COLUMN: A degree of confidentiality

From Shireen Santosham's, "If I Was Your Woman." Fall '97 From Shireen Santosham's, "If I Was Your Woman." Fall '97 Can you imagine walking into DRL and seeing your rapist in one of your classes every single day? Unfortunately, many female college students are put into similar situations in universities across the country. Often times, violators of conduct codes are not sufficiently penalized through universities' disciplinary systems and victims choose not to undergo public scrutiny by pressing charges outside the university. The problem arises from a combination of both university apathy and the unwillingness of many rape and assault victims to come forward. This resolution, if passed, will transform campus judiciary processes all over the United States, including the University of Pennsylvania system. Currently, the University relies on the Office of Student Conduct to investigate allegations concerning the University conduct code. All investigations are highly confidential -- the University does not confirm that any investigations are underway and does not release the names of any persons involves. In addition, "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." (DP 10/29/97). If H.R. 715 becomes law, this process will become more open to public scrutiny and increase the specificity of crimes reported by colleges to the Department of Education. Such a move is intended to make college students more accountable for their actions by releasing their names into public records, rather than being protected by the confidentiality of the university judiciary process. In addition, it is intended to avoid problems of inaccurate crime reporting by universities. However, although H.R. 715 is a positive move toward giving accurate information to students on campus and tightening to rope on student conduct violations, this move does have its drawbacks. The main problem with this bill is the debate over confidentiality. Essentially, rape and assault victims deserve to choose whether or not they want an open hearing. This choice is essential for any student violated; without this choice, students will be even less enthusiastic to come forward. In addition, those students accused of such offenses deserve to have an opportunity to prove their innocence before being convicted in the eyes of the public. Every student -- whether victim or alleged assailant -- deserves to protect their reputation until the proceedings are over. As the legislation stands, the confidentiality of delicate proceedings such as rape and assault is compromised. However, although this bill raises a confidentiality issue, it does address another issue quite well --the issue of university apathy. Universities across the country often do not address the problems of student crime; under this bill, open hearings will dictate that universities are tougher on maintaining conduct standards. Unfortunately, Penn is one a prime example of university apathy. For example, in 1994, the punishment for administered for one student sexual assault/rape offender was probation, deactivation from his frat and writing a paper related to the charge (DP, 10/29/97). This punishment is outrageous. There is no reason why a student, found guilty of rape by the OSC, should be allowed to stay at the University. Although many argue we should not equate the University judiciary system and the criminal justice system, the fact remains that the University has an obligation to its students to maintain conduct standards in order to protect the rest of the student population. Therefore, in this instance, having a more open proceeding would be beneficial to the students. They would demand stricter adherence to conduct standards because they are informed. If the system remains overly confidential, the student body, as a whole, suffers. Although since 1995, three students have been expelled for "assaultive and dangerous behavior" through the OSC system (DP, 10/29/97), as cited by the previous case, this system still has major pitfalls. Therefore, a move to pass a resolution similar to the Accuracy in Crime Reporting Act, is desperately needed to make university judicial processes more open to public scrutiny. This particular resolution, however, needs to be re-examined in order to address the issue of confidentiality. As it stands, this legislation should not be approved by the House of Representatives. We must be careful not to scare away the few victims who have enough courage to come forward, and must protect the reputations of the students involved. Maintaining a degree of confidentiality, however, cannot be used to justify University apathy. An opening of the system will force universities nation-wide to maintain conduct standards; rather than seeking to preserve the image of a squeaky-clean student body.