Discussion List for campus-based and allied personnel working to end gender-based violence on campus.

["S. Daniel Carter" <>]

Wendy,

Compliance with the Clery Act could have changed everything. At Penn State, 
as at most institutions with sworn police, the campus police compile the 
statistics and are at least involved in the "timely warning" decision making 
process. In order to meet their timely decision making obligation details 
would have to have been disclosed to the police who, as they did in 1998, 
would have almost certainly then investigated the 2001 assault.

It is true institutions have alternative or parallel options to comply that 
could bypass police while remaining in compliance, but Penn State didn't. To 
be in "full compliance" under those circumstances means reporting to the 
police. While their are no guarantees, this could have led to a very 
different outcome.

--
S. Daniel Carter

On Jul 18, 2012, at 1:35 PM, 

 wrote:

> Why is there no mention of Penn State’s failure to comply with Title IX, a 
> federal civil rights law that applies to campus sexual assault and 
> obligated school officials to provide a “prompt and effective response” in 
> the aftermath of Sandusky’s 2001 rape of a child in a Penn State locker 
> room? Freeh instead writes at length about Penn State’s noncompliance with 
> a different federal law, the Clery Act, which deals with statistical 
> reporting of campus crimes, and which would have changed nothing even if 
> there had been full compliance.