May 8, 2001

Period Covered By Complaint: Calendar Years 1996-1999
Campus Security Reports Due: September 1, 1999 and October 1, 2000

Complaint Filed Against Saint Mary's College 135 Le Mans Hall Notre Dame, IN 46556 http://www.saintmarys.edu	Complaint Brought By Security On Campus, Inc. 601 South Henderson Road, Suite 205 King Of Prussia, PA 19406-3596 http://campussafety.org
Complaint Filed With U.S. Dept. of Ed. Region V Office 111 North Canal Street, Room 830 Chicago, IL 60606-7204 http://www.ed.gov

Introduction

A series of news reports in national and local publications over the last year concerning sexual assaults at Saint Mary's College (hereinafter the "college") led us to investigate possible violations of the sexual assault policy and reporting requirements of the federal Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act (20 USC § 1092(f); 34 CFR 668.47 [July 1, 1994-June 30, 2000]; 34 CFR § 668.46 [July 1, 2000-present]) by that institution.  The institution is a private, Catholic women's college that participates in Title IV federal student financial aid programs and is thus subject to the Clery Act. As detailed below, their annual security reports required by the Clery Act appear to have serious deficiencies.

The "Jeanne Clery Act" (hereinafter the "Act") was originally enacted by Congress as the Crime Awareness and Campus Security Act of 1990 (Title II of Public Law 101-542) in an effort to ensure that students, as the consumers of higher education, were aware of campus crimes and able to make informed decisions to avoid victimization. Congress amended the law in 1992 to ensure that the victims of campus sexual assault were assured of certain basic rights, and again in 1998 to provide for the disclosure of additional crime information.

Security On Campus, Inc. (hereinafter "SOC"), a non-profit organization, was founded by Jeanne Clery's parents Connie & Howard after Jeanne was robbed, sexually assaulted and murdered on the campus of Lehigh University in 1986 by another student she didn't know. SOC provides assistance to the victims of campus violence, monitors compliance with campus security disclosure laws, and works to reduce substance abuse on campuses across the country.

Jurisdiction

The U.S. Department of Education's Region V office has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to "Dear Colleague" letter GEN-96-11 issued in May of 1996. In relevant part it states that an "individual desiring to file a complaint alleging that an institution is not complying with (the campus security regulations) should contact" the Regional Office that serves the State in which the institution is located."

Crime Statistics Not Accurately Disclosed

Based on our investigation the college appears to have inappropriately excluded at least two forcible sex offenses from their annual security reports due in 1999 (exhibit A attached) and 2000 (exhibit B attached). The college is required to report all forcible sex offenses reported to campus officials or local police as having occurred on campus (34 CFR 668.47 (a)(6)(i) prior to July 1, 2000; 34 CFR 668.46(b)(1), and 34 CFR 668.46(c)(1)-(2) July 1, 2000 and after).

January 1999 Rape

The more recent of these two forcible sex offenses occurred on or about January 30, 1999 according to reports published in the South Bend Tribune on May 14, 2000 (exhibit C attached) and Cosmopolitan magazine in their March 2001 issue (exhibit D attached).

Those published reports indicated that Sarah (full name used in the Cosmopolitan article with her permission), then a Saint Mary's freshman, was raped in a Saint Mary's campus parking lot allegedly by a student from the neighboring University of Notre Dame.

Although the rape was reported to Notre Dame's campus security department the incident has never been disclosed to students through Saint Mary's official published security report, or to the U.S. Department of Education (hereinafter "DOE"). No forcible sex offenses are reported for calendar year 1999 in the 2000 report (exhibit B attached) or in disclosures made to the DOE for public dissemination on the internet (exhibit E attached).

Institutions have an obligation to make a good faith effort to obtain statistics for covered crimes, including crimes on their campus and on adjacent public property, reported to all local police agencies (34 CFR 668.46(c)(9)) including police agencies of other institutions of higher education which have jurisdiction over areas of their campus. According to the college's 2000 disclosures they have "a working relationship with the... University of Notre Dame Police Department" which indicates the report information should have easily been available to them as soon as it was made by the student.

After the Cosmopolitan article (exhibit D attached) was published, the college apparently corrected their disclosures in a very minimal way. The internet version of their security disclosures was revised to indicate that "1" forcible rape was reported in 1999. A copy of this report dated December 5, 2000 (exhibit F attached) clearly indicates "0" forcible rapes, but a copy of that same web page dated April 6, 2001 (exhibit G attached) does include the "1" forcible rape.

Apparently no revised information, or notice of changes, was ever given directly to students or the DOE.

To ensure that students have accurate information about serious sex crimes, such as this one, reported on campus please take steps to ensure that this incident is properly disclosed in the college's report due October 1, 2001.

Please take corrective action to ensure that the college has policies in place to guarantee they make a "good faith" effort as required by the regulations to collect crime statistics from all local police agencies, including the University of Notre Dame security department which is comprised of sworn law enforcement officers as is the college's. Also, please verify that the college is collecting report information from all covered "campus security authorities" including officials outside the campus security department.

Denying students this information deprives them of the ability to make informed decisions about avoiding victimization on campus.

April 1996 Rape

During the course of our investigation we were contacted by a former student of the college who related that she had reported a rape to the institution, which they indicated, would never "be counted in the statistics since it was merely an alleged incident." This April 1996 rape was allegedly committed by a male musician from a foreign country visiting the campus as part of a cultural program. It was reported to both campus and local police (St. Joseph County). The college's 1999 security report (exhibit A attached) reports "0" forcible rapes for 1996.

Improper Crime Categories Used

The college's most recent security disclosures (exhibit B attached) failed to use or include all required crime categories, and appear to have improperly excluded disciplinary referrals for liquor law violations, drug law violations, and illegal weapons possessions (34 CFR 668.46(c)(1)).

Specifically, the institution used the same categories for calendar year 1999 statistics as they used for prior years despite significant changes that took effect with the 1999 information (statute effective October 1, 1998).

The college inappropriately excluded "Arson" altogether which should have been reported in 1999 for the first time. While fortunately there were no homicides on campus in 1999, the college inappropriately used only the crime category of "Murder" despite being required to report an expanded list of homicide crimes for 1999, "Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter" as the first element of a general "Criminal homicide" category and "Negligent manslaughter" as the second element.

Additionally, the college indicated that they reported only "Arrest Data" for liquor, drug, and weapons violations. Beginning with calendar year 1999 they should have also reported disciplinary referrals for these crime categories in addition to arrests.

No Geographic Breakdown

The college's most recent security disclosures (exhibit B attached) failed to use the required geographic breakdown for the 1999 calendar year crime statistics (34 CFR 668.46(c)(4). Beginning with 1999 institutions were required to indicate in which of four areas a crime was reported: on-campus; student residential facilities on-campus (a sub-set of the on-campus category); non-campus building or property; and public property.

This information, in addition to public crime log information, helps students better understand what areas of campus are prone to various types of crime.

Statements Of Policy Omitted Or Incomplete

The college's most recent security disclosures (exhibit B attached) failed to disclose all required policy statements or did so incompletely as detailed below.

Timely Warning Policy

The college's annual security report for 2000 (exhibit B attached) indicates that their security department issues "Crime Alert Bulletins" but does not explain in any detail their policies for making "timely warnings" to the campus community about reported crimes that pose an ongoing threat as required by 34 CFR 668.46(b)(2)(i).

Policies for preparing the annual disclosure of campus crime statistics

The report contained no information on the policies used to prepare the annual crime statistics, such as which officials are surveyed as required by 34 CFR 668.46(b)(2)(ii). Additionally the report also failed to indicate whether the college has a voluntary, confidential reporting program that counselors or pastors may refer victims to as required by 34 CFR 668.46(b)(4).

Campus Sexual Assault Victims' Bill Of Rights

The college's 1999 and 2000 reports (exhibits A and B attached) failed to include a series of policies defining how the institution will respond to allegations of campus sexual assault, and ensuring campus sexual assault victims certain basic rights as required by 34 CFR 668.46(b)(11). Among other things these required policies are designed to inform students about where sexual assaults should be reported, ensure that students understand how important it is to preserve evidence, provide notice of available counseling options, and define procedures for campus disciplinary procedures in cases of an alleged sex offense.

Presumably because the college has no male students they felt that these sexual assault policies, designed in part for male student on female student sexual assault, were not necessary. The policies, however, address a wide array of issues not just those present in male student on female student sexual assault, such as where sexual assault should be reported, options to notify law enforcement, and available counseling options something of use to all victims of sexual assault.

From 1996 through 1999 the college reported 2 sexual assaults, and we believe there were at least 2 more that went unreported. All four of these sexual assault victims, and possibly others, have been denied the benefit of these important policy statements as required by the "Campus Sexual Assault Victims' Bill Of Rights" portion of the Act. Students at this women's college may be sexually assaulted by guests, visitors, employees, trespassers, or as the college found out recently even another female student. No male students doesn't mean there are no sexual assaults on campus.

The college held a disciplinary hearing this earlier month in a female student on female student sexual assault case. The victim in that case was clearly denied the full benefit of the disciplinary policies the institution would have otherwise had to have in place to ensure her basic rights. An article from the Observer, an independent student newspaper serving both the University of Notre Dame and Saint Mary's College, dated May 2, 2001 detailing this disciplinary proceeding is attached as exhibit H, and a widely disseminated e-mail sent by a witness in the case assailing how the college allegedly mishandled the case is attached as exhibit I.

Please require the college, beginning as soon as possible, to include in their annual security report and Student Handbook the basic campus sexual assault policies required by 34 CFR 668.46(b)(11). Too many students have been denied their basic rights because of the blatant omission of these policies and this must be corrected immediately as the law requires. A $25,000 civil penalty is clearly warranted for this violation as provided for by 20 USC § 1092 (f)(13).

Conclusion

Saint Mary's College has apparently failed to publicly disclose all sexual assaults reported to them in recent years, has not reported all required crime and geographic categories for 1999, has not fully explained their "timely warning" policy, and has omitted mandatory sexual assault policy statements from their annual security report for many years.

Given the severity of these alleged violations we believe that an on-site program review, which should be conducted as soon as possible, is required to ascertain the full extent of the possible violations, and to ensure that proper corrective action is taken before the college publishes their 2001 annual campus security report.

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