murphy's Tavern, at 44th and Spruce streets. The following evening, the complaint states, the plaintiff contacted Director of Police Operations Maureen Rush, then serving as director of the University Police Victim Support and Special Services division. After Rush took an anonymous report from the student, the University did not report the incident to federal and state authorities as required under law or pursue any action against the alleged rapist, the complaint alleges. The U.S. Department of Education and the Pennsylvania Attorney General's Office have been investigating the University's crime reporting practices recently after hearing charges that Penn has consistently under-reported its crime statistics by defining "on-campus" crime too narrowly. But government officials refused to comment on the investigations upon learning of the lawsuit. "There's not a lot of stuff I can tell you at this point," Department of Education spokesperson Stephanie Babyak said, noting that the department will make a formal announcement after completing its investigation into the University's campus crime reporting procedures. Babyak stressed that the department takes the University's alleged violations of the 1990 federal Student Right-to-Know and Campus Security Act -- which she confirmed that the department has been examining -- "very seriously." Pennsylvania Attorney General's Office spokesperson Sean Duffy, however, emphasized that the results of the lawsuit are unlikely to affect the state's investigation, comparing the situation to "two trains running on parallel tracks [that] don't necessarily intersect." The lawsuit also raises questions over the legal doctrine of in loco parentis. Although Jack Feinberg, the plaintiff's attorney, maintains that neither the plaintiff nor the alleged rapist was inebriated at the time of the incident, the lawsuit charges the University with gross negligence in failing to take action against underage drinking at Murph's -- where the plaintiff and alleged rapist met, according to the complaint. Feinberg claims that the doctrine of in loco parentis -- which means that the University takes the legal place of a parent -- is still relevant today and that the University should have taken steps against Murph's. And the suit charges the University with "failing to supervise the living quarters of students on the campus so as to avoid unwed males and females from being in the same dormitory room without supervision." But although Feinberg added yesterday that the concept of in loco parentis "has not been diminished" over the past several decades, Penn Associate General Counsel Brenda Fraser maintained that in loco parentis has been "dead" for "many, many years." There is some consensus among higher education officials that universities ceased to act in loco parentis after the 1960s student movements overturned strict regulations on many campuses. "It doesn't have any vitality," Fraser said, adding that the plaintiff's theory "has no legal viability."

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.