<DOC>
[105 Senate Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:50166.wais]

                                                        S. Hrg. 105-607

 
                           SECURITY ON CAMPUS

=======================================================================

                                HEARING

                                before a

                          SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

            COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE

                       ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                               __________

                            SPECIAL HEARING

                               __________

         Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations


 Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
                                 senate

                                 ______


50-166 cc          U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
                           WASHINGTON : 1998


_______________________________________________________________________
            For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 
                                 20402
                           ISBN 0-16-057442-0




                      COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

                     TED STEVENS, Alaska, Chairman
THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi            ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania          DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico         ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri        PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont
SLADE GORTON, Washington             DALE BUMPERS, Arkansas
MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky            FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
CONRAD BURNS, Montana                TOM HARKIN, Iowa
RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama           BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland
JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire            HARRY REID, Nevada
ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah              HERB KOHL, Wisconsin
BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado    PATTY MURRAY, Washington
LARRY CRAIG, Idaho                   BYRON DORGAN, North Dakota
LAUCH FAIRCLOTH, North Carolina      BARBARA BOXER, California
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas
                   Steven J. Cortese, Staff Director
                 Lisa Sutherland, Deputy Staff Director
               James H. English, Minority Staff Director
                                 ------                                

 Subcommittee on Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and 
                    Education, and Related Agencies

                 ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman
THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi            TOM HARKIN, Iowa
SLADE GORTON, Washington             ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri        DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii
JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire            DALE BUMPERS, Arkansas
LAUCH FAIRCLOTH, North Carolina      HARRY REID, Nevada
LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho                HERB KOHL, Wisconsin
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas          PATTY MURRAY, Washington
TED STEVENS, Alaska                  ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia
  (Ex officio)                         (Ex officio)
                      Majority Professional Staff
                            Bettilou Taylor

                      Minority Professional Staff
                              Marsha Simon

                         Administrative Support
                              Jim Sourwine


                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
Opening remarks of Senator Arlen Specter.........................     1
Statement of Howard Clery, founder, Security on Campus, Inc......     2
    Prepared statement...........................................     4
Statement of Jacob McKee, student, Lehigh University.............     7
Statement of Barbara Prentice, Centerville, MA...................     9
    Prepared statement...........................................    12
Statement of Dr. Stanley Ikenberry, president, American Council 
  on Education...................................................    19
    Prepared statement...........................................    20
Statement of Michele Goldfarb, director, Office of Student 
  Conduct, University of Pennsylvania............................    24
Statement of Peter C. Erichsen, vice president and general 
  counsel, University of Pennsylvania and University of 
  Pennsylvania Health System.....................................    24
Statement of Dolores A. Stafford, director, university police 
  department, George Washington University.......................    26
    Prepared statement...........................................    28
Prepared statement of the International Association of Campus Law 
  Enforcement Administrators.....................................    30
Statement of David A. Longanecker, Assistant Secretary for 
  Postsecondary Education, U.S. Department of Education..........    36
    Prepared statement...........................................    37
Campuses.........................................................    40
Statement of Senator Robert G. Torricelli, U.S. Senator from New 
  Jersey.........................................................    45
  


                           SECURITY ON CAMPUS

                              ----------                              


                        THURSDAY, MARCH 5, 1998

                           U.S. Senate,    
    Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human
     Services, and Education, and Related Agencies,
                               Committee on Appropriations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met at 3:25 p.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen 
Senate Office Building, Hon. Arlen Specter (chairman) 
presiding.
    Present: Senators Specter and Faircloth.
    Also present: Senator Torricelli.

                       NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES

                   OPENING REMARKS OF SENATOR SPECTER

    Senator Specter. On this subject there is substantial 
concern as to the definition of the Department of Education on 
what constitutes a campus. The Department has made an inquiry 
at the University of Pennsylvania. Apparently commercial 
property in buildings or some parts of buildings, which are 
used for commercial purposes, where other parts are used for 
educational purposes, does not constitute the campus.
    Although not binding on the Department of Education, there 
is a Pennsylvania Superior Court case, Commonwealth v. 
Mitchell, which defined campus on other issues as not being 
limited to educational or research grounds, but also including 
commercial property that the college or university used for 
investment purposes.
    The statistics as to the University of Pennsylvania, which 
we are taking a look at, do not include, as I understand the 
facts--and we are going to have a representative from the 
university here--the sidewalks, and the hospital of the 
university was not included.
    The President of the University of Pennsylvania, Dr. Roden, 
is quoted in the newspaper, I believe in her report to the 
Department of Education as well, that there was no finding of 
evidence that the university was hiding anything or distorting 
campus crime. That is the outstanding question in light of the 
limitations on the university's report.
    There is considerable pressure at this time for expanding 
the statutes which relate to campus reporting to go against 
these disciplinary files and other files which could raise very 
material questions on privacy.
    I believe that at a minimum, Mr. Secretary, the Department 
is going to have to take a much closer look at the statutory 
requirements and find a way to get compliance, or there is 
likely to be a rash of additional legislation imposing 
penalties on universities and going much further. There is 
legislation pending in the House which goes a great deal 
further.
    So, I would invite your close attention to what this 
hearing will disclose, and you do have your Assistant 
Secretary, Mr. David Longanecker, here for the purpose of this 
facet of the hearing.
    Senator Torricelli had asked for some time to testify, and 
we will reserve his time.
    Let me now call all in one panel so that we can try to 
proceed with some dispatch here. Mr. Howard Clery, Mr. Jacob 
McKee----
    Senator Faircloth. Mr. Chairman, I had one quick question 
of the Secretary.
    Senator Specter. OK.
    Senator Faircloth. And it will not take but a second to ask 
it.
    What is the Department's policy regarding the use of Pell 
grants and other Federal grants and loans for the purchase of 
books and other educational material at bookstores which are 
not associated with the college or university?
    Secretary Riley. David, do you want to respond to that? 
That is a higher education issue. I am going to ask Dr. 
Longanecker to respond. He is head of higher education. Are you 
familiar with that?
    Mr. Longanecker. Senator, sure. Pell grants are provided 
based on the ability of the family to pay and predicated on the 
costs. The students can use the resources that they receive to 
purchase the services that they need whether they are on campus 
or off campus.
    Senator Faircloth. They can buy off campus with Pell 
grant----
    Mr. Longanecker. Absolutely.
    Senator Faircloth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Specter. Thank you.
    Secretary Riley. Mr. Chairman, Dr. Longanecker indicated to 
me that he would respond to your question or your statement in 
his statement. If I might be excused. I certainly enjoyed 
spending the afternoon with you.
    Senator Specter. All right. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. That 
will be fine.
STATEMENT OF HOWARD CLERY, FOUNDER, SECURITY ON CAMPUS, 
            INC.
    Senator Specter. I call on Mr. Howard Clery, Mr. Jacob 
McKee, Ms. Barbara Prentice, Mr. Stanley Ikenberry, Ms. Michele 
Goldfarb, Ms. Dolores Stafford, and Mr. David Longanecker.
    I am going to have the timer set here at 3 minutes because 
we need to conclude by 4 o'clock if we possibly can because, as 
I said earlier, the Governmental Affairs Committee is meeting.
    Mr. Clery is the cofounder, along with Mrs. Connie Clery, 
of Security on Campus, an organization which is dedicated to 
improving security on campus. Security on Campus was founded 
after the tragic murder of their daughter Jeanne, who was a 
freshman at Lehigh University, in 1986 and who was brutally 
raped and murdered while in a dormitory at Lehigh by another 
Lehigh student, a truly, tragic, tragic incident.
    Mr. Clery, the floor is yours, sir.
    Mr. Clery. Thank you very much, Senator.
    We want to thank you very much for your support in passage 
of the Campus Security Act of 1990 which you not only sponsored 
but introduced on the Senate floor the day after five students 
were massacred at the University of Florida in Gainesville. 
Because of this action, campus crime and student safety has 
been improved on many residential campuses.
    However, far too many institutions are not in compliance 
with the letter or spirit of the law. The Department of 
Education has investigated five universities in 1997 and all 
five institutions have been found in major noncompliance with 
the Federal Security Act of 1990. We have attached an addendum 
to our report that briefly summarizes those findings.
    A common sense review of individual campus crime statistics 
reported annually by the Chronicles of Higher Education show 
gross underreporting of student violations of Federal drug laws 
and State underage alcohol laws. Many campus research reports 
reveal recent illegal drug use by students ranging from 14 to 
20 percent of the campus population, and the result is a rising 
death toll from alcohol poisoning. Rape and sexual assault 
crimes are substantially underreported by many schools as they 
run them through the judiciary committee, and the adjudication 
and findings of those hearings never appear in the campus 
statistical reports. The reasons for noninclusion are bogus 
claims of confidentiality which even extend to annual campus 
crime reports.
    We would strongly recommend to this committee the campus 
crime reporting and disclosure provisions of the Higher 
Education Act of 1965 be amended to include substantial fines 
to be levied by the Department of Education on colleges and 
universities found in meaningful noncompliance with the Federal 
Campus Security Act of 1990.
    We would also like to propose that every student who 
applies for a federally financed or a guaranteed loan submit an 
annual or at least a preliminary drug test. Looking at recent 
reports yesterday in the New York Times, they said that there 
were 5 million students on the loan program, and if you used 
any sort of percentages, you might come up with a feeling that 
500,000 to 1 million students who are being financed by Federal 
loan program are drug users. Student athletes have to take drug 
tests. Why not people who are using Federal funds?
    I think we should recognize that every organization is a 
mirror of the people who are an integral part of it. Our 
universities are no exception. Many parents and legislators do 
not know that 80 percent of campus crimes are committed by 
students on students, and campus crime is being fueled by 
student binge drinking, use of illegal drugs, unlawful 
fraternity hazing, and the increasing presence of firearms and 
gang activity. A new campus business, by the way, is now 
gambling.
    All of the above aberrations are present in some of our 
high schools or many of them, but university admissions 
officers ignore the world around them. They rarely inquire or 
require the following from perspective students who are 
applying to their institutions. They ought to ask these 
questions.
    Have you been arrested and convicted of a crime?
    Have you been registered as a gang member by your local 
police?
    Do you own a registered firearm and where will it be 
housed?
    Have you included a drug test as part of your required 
medical exam prior to admission?

                           PREPARED STATEMENT

    So, I would like to summarize for the fact that a lot still 
remains to be done to make this legislation that you sponsored 
a reality and the campuses become safe places and places of 
learning and not crime.
    Senator Specter. Thank you very much, Mr. Clery, and thank 
you for all the work that you and Mrs. Clery have done on this 
important subject.
    [The statement follows:]

             Prepared Statement of Connie and Howard Clery

    Senator Spector, the Student Right to Know and Campus Security Act 
of 1990, which you sponsored and introduced on the Senate Floor the day 
after 5 students were massacred at the University of Florida in 
Gainsville, has substantially increased student safety and security on 
many residential college campuses.
    However, far too many institutions are not in compliance with the 
letter or spirit of the law. The Department of Education has 
investigated 5 universities during 1997 and all five institutions have 
been found in major non-compliance with the Federal Campus Security Act 
of 1990. Please see the attached addendum.
    A common sense review of individual campus crime statistics, 
reported annually by the Chronicle of Higher Education, show gross 
under-reporting of student violations of Federal Drug Laws and State 
Underage Alcohol laws. Many campus research reports reveal recent 
``illegal drug use by students ranging from 14-20 percent of the campus 
population, while the new phenomenon of binge drinking is hovering 
between 40-50 percent of campus populations and the result is a rising 
death toll from alcohol poisoning''. Rape and Sexual Assault crimes are 
substantially underreported by many schools as they do not include 
results of Judiciary Committee adjudication or findings of Campus Rape 
Crisis Centers. The reasons for non-inclusion are bogus claims of 
confidentiality which even extend to the annual campus crime 
statistics.
    We would strongly recommend the Campus Crime Reporting and 
Disclosure provisions of the Higher Education Act of 1965 be amended to 
include the following:
  --Require annual campus statistical disclosure of liquor law and drug 
        violations determined by Campus Security and Administrators, 
        not just arrests.
  --Require annual drug tests from students applying for and receiving 
        Federally Guaranteed Student Loans.
  --Require the names of individuals arrested and charged by Campus 
        Security and Administrators to be entered and disclosed in 
        ``Campus Crime Logs''.
  --Remove F.E.R.P.A confidentiality protections for students found 
        guilty of violating campus rules of conduct which correspond to 
        violations of State and Federal Laws. Victims' confidentiality 
        should be maintained in accordance with state laws. Two State 
        and two Federal Courts have ruled F.E.R.P.A Confidentiality of 
        Students found guilty of actions violating State and Federal 
        Laws are not Educational Records.
  --Require Campus Police or Security logs be disclosed within 24 hours 
        for Campuses with Residential Housing.
  --Campus crime statistics must include rapes and sexual assaults 
        reported to and confirmed by Campus Administrators, Athletic 
        Coaches, Judicial Committees and Rape Crisis Centers. (The 
        reporting of these statistics does not violate Professional-
        Patient Confidentiality Regulations).
      Example: According to the Dartmouth College Student Newspaper, 
        the college reports 4-6 rapes annually but there are 40-50 
        students in counseling at the Rape Crisis Center.
  --Consumer rights dictate that campus crime statistics give a 
        realistic picture of campus crime and relative student safety.
  --The Department of Education should be empowered to levy fines on 
        Universities found not in compliance with the provisions of the 
        Campus Security Act.
    Campus Boundaries should include:
  --Municipal streets and sidewalks bisecting the campus.
  --Stores and enterprises leased by the school to private businesses 
        to provide student services, i.e., book stores, eating 
        establishments, etc.
  --Fraternity and sororities located just ``off campus''.
  --Areas adjacent to campus containing large numbers of students in 
        private housing. Many state universities have 50-80 percent of 
        their ``residential students'' living a ``few blocks'' from 
        campus. (A separate statistical column can be added to the 
        annual crime report.)
  --Streets ``adjacent'' to campus, but which are patrolled by Campus 
        Police or Security.
    Every organization is a mirror of the people who are an integral 
part of it. Our universities are no exception. Many parents and 
legislators do not know that 80 percent of campus crimes are committed 
by students on students. Campus crime is being fueled by student binge 
drinking, use of illegal drugs, unlawful fraternity hazing and the 
increasing presence of firearms and gang activity, i.e., gambling, 
drugs, prostitution.
    University Admissions' and Deans' offices are well aware of the 
National Studies revealing:
  --50-60 percent of male students indulge in binge drinking.
  --30-40 percent of female students indulge in binge drinking.
  --15-20 percent of students are recent users of illegal drugs.
  --Sexual Assault and Rape are major campus problems.
  --Student physical violence is growing.
  --Student illegal gambling is ``a new campus business''.
    All of the above aberrations are also present in our high schools. 
But, university admission officers ignore the world around them. They 
rarely inquire or require the following from prospective students:
  --Have you been arrested and convicted of a crime?
  --Have you been registered as a gang member by your local police?
  --Do you own a firearm? Where will it be housed?
  --Have you included a drug test as part of your required medical exam 
        prior to admission?
    Deans and student affairs personnel too often believe student 
crimes are educational opportunities instead of punishment 
opportunities. This mind set can lead to increased campus crime and 
student victims. It also tends to obscure the inherent institutional 
responsibility to ensure a safe campus environment and, therefore, 
reduced civil suits by victims. Campus safety is enhanced by suspension 
and separation of students found guilty of campus judicial hearings for 
violators of State and Federal laws. Sadly, many student crime victims 
transfer to other campuses because the student perpetrators remain on 
campus with minimal punishment and their names and violations held 
``Confidential'' by false interpretations of Federal Law by the U.S. 
Department of Education.
    Deans and student affairs personnel must take proactive security 
measures to ensure student safety in dormitories, fraternities and 
sororities. This would require regular campus police and security 
patrols of campus student housing to reduce:
  --Binge and underage drinking.
  --Sale and use of illegal drugs.
  --Possession of illegal firearms and gambling.
  --The number of unauthorized persons.
    (A number of campus police departments are now using undercover 
personnel as a supplement to regular patrols and the results are 
encouraging).
    The above recommendations may shock some people, but they are 
normal procedures used in our towns and cities, our hospitals and 
public institutions, our businesses and military services. It should be 
remembered that our University Campuses are high-crime communities. 
This reality is obscured by massive falsifications of annual crime 
statistics required by Federal Law!
    This current academic year has seen an alarming increase in student 
deaths from alcohol poisoning due to binge drinking. (In November 1997 
alone, 5 students have died of alcohol poisoning in the state of 
Virginia.) A few years ago, Police Chief Reuben Greenberg of 
Charleston, South Carolina wrote: ``With few exceptions other than the 
drug traffickers themselves, administrators of our nation's 
universities are the most hostile elements to the enforcement of our 
nation's drug laws''. Most local police departments continue to hold 
the same views about the campuses located in their communities.
    Many protected members of academia will mindlessly shout ``Police 
State''. Many students, faculty and staff will exclaim ``It's about 
Time''. Most parents will say ``Thank God''!
                                 ______
                                 
  addendum--campus security act program review summary [february 1998]
    The following five schools have been found in non-compliance with 
the Federal Campus Security Act of 1990:
(1) Moorhead State University (Minnesota)
            Found in violation, September 13, 1996
  --Crime Statistics Not Accurately Disclosed in annual security 
        reports.
  --Timely Warnings were not issued.
  --Security Report Information Not Made Available to Students and 
        Employees.
  --Deficiencies in information contained in the annual campus security 
        reports (statements of policy omitted or incomplete; statements 
        of policy inaccurate).
    The Chicago Regional Office of the DOE issued the ``Final Program 
Review'' letter on June 30, 1997 referring this case to the Washington, 
DC office for administrative (i.e. possible fine) action. Further 
information can be found on our Web Site. The original complaint was 
filed by Margaret Jakobson in 1995.
(2) Virginia Tech (Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University)
            Found in violation, June 19, 1997
  --Crime Statistics Not Accurately Compiled for annual security 
        reports.
  --Crime Statistics Not Accurately Disclosed in annual security 
        reports.
  --Statements of Policy Omitted/Incomplete (procedures to follow if a 
        sex offense occurs; procedures for campus disciplinary actions 
        in alleged sex offense cases; sanctions the institution may 
        impose following a disciplinary hearing).
    This report was issued by the Philadelphia Regional Office of the 
DOE following complaints filed by Eileen Wagner and SOC in August of 
1996 on the behalf of campus rape survivor Christy Brzonkala. Her rapes 
by two football players were not properly included in the statistics. 
No further action is expected based on this complaint.
(3) Miami University of Ohio
            Found in violation, September 11, 1997
  --Crime incidents from all sources not reported.
  --Crime statistics not calculated correctly from Miami University 
        police records.
  --All university properties not included.
  --Inconsistent data.
  --Crime statistics from branch campuses misreported.
  --Failure to follow Campus Security Act Regulations Regarding 
        Notification of Disciplinary Action.
    Ohio Supreme Court ordered the school to grant access to UDB 
records; DOE says ruling that F.E.R.P.A. does not cover these records 
is wrong ``as a matter of law.'' This investigation resulted from a 
formal complaint filed in January of 1997 by S. Daniel Carter and MUOH 
graduate Jennifer Markiewicz who uncovered inaccuracies in reporting 
while editor of the student newspaper. The Program Review Report was 
issued on September 11, 1997.
(4) Clemson University
            Found in violation, July 18, 1998
  --Crime Statistics Not/Improperly Reported (sex offenses improperly 
        reported; hate crimes not reported; only reported 1\1/2\ years 
        worth of data, not 3 years; statistics inconsistently reported; 
        Statistics Do Not Match Institutional Records).
  --Drug/Alcohol Policy Not Included in the Campus Security Report.
  --Timely Warning Procedure Inadequately Developed.
  --Sexual Assault Policy Inadequate/Underdeveloped.
  --Crime Statistics Not/Inaccurately Gathered (Statistics Are Gathered 
        From Police Reports Only).
    This case was brought about through the initial complaint filed 
with the Atlanta office in February of 1997 by the survivor of a campus 
``gang-rape.'' The ``Equal Rights Alliance'' filed an amicus complaint 
on May 4th.
(5) The University of Pennsylvania
            Found in violation, February 1998
  --Hate Crime Statistics Not Included In Campus Security Report.
  --Failure to Report Specific Incidents (1,994 rape; 1,006 liquor law 
        violations)
  --Failure to Complete Separate Statistics for Separate Campuses.
  --Failure to Include Statistics For All Campus Locations (campus 
        hospital).
  --Failure To Notify All Prospective Students and Parents of the 
        Availability of the Campus Security Report.
  --Failure To Provide Campus Security Report to All Current Students.
    This case was initiated in December, 1996 by the Philadelphia 
Office of U.S. Dept. of Education based on a November 25, 1996 article 
in The Philadelphia Inquirer regarding crime reporting. An in-depth 
complaint was filed on June 11, 1997 by the Equal Rights Alliance and 
Security On Campus, Inc.

STATEMENT OF JACOB McKEE, STUDENT, LEHIGH UNIVERSITY
    Senator Specter. I turn now to Mr. Jacob McKee, a second-
year engineering student at Lehigh. He has many academic honors 
in advanced biology, calculus, and economics. He is also active 
in sports, hockey, baseball. Thank you for joining us, Mr. 
McKee, and the floor is yours.
    Mr. McKee. Thank you, Senator.
    I believe what you mostly want to know is how colleges deal 
with crime on their campuses, so I will tell my story and what 
I have experienced with regard to college security.
    About 3 weeks into the fall semester of 1997, I was 
assaulted by Jason McNutt, a fourth-year student at Lehigh 
University. It was my first semester of college and college 
life and my first time living away from home. I received a 
punch to my left eye while I was not looking and it cracked the 
orbital bone of my eye, which led to double vision and loss of 
feeling in my face.
    Since the attack, I have had more than 20 doctor's visits 
and two serious operations on my eye. In both of these 
operations, I ran the risk of total loss of vision in my left 
eye.
    Well, from my experiences, this is what I could tell to 
help this hearing. Throughout the entire process, I believe 
that Lehigh University and its fully certified on-campus police 
program treated me and the criminal similarly. In many respects 
I feel he has been given more preferential treatment than I. 
Throughout the entire incident, Lehigh University's position 
seemed to be one of down playing the situation. They simply 
wanted to minimize severity of the situation and move on and 
away from it. The university attempted to do this in several 
different ways.
    They actually down played the incident to me. They did this 
by trying to make me believe that it was merely a simple 
scuffle. They also led me to believe that I was also partially 
to blame. I know what I have been through and I know that the 
only mistake that I made was to be in the wrong place at the 
wrong time. No one will be able to alter my thinking on that. I 
was simply in a place where someone who was intoxicated, 
reckless, and out of control aggressively attacked me. This 
place was Lehigh University.
    Another problem I had with Lehigh University was the manner 
in which they handled the school trial. I was required to be 
there but only as a witness. I went there knowing almost none 
of the defendant's circumstances or his background. All I knew 
was what happened that night and what I have been through 
since, plus a little amount of information which I was able to 
learn on my own. Lehigh University has intentionally avoided 
providing me with any information that they have gathered on 
the incident.
    From my views on morals and sensibility, I believe that 
that information would have been sufficient to severely punish 
Jason McNutt. Now I know that that is wrong. You have to do a 
lot of homework if you want to see justice served.
    Jason McNutt came to the Lehigh University hearing knowing 
detailed information about me, which I still cannot imagine how 
he obtained. At the university trial, he questioned every 
witness to the crime, including me on a one-on-one basis. I 
left gaining nothing. He learned every intricate detail about 
the incident and what every witness saw, perceived, and 
remembered. He was in control of the trial. He got to question 
me and even accuse me of things. When he was done with me, he 
said that I should leave.
    I had no say in the activity of the university trial, nor 
was I allowed to make any final closing comments. From this 
trial, what punishment did he receive? A couple of months of 
probation and some hours of community service. He gained more 
information than a punishment from this.
    Jason McNutt is a criminal who admitted to assaulting me. 
Yet, he is still permitted to attend classes and graduate on 
schedule from Lehigh University. This shows the kind of 
integrity the school has. Jason McNutt is now a second semester 
senior about to graduate. Yet, I can only assume these details 
because I have been told very little about him either formally 
or informally by any representative of the university. He is 
going to graduate without missing any school. I have already 
been forced to delay my academic career one semester at a 
minimum.
    In the 6 months since the incident, I have gained little 
information on the circumstances of the incident or on the 
defendant. Police reports from the incident which I have 
requested have not been received. I have also requested the 
names of the witnesses who were at the scene. Yet, I have 
received nothing.
    I have, in that sense, been stonewalled by the university 
staff from obtaining any information. This clearly demonstrates 
their general lack of assistance to me and their policy of 
covering up the incident. The only reason I can imagine for 
their behavior is to protect the university and its public 
image.
    I feel that changes need to be made to the school security 
procedures. I would suggest taking control away from the campus 
police since they are too closely aligned with the school's 
administration. When this type of situation is allowed to 
exist, the students are not being protected by the laws of our 
country but by the laws of the university which has its own 
image to protect.
    My bottom line of the incident is that I have been punished 
severely, yet the perpetrator of the situation has not. He is 
going to plead guilty to assault in a criminal court, yet he is 
allowed to remain on campus, attend classes, and graduate on 
schedule.
    Finally, I believe the school should get its priorities 
straight and think of the welfare of the students over the 
reputation of the school.
    Senator Specter. Mr. McKee, the proceeding that you have 
described has been a campus proceeding as opposed to a trial in 
a criminal court in Lehigh County?
    Mr. McKee. No; just the campus, a school-run hearing.
    Senator Specter. Was the individual who assaulted you tried 
in the criminal court?
    Mr. McKee. Not yet. He is going to plead guilty to a simple 
assault, and that was going to be about a month ago except it 
got continued. Now I have a subpoena for next week. I am going 
to testify at it. So, if things go as planned, he should plead 
guilty.
    Senator Specter. Well, you may have some rights beyond a 
plea bargain. That depends on what the assistant district 
attorney [DA] does, but it may well be that the facts of the 
case rise higher than simple assault and battery when you 
describe your damages.
    Mr. McKee. At first it was aggravated assault. He was 
charged with aggravated assault, but the DA said that there 
would not be much of a chance of getting that in court even 
though he read me the definition of aggravated assault, and I 
believe that in my situation every thing falls under that. The 
definition--I am not positive on it, but it is something along 
the lines of recklessly endangering the life or welfare of 
another human being.
    Senator Specter. Well, I just wanted to comment, Mr. McKee, 
that you have the right to be there and to express yourself. 
You can be represented by counsel if you wish. You do not have 
to be. The assistant district attorney is the public 
prosecutor, but you can bring those facts to the court. You are 
a victim. You have a right to speak. Now, the judge does not 
necessarily have to agree to a guilty plea which is bargained 
with the assistant DA. I just wanted to point that out to you.

STATEMENT OF BARBARA PRENTICE, CENTERVILLE, MA
    Senator Specter. Ms. Barbara Prentice, welcome. Ms. 
Prentice is the mother of Adam Prentice who was the victim of a 
campus crime resulting in the son's death. Ms. Prentice, thank 
you for coming and the floor is yours.
    Ms. Prentice. Thank you.
    My son, Barnstable resident Adam Prentice, a popular local 
athlete, swim instructor, and 4.0 computer systems engineering 
junior at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, died from 
loss of blood several hours after suffering an injury on 
campus.
    Adam had been out with friends but allegedly left them to 
walk back to his dorm alone around 12:30 a.m. He told them that 
he was tired and wanted to go home. It was homecoming weekend 
and the campus was unusually busy. At 1:30 a.m. Adam was found 
collapsed and bleeding profusely on the grass in front of 
several greenhouses in the center of campus.
    Police had responded to an alarm at the site and noticed, 
quote, a smell of alcoholic beverage on his breath. They 
assumed he was intoxicated. One greenhouse wing had a hole 
through its roof. Another greenhouse had a hole through its 
side. Adam was found semiconscious, collapsed and moaning, but 
as police suspected this was a breaking and entering, he was 
restrained. He is described as going from semiconscious to 
combative, a typical reaction to shock due to loss of blood. 
Rescue was called.
    Reports state that Adam said it was not my fault. Because 
no witnesses came forward at the hour of his injury, campus 
police determined that he was alone and cleaned the scene 
without preserving it or taking any forensic evidence. They 
released a statement later that morning requesting anyone with 
information to come forward, but they also stated that they 
believed Adam to be alone.
    His family was never notified about the injury by officials 
of the university until after he had been pronounced dead 3 
hours later. Officials said they had not positively identified 
Adam yet. However, they had already run a criminal records 
check on him at 2:30 a.m., that morning which requires first 
and last name and did identify me and my home address. This was 
before Adam had died.
    The only stab wound on his body was made by this 8-inch 
glass dagger that impaled him. There were bruises on his wrist, 
but no other scratches from the jagged glass he allegedly fell 
through. As no forensic evidence secured at the scene, I have 
no proof that Adam was ever in the greenhouse.
    The first officer to respond reported that he had seen 
another person running through the middle greenhouse as he 
approached the building. As he rounded the corner, he found 
Adam either ``passed out or hiding,'' quote, from him. Several 
other officers arrived. Adam is described as being found in 
conflicting states. One officer comments that initial 
observations of Adam were that he was semiconscious, soaked 
with fresh blood, collapsed and moaning, but in the same breath 
this same officer continues to state that throughout contact 
with the subject, he was highly combative. All reports implied 
that Adam's combativeness resulted from intoxication not shock.
    My questions are, why did officers responding move my son? 
First, their written protocol dictates that a victim of a 
medical emergency should never be moved unless in danger. 
Police reports specifically state that Adam was found 
semiconscious and soaked with fresh blood from a severe 
laceration. Yet, he was ordered to stretch his arms overhead 
and restrained. Pressure was applied in the area impaled to 
stop the bleeding, possibly causing deeper penetration of the 
glass.
    Why did the university not protect my son and their tenant 
while on their property?
    Why were police so insensitive and ill-prepared for my call 
when I contacted them for details? I was placed on hold for 
almost 10 minutes, then told the detective in charge was still 
investigating and I would have to call back. I demanded to 
speak with the shift commander, but he told me it was not 
police protocol to contact parents. They leave that up to the 
hospitals, he said. When I asked for a copy of these written 
protocols, I was told that none existed.
    Within the first week of Adam's death, rumors surfaced that 
he had been the victim of foul play, that he had been chased 
and pushed and was fleeing from something. Why were these 
rumors dismissed by police as speculation and never 
investigated?
    Why did it take 7 weeks and my lawyer's request for police 
to follow up on an interview regarding the receiver of two 
anonymous calls stating that Adam had not been alone at the 
time of the incident?
    Why does the second person seen originally, who was never 
found, metamorphosis into my son Adam making him both inside 
and outside of the greenhouse at the same time? Inside he is 
running through the greenhouse in a white T-shirt. At the same 
time, Adam is outside of the greenhouse semi-conscious and 
collapsed in a blood-soaked, fire engine red T-shirt, copies of 
which I have given in my written statement.
    I wonder aloud if it was determined Adam was alone without 
taking the time to investigate because the homecoming parade 
was due to pass the greenhouse later that morning and many 
prestigious alumna were on campus. It would certainly be easier 
to blame Adam for being so intoxicated that he could single-
handedly crash backward through a roof, yet not too intoxicated 
to single-handedly climb on the roof, than it would be to alarm 
any guests by mentioning foul play.
    Why was no effort put into other suspicious incidents 
reported in the police log that occurred within the same 
timeframe?
    Although almost a dozen police officers contributed to 
Adam's investigation, not one of their reports is officially 
signed. Why?
    The most devastating reality for me is the lack of 
accountability the police department has demonstrated by 
failing to provide security for their students. At the cost of 
Adam's reputation, they blamed his death on excessive drinking 
to protect their own reputation rather than to investigate the 
more probable possibility that foul play occurred.
    Does the Constitution not state innocent until proven 
guilty? How different the turn of events may have been if they 
had approached Adam, as their own report indicates they should 
have. Quote, my first observation of the subject were that his 
shirt and denim pants were soaked with fresh blood. The 
individual was barely conscious, very pale, and moaning.
    Why was I not notified immediately that my son had been 
injured? I would have advocated for him and demanded that he be 
taken to a trauma center.
    Why was I told that Adam had not been identified soon 
enough to notify me when a criminal records check had been 
reviewed at 2:34 a.m., which listed me as next of kin and 
included my home address?
    Before day break and before witnesses had even been sought 
for questioning, who determined that my son had been alone 
attempting to break into the greenhouse by crashing through the 
roof backwards, only to run through the next greenhouse, vault 
up onto a table, and kick himself out with an 8-inch shard of 
glass in his back?
    Who ordered the scene to be cleaned up without securing it 
or taking forensic evidence?
    Why has the police department denied me access to the 
officers who responded at the scene and can tell me what Adam 
said?
    As a 4.0 honors computer systems engineering major recently 
inducted into the Golden Key National Honors Society, Adam was 
also a loss for the University of Massachusetts. Yet, I never 
received so much as a sympathy card or telephone call offering 
condolences from either Chancellor Scott or President Bolger. 
Is the way alumnus, which I am, should expect to be treated by 
the university officials when their children are victimized on 
campus property if that victimization might taint the 
reputation of the university?
    Why is my son described in the police report as being 5 
feet 10 inches, 160 pounds, stocky, and brown-skinned when he 
was 5 feet 3 inches, 130 pounds, lean, and white? Am I expected 
to believe in the credibility of this department?
    I want to know why Assistant District Attorney Michael 
Goggins, whose help I sought regarding Adam, said that he 
realized it must be frustrating regarding the destruction of 
forensic evidence but, quote, what is done is done. Who was 
responsible for what is done is done? This was my son's life.
    Why can Adam's clothes not be returned to me? I want what 
was his last.

                           PREPARED STATEMENT

    Adam excelled in everything he attempted because he 
approached life with 150 percent effort. Both Adam and I are 
born-again Christians. I know I will see him again, but when I 
do, I want to look him in the eye and say, son, I gave it 150 
percent just like you taught me to.
    Thank you.
    Senator Specter. Thank you very much, Mrs. Prentice.
    [The statement follows:]

                 Prepared Statement of Barbara Prentice

    Distinguished members of the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and 
Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies:
    Thank you for inviting me to share my views regarding security on 
campus. My name is Barbara Prentice, and I am a member of a select 
group of Americans across this country that has no designated class, 
race, profession, or age. My goal is to prevent you from joining my 
group. I am the grieving mother of a loving son who died under 
suspicious circumstances while at college.
    On September 1, 1997, I kissed and hugged my firstborn child Adam 
goodbye as he prepared to leave for his junior year at the University 
of Massachusetts in Amherst. I reminded him to study hard, and to have 
fun, but to be careful. As an alumnus of the same university, I knew 
that the campus wasn't safe after dark. Adam never took my scolding 
seriously, believing himself to be infallible because of his gender and 
age. But he listened respectfully, and assured me he'd be fine. I waved 
goodbye, watching him drive down the street until his car was out of 
sight. This was the last time I saw him.
    On September 24, Adam called to check in as he did every Sunday and 
Wednesday. We talked for 45 minutes--much longer than usual. It was a 
wonderful conversation, but it was late, so I suggested we hang up. I 
never talked to him again.
    At 8 p.m., on Friday, September 26, I had an unusual urge to call 
Adam, but decided against it.
    At 4:30 a.m., at September 27, I awoke to the telephone ringing--
the phone call that all parents fear most. Dr. Tehrani identified 
himself as a trauma physician at Bay State Medical Center in 
Springfield, MA. He informed me that Adam had fallen through a 
greenhouse roof on campus several hours before, and had tragically been 
brought to the wrong hospital first. He proceeded to state that I'd 
have to get the details from the campus police, and that he was ``so 
sorry to tell me that Adam had just passed away.'' At that moment, the 
Barbara Prentice known to self, family, friends, and associates, passed 
away, too. And I will never, ever be the same. There is no turning 
back; there is no recovery. Every waking moment breaths the loss of 
your child.
    My son Adam was a resident of the Town of Barnstable, located on 
Cape Cod in Massachusetts. He was a 4.0 Honors computer systems 
Engineering major at University of Massachusetts, where he had been 
highly recruited. He worked two jobs for years as a head lifeguard and 
swim instructor for the YMCA and Town of Barnstable so he could put 
himself through college. At school, he continued to work part time, 
even though his classes were the most difficult offered on campus. He 
was an accomplished song writer, musician, and athlete in six sports, 
rising early each morning to exercise before work or classes. As a 
born-again Christian, his gentle, compassionate nature was respected by 
all. His friends ranged from a grandfather to the mentally challenged. 
He loved children, and had a gift for inspiring them through his work. 
Over the years, he'd taught hundreds of Cape Codders how to swim, and 
was referred to as a ``quiet leader'' and ``ideal role model.'' His 
death has affected the entire community.
    Adam died from loss of blood several hours after suffering an 
injury on campus. It was Homecoming, always a busy weekend in Amherst, 
and he had been out with friends. Around 12:30 a.m., he allegedly left 
them, stating that he was tired and wanted to go back to the dorm. Due 
to safety issues, they didn't want him to walk home alone, but Adam was 
ready to leave, and they weren't. One friend went outside to see Adam 
off, then watched him walk toward the bus stop.
    At 1:30 a.m., an alarm sounded at the greenhouses located in the 
center of campus. Adam was found on the grass nearby, collapsed and 
bleeding profusely. The greenhouses were located several blocks beyond 
the walkway that led uphill to Adam's dorm, and diagonally across the 
street from the campus bus stop. The first officer to respond reported 
that he had seen another person running through the middle greenhouse. 
As he rounded the corner of the building, he found Adam ``either passed 
out or hiding'' from him. Several other officers arrived. One noted 
that Adam was very pale, and had a ``smell of alcoholic beverage on his 
breath.'' Officers located a hole through one greenhouse roof, and a 
second hole through the side of another. All greenhouses were attached. 
They suspected that this was a ``break and entry in progress,'' and 
concluded that Adam had been attempting to maliciously destroy property 
valued over $250.
    Adam is described as being found in conflicting states--one officer 
comments that ``initial observations of Adam were that he was semi-
conscious, soaked with fresh blood, collapsed and moaning,'' but in the 
same breath the same officer continues to state that, ``throughout 
contact with the subject, he was highly combative.'' Rescue was called, 
and Adam ``continued to be combative'' as his clothes were cut off to 
determine the origin of the bleeding. He is also described as being 
found ``conscious and alert,'' but then again as being ``semi-
conscious, mumbling, and hard to understand.'' While in the ambulance, 
it was recorded that Adam stated ``it wasn't my fault,'' but there is 
no indication that rescue personnel questioned what he meant by this. 
All reports are subjective, implying that Adam's combativeness resulted 
from intoxication. He is even described as being ``loaded.'' The facts 
are that he'd been stabbed in the back and impaled through the stomach 
by a shard of glass measuring 8 inches and resembling a knife. However, 
because police suspected Adam was either so drunk he didn't know what 
he was doing, or had been attempting to break into the greenhouse, he 
was restrained. Sources have reported to us that he had initially even 
been handcuffed.
    Because no witnesses had come forward at the scene to volunteer any 
information, police determined that Adam was alone, and ordered the 
scene to be cleaned immediately without preserving it or taking 
forensic evidence. They issued a statement later that morning asking 
for information, but also stated that they believed him to be alone. 
Thereafter, they referred all inquiries to the the public affairs 
office.
    Within 1\1/2\ hours, all blood, glass and dirt from the incident 
had been destroyed in the clean up, and the holes were replaced with 
new glass the next day. When I visited the scene two days later, there 
was no evidence at all that anything had ever happened.
    In basic first aid, a victim of a medical emergency should never be 
moved unless in immediate danger. Police reports specifically state 
that Adam was found semi-conscious and soaked with fresh blood from a 
severe laceration, yet he was ordered to stretch his arms overhead and 
restrained. Pressure was then applied on the area impaled to stop the 
bleeding, even though officers had seen the glass in his back. How much 
deeper did this cause the glass to submerge, and no wonder he became 
agitated. In forcing him to lay flat, how much more physical pain did 
he have to endure needlessly? He was guilty until proven innocent, yet 
defenseless to advocate for himself. In spite of police knowledge of 
Adam's injury, they did not advocate for him either. He was not 
medflighted to a trauma center, the written protocol for impalement in 
Western Massachusetts. Nor was he transported by ambulance to a trauma 
center. Even though rescue personnel came upon a blood bath (photos 
attached), they chose to transport him to a hospital with no trauma 
facilities. And even though three officers were restraining Adam, they 
chose to transport him without enough manpower--the paramedic was 
driving, and an EMTI sat in the back with him. Consequently, in his 
state of pain and delirium, Adam was able to rip out his IV's and 
oxygen mask, preventing proper hydration. All parties involved assumed 
he was combative because he was intoxicated. Even though he was a 
tenant of the University, residing on university property and injured 
on university property, he was suspected of being a criminal before a 
victimized student! This is an outrage to the value placed on our 
children's lives. It is common knowledge to anyone with minimal first 
aid training that agitation is a classic indication of oxygen 
deprivation due to loss of blood.
    At the hospital, Adam identified himself by full name, address, 
social security number, and birthdate. Hardly a task for someone 
intoxicated, never mind someone suffering as he was. Adam had also been 
carrying a picture ID in his back pocket, the most common place for a 
man to keep identification, but officers neglected to look either 
before or after cutting his clothes off. It appears that the doctor at 
the hospital was never advised about the impaled glass, as there is no 
further comment about it until 45 minutes after arrival, when he 
mentions seeing it in an x-ray. At this time, it was arranged for Adam 
to be transferred to Bay State trauma center. Simultaneously, he went 
into cardiac arrest, and had to be brought back in for stabilization. 
The second ambulance then had to await discharge papers before 
transporting him.
    Enroute, Adam went into cardiac arrest again. He was defibrillated 
and given CPR until arrival at Bay State, where his chest was cracked 
for open heart massage. He was pronounced dead 7 minutes later. The 
cause of death was ``loss of blood.'' He had never been given a blood 
transfusion, nor typed for one. It had taken 3 hours for him to bleed 
to death. He was conscious until the last half hour. During this time, 
I was never notified by University officials or the first hospital. It 
would have taken me less than 3 hours to drive to Springfield.
    On September 27, 1997, I suffered the worst tragedy a mother can 
suffer: the preventable death of a beautiful child. This time it was my 
son, but he could have been yours. We send our children off to college 
assuming that the University of our choice will supervise their 
transition from teenager to young adult. We need to arm ourselves with 
the knowledge that this is no longer truthful, and we have to prepare 
our children for battle before sending them away. For the colleges we 
help select for them are more concerned with protecting their public 
image, and the safety of our students is often overlooked. I entrusted 
my child's health and well being to the same institution I myself had 
graduated from. Yet, because of an ``odor of alcohol'' on his breath, 
he walked blindly into an ambush. Like so many casualties of war, he 
came back to me in a body bag.
    As a lifeguard, Adam was trained extensively in CPR and First Aid. 
He knew how critical his condition was. Did he call for me? Why won't 
those who know tell me what he said? Did he feel I'd betrayed him 
because I wasn't there? I wasn't given the opportunity.
    After being notified of Adam's death by Dr. Tehrani, I called the 
University of Massachusetts campus police to ``get the details'' as he 
had suggested. I identified myself, but the dispatcher did not 
recognize ``Prentice,'' so I clarified that I was Adam's mother. He 
still didn't know who I was, so I clarified that Adam had just died due 
to an injury suffered on campus. He then recognized the name, and asked 
what I wanted, of which I answered ``the details.'' I was placed on 
hold for almost 10 minutes, then told that the detective in charge was 
still investigating and I'd have to call back. I demanded to speak with 
the shift commander, but he had no details either. I called Matt, 
Adam's room mate and childhood friend since middle school. Matt said 
that the police were storming through the dormitory as we spoke asking 
questions about Adam, and had just left his room. He hadn't been with 
Adam since 8 p.m., the night before, and didn't know why he hadn't come 
home. I then realized that Matt didn't know, and in my own hysteria, I 
was going to have to tell him that his best buddy since childhood was 
dead--Matt has never been the same.
    Adam's last annual physical was a month before his death. His 
doctor described him as being a ``well developed, well nourished 21 
year old gentleman who doesn't smoke and rarely drinks.'' However, in 
spite of his excellent physical shape, Adam was small in stature, and a 
prime candidate for robbery or assault alone at 1 a.m., on Homecoming 
weekend. Police reports state that there was so much vehicular and 
pedestrian traffic on campus that night that two additional officers 
had to be called in to direct it. Yet, they had told me initially that 
it was a quiet night with no one around.
    Within the first week of Adam's death, rumors surfaced that he had 
been the victim of foul play--that he'd been chased and pushed, or was 
fleeing from something for safekeeping. These were dismissed by police 
as speculation, and were not investigated. Police further commented to 
Adam's friends that they were concerned that they were talking to me 
because I had started these rumors! The editor of a regional newspaper 
also received two anonymous calls stating that Adam had not been alone 
at the time of the incident, but police did not call the editor for 
details until three days later. At that time, they talked with a 
reporter who had heard about the calls second hand. He allegedly stated 
that he did not believe them to be credible. The police did not bother 
to call the editor back himself until seven weeks later, when my lawyer 
learned of them, and requested they interview him directly. By this 
time, the editor could not remember much about the conversations, which 
were from two separate female sources on different dates and times. He 
did remember one as saying there had been a struggle with police, and 
that Adam hadn't been alone.
    I would like to know why, based on a smell of alcoholic beverage, 
my son's life was not taken seriously. My child died this time, but if 
we don't put a stop to these incidents, he could be your child just as 
easily the next time. And without your intervention, there will be many 
other children, and many other times. No one had checked Adam's 
identity prior to concluding he was attempting to break into the 
greenhouse. He could have easily been the son of a Senator. No one had 
checked Adam's identity before concluding that his combativeness was 
due to excessive drinking, when it was obviously due to oxygen 
deprivation and loss of blood.
    Adam was found at 1:30 a.m. Why, then, was it determined at 2:54 
a.m., that he was alone, and had been attempting to break into the 
greenhouse by crashing backward through the roof? Why does the second 
person seen originally who was never found ``metamorphosis'' into Adam, 
making him both inside and outside of the greenhouse at the same time? 
Inside, he is running through the greenhouse in a white tee shirt with 
an 8 inch shard of glass impaled in his back. He then trips an alarm 
upon entering another greenhouse, where he climbs up onto a table to 
kick himself out, even though he could have opened a door and walked 
out just as easily. At the same time, Adam is outside of the greenhouse 
semi-conscious and collapsed in a blood-soaked, fire engine red tee 
shirt. Three weeks later, when an officer was re-interviewed about the 
second person he, too, ``was apparently Adam Prentice.'' This time, he 
is placed in the first greenhouse with a shirt matching the description 
of Adam's before it turned red.
    To conclude, based on police reports, Adam was in three separate 
places at one time, all seen at 1:30 a.m., through a building from 75 
feet that had no interior lighting, frost-tinted windows, and street 
lighting blocked from a large tree.
    I wonder aloud if it ``was determined'' Adam was alone without 
taking the time to investigate because the Homecoming parade was due to 
pass by the greenhouse later that morning, and many prestigious alumni 
were on campus? It would certainly be easier to blame Adam for being so 
intoxicated that he could single-handedly crash backward through a 
roof, yet not too intoxicated to single-handedly climb up onto the 
roof, than it would be to alarm any guests by mentioning foul play. Is 
this why the scene was cleaned so quickly, without preserving it or 
taking forensic evidence? Do our children really crash through roofs 
with such frequency that it isn't deemed worthy of the time and effort 
involved to secure the scene?
    Will I ever know if Adam fell through? Did someone fall with him 
(the 2nd person, who could have exited through the windows--only the 
doors were alarmed.) How could Adam have fallen through the jagged 
shards pictured without cutting, injuring or scratching his body 
anywhere aside from the stab wound? Why weren't his clothes torn and 
covered with glass? Was he stabbed outside or inside of the greenhouse?
    In the police log for September 27, there was another man 
identified with a severely lacerated hand who was rushed to the same 
hospital 20 minutes after Adam. I was told by both the assistant 
district attorney and the chief of police that this student had punched 
out a dorm window. As there were no witnesses who saw him, my question 
to the department has always been why? Did he punch out the window? Who 
was with him when he did it, and where had he been between 12 and 2 
a.m?
    My son led a more than exemplary life, as attested to by the many 
character references attached. My suspicions and concerns regarding the 
mishandling of Adam's death are listed chronologically below as they 
occurred:
    The most devastating reality for me is the lack of accountability 
the police department has demonstrated by failing to provide security 
for one of their best students. At the cost of Adam's reputation, they 
blamed his death on excessive drinking to protect their own, rather 
than to investigate the more probable possibility that foul play was 
involved. In assuming Adam was drunk, police allowed the destruction of 
forensic evidence and denied him the most basic of his civil rights: 
the right to an objective, unbiased investigation. Does the 
Constitution not state ``innocent until proven guilty?'' How different 
the turn of events may have been if they had approached Adam as their 
own reports indicate they should have: ``My first observation of the 
subject were that his shirt and denim pants were soaked with fresh 
blood. The individual was barely conscious, very pale and moaning.''
    Why was Adam moved when no one knew how he'd been injured? Why was 
he requested to stretch his arms overhead and restrained? How much 
further did this impale him, and how much more agony did he suffer 
because of it. Why wasn't he treated with the compassion and 
sensitivity he so readily bestowed on all who crossed his paths, 
including many children of police officers and emergency personnel? Are 
the lives of our students so insignificant and devalued that police are 
more concerned with suspecting them of foul play and alcohol abuse than 
in ensuring the second most basic of Adam's civil rights violated: the 
right to fair, unbiased medical treatment? How different might the turn 
of events have been here if the rescue squad had made their own medical 
assessment, rather than accepting the police assessment? If Adam had 
been medflighted to either trauma center in the area, I believe he'd be 
here today. No one was stronger or healthier than he.
    Why wasn't I notified immediately that my son had been gravely 
injured? I would have advocated for him and demanded that he be taken 
to a trauma center.
    Why was I told Adam hadn't been identified soon enough to notify 
me, when a Criminal Records check was completed as early as 2:39 a.m., 
1\1/2\ hours before Adam died, that listed me as his mother, and my 
address as his home address? Why was I lied to, and why was it more 
important to seek information regarding a possible criminal background 
on Adam than it was to notify me? Why wasn't I given the opportunity to 
say goodbye to my son by University or hospital officials? I was told 
they were too busy trying to save him. If that is the case, why wasn't 
he taken to a trauma center as their protocol dictated he should have 
been?
    Why didn't the rescue squad treat Adam's injuries per the written 
protocol for impalement, loss of blood and soft tissue injury? As 
professionals, why didn't they recognize the classic symptoms he 
demonstrated regarding blood loss? His clothing was soaked in blood and 
in full view. They knew he was impaled.
    At 2:54 a.m., who determined that Adam had been alone, attempting 
to break into the greenhouse by crashing through the roof backward, 
only to run through the next greenhouse, vault up onto a table, and 
kick himself out? How could anyone determine that he was alone when 
they themselves destroyed the evidence that may have proven otherwise 
by not preserving it?
    Who did order this bloodbath scene to be cleaned up without 
securing it or taking forensic evidence?
    I know Adam talked. Did he tell them what had happened, only to 
have them judge his attempts to communicate as ``loaded'' gibberish and 
``inappropriate'' words sounding like, ``it wasn't my fault,'' but they 
clearly remembered him to say, ``I guess I drank to much?'' Why has the 
police department denied me access to the officers who responded and 
can tell me what Adam said? Why do they make me suffer more than the 
loss of my son alone, when it isn't necessary?
    When rescue arrived, three officers were restraining Adam, yet he 
was placed in the ambulance with one EMTI. Why was he allowed to be 
transported with inadequate manpower? Why was the paramedic, the higher 
ranked of the two, driving?
    Why is there no mention of the impalement at Cooley Dickinson 
hospital in reports until the doctor identifies it 45 minutes later in 
an x-ray? Didn't the rescue squad advise him about it? Was it still 
visible, as it had been at the scene?
    Why wasn't Adam blood-typed or transfused at Cooley Dickinson? Why 
wasn't I called from there?
    Upon the suggestion of Dr. Tehrani, when I called the police 
department for details surrounding Adam's death, why was I treated with 
such arrogance? I was placed on hold two times, given no information, 
then told I'd have to call back. When I called Adam's room mate for 
details, they were in his dorm and demanded to know why I was calling. 
When I asked Chief Luippold why I was treated in this manner, he said 
the hospital should have notified them that I had been informed so they 
could prepare a statement. I wanted facts, not a prepared statement. I 
was then told it ``wasn't University protocol'' to notify families--it 
was the hospital's responsibility. Yet, the hospital told me to call 
them for the details.
    When I asked for a written copy of the protocols, policies and 
procedures regarding safety on campus and the chain of command followed 
in reporting them, I was told no such document existed.
    When I asked why no one had been concerned enough to report Adam 
missing, I was told that this wasn't the responsibility of fellow 
students or resident advisors, that ``We operate from the philosophy 
that our students are adults and as such are responsible for their own 
actions. I am very sorry for your loss.''
    As a 4.0 Honors Computer Systems Engineering major recently 
inducted into the Golden Key National Honor Society, Adam was also a 
loss for the University of Massachusetts. Yet, I never received a 
sympathy card or telephone call offering condolences from either 
Chancellor Scott or President Bulger. Is the President's new $1,000,000 
per year office space in Boston so expensive that he couldn't afford 
the cost of a card or long distance call? Is this the way alumnus 
should expect to be treated by University officials when their children 
are victimized on campus property if that victimization might taint 
their reputation? I entrusted my child to the University of 
Massachusetts for safekeeping. I requested that he live on campus 
property because he'd be safer there. The University was Adam's 
landlord, and he their tenant.
    Chief Luippold and I first discussed Adam death several hours after 
I'd been notified that morning. He offered his condolences, then asked 
if I was aware that my son had a history of alcohol abuse in 
Barnstable? This was in reference to the CORI check requested at 2:34 
a.m., which noted that Adam had been charged with ``minor in 
possession'' in August 1995, but this charge had been dismissed, and 
court fees were reduced to ``noise violation.'' The facts of this 
incident were that 26 lifeguards on Cape Cod were singing and playing 
guitar on the beach. There was an untapped keg of beer that one of the 
guards, who was over 21, had purchased for another party later. Not one 
guard had even sipped an alcoholic beverage at the time of the arrests. 
All 26 were arrested, all ``minor in possession'' charges were dropped, 
and all paid a fine for noise violation due to the singing and guitar 
playing. No other incidents were recorded, yet Chief Luippold referred 
to an unfounded charge in August 1995 that had been dismissed as 
``alcohol abuse?'' I want to know what this dismissed charge 2 years 
prior had to do with Adam's death? Wouldn't it have been more 
appropriate to review his academic record?
    Why weren't Chief Luippold and his department spending those first 
crucial hours investigating Adam's death? Why was it more important to 
research Adam's background for non-existent drinking habits? Shouldn't 
their primary concern have been to begin the tedious process of re-
constructing why and how he'd just died? Was it Adam's fault that they 
had destroyed the evidence that might have answered these questions?
    Why didn't the Office of Public Affairs ever release any 
information about Adam aside from ``21 year old junior from Cape Cod 
who was intoxicated at the time of the fall?'' Why did police state 
that they were looking for information from anyone who might have seen 
Adam that night, but they believed him to be alone? Why not just say, 
``We're going to say the case is open, but we made our minds up at 2:54 
a.m., what will be allowed to be said, so we determined he was alone 
and cleaned the scene. If you saw anything, don't bother telling us, it 
is just speculation.''
    Why didn't police follow up immediately on the anonymous calls to 
the editor of the Gazette stating that Adam was not alone? Why did my 
lawyer have to request this through the DA's office, which still took 
them 7 weeks, by this time, the receiver of the calls had forgotten 
most of the information.
    Why did the police tell Adam's dorm friends that I had started wild 
rumors and speculations about Adam being chased and pushed, when I had 
been told this by an acquaintance whose son lives in Amherst who had 
heard it within the first few days of Adam's death?
    Why were Adam's dorm friends discouraged from talking to me and 
told that I would feed them wild speculations, yet University officials 
told me it was they who refused to talk?
    Why was I told that Adam's friends were quoted as saying they were 
all so intoxicated they didn't know where they'd been, and that they 
were so hung over they couldn't remember anything the next morning, and 
that they feared for Adam because he, to, was intoxicated? After 
reading their reports and talking to them, they denied ever telling 
police they'd been intoxicated, stating that they'd all drank earlier 
in the dorm, as did Adam, but after returning from a walk with a 
friend, he seemed back to normal? He did not drink again that night, 
although others did.
    Why was Adam's autopsy BAL so low, 0.12, as opposed to other 
``alcohol-related'' autopsies of 0.42, 0.65, in the news recently. The 
driving limit used to be 0.15 several years ago; it was only recently 
lowered to 0.08!
    Why is Adam prescribed in the police report as being 5 feet 10 
inches, 160 pounds, stocky and brown-skinned, when he was 5 feet 3 
inches, 130 pounds, lean, and white? Am I expected to believe in the 
credibility of this department, were they describing the second person 
who later ``metamorphosed into Adam, or are they just so insensitive 
that they don't bother to research the facts?
    Why do police reports specifically state that Adam Prentice bought 
the alcohol for the party that night, when he was still studying at the 
library at the time the alcohol was purchased? The student who drove 
the buyer to the liquor store even informed police that Adam had not 
bought the alcohol, yet they wrote it anyway.
    Why can police speculate about information that is a proven lie, 
but I can't speculate about information I've heard to be true? Why do 
they prefer to manipulate statements made from Adam's friends to fit a 
scene from their point of view that never happened, rather than to get 
to the bottom of what really happened?
    Why does the DA's office in Northampton, whose help I sought in 
clarifying the answers to the above-mentioned questions, respond by 
stating that ``we all share your frustrations'' regarding the evidence 
destroyed by cleaning up without preserving any, but ``what's done is 
done.''
    I want to know who should be accountable for, ``What's done is 
done?'' Would ``What's done is done,''satisfy the DA and Chief of 
Police if Adam were their son? Would they permit their child's 
reputation to be slandered because he had the misfortune to be 
victimized on campus property--perhaps even stabbed deliberately, only 
to be victimized again when ``help'' arrived and accused him of 
malicious destruction? And again when rescue arrived and misjudged his 
injury, sent him to the wrong hospital, without enough manpower, and by 
the wrong source of transportation?
    Why did Melinda Soffer, another attorney at the Northampton DA's 
office, immediately change her attitude at the mention of Adam's name 
during a phone conversation with Security on Campus staff when she 
called to compliment their website? She described herself as a lawyer 
working in a large college community in Massachusetts, and wondered if 
there was anything she could do to help. When it was suggested that she 
assist me in seeking answers regarding the suspicious death of Adam 
Prentice, her voice changed from friendly to ice cold, as if a dirty 
word had been spoken. She abruptly ended the conversation, and never 
called back to volunteer the services she'd just offered.
    Why do I have to beg for Adam's clothes to be returned to me? I 
want what was his last.
    Why were Adam's closest friends from the Cape who attend University 
of Massachusetts interviewed for character background, but everything 
they'd said regarding Adam's credibility was overlooked? Why do police 
refer to rely on the speculations made third party by individuals who 
didn't know Adam as evidence to support their theory that this crime 
was alcohol-related? Adam's closest friends told them that when he did 
drink, it was far less than them because he was such an accomplished 
athlete, and he preferred getting up early to exercise as opposed to 
staying out late to party?
    Why was so little value placed on my son's life because of a smell 
of alcohol on his breath that he had to die needlessly?
    I long for the day that I can grieve my son instead of defend him. 
These first months without him bring a new milestone to overcome with 
each passing day. The first Columbus Day holiday without shopping with 
him for winter clothes, two months since I saw him last, four months 
since I heard him say ``Hi Mum'' on the phone. The first birthday this 
Sunday without his thoughtful cards. Regardless of how busy Adam was, 
he always took the time to remember me. Mother's Day in May 1997 was 
the last card I'll ever receive from him. I am a gardener, and the card 
begins with:
    ``My mother kept a garden, a garden of the heart, she planted all 
the good things that gave my life its start. She turned me to the 
sunshine and encouraged me to dream, fostering and nurturing the seeds 
of self-esteem. And when the winds and rains came, she protected me 
enough--but not too much--she knew I'd need to stand up strong and 
tough. Her constant good example always taught me right from wrong--
markers for my pathway that will last a lifetime long. I am my mother's 
garden, I am her legacy--and I hope today she feels the love reflected 
back from me.''
    He then went on to hand write,
    ``Mom, thank you for being yourself. You are the best mother in the 
world. You've proved this to me time after time. Being away from home I 
realize you have given me everything that I need to succeed. Thank you 
for everything that you've done for me over years. I wish I was home to 
celebrate this day with you. But, before you know it, I'll be back.''
    If only this were true.
    The Christmas holidays were the cruelest--while friends shopped for 
their children's gifts and attended the traditional parties, I upgraded 
my hardware to research Adam's investigation more efficiently. The most 
expensive gift I purchased this season was a headstone for Adam's 
grave. It has a swimmer carved into black rock and the inscription 
``Lifeguard of Barnstable'' arched above it.
    What is it like to lose a beloved son so needlessly, only to have 
his impeccable character sacrificed relentlessly to protect the 
reputation of the very institution he'd saved so hard to attend? At an 
early age, Adam had accepted Jesus Christ as his personal savior, as 
have I. This is my only comfort. When I see him next, it will be for 
eternity.
    I am not a public speaker, but Adam was. Adam excelled at 
everything he attempted because he approached life with 150 percent 
effort. In honor of his memory, I choose to give his investigation 150 
percent. When I see him again, I want to look him in the eye and say, 
``Son, I gave it 150 percent, just like you taught me to.'' It truly is 
a rarity when a mother has learned so much from her child.
    Until then, I visit his graveside with the dawn of each morning. 
The quiet of the cemetery at this time is my refuge. I tidy the 
trinkets and cards left by his friends, then sit in my car for my 
prayers and devotions. Occasionally, I think of going to the ocean. We 
have both always loved the ocean, and spent 21 years together sitting 
and talking at the same spot he lifeguarded from in recent years.
    I wonder what Adam would have done with his life had he been given 
the opportunity to live it? He would have made an impact on all he 
touched, as the many testimonies I've attached will attest he made in 
their lives.
    Would he have worked as an Engineer in competitive industry, 
designing computer systems and writing 21st century programs? Would he 
have owned a business, or taught Math and Engineering at the University 
level? He loved to teach, and was planning to attend Graduate School in 
California. Would he have quit it all to write his lyrics and play 
guitar?
    I will always remember him where he was happiest: sitting high upon 
his lifeguard chair, twirling his whistle and pondering the gentle 
waves of the Cape Cod ocean he loved so much under the warmth of the 
summer sun.
    ``Those that would exchange essential liberties for a little 
personal safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.''--Benjamin 
Franklin

STATEMENT OF DR. STANLEY IKENBERRY, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN 
            COUNCIL ON EDUCATION
    Senator Specter. I would now like to turn to Dr. Stanley 
Ikenberry, president of the American Council on Education. The 
floor is yours, Dr. Ikenberry.
    Dr. Ikenberry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think we have 
heard some important and moving testimony here today, and the 
issue before us I think is important not just to this committee 
but to colleges and universities across the country. Making 
campuses safer places, making people aware of danger, and 
investing in education in campus security is a high priority 
issue for higher education generally and for campuses 
specifically.
    My own personal experience comes from 10 years at Penn 
State and 16 years as president of the University of Illinois.
    Let me state at the outset that I know of no college or 
university president in the country who would tolerate a 
coverup of crime or failure to properly report crime. 
Publicizing criminal incidents and providing information on 
campus crime helps reduce crime, in fact, by alerting the 
community to its danger and encouraging prudent behavior. There 
are, in addition strong legal as well as strong ethical reasons 
to publicize accurate information about crime on campus.
    So, my first point, Mr. Chairman, is I think presidents do 
care about this issue.
    As concern for personal safety has continued to grow in all 
aspects of the society, campuses have become more and more 
focused on creating and maintaining safe environments. The 
level of awareness and concern about crime on campus is 
steadily increasing. Individual institutions have responded to 
the need for greater security by employing a wide range and 
variety of strategies. Perhaps the most visible, for example, 
have been the installation of increasingly sophisticated lock 
and key systems, property identification programs, campus watch 
programs, illumination of the campus grounds, student escort 
services, security phone boxes, and many other measures. The 
security forces have also grown in number and expanding the 
screening, training, and supervision of campus personnel has 
expanded as well.
    Campus, city, county, and State law enforcement groups 
frequently work more closely together and often as one. Data 
reporting on security incidents I think is more professionally 
gathered and more timely reports are made.
    Of special importance are the efforts that colleges and 
universities are making to educate students, faculty, and staff 
on these issues. Although institutions have done and continue 
to do much to improve public safety, the responsibility is a 
shared one, and that is why education programs are particularly 
important for students and staff.
    The 1990 Campus Security Act has brought publicity to this 
issue, and publicity I think helps make all of us aware of the 
importance of maintaining a safe campus. But publicity alone is 
not sufficient. Institutions nationwide must undertake a broad 
array of measures if we are to continue to make campuses the 
safe places that they must be.
    My hope, however, Mr. Chairman, is that any changes in 
campus security laws be judged on the basis of whether in fact 
the proposed change will actually reduce crime on campus and 
whether in fact it could have unintended consequences.
    I believe, for example, the mandating of open campus 
disciplinary proceedings could have unintended consequences 
that would retard rather than accelerate the accurate reporting 
of incidents, and, therefore, it would not serve students, 
parents, or communities well.

                           PREPARED STATEMENT

    Colleges and universities are committed, Mr. Chairman, to 
improving campus security and safety. We will continue our 
efforts in that regard. To respond most effectively to local 
community conditions, schools need to be able to spend security 
related funds in areas that will have the greatest impact per 
dollar. Not all measures are equally effective on all campuses 
because the environments vary quite widely from campus to 
campus.
    Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before 
you today and would be pleased to respond to questions.
    Senator Specter. Thank you very much, Dr. Ikenberry.
    [The statement follows:]

               Prepared Statement of Stanley O. Ikenberry
    Mr. Chairman, I am Stanley O. Ikenberry, president of the American 
Council on Education. ACE represents over 1,600 public and private, 
two-and four-year colleges and universities across America. Along with 
other higher education associations that have endorsed this statement, 
we are pleased to join with you in seeking measures that may lead to a 
safer and more secure campus environment for our students, faculty, and 
staff.
    My personal perspective is drawn from my 10 years at Penn State, 
which has over 20 campuses state-wide, and my 16-year tenure as 
president of the University of Illinois. Illinois has only three 
campuses: a small one, in Springfield, and two others that are quite 
large, in Chicago and Urbana-Champaign.
    College and university campuses are communities filled with people 
of all ages and backgrounds, and these communities function within a 
larger city or region. The size of the campus and its proximity to 
other communities or cities influence the challenge of making campuses 
safe.
    Both on campus and off, crime is a possibility--mostly it is petty, 
but sometimes it can be deadly. Presidents and chancellors know that 
reporting these incidents contributes to campus safety by making the 
community more aware of dangers and vulnerabilities.
    As concern for personal safety continues to grow in all of society, 
campuses have become more and more focused on creating and maintaining 
safe environments by hiring more public safety officers, investing in 
training and equipment, enhancing reporting systems, and working with 
students, faculty, and staff in hundreds of way to help make campuses 
like Penn State and Illinois safer places to team and grow.
    Let me state at the outset that I know of no college or university 
president who would tolerate a cover-up of a crime on campus. As I 
indicated earlier, publicizing criminal incidents and providing 
information on campus crime helps reduce crime on campus by alerting 
the community to dangers and encouraging prudent behavior. The 
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, for example, publishes 
three comprehensive reports a year that break down crimes by location, 
time-of-day, day-of-the-week, sex of victim, and other factors. The 
campus and local media distribute the report and educate the public 
about risk factors. Many colleges and universities throughout the U.S. 
have adopted similar information measures, tailored to the 
circumstances and needs of each campus.
    There are, of course, strong legal reasons to publicize accurate 
information about crime on campus: colleges and universities should 
protect themselves from legal challenge by widely disseminating 
information of any significant incident. Institutions that have made an 
aggressive, good faith effort to make the campus community aware of 
criminal incidents are less likely to be found negligent in a court of 
law.
    I disagree with those who suggest that colleges cover up crime. The 
fact remains that crime does occur on campus as elsewhere in the 
society, and campuses must work aggressively to address and stop 
criminal activity. At one time, the college campus may have been a 
sanctuary where there were few dangers to physical safety. Sadly, that 
is no longer true. As with society in general, safety on campus must be 
an issue of constant concern.
    College and university presidents are very much aware of the need 
to address campus crime. For the last decade or more, colleges have 
been spending more money on increased security; sponsoring more 
information and educational programs; encouraging more positive social 
activities; and attempting to help students, faculty, and staff cope 
when a crime occurs. In 1988 we had 37 police officers at a cost of 
$1.8 million on the University of Illinois's Urbana-Champaign campus. 
This year there are 51 officers and the annual expenditure exceeded 
$3.4 million. In addition, in the last three years, the Urbana campus 
has spent over $750,000 for increased lighting, emergency phones, and 
other security measures.
    Higher education associations such as ACE have been responsive to 
the changing security needs on campus and to heightened public concern 
about campus safety. ACE has taken the lead in focusing the attention 
of college and university administrators on the need for improved 
security. In December 1985, prior to passage of the federal Campus 
Security Act or any state-level laws, we prepared and mailed to all 
colleges a document entitled Achieving Reasonable Campus Security, 
which provided campus officials with a checklist of suggested 
practices. In addition to regular updates on this issue in our biweekly 
newsletter, we have published a book by Professor Michael Clay Smith, 
entitled: ``Coping With Crime on Campus,'' which explores both legal 
issues and security measures in great detail. ACE and other higher 
education associations routinely sponsor sessions on this topic for 
college presidents at our annual meeting. We recently compiled a 
compendium of information related to the problem of alcohol abuse on 
campus, all of which is available on ACE's web page at www.acenet.edu.
    These materials are designed to summarize research of importance, 
provide guidance to campus officials, suggest creative responses to 
dealing with campus safety, and emphasize potential liability for 
failure to deal with these issues properly. These documents provide a 
substantial reservoir of information that enables colleges to determine 
whether their campus regulations and security structures are adequate 
and to identify steps for improvement.
    Given the concern about this issue by policymakers and the public, 
the level of awareness and concern about crime on college campuses is 
steadily increasing. Individual institutions have responded to the need 
for greater security by employing a variety of strategies. Perhaps 
easiest and most visible have been the installation of increasingly 
sophisticated lock and key systems, property identification programs, 
campus watch programs, increased illumination of the campus, student 
escort services, and security phone boxes. Security forces also have 
grown in number, with expanded screening, training, and supervision. 
Campus, city, county, and state law enforcement officers work much more 
closely together and at times as one force. Data regarding security 
incidents are gathered and appropriate reports are filed. Of special 
importance are the efforts colleges make to educate and regularly 
remind students, faculty, staff, and other members of the campus 
community about security risks and procedures.
    Although institutions have done and continue to do much to improve 
safety, the responsibility is a shared one. Students and student 
behavior are essential to the safety equation as well. It is important 
that institutions alert students to campus safety issues, but it is 
equally vital that students take steps to protect themselves. Unless 
students take advantage of the safety programs and services offered by 
our institutions, campus safety strategies will not succeed.
    Our students generally come to college from relatively safe home 
environments. Often this is the first time they have had to bear much 
responsibility for themselves, their health, and their behavior. Some 
students think they are invulnerable: ``bad things only happen to other 
people.'' Such an outlook, in my experience, can be extremely 
dangerous. Campuses must constantly seek ways to inform students about 
the consequences of crime and encourage them to take reasonable steps 
to protect themselves; but no school can insure the safety of its 
students if the students themselves do not show good judgment, if they 
do not take care of themselves, or if they do not think about the well-
being of those around them.
    The 1990 Campus Security Act has brought publicity to this issue--
and publicity helps make all of us aware of the importance of 
maintaining a safe campus. But publicity alone is not sufficient. 
Institutions nationwide must undertake safety measures if we are to 
have a reasonable chance of both educating students about the frequency 
of crime and reducing the likelihood of crime on campus.
    Because of the complexity of the law and its manifold requirements 
(I will include a list of reporting requirements as an appendix to my 
statement) many campuses have had difficulty in meeting federal 
reporting requirements. This was confirmed in a March 1997 General 
Accounting Office (GAO) report on campus crime (GAO-HEHS-97-52) which 
states, ``at the campus level, colleges are finding it difficult to 
consistently interpret and apply some of the law's reporting 
requirements.'' After reviewing 25 campus crime reports, GAO concluded 
that some campuses had under-reported crime while others over-reported 
it. The GAO report found that the Department of Education had provided 
little technical assistance to help campuses implement the reporting 
requirements.
    Audits of campus safety reporting conducted by the Department of 
Education have reached similar conclusions. While the audits found no 
evidence that campuses attempt to hide crimes, they concluded that 
crimes are sometimes inaccurately reported. In some cases crimes are 
miscategorized. For example, a larceny may be erroneously reported as a 
burglary.
    Since the GAO report was released and its findings confirmed, the 
Department has increased its technical assistance efforts. In addition, 
the current work to update audit guidelines for independent auditors 
may help achieve more consistent reporting. In some cases where the 
Department of Education has audited schools, Department officials have 
disagreed among themselves as to what the law requires.
    One particular area relating to campus security that has drawn 
intense interest is the campus student disciplinary process. Student 
disciplinary systems are not intended to be, nor are they, a substitute 
for the civil or criminal courts. They are, instead, the method by 
which a college enforces its own standards of conduct that go beyond 
the requirements of law and include violations of academic norms of 
behavior. Student disciplinary codes do not result in criminal fines or 
criminal jail sentences; instead, their purpose is to provide a 
reasonable living and learning environment for students. When students 
violate the law, they also remain subject to criminal prosecution.
    When criminal acts are reported to school officials, a common 
response is to discuss with the alleged victim the range of resources 
and alternatives available. The options include not only asking that 
the college enforce its rules by taking disciplinary action against the 
offender such as expulsion, but also asking law enforcement officials 
to prosecute the offender. If the student victim desires, a school 
official (perhaps a counselor or someone from student affairs) will 
accompany and support the victim during meetings with authorities. In 
this way, colleges are doing precisely what they should be doing: 
apprising the victim of available alternatives and resources, and 
approaching each case with an eye to the best interest of all of the 
students who are involved.
    The ``Accuracy in Campus Crime Reporting Act of 1997,'' H.R. 715, 
would expand reporting requirements of campus crime laws. Some of the 
proposed changes in federal law envisioned by this law are reasonable. 
For example, expanding the list of reportable crimes to include arson, 
simple assault, larceny, and vandalism is a reasonable step, although 
specific legal elements of each of these crimes must be delineated. A 
provision to open campus crime logs may prove helpful, but any 
requirement should allow a reasonable delay to ensure accuracy, to 
protect the rights of victims and the accused, and to avoid any 
impediment to a criminal investigation. Requiring campus crime reports 
to be submitted to and published by the Department of Education--though 
we believe it serves no useful purpose will not create any additional 
difficulty for campuses, unless it results in a reduction of the 
technical assistance provided by the Department of Education.
    However, some of the proposed changes in this bill will be clearly 
counterproductive. For example, it would require a large number of 
campus officials--some with confidential counseling responsibilities--
to report knowledge of crimes. Under H.R. 715, campus administrators, 
deans, disciplinary officers, athletic department officials, housing 
officials, counselors, and others would be required to report any 
knowledge of a crime committed on campus. Is this likely to lead to 
accurate and valuable reports? Hardly likely. Will it create a complex 
and expensive training burden? Absolutely.
    Such a proposal would require that all of these individuals be 
trained to recognize the legal difference in crimes--such as larceny 
versus burglary--and report information properly. Training these myriad 
of individuals will be costly and it will be an ineffective and 
wasteful use of resources that otherwise could be used to enhance 
campus safety. Can this training be done? Yes. Is it a good way to 
reduce crime on campus? No.
    Moreover, such a requirement could create a problem for counselors 
and other campus officials, particularly in incidents involving sex-
related offenses. Students who have been the victim of a sexual assault 
often want to talk to a trusted adult in a confidential manner. Housing 
or residence staff are especially important in this role; a requirement 
that they report incidents, even on an anonymous basis, may well 
discourage victims from seeking help. We are especially concerned about 
the position in which this places Resident Advisors, who generally are 
students themselves. In addition, requiring ``counselors'' to report 
any knowledge of crime could discourage students from seeking needed 
assistance and threaten the confidential relationship between medical 
personnel and their clients. Such issues must be considered carefully 
before binding legislation that brings counterproductive results is 
passed.
    In the same vein, H.R. 715 would cause the federal government to 
dictate campus disciplinary proceedings and require that these be open 
to the public. This could have a chilling and counterproductive effect 
on the reporting of crime on campus. Victims of campus crime especially 
sexual assault--often use these proceedings when they want some 
``justice,'' but are not willing to press criminal charges. These 
victims, we feel, will be less likely to report crimes and seek a 
resolution if the incident is to be discussed in a public forum. Faced 
with such a choice, they may decide to drop the matter altogether.
    Any changes in the campus security law should be judged on several 
grounds. First, will the proposed change actually reduce crime on 
campus or will it have unintended consequences? I believe, for example, 
that forcing open campus disciplinary proceedings could result in a 
reduction of the reported incidence of crime on campus, not better or 
more accurate reporting. It will not help to reduce the actual level of 
crime on campus.
    Second, campuses and policymakers should consider whether the cost 
of the proposed change will result in a benefit of equal value. For 
example, requiring large numbers of campus personnel to be trained to 
recognize the difference in types of crimes so that they can accurately 
report the crimes in the unlikely event that they learn of one, is 
simply not a cost-effective proposal. Such a practice will reduce the 
campus resources that go into crime prevention and education efforts on 
campus.
    Colleges and universities are committed to improving campus 
security and safety, and will continue their efforts in this regard. To 
respond most effectively to local community conditions, schools need 
flexibility to spend security-related funds in areas that would have 
the greatest impact on safety, not on an ever-increasing array of 
reports.
    At a time when more financial demands are being placed on colleges 
and universities by state and federal governments, any ``one-size-fits-
all'' approach to campus crime is unlikely to be as effective as one 
tailored to local community conditions. Large urban campuses often need 
entirely different security measures than small rural colleges. We 
would encourage you to allow schools the flexibility to respond to 
local security concerns in individualized ways.
    We appreciate the opportunity to share our comments with you and 
stand ready to work with you, other members of your committee, and your 
staff to help reduce campus crime.
       reporting requirements of the campus security act of 1990
    (1) policies, procedures, and facilities for persons to report 
criminal actions and other emergencies;
    (2) policies for reporting crime, including the name and title of 
each person or organization to whom students or employees should report 
crimes, and policies for making timely reports of crimes to the campus 
community;
    (3) policies addressing security of and access to campus facilities 
and security considerations in the maintenance of campus facilities;
    (4) campus law enforcement policies that include an analysis of the 
enforcement policy of campus security personnel, their working 
relationship with state and local officials, and efforts to encourage 
prompt, accurate reporting;
    (5) a description of the frequency of programs held to inform 
students and employees about security procedures and to encourage them 
to be careful;
    (6) a description of programs used to inform students about the 
prevention off crimes;
    (7) statistical data about the occurrence on campus of six types of 
crimes reported to local police or to any official of the institution 
having significant responsibility for campus or student activities;
    (8) statistics about arrests for crimes involving liquor, drugs, or 
weapons;
    (9) statistics on murder, forcible rape, and aggravated assault 
that can also be classified as a hate crime;
    (10) policies on monitoring and reporting criminal activity by 
student organizations of campus;
    (11) policies regarding the possession, use, and sale of alcoholic 
beverages and the enforcement of underage drinking laws;
    (12) policies on illegal drug use and the enforcement of federal 
and state drug laws;
    (13) a description of drug and alcohol abuse education programs; 
and
    (14) policies regarding campus sexual assault, including nine 
specific procedures required by the law that campuses will follow when 
a sexual offense occurs.

STATEMENT OF MICHELE GOLDFARB, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF STUDENT CONDUCT, 
            UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA
ACCOMPANIED BY PETER C. ERICHSEN, VICE PRESIDENT AND GENERAL COUNSEL, 
            UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA AND UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA 
            HEALTH SYSTEM

    Senator Specter. I now turn to Ms. Michele Goldfarb, from 
the University of Pennsylvania, overseeing the operations of 
the student disciplinary section and resolution of alleged 
violations of the code of student conduct and code of academic 
integrity. Ms. Goldfarb, the floor is yours.
    Ms. Goldfarb. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. I am Michele 
Goldfarb, director of the Office of Student Conduct at the 
University of Pennsylvania. Before my present position, I was 
an assistant district attorney for the city of Philadelphia, a 
faculty member at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, 
and an assistant U.S. attorney.
    Before I begin, I would like to note that I am accompanied 
by my colleague, Peter Erichsen, the vice president and general 
counsel of the University of Pennsylvania and the University of 
Pennsylvania Health System.
    I appreciate the opportunity to discuss the proposed 
Accuracy in Campus Crime Reporting Act. I have submitted a 
statement for the record that I would like to summarize.
    Also attached for the record is correspondence from 
University of Pennsylvania president Judith Roden. President 
Roden has consistently emphasized two points with regard to the 
Campus Security Act.
    First, the university is absolutely committed to fulfilling 
both the letter and the spirit of the law.
    Second, she has consistently affirmed and led institutional 
actions and changes to increase the safety and security of our 
campus. These initiatives have been significant. I have also 
attached for the record a list of recent actions taken by the 
university to these ends.
    It is the purpose of the student disciplinary system to 
further the educational mission of the university by resolving 
alleged violations of the code of student conduct. The 
university disciplinary process does not supplant the criminal 
justice system
    The Office of Student Conduct at Penn has twin goals. The 
first is to help create a safe environment where academic life 
can flourish, and the second is to promote the development of 
students.
    When serious and dangerous infractions are reported to our 
office, we make every effort to involve local law enforcement. 
Complainants are always notified of their option to pursue 
outside remedies, such as private criminal complaints, 
restraining orders, and civil lawsuits, and are encouraged to 
do so. We follow these cases closely and fully cooperate with 
local prosecutors. We support the notion that students should 
face criminal charges where appropriate and that the victim 
should avail him or herself of the full use of the criminal 
justice system, in addition to the university disciplinary 
process.
    Many of the matters that come to the attention of our 
office, however, are cases which local law enforcement 
authorities, especially in a city the size of Philadelphia, 
would never handle through the criminal justice system. As you 
know, Mr. Chairman, the district attorney of Philadelphia 
cannot begin to address all of the cases that might 
theoretically be handled by it.
    As a former prosecutor with experience in both local and 
Federal courts, as well as the university's chief disciplinary 
officer, I am acutely aware of the differences between 
disciplinary proceedings on a college campus and a criminal 
proceeding. Student disciplinary processes are meant to set the 
standards of behavior on our campuses and to determine a 
student's standing in our community. In contrast to the 
criminal justice system, disciplinary proceedings are limited 
in scope. Our procedures and goals do not mirror the panoply of 
laws, safeguards, and rules which characterize civil and 
criminal trials. I cannot overemphasize the fact, which is 
frequently misunderstood, that internal disciplinary 
proceedings are not meant to replace or substitute for the 
criminal justice system.
    That said, however, student disciplinary processes provide 
an important additional forum to respond to the interests of 
the university community. Our processes are designed to educate 
and, where appropriate, punish those students who violate our 
rules. We seek both to promote a student's sense of 
responsibility by enforcing accountability and also to protect 
our community by, where necessary, removing or restricting 
those who pose a threat to others.
    I turn now briefly to the proposed Accuracy in Campus Crime 
Reporting Act.
    As you know, this legislation would require open student 
disciplinary proceedings and records if criminal conduct is 
alleged. Mr. Chairman, the University of Pennsylvania has had 7 
years of experience with the Campus Security Act. The 
Department of Education has been working to provide clear and 
consistent guidance on how to interpret that law.
    With regard to the disciplinary process, current law is 
preferable to any of the changes that have been proposed in 
ACCRA. The proposal to require open disciplinary proceedings 
would not accomplish ACCRA's stated goal of creating a safer 
campus environment, nor would it serve to publicize crime on 
campus. Indeed, ACCRA would undoubtedly have a chilling effect 
on many students' willingness to report incidents of 
misconduct.
    One of the most troublesome aspects of the open 
disciplinary proceedings provision is the fact that while it is 
intended to subject the alleged perpetrator to public scrutiny, 
it would also subject the victims to the same harsh public and 
media scrutiny. While the criminal justice system provides for 
some legal protections for participants in the process, if 
disciplinary proceedings were made open, these parties would 
have all the public intrusion involved in a criminal proceeding 
without the attendant protections.
    Furthermore, the proposed law is unnecessary to accomplish 
its stated goal of alerting the campus about the types of cases 
and the outcomes of disciplinary proceedings. Many campuses, 
including Penn, publish regular reports to the community which 
detail the types of matters that are handled by disciplinary 
offices and their outcomes. These anonymous reports provide the 
community with an accurate picture of campus disciplinary 
activities without compromising the confidentiality of the 
process.
    Campuses disciplinary offices are safe, professional places 
for students to report misconduct. It is very unlikely that 
victims of misconduct would continue to seek the help they need 
if they knew that, from the time they stepped into our offices, 
their matter would be available for review by any member of the 
public, including the student media.
    I believe that this legislation would not add to safety on 
campus which is the stated goal of ACCRA. On the contrary, it 
would lead to the deterioration of the integrity and 
effectiveness of the disciplinary processes.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to testify 
today.
    Senator Specter. Thank you, Ms. Goldfarb.

STATEMENT OF DOLORES A. STAFFORD, DIRECTOR, UNIVERSITY 
            POLICE DEPARTMENT, GEORGE WASHINGTON 
            UNIVERSITY
    Senator Specter. Ms. Dolores Stafford, director of 
university police at George Washington University. The floor is 
yours, Ms. Stafford.
    Ms. Stafford. Thank you. Good morning.
    George Washington University is a large institution located 
here in the District of Columbia. My department is composed of 
75 uniformed police officers, 12 administrators with various 
specialties, and 150 part-time students.
    Let me address one issue up front. There seems to be an 
underlying belief that some institutions are hiding crime or 
purposely underreporting crime. This is simply not true.
    Most people in my position take pride in developing a 
professional department whose members main priority is 
providing a safe and secure environment for students to learn 
and grow. In many ways the members of the GW community hold my 
department personally responsible for their safety. We accept 
that responsibility and that means that we have to do what is 
right and what makes sense in order to meet the expectations of 
the members of our campus community. We do not do this job 
simply because there is a law governing campus security.
    The Campus Security Act of 1990 shook the campus law 
enforcement arena. Not only did institutions have to change the 
way they did business and who they hired into the security 
jobs, but security took a front seat on most college campuses, 
not only in the eyes of the consumer, but in the minds of those 
working on college campuses. I must say that some senior 
officials were initially resistant to the changes, but 8 years 
later I am here to tell you that there has been a significant 
change for most of us in the security business. College 
administrators realize that we must use common sense as our 
guide.
    The only way students can and will protect themselves is if 
we are continuously harping on the fact that crime can and does 
occur on college campuses. Students on college campuses have a 
general perception that they live in a bubble and that nothing 
will happen there. Our best crime prevention tool is using 
various mediums to saturate the campus with important security 
related information so that students will consistently take 
precautions to ensure their safety.
    Effective crime prevention is not accomplished with a 1-
hour program at the beginning of a student's freshman year. It 
is an ongoing effort. We need to keep this concern in the front 
of their minds not only while they are on a college campus, but 
for the rest of their lives.
    That is why many of us in this business not only abide by 
the law, we exceed the expectations. For example, at GW we meet 
the requirements of the law by sending the compliance document 
to every member of the GW community, but we also publish the 
information in the student handbook. We publish weekly crime 
logs in the student newspaper and we post crime alerts in every 
building on campus after a serious incident. We not only 
publish the required statistics, we publish additional 
categories that are necessary to provide an overall picture of 
what is happening on campus. These are just examples of the 
crime prevention efforts on one college campus.
    Of course, there are those institutions who are perceived 
to be doing things incorrectly, but most of the mistakes appear 
to be unintentional errors caused by differing interpretations 
of the law. We can resolve many of these problems if we develop 
clear guidelines regarding the specific expectations that 
should be met for each of the standards outlined in the current 
law. There are numerous areas of the current law that need 
further clarification. Some of these points are made in my 
written testimony which I would ask be submitted for the 
record.
    Senator Specter. It will be submitted in the record.
    Ms. Stafford. Thank you.
    Any new legislation needs to balance what is right for the 
victims of campus crime, the students on campus, and the 
institutions. For example, it has been suggested by some that 
it might be a good idea to open campus disciplinary hearings 
and records. Many of the proponents of this idea are even 
college students. However, keep in mind that most of these 
students are associated with campus newspapers. These changes 
would certainly not be in the best interests of the general 
student body.

                           PREPARED STATEMENT

    There are many possible changes to the law that would be 
beneficial to the members of the campus community at large, and 
we should implement those changes without hesitation. As you 
review and possibly develop legislation regarding campus crime, 
I urge you to keep in mind, first, the best interests of the 
students and, second, the best interests of the institutions of 
higher education across the country.
    Senator Specter. Thank you very much, Ms. Stafford.
    [The statement follows:]

               Prepared Statement of Dolores A. Stafford
      regarding: h.r. 715--accuracy in campus crime reporting act
    Good morning, my name is Dolores Stafford. As the Director of the 
University Police Department for the George Washington University (GW), 
a position which I have held for 5 years, I administer the law 
enforcement program for one of the top ranked postsecondary 
institutions in the country. My department is composed of 75 sworn, 
uniformed police officers, 12 administrators with various specialties 
and 150 part-time student employees. The budget for police services at 
GW is approximately $3.5 million. I am also the University's 
Coordinator for the Sexual Assault Crisis Consultation Team. I deal 
with students who are victims of campus crimes, including sexual 
assaults, on a daily basis.
    I currently serve as a member of the Government Relations Committee 
for the International Association of Campus Law Enforcement 
Administrators, a professional organization whose members manage campus 
police and security programs at more than 900 colleges and 
universities.
    The Campus Security Act of 1990 requires institutions to notify the 
campus community about various security policies and procedures, to 
report the specified criminal offenses and to provide timely notice to 
the campus community regarding those crimes. I have submitted for the 
record several copies of the annual report on campus crime for the 
George Washington University and a copy of a recent timely notice 
warning posted in every building on campus.
    Let me address one issue up front, there seems to be an underlying 
belief by some that institutions are hiding crime or purposely under-
reporting crime. This is simply not the norm. The people responsible 
for security on college campuses have a great deal of integrity and 
many even feel personally responsible for reporting crime accurately. 
My colleagues and I in the campus security business want to work 
closely with the members of the Department of Education and the members 
of this committee to ensure that all students and their families are 
provided with accurate, meaningful information about campus security.
    Implementing the Campus Security Act has taken time. After 
enactment in November of 1990, Congress amended the original Act on two 
occasions before it was implemented. The Department of Education 
published and sent three letters to institutions between March 1991 and 
July 1992 providing information about complying with the Campus 
Security Act. The final regulations were not published until July 1994. 
This delay in receiving complete and concise regulations and the 
initial difficulty in interpreting specific portions of the regulations 
greatly complicated the task we faced on campus.
    According to the GAO report published in March 1997, ``areas of 
difficulty (for institutions) included deciding how to include 
incidents reported to campus officials other than law enforcement 
officers, interpreting federal requirements for reporting sex offenses, 
and reporting data on hate crimes.'' This led to incidents where 
institutions were publishing incorrect numbers and according to the GAO 
report, some institutions were even over-reporting crime. The 
Department of Education had no experience with campus crime reporting. 
Its main focus is the administration of Federal financial aid programs. 
During the first few years, the Department of Education staffers 
assigned the task were in the learning stages. The Department has taken 
steps to improve its knowledge of the issues and staff there has begun 
to actively assist institutions by providing technical assistance.
    An example of its recent efforts includes participation in a 
training session that I coordinated between the members of the 
Association of Campus Law Enforcement Administrators of Delaware, the 
District of Columbia, Maryland and Northern Virginia and three members 
of the Department of Education in March 1997. We had a proactive 
discussion that led the group to conduct a ``self-review'' which 
allowed us the opportunity to ensure that we were in compliance.
    Several of the institutions found areas where they were 
misunderstanding or misinterpreting the language in the final 
regulations. For example, I was classifying ``hate crimes'' as a 
separate category rather than identifying them under the appropriate 
classification of murder, forcible rape and aggravated assault as 
required by law. This error was certainly unintentional, and I was able 
to correct it because I received appropriate guidance from the members 
of the Department of Education. As a Campus Law Enforcement Director, I 
am grateful to the Department of Education for providing educational 
workshops and assistance.
    H.R. 715, the Accuracy in Campus Crime Reporting Act would require 
numerous amendments to the current law. Some of the changes are 
reasonable and easily implemented and others are worrisome and 
potentially counter-productive. I would like to offer suggestions and 
comments for each of the proposed changes:
    The proposed expansion to the list of persons (positions) 
responsible for providing crime statistics for inclusion in the 
institution's three year crime table creates some concerns which are 
the specific addition of ``counselors'' and ``administrators''. The 
original language of the Campus Security Act statute called for 
statistics which reflect reports to ``campus security authorities or 
local police agencies'', the Final Rule (as amended on June 30, 1995) 
expanded that to ``local police agencies or to any official of the 
institution who has significant authority for student and campus 
activities''. Therefore, it could be argued that the Final Rule went 
beyond the original intent of the legislation.
    I would strongly recommend that ``counselors'' be removed from this 
definition. Students need to be able to seek professional assistance 
via counselors without fearing that the counselor will breach the 
student's right to confidentiality. I would also recommend that 
``administrators'' be removed because this terminology is unreasonably 
ambiguous. For example, at GW, up to 3,000 employees could be 
considered ``administrators''. The rest of the proposed definition does 
not cause concern and will simply put the law in synch with the rules 
that implement it.
    H.R. 715 would require the additional reporting of four categories 
of crime. The Uniform Crime Reporting Handbook includes definitions of 
the offenses of larceny, arson, simple assault and vandalism. These 
definitions are precise enough for police departments throughout the 
nation to interpret. Institutions should not have much difficulty in 
meeting this requirement.
    The proposed language requires that each institution submit the 
report and requires the Department of Education to compile those 
statistics. This would be easily accomplished by institutions because 
we already compile and publish this information. The question for 
Congress is will you provide sufficient resources to the Department of 
Education to compile the statistics and whether this added 
responsibility will divert the Department from providing the 
appropriate level of technical assistance in implementing federal 
campus crime laws?
    There have been accusations alleging that institutions are 
forwarding incidents of violations of drug, liquor and weapons laws to 
their internal judicial systems rather than ``arresting'' violators in 
an effort to keep the statistics down. I would disagree with this 
premise and would add that the majority of those institutions have 
historically referred those types of incidents to their internal 
judicial systems. There are many institutions, such as The George 
Washington University, that are in jurisdictions where these offenses 
are viewed as ``minor offenses'' by the local law enforcement agencies 
and therefore, they will not prosecute those incidents. We are faced 
with the reality that these cases are not going to be adjudicated 
through the courts, so we turn to the internal institutional 
disciplinary procedures as a means of addressing many of these types of 
violations.
    That having been said, I do not believe that it is problematic for 
institutions to report ``incidents of'' drug, liquor and weapons laws 
violations. In fact, GW already reports the number of arrests and the 
number of incidents reported to our judicial affairs office. I do 
believe that the language should be clarified to include ``persons 
arrested or referred for disciplinary action.''
    The proposed language requiring ``open crime logs'' is not 
problematic, in fact, I have been publishing our crime log in the 
student newspaper for the last four years. However, the requirement for 
the open crime logs to be available within twenty-four hours is 
unreasonable, specifically because the majority of schools do not have 
the appropriate administrative and/or support staff on duty over the 
weekends and on holidays. I would recommend that this language be 
changed to ``be open to public inspection within no more than 72 hours 
of the initial report being made to the department.
    H.R. 715 would delete subsection 485(f)(7)(C), which states that 
``nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to confer a private 
right to action upon any person to enforce provisions of this 
paragraph''. The deletion of this language would create ``open season'' 
for litigation against institutions for even the smallest technical 
error. If this paragraph were to be deleted, it would be extremely 
harmful to every institution of higher education. It is imperative that 
this current language remain intact. For example, if a University 
Police Officer erroneously classifies a Burglary as a Larceny, this 
would create a private right of action against an institution.
    The aspects of the proposal that would require open campus 
disciplinary hearings and would exempt disciplinary records related to 
allegations of criminal activity from protection under FERPA has a 
potentially chilling effect upon the reporting of crimes such as sexual 
assaults. IACLEA's recent study of campus crime reports for the years 
1994 and 1995 delved into the distinction between sex offenses 
committed by strangers and those committed by persons with whom the 
victims were acquainted. Significantly, 78 percent of the on-campus 
sexual assaults reported to the 585 U.S. institutions which 
participated in the survey involved persons who were acquainted. This 
proportion was the same for both 1994 and 1995, and reflects the 
significant progress which had been made among campus police and 
security units in bringing ``date rape'' cases into the open.
    In my primary role in the police department and as the Coordinator 
of GW's Sexual Assault Crisis Consultation Team, I have dealt with many 
students who have been victims of sexual assault. The victim has lost 
the power in one of the most personal choices he/she can make. It is 
imperative that in dealing with someone who has been the victim of such 
an assault, the victim be ``empowered'' by allowing him/her to make 
his/her own decisions throughout the recovery process. In dealing with 
victims, it has always been my standard practice and now it is a 
requirement of Federal law to inform the victim of the option to pursue 
the case through the internal judicial process as well as taking action 
through the criminal justice system or both. In all but one case, the 
victims elected to use the on-campus proceedings to protect their 
privacy. They make this choice because they believe that the internal 
judicial system is the only viable route to justice in cases involving 
date rape and the judicial system affords the victim confidentiality.
    If institutions lose the ability to offer acquaintance assault 
victims access to discreet internal hearing processes, I fear that the 
reporting of these crimes will decrease. When hearings are ``open'', 
the alleged rapist may bring friends, roommates, and classmates into 
the hearing room, intimidating alleged victims and witnesses. Moreover, 
campus newspapers will have access to records, printing names and 
circumstances that will ultimately succeed in silencing, not 
encouraging victims to report these crimes. This seems directly 
contrary to the intention of the original legislation. If the only 
forum you offer the victim is a public forum, the long-term result will 
be the continued presence on our campuses of sex offenders who might 
have otherwise been identified and dealt with accordingly.
    In addition, I would like to recommend a change to the Campus 
Security Act that is not addressed in H.R. 715. I would recommend that 
the distribution deadline be changed from September 1 to October 1. 
Many institutions are heavily involved in student registration through 
the latter part of August, and, in some cases, continuing into early 
September. The distribution of the annual security report to all 
``current students'' on or before the date of September 1 may not, 
therefore, reach all of the individuals who will actually attend 
classes during the fall semester at those institutions.
    As you develop this legislation, I would urge you keep in mind the 
welfare of the victim of on-campus crime by removing the language from 
H.R. 715 that would require open campus disciplinary hearings and would 
exempt disciplinary records related to allegations of criminal activity 
from protection under FERPA. I would also urge you to remove the 
positions of ``counselor'' and ``administrator'' from the definition of 
those who are required to report crimes. Lastly, I strongly urge that 
you not create a private right of action against institutions. Such a 
right is an invitation to frivolous litigation which costs money and 
diverts the attention from efforts to reduce crime on campus. This 
would also hold our institutions of higher education to an unreasonable 
standard of perfection.
                                 ______
                                 
    Position Statement Prepared and Supported by the International 
          Association of Campus Law Enforcement Administrators
  statement regarding h.r. 715--accuracy in campus crime reporting act
    The Crime Awareness and Campus Security Act was signed into law by 
President George Bush in November of 1990. This law was designed to 
increase the quantity and quality of ``consumer information'' available 
to prospective college students and their parents regarding criminal 
activity and security measures on the campuses of our nation's post-
secondary institutions. By extension, it was anticipated that increased 
public awareness of campus crimes and security measures would lead 
colleges and universities to upgrade their campus safety programs in 
order to remain ``competitive'' with their peer institutions. There is 
no question that the Crime Awareness and Campus Security Act has 
increased the public's awareness of the occurrence of crime on college 
campuses, but the degree to which that increased awar