Introduction

An Ohio State University student who alleges that she was raped in a residence hall on the institution's campus in February of 2002 contacted Security On Campus, Inc. during the fall of 2003 alleging various violations by the University of the federal Jeanne Clery Act. SOC gathered documentation concerning her complaints, and in January of 2004 an SOC official visited the University and met with the victim to discuss her concerns.

Following a thorough review of the documentation provided by the student, copies of which are included in this complaint as Exhibits C through F, this complaint results. We ask that prompt corrective action be taken by the U.S. Department of Education to ensure that the University is in full compliance with the Act.

Policy Disclosures Do Not Accurately Reflect Practice

In this complaint we will document that although the Ohio State University has adopted, and published policies dealing with their response to incidents of sexual assault, as required by the Jeanne Clery Act at 20 U.S.C. § 1092(f)(8), they were not followed in this case. Problems also exist with at least one prior assault involving the same alleged assailant. After an assault of this kind victims are often in a state of shock and in need of strong support, and clear guidance. It is for this very reason that the Jeanne Clery Act's "Campus Sexual Assault Victims' Bill of Rights" provisions exist. Failure to follow these guidelines, and an institution's own written policies can significantly add to the trauma inflicted on a rape victim, and it has done so in this instance.

The University's annual security report (Exhibit A) states that the "University will assist students who report sexual assault in obtaining medical support… as well as counseling and support services." The student, however, alleges, as detailed in a written statement included with this complaint (Exhibit B), that on the day of her assault she reported it to a student housing official and campus police officer, but was not properly notified of available counseling resources. She was also not offered any assistance in obtaining medical care or told that going to the hospital could help preserve evidence.

A "Communication Information Form" (Exhibit C-2) completed by the student housing department official at the time of the initial report on February 22, 2002 [misidentified on the CIF as February 28, 2002; an OSU police report (Exhibit C-3) completed in June, however, contains documentation that the CIF was indeed filed on the 22^nd] confirms that the student was not told about all of the resources available to her. Specifically the CIF contains a notation that the "anticipated follow-up" will be to "refer (the victim) to all appropriate campus resources" indicating that such referrals were not actually made at the time of the complaint.

Further, according to this document the housing department official only offered to refer the victim to "services the Residence Education department could provide" clearly not a reference to the campus community-wide, and off-campus resources which are supposed to be made available under such circumstances according to the annual security report. Because the student reported her assault within twenty-four hours it would have been especially critical for the purposes of gathering forensic evidence to transport her to the hospital for examination and medical care. This opportunity, however, was lost forever.

The annual report (Exhibit A) also states that if "requested by the survivor, and if reasonably available, the University will assist the survivor in changing his/her academic or living situation after the alleged assault." These options were not made available to the student at the time of her initial report. According to her statement (Exhibit B) neither the housing official or campus police officer that she spoke with on the day of her assault ever contacted her again to discuss the case or offer any assistance. This left her with only the information she was provided in that one meeting.

Lastly, the annual security report (Exhibit A) states that in cases of sexual assault adjudicated by the Office of Student Judicial Affairs both "the accused and accuser shall be provided with the hearing outcome within 48 hours of the decision by the hearing panel or hearing officer." The student, however, states that another female student who alleges that she too was raped by the same assailant was never formally notified of the outcome of a hearing concerning that allegation. This hearing was apparently conducted by the Housing department instead of the Office of Student Judicial Affairs. The Clery Act mandates, however, that this right of notice be granted irrespective of which office on campus handles the disciplinary matter.

Policies need to be put in place that ensure all reports of sexual assault involving members of the Ohio State University community are dealt with properly, and according to all Jeanne Clery Act requirements. A protocol should exist requiring all campus security authorities, including housing officials and campus police, to inform all rape victims about all of their rights guaranteed by the Clery Act, and any additional rights or options granted by institutional policy.

Incomplete Sexual Assault Policy

This complaint will also document that while the Ohio State University has adopted sexual assault policies, as required by the Clery Act, they do not fully comply with all statutory and regulatory requirements. Each required component serves a critically important purpose and must not be overlooked.

The University's annual security report (Exhibit A) fails to include in the sexual assault victims' rights policies "a statement that institutional personnel will assist the student in notifying… on-campus and local police… if the student requests the assistance of these personnel" as required by the Clery Act's implementing regulations at 34 CFR § 668.46 (b)(11)(iii). Instead the report states that the "University will assist students who report sexual assault in obtaining… information regarding available legal and judicial resources."

The Clery Act guidelines require that an institution provide more than information regarding legal and judicial resources. They require than an institution state that they will support and assist a student in formally reporting the assault to law enforcement. It is critically important that victims know they can rely on this support, and that responsible employees know they are obligated to assist a victim in reporting to the police.

A later section of the report further states that survivors "will be assisted by the Office of Judicial Affairs in learning about the options for reporting sexual assault to the university as well as University Police." This statement, however, also omits any statement, as required by the federal guidelines, that the survivor will actually be assisted in notifying law enforcement. It totally omits any information about reporting an incident to off-campus police, a right guaranteed by the guidelines.

A victim may not be comfortable in reporting their assault to campus police, and or the assault may have occurred outside their jurisdiction. Accordingly, the federal guidelines require that assistance be provided in notifying both on and off campus police. Failing to include off-campus police as a potential resource denies students all their rights established by the Clery Act.

In this case the survivor asked a University housing department employee to contact campus police, and an officer was in fact dispatched. Her statement (Exhibit B) and the CIF report (Exhibit C-2), however, document that all of her options were not clearly explained to her by the responding officer, and that a formal police report was not taken at that time.

Campus Crime Report Information Not Properly Disclosed

The fundamental principle of the Jeanne Clery Act is that if students are warned about serious criminal activity they will have the opportunity to avoid future victimization. This complaint will document that, in addition to inadequate implementation and adoption of campus sexual assault policies, the Ohio State University has also failed to fully uphold this core principle of the Jeanne Clery Act. Specifically, the University has not promptly and properly disclosed to the public basic information about campus rapes reported to the institution's police department.

The initial report of the complaining student's rape, which was reported by a University housing department official, to the institution's police agency on February 22, 2002 was never reflected in the public crime log. The regulations at 34 CFR § 668.46 (f)(1) require, however, that "any crime" which "is reported to the campus police" be included in a public crime log. It was not included in the log (Exhibit D) until June 14, 2002 when the student filed a formal police report (Exhibit C-3) herself. The incident is identified in the log as report 02-1385, and there is clearly no corresponding entry concerning an assault at Smith Hall for February when the first report was made to campus police.

Also, the log entry for report 02-1385, and every single other log entry reflecting a report of rape, a total of 14 from October 2001 through January of 2004, omits the date and time of each incident. The reporting guidelines clearly state that while crimes are to be recorded "by the date the crime was reported" the entry must also contain the "nature, date, time, and general location of each crime." Omitting this information, including only the date and time reported, denies students important information about when crimes actually have happened, and when they are most likely to occur on campus. Without this information they can not make informed decisions about avoiding possible victimization.

Timely Warnings Not Issued

The student, in her statement (Exhibit B) and in two civil lawsuits filed in both state and federal court (Exhibit E), most seriously alleges that her alleged assailant was found responsible for a rape several weeks prior to her assault, but was allowed to remain on campus. He was simply required to move from one residence hall to another, Smith Hall the location of the second alleged assault. This prior alleged assault is documented in OSU Police report 02-0322 (Exhibit C-1).

Despite federal regulations at 34 CFR § 99.31(a)(14) governing the privacy of student records that would have allowed the University to identify this individual, after he was found in violation of school policy for an alleged crime of violence like rape, no timely warning identifying him was issued. This failure to issue a timely warning left the second student unaware of the potential threat to her safety.

The Clery Act regulations, at 34 CFR § 668.46 (e), require that institutions "must, in a manner that is timely and will aid in the prevention of similar crimes, report to the campus community on crimes that… represent a threat to students and employees." The University should have issued a timely warning, and had they done so it is possible the second assault would never have occurred.

Further, no timely warning was issued after the second report of rape, despite the fact that the alleged assailant was allowed to remain on campus well over a year after a formal police report was filed. The alleged assailant was not formally removed from campus until September 26, 2003 (Exhibit F), two months after he was indicted on criminal rape charges as noted on the last page of the OSU Police report on the case (Exhibit C-3).

Conclusion

The provisions of the Jeanne Clery Act are intended to ensure that students are warned of potential risks to their safety from criminal activity, and to ensure that the victims of sexual assault are fully supported. It appears, however, that in this case these protections were not properly afforded to students, and most specifically to the complaining student.

It is critical that policies be adopted ensuring that each and every single rape victim who reports their assault to a campus security authority is afforded all the rights they are due under the Jeanne Clery Act and institutional policy. It is also very important that the University's crime log, and crime reporting policies be revised to ensure that crime log entries are made promptly, and include the actual date and time of each crime. Timely warnings should also be issued when a student who is a potential threat to the safety of other students is allowed to remain on campus.

Despite numerous requests to the University made by the survivor these problems have yet to be rectified. Accordingly, we call on the U.S. Department of Education to undertake swift corrective action to immediately address these problems.

__________________________________________
S. Daniel Carter, Senior Vice President
Security On Campus, Inc.