Blind Justice?

Many victim-rights advoocates support a federal law which would make internal university judicial proceedings less confidential. So why are top Penn officials lobbying against it? Ben Clery founded the nonprofit Security on Campus, Inc., after his 19-year-old sister was brutally raped and murdered by another student in her college dormitory room. Michele Goldfarb served as a prosecutor in the U.S. Attorney's office before becoming the director of the University's Office of Student Conduct, two roles which she said "could not be more different." Clery and Goldfarb are united in their commitment to making campuses safer -- but little else. The two represent opposing camps in what is rapidly becoming a major question for campuses across the nation: How confidential should a university's internal judiciary process be to ensure that the public receives accurate information and justice is served? The Law and the University According to the University's 1 1/2-year-old judicial charter, OSC investigations are initiated either at the request of student-complainants or after a referral from the Division of Public Safety. After interviewing students and other involved parties, the OSC chooses whether to charge a student with a violation of the University's conduct code. If charges are filed, the OSC tries to settle the matter through a voluntary agreement with the student or, if the student and the office cannot come to an agreement, by a hearing judged by a panel of students and faculty members. The OSC does not release the names of students responsible for violating the University's codes, and it does not acknowledge that specific investigations are underway. Such a high level of confidentiality is allowed by a federal law commonly referred to as the "Buckley Amendment," which seals disciplinary records involving criminal allegations. But all of this could change if House Resolution 715 -- the so-called Accuracy in Campus Crime Reporting Act of 1997 -- becomes law. By making hearings and judicial investigation records open to the public, the bill would lead to greater scrutiny of both the judicial process and the individuals involved. The bill would also alter the regulations that govern what crimes colleges need to report to the Department of Education. Clery and other advocates of H.R. 715 claim the changes in internal judicial policies would finally make college students as accountable for their actions as anyone else in society. In fact, the bill is largely a result of the efforts of people -- like the Clery family -- who have personally felt the effects of campus crime. The Clerys formed Security on Campus in 1987 after Jeanne Clery, a student at Lehigh University, was raped and murdered by another student who had illegally entered her dorm. According to Ben Clery -- president of the independent, nonprofit organization -- Lehigh was well aware of the building's lax security, but had chosen to do nothing about it. "My sister is dead and in her grave in part because the school never instituted a sound access policy even though they knew the problem existed," he said. But Goldfarb and other critics of H.R. 715 say the results of the proposed law would "have a severe chilling effect" for college disciplinary systems across the country, and would not make campuses safer. Although the University does not have an official position on the bill, Goldfarb and Vice President for Government, Community and Public Affairs Carol Scheman recently traveled to Washington, D.C., to talk to congressional staffers about possible repercussions of the law. "I think there's some misunderstandings of what campus judicial proceedings are about," Scheman said. "Some people in fact think they are supposed to take the place of other proceedings." The Judicial Process Clery insists that he does not misunderstand the campus judicial process. He believes, in fact, that the system is being abused by administrators who "would love nothing better than for the rape victim, the burglary victim, the aggravated assault victim to shake hands with their assailants and to part amicably." And although Goldfarb maintains that the University's judiciary system is part of the educational process because it deals specifically with students' relationships to the University, Clery said such an assertion was "nothing but a ruse." Additionally, the proposed law "analogizes our system to a criminal system, and it is not analogous," Goldfarb said, as the purpose of the system is to determine what effects a students' alleged actions should have on his or her status within the University. But Clery said the system discourages students from pursuing criminal complaints against other students and offers administrators "far too much discretion" in issuing sanctions -- letting students receive less punishment than they would elsewhere. "When you're dealing with a felony crime on campus -- that means dorm burglary, rape, gang rapes? drug dealing in the dorms -- let me ask you a question: Why do you think college students should be a privileged segment of society?" he said. Goldfarb insisted that the OSC often handles cases considered too minor to be picked up by the criminal justice system, meaning that it punishes students who would not even face criminal charges. "Most of the matters that come to our attention and are addressed by the system would not be handled elsewhere, and I think I can fairly say that as a former prosecutor," Goldfarb added. "In many incidents, we're the only recourse." Since 1995, at least three students have been expelled for "assaultive or dangerous behavior," and those three cases also went through the criminal justice system, she said. Additionally, Goldfarb has changed the categories the OSC uses to statistically report charges against students to "get away from analogous categories to criminal codes, because I think that paints a picture that is an inappropriate picture." And while agreeing a new law is needed to ensure that more specific information is released to the public, Goldfarb said the law should stop short of releasing students' names. Clery's second contention -- that University officials discourage students from following through with their claims in the criminal justice system -- is also hotly contested. "We do not discourage victims from going the criminal route," Goldfarb said. "In fact, just the opposite. But I think they ought to have the choice." She cited the case of a young woman who recently came to her office with an assault case she refuses to call the police about in order to avoid a public investigation. "If it doesn't get addressed by us, it will go unaddressed in many instances, and that will make the campus less safe," Goldfarb said. But Clery stressed the benefits of an open process. "If I've been a victim of aggravated assault, I take a bit of comfort in knowing it's going to be open because I know I'm not going to be railroaded," he explained. And he disputed the claim that many students would not come forward if the process was open. "It's part of maturity," he said. "It's part of growing up and becoming a member of society." The differences in opinion between Goldfarb and Clery are not about the value of informing students of crime, as both agree that it is absolutely necessary. Instead, the two are at odds over how far the University should go in identifying specific incidents. "We've learned of too many situations where they're downgrading the crime -- 'It wasn't a rape, it was a verbal abuse'," he said. "What bullshit!" For example, Clery said students need to be told on a regular basis exactly where incidents like rape and assault occurred so the students can choose not to go there. Available information would also include the name of the assailant if found responsible for the incident. "This is a crime," Clery stressed. "We need to ask ourselves, 'Do we really want to give students a privileged status in society as far as crimes are concerned'?" But according to Goldfarb, the same goals could be achieved without releasing "identifiable information." In the Trenches A number of schools throughout the country are currently experimenting with the idea of open judiciary hearings. The University of Georgia has been one of these schools since 1993, when the university's independent student newspaper won a legal battle over the issue in state court. But Peter Brown, director of the school's Office of Judicial Programs, said the policy does not increase safety. "I think it's had a chilling effect on witnesses wanting to come forward to testify and in major cases, more time and energy is spent trying to deal with the media atmosphere that almost becomes circus-like," he said. "I've had students come to me and say, 'I'm not going through this if everybody in the world is going to know about this'." At Florida State University, by contrast, open hearings are the exception, not the norm. The university's policy, which is similar to Penn's, states that the judicial process will only be open if the charged student requests it, while sexual conduct cases -- such as an open one currently in progress -- require the accuser's consent as well. And even when the hearing itself is open, the panel's decision is only told to the students involved in the case. Doug Pearson, director of FSU's Office of Student Rights and Responsibilities, said he thinks opening the cases would make victims less likely to come forward. But he emphasized that he has nothing to "back that up with other than anecdotal evidence." "That's the million-dollar question," he said.