Campus Security Act of 1990 Clery Act

Clery Act

The Freedom Information Act of 2002 reported 2,351 occurrences of forcible sex offenses on campus and 1,670 in residence halls; 2,953 aggravated assaults on campus; 2,147 robberies on campus and 29,256 burglaries also on campus; and 1,098 arsons on campus in that year alone. This was the summary of campus crime statistics released by the U.S. Department of Education (Security on Campus 2004).

This document and national studies reveal the prevalence of sexual assault on both male and female college and university students. In a number of these recent surveys conducted in approximately 6,000 schools, one of four female students admitted to having been subjected to forced sexual contact or forced sexual intercourse and that 90% of them knew their offenders. At the time of assault, 75% of these male students and 55% of the female were either drunk or under the influence of drugs (Security on Campus).

The awareness of campus safety was raised by the murder of Jeanne Clery at her dormitory at the Lehigh University on April 5, 1986. Jeanne was first tortured, raped and then sodomized before she was killed by a stranger who was then under the influence of drugs. The attacker entered through three opened doors, which should have been locked.

He was eventually convicted and sentenced to death (Clery 2001).

Jeanne's parents, Connie and Howard, learned that campus crimes were "the best well-kept secrets in the country" before 1988, with only four per cent of all colleges reporting crime statistics to the FBI, to parents or anyone else. They noted with horror that in 1987 alone, there were no less than 31 murders, more than 1,500 armed robberies and 13,000 physical assaults on college campuses in the country. The House of Representatives also recently conducted a survey with the findings that 38% of their female subjects were either raped or victims of felony sexual assaults.

Jeanne's parents also bewailed the callous cover-up of the Lehigh University officials who first publicly passed off Jeanne's murder as a mere "aberration," in an attempt at salvaging the school's image. The school's spokesman disowned any negligence on its part and claimed that its safety policies were complete, despite school officials' knowledge of the occurrence of violent crimes and 181 reports of opened doors in its dormitory four months before her murder (Clery).

With the lifting of public consciousness in the indictment of Jeanne's murderer, the U.S. Congress codified the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act (or Clery Act) as part of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (Security on Campus 2004). It is a federal law that requires colleges and universities to promptly report or reveal information about campus crime and security policies. These schools include participants in federal student aid programs. The implementing agency is the U.S. Department of Education that fines violators up to $27,500. Congress enacted the Clery Act and signed into law by President George Bush in 1990 as the Crime Awareness and Campus Security Act of 1990. The law was championed by the Clerys who also founded the non-profit Security on Campus, Inc. In 1987.

The Clery Act requires schools to publish an annual report every October 1 on campus crime statistics and security policy statements, including and especially sexual assault policies that guarantee the victims' basic rights, the law enforcement authority of campus police and where victims can report crime (Clery). The U.S. Department of Education and all current students and employees should receive copies of the report.

This document specifies where these statistics should be published and from what sources they should be gathered. They must come from campus police or security, local law enforcement agencies, and school officials responsible for the safety and security of students. These statistics must be disseminated throughout the campus, un-obstructed public places immediately adjacent to, or running through, the campus, and non-campus facilities, including Greek housing and remote classrooms (Clery). Incidence and actual figures must be reported on criminal homicide, whether murder and non-negligent as well as negligent manslaughter; sex offenses, whether forcible or non-forcible sex offenses; robbery; aggravated assault; burglary; motor vehicle theft; and arson.

This federal law also obliges schools to report and publish violations to the Liquor Law, Drug Law and Illegal Weapon Possession Law, if these violations result in an arrest of disciplinary referral. Statistics must also be clearly broken down into "on campus," "residential facilities for students on campus," "non-campus buildings" and "on public property" like streets and sidewalks (Clery). In addition, schools must provide all students with easy access to timely warning information and an extensive public crime log. This timely warning information scheme is a collection of subjective data the school must issue when it feels or suspects the presence of an "ongoing condition or threat to students and employees." The information includes sources beyond the crime log - campus police or security, other campus officials, and off-campus law enforcements - but is limited to crimes listed in the annual report.

The United States Congress enacted the Campus Sexual Assault Victims' Bill of Rights (1992), as part of the Higher Education Amendments, and was signed into law by President George Bush in July that same year. It was first introduced in May 1991 as a legislation by Congressman Jim Ramstad of Minnesota, which required all public and private colleges and universities participating in the federal student aid programs to award basic rights to sexual assault victims and inform them of the option to report the assault to proper law enforcement authorities. School violators can be fined up to $25,000 or divested of their participation in the federal student aid programs. Complaints on the failure of a particular school to abide by the law would be filed with the U.S. Department of Education.

The Campus Sexual Assault Victims' Bill of Rights was incorporated into the campus security reporting requirements of the federal law establishing and covering all student aid programs (U.S. Congress). It was first conceived by the late Frank Carrington, then legal counsel to Security On Campus, Inc. In order to tackle victimization and contain re-victimization of rape survivors at college campuses. Carrington bewailed that many public-image-conscious schools were more inclined towards protecting that image than helping victims and seeing that justice is done. Close to 200 members of the House of Representatives, led by Rep. Susan Molinari of New York and student and victims' rights groups supported the legislation (U.S. Congress).

This Bill of Rights (1992) mandates each institution of higher education to develop and distribute a statement of policy on campus sexual assault programs on the prevention of sex offenses and the promotion of awareness of rape, acquaintance rape and other sex offenses through education programs, through sanctions of these offenses, and the procedures to follow in reporting an incidence and in trying cases for disciplinary action.

The Bill provides equal rights between the accuser and the accused. Both will be duly informed about the action, accorded the opportunity to have others present and notified about the outcome of the action. It also informs students about their right or option to report the incident to the proper authorities, move to another school, secure counseling services or change living conditions when this change is available and affordable. The implementing regulations of the Bill require an annual security report with a description of the school's safety education program on the offices, the said policy, pertinent procedures, students' and employees' options and the mentioned sanctions to these offenses.

Jeanne's parents sued Lehigh University for its negligent failure of providing security and for its failure to warn students of foreseeable dangers on campus. In winning the case, Connie and Howard Clery became aware that the law did not tolerate willful indifference to the personal safety of college students (Clery). In 1988, Lehigh settled with the Clerys and agreed to enhance its security on campus. The Clerys then founded the first non-profit organization dedicated to preventing criminal violence in campuses and helping campus victims nationwide. A memorial plaque was placed outside Jeanne's Stoughton Hall dormitory.

For its first major activity, the Security On Campus, Inc. (Security On Campus) enacted laws to require colleges and universities nationwide to widely disseminate complete and updated information on certain crimes and security policies and procedures to their students - current and prospective - and employees. The couple and their supporters expressed satisfaction and appreciation towards the consequent enactment and signing of the Crime Awareness and Campus Security Act of 1990, now called the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act. The Act mandates all schools that receive federal funds to make and disseminate the annual reports on campus crime statistics.

The Security On Campus, Inc. (Security On Campus) devotes itself to creating and increasing crime awareness in preventing campus victimization, something which was already demonstrated as workable in the late 1980s by Chief Michael G. Shanahan of the University of Washington Police Department. His Department conducted a campus crime awareness program, which included the publication of pertinent statistics in the University student newspaper. In 1990, he reported that violent crime went down to more than 50% chiefly as a result of increased crime awareness in the community.

Through the court action they took against the murderer and Lehigh, the Clerys and their associates realized and emphasized the gravity of the responsibility of campus administrators in protecting their students against crime (Security On Campus). They also believed that only court litigation appeared to be the most effective way of compelling these administrators to confront the reality of campus violence and to act on it promptly and appropriately.

Security On Campus, Inc. also established in 1989 the Campus Victims Litigation

Program, the first of its kind in the country, which produced a database of case law in civil actions by victims or their families of campus crimes, as well as victims of administrative cover-ups of such crimes. The organization makes this valuable legal information to victims, their counsels, their families and other parties who wish to contribute something in preventing campus crimes.

The Clery Act made more waves. Just last month, the U.S. Department of Education regional office in Philadelphia sought a $385,000 fine from Salem International University for failure to comply with the Jeanne Clery Act reporting requirements, according to the Security on Campus, Inc. (2004). In its February 2000 Final Program Review Determination Letter to the Department of Education, Salem Police Chief ET Howell recommended 14 separate fines on the school, each at a maximum of $27,000. Five of these fines were for failing to report and for improperly handling five forcible sex offenses between 1997 and 1999 (Security On Campus). The Administrative Actions and Appeals Division (AAAD), a separate entity within the Department, could impose the fines and the school could appeal the action at an administrative court. The development was viewed and welcomed by Security on Campus Inc. As a very strong signal to other violating colleges and universities to become more transparent with crime occurrences in their campuses and to come clean with them. It said that students everywhere needed to have this information so that they could avoid these campus crimes and have something they can use in pressuring their schools to do something when the crimes happened.

The Salem development was preceded by the fining of Mt. St. Clare College in Iowa, which was fined with $25,000, but later settled it at $15,000 in 2000.

A lawsuit filed by Lisa Simpson through her lawyer, Kim Hult, in 2002 brought the attention of the educational community and the public to the University of Colorado. This was reported by Erik Brady at USA Today and featured at the Security On Campus, Inc. The issue was a mixture of sexual, football, alcohol and violence against women violations and invoking Title IX on sexual harassment in campuses. This Title bans sex discrimination at schools that receive federal funding and is most frequently practiced during sports competitions for a three-part formula that determines if a particular school is fairly apportioning opportunities to play. It was, however, not widely known that schools could be sued for monetary damages for allowing sexual harassment in any setting or event, under Title X, including sports.

Three women reported that they had been raped by Colorado football players or recruits during or after an off-campus party in Boulder, Colorado in 2001 and filed federal lawsuits against them. They complained that the atmosphere at Colorado University football program was hostile to women recruits by holding parties where sexual favors were expected from them (Security On Campus).

The National School Boards Association of Alexandria, Virginia said that it was making its own observations on the incidents and the trend, according to its counsel, Tom Hutton. Another lawyer, Christopher Parent, from Denver, specializes in sports laws and has written on Title IX and sexual harassment. He said that if the suits progressed in favor of the complainants, the athletic departments of schools where athletes have been accused of sexual assault could be similarly sued in court.

The complainants were nine women who accused Colorado football players or recruits of assault during a 1997 recruiting party. They did not file charges then but the state attorney-general decided that no charges were warranted: the women did not prove rape in order to prevail (Brady). But in collecting monetary damages, they had to prove that the University was aware of the claimed hostile environment and refused to take necessary measures to stop it. They further needed to prove that the alleged harassment deprived them access to educational opportunity and that the harassment occurred during an educational program or activity (Brady as qtd in Security On Campus). These matters had to emphasized, because players in other schools, such as the University of Alabama at Birmingham and the University of Oklahoma State in recent years but these were settled and, therefore, could not set the precedence as regards Title X on the sexual harassment law.

Complainant Simpson's lawyer Kim Hult commented that schools today cannot just allow women to be used just to assure the success of a football team and that female students should be respected and valued in the same way as football players (Brady). One of the women complainants also alleged race discrimination and retaliation.

The Federal Magistrate Judge Craig Shaffer said that procedural disagreements over depositions could postpone the trial to next year and that the women complainants could change their suits in response to new developments resulting from the spread of the scandal.

In the Davis vs. Monroe County Board of Education verdict in 1999 (526 U.S. 629, 650), a claim for monetary damage/s under Title X must clearly establish that the defendant school was deliberately indifferent to sexual harassment, had actual knowledge of it, and the harassment was so severe, pervasive and objectively offensive that it denied the complainant/s of access to educational opportunities or benefits made available by the school.

It was a different scenario for four former students at Morehead State University in Kentucky who were sued in court for sexual crimes (Security On Campus). After hearing the testimony of a state police detective and that of the victim's father, Rowan County Circuit Judge Beth Maze last month cancelled the two-year sentence she had earlier imposed on the young men accused of having sex or watching others have sex with the then drunk 17-year-old complainant in a campus dormitory (Associated Press 2004 as qtd in Security On Campus).

Student demonstrations in the eastern Kentucky campus called public attention when these demonstrations accused university officials of hiding the incident. The four accused, ages ranging from 19 to 21, pleaded guilty to facilitation of the use of a minor in a sexual performance (AP). A fifth defendant was previously freed of charges for cooperating with the police and the prosecutors from the start of the case.

Kentucky State Police Sgt Brian Bowling investigated the case, which occurred at Waterfield Hall on September 14, 2002 when the complainant was drunk and, thus, could remember little about the incident. Sgt Bowling at first filed a rape case, but the victim could not remember what happened and others in that hall said that the complainant was a willing participant in that incident (AP).

She sought treatment at a campus clinic, which denied it, since it said that she needed parental consent. Two days later, she was treated at a northern Kentucky hospital for internal injury and ankle bruises. Sgt Bowling, however, said that the campus clinic should not only have treated her but also reported the matter to the police, but neither was done.

Meanwhile, federal police officials are investigating the improper reports made by the West Virginia University that made its campus look safer (The Pittsburgh Channel 2004 as qtd in Security On Campus). Officers Robert Ryan and Ken Fike and former officer Dan Holsinger won a case against the University, which misrepresented burglaries in its dormitory rooms as larcenies. The officers said that larceny is only a misdemeanor, while a burglary is a felony and that schools should report felonies only to the public. All three said that the University asked them to mislabel the reports, which numbered in hundreds.

There have been accounts that some reports were indeed mislabeled, but what was asked of the three police officers was deliberate (The Pittsburgh Channel).

The police had an ally inside who was feeding them with the correct figures, but which kept going back. This ally resigned later. The West Virginia University case can indicate that many other colleges may be mislabeling crimes because the Clery Act is hard to follow, according to Brett Sokolow, a campus crime legal expert. The unsettling outcome is misinformation, a false sense of security, he said, as he stressed that mislabeled crimes, unpublished information, and undisclosed statistics place the members of the college community at a risk. The officers expressed the hope that this case won over West Virginia University would lead all colleges to look more earnestly into the way they report crime incidence and statistics. They added that Jeanne Clery was essentially a victim of burglary that went into extremes.

The jury awarded the officers with $868,000 but deducted $600,000 in punitive damages, which the officers are appealing. In the meantime, the U.S. Department of Education has been investigating on the way the school has been complying with its rules, which are different from those of the FBI, which said that the University had been following reporting requirements (The Pittsburgh Channel).

While drug use and illegal weapon possession incidents went down for the first time in recent years, alcohol abuse went up in 2002 (Hoover 2004). Alcohol arrests increased for the 11th consecutive year by 10.6%, while drug arrests decreased by 2.3%.

Police authorities connect this upward drinking trend to stronger enforcement of anti-alcohol laws and better police function out of the campus, as students may be becoming more and more intolerant only of substance abuse, which they are now more willing to report than alcohol use and abuse (Hoover). This conclusion derived from the analysis of data gathered from more than 6,000 two-year and four-year colleges, profit and non-profit and eligible for federal funding assistance. The U.S. Education Department released the statistics.

The analysis named the University of Wisconsin at Madison as reporting the biggest volume of liquor-related arrests at 837 and Indiana University at Bloomington with the highest number of drug-related arrests at 313. The University of Colorado Health Services Center accounted for the highest number of weapon violations at 29, followed by the Michigan State University.

The number of murders and non-negligent homicides on campus increased from 2001 to 2002 (Hoover), while forcible sex offenses - including rape, sodomy and fondling - rose by 6.5%. Non-forcible sex offenses include only incest and statutory rape and these decreased by 91%, implying that some colleges misreported figures, which the Department of Education has since tried to correct (Hoover).

Hate crimes are crimes against persons or property and motivated by some racial, religious, ethnic, sexual or disability bias. Hate crimes dropped slightly in 2002 (Hoover).

Robberies and burglaries grew by small percentages, while aggravated assaults decreased by 6.9%. Campus officials reported that arson too went down by 8.6% while motor vehicle thefts remained at comparable levels in those years (Hoover).

Campus experts found it difficult to compare institutions using raw data only, as required by the Clery Act. They clarified that small or low numbers did not necessarily imply safety in those campuses nor high numbers, danger. They pointed to many factors that influence the volume and type of crimes that occur in a particular college, and these included the location, the policies and strategies. Besides Wisconsin, other schools with more than 30,000 enrollees and which reported more than 600 liquor arrests each in 2002 were Indiana, Western Michigan University, Michigan State, Pennsylvania State University at University Park, and the University of Maryland at College Park (Hoover). Police officials in many of these schools said these figures as merely reflecting the campus sizes and that steep increases in statistics from year to year were not easy to explain.

Sgt Jerome Van Natta, assistant chief of police at Madison, stressed that the huge turnover of students each year could be the cause of a "cyclical action (Hoover)." Under-age drinking may increase at a certain year and then change the following year, he said, pointing to the dependence of figures on campus events and developments. A single evening of football against the Ohio State University last Fall showed more alcohol incidents quite common about Saturday afternoon games in Madison. Sgt VanNatta, however, assured that resident assistants assist campus police watch over and track down underage drinking in dormitories and that his department often receives tips and leads on illegal drug use from students (Hoover).

Like police forces in many other universities, Madison's police force cooperates and coordinates with local police departments in conducting investigations, although observers have noted that many of these schools lack clearer guidelines in their links with off-campus police forces, particularly in tackling violent crimes (Hoover).

Robert Nottingham was a student at the East Tennessee State University who fell from a balcony and died last year. His parents suspected foul play balcony there last year. Mr. Nottingham's parents suspect that foul play was really behind it, in that campus authorities did not handle the investigation of the incident quite well. The accident led to the discovery that campus police departments did not have the type of experience that local police have and yet campus police forces could bring substantial resources to make sure no such falls recurred (Hoover).

The "Campus Sex Crimes Prevention Act" is a federal law, which was enacted on October 28, 2000. It provides for the tracking down of convicted and registered sex offenders among enrollees, employees or volunteers of a school. It developed from a bill sponsored by Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona with the support of Security On Campus, Inc. (Security On Campus). It amended the Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexually Violent Offender Registration Act. It requires the school where the offender is enrolled or works to register and make available the information to law enforcement agencies having jurisdiction over the institutions of higher education therein located and that the information be properly recorded. In October 2002, these changes took effect, linking these requirements with state eligibility for certain federal grant funding and for implementation by the state law.

It also amended the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act, which required institutions of higher education to disclose campus crime statistics and issue a statement, advising the campus community where it could obtain information on registered sex offenders. It likewise amended the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 in correcting any misconception that this Act could prohibit a school from disclosing information concerning registered sex offenders. It, instead, requires the Secretary of Education to take appropriate measures in notifying educational institutions that such a disclosure is allowed. The amendment became effective on October 23, 2000.

The University of Berkeley in California enforces its own set of rules and regulations in conduct, free speech and public assembly in observance of the Clery Act. These rules and regulations state that the un-authorized duplication or distribution of keys and card keys is a violation (University of Berkeley 2002) and punishable under the California Penal Code. Assisting authorized access to buildings or doors against building security policies violates Campus Access Control Policy. Overnight stays in residential facilities or even for academic purposes are against the rules.

Other violations include disrupting classes, administrative and other school-sponsored or approved activities, smoking in buildings, use of riding mopeds, bicycles, skateboards, roller blades or skates in dangerous buildings or walkways, storing of vehicles in public spaces, bringing in animals into buildings (except those used in laboratories or assisting disabled students or employees), and the mis-use or destruction of emergency equipment or other school properties.

While the University has the time-honored reputation of promoting free speech and public assembly and the police department respects and observes these constitutional rights and privileges, these rights and privileges should be exercised reasonably and responsibly (University of Berkeley). They are not unlimited but tempered by the rights of others and the University business. These rights and privileges lose their Constitutional protection when they violate established laws, rules and regulations. Such violations have consequences, including arrest and criminal prosecution through courts of law.

There are University rules and regulations that cover public or student forums and rallies and specify the time, place and manner of conduct. Organizations with a message to put across can meet with representatives from the police department and the University's Office of Student Activities to discuss the nature, objectives and mechanics of their action. These organizations will, in turn, be informed about their responsibilities and their options. They should also appoint monitors who should control the activities and behavior of the demonstrators. There should also be an appointed spokesperson to liaison with the police for maximum cooperation and communication (University of Berkeley).

When arrested for misdemeanors, demonstrated will be dealt with and released according to previously established police procedures. Additional charges may require booking at a local police station where the process may take three to four hours. Release may require that the arrested demonstrator be no less than 18 years old, possess a valid California picture identification, without any outstanding traffic or arrest warrants, have no weapons or contraband, follow the directions and instructions of the arresting officer or officers, and does not resist actively or passively, nor threaten or fight with the arresting officer or officers and does not engage in any criminal activity, such as assault or destruction of property (University of Berkeley).