Congress Alters Crime Reporting, Student Privacy

Buried in the more than 650 pages of Congress' reauthorization of the Higher Education Act this week is a signal that the federal government has finally gotten tough on campus crime.

At the center of the shift is a nationwide debate over how colleges report crimes that occur-and what the institutions do with student perpetrators.

The implicit message for university administrations: Now, there is no excuse for not accurately reporting how safe your campus is.

Congress even tinkered with the sacred student privacy laws, allowing schools to disclose the results of disciplinary proceedings, that involve "any crime of violence" or non-forcible sex offenses.

"We couldn't do it until this act", a Harvard official said yesterday.

Further, colleges can now also release, upon consent, witness statements to crimes.

Fear of lawsuits led schools to withhold the name of accused perpetrators when reporting internal verdicts on violent crime. But as the new law makes clear, colleges cannot be sued for disclosing such information.

And just what constitutes a "reportable" crime has been clarified, according to S. Daniel Carter, who lobbied for the bill.

Added to a list that already included murder,aggravated assault and robbery are now arson,manslaughter and non-forcible sex offenses. Andany liquor-law violation, even when students arenot charged with a crime, must now be reported tothe federal government.

In 1996, for example, Harvard reported "0"liquor-law arrests, despite numerous reports thatstudents had been disciplined by the Ad Board forunderage boozing that year.

In addition, students convicted for drugoffenses could see their federal financial aidwithdrawn entirely. And schools will be able tonotify parents if their under-aged student commitsan alcohol-related offense.

The impetus for the wide-ranging rules onalcohol and the expansion of crime reporting codesstem in large part from the recent headlines ofviolent crime and binge-drinking on campus.

Harvard stepped up its efforts "once werealized that there was critical political massbehind passing new [campus crime laws]," saidKevin Casey who is one of Harvard's chief lobbyiston the Hill.

"What became clear to a lot of us who followedthis was that it's a classic issue that foldedinto what was the vehicle this time, [the HigherEducation Act,]" he said.

Crime, Contiguous

The problem of geography has long rankled thosewho feel that campus crimes are unreported. Fivepolice agencies have jurisdiction over areas inand around Harvard campuses.

Previously, schools were only required toreport crimes that happened on their campusesproper. Now, they must report any crime in a"reasonable geographic" area surrounding campus.

For example, Harvard would be obliged to reportlast week's mugging of a graduate student onBryant Street near the Divinity School, a crimehandled by the Cambridge Police Department.

The change in reporting will undoubtedlyincrease the number of robberies reported byHarvard.

Other Ivy League schools in urban areas moredangerous than Cambridge can expect a hugeincrease in crimes reported. According to theDaily Pennsylvanian, the student newspaper of theUniversity of Pennsylvania (Penn), campus policereported only 10 percent of robberies to Pennstudents; the other 90 percent occurred in theenvirons of downtown Philadelphia.

Ironically, the portion of the law that Cartercalls his organization's "greatest success" willhave no affect on Harvard.

Federal law will soon mandate that allinstitutions of higher education maintain openpolice logs. Similar laws already exist inMassachusetts and at least six other states.

Board Plan

Although more about the number of students whogo before Harvard's Ad Board will become public,the tribunal's version of exemplary justice wouldseem to remain intact, at least for theforeseeable future.

Carter, long a critic of Harvard's system, saysthe school will not be required to disclose thedisposition of alcohol-related hearings, onlytheir occurrence.

Harvard bucks a national trend that isoutpacing congressional action, as more and moreschools nationwide are opening up their campuscourts.

Still, the law's most significant impact willbe on interested students, parents and applicants,who will have a more honest accounting of just howmany times students are victims of crime.

After Clinton's expected signature, theDepartment of Education (DOE) will write theregulations to match their congressional mandates,a process that could take at least a year.

And that may prove difficult. The DOE isalready overburdened with federal mandates and maynot have the money initially to enforce these newlaws.

There's no question, though, that Congress willscrutinize the safety of higher education moreclosely than ever before

Added to a list that already included murder,aggravated assault and robbery are now arson,manslaughter and non-forcible sex offenses. Andany liquor-law violation, even when students arenot charged with a crime, must now be reported tothe federal government.

In 1996, for example, Harvard reported "0"liquor-law arrests, despite numerous reports thatstudents had been disciplined by the Ad Board forunderage boozing that year.

In addition, students convicted for drugoffenses could see their federal financial aidwithdrawn entirely. And schools will be able tonotify parents if their under-aged student commitsan alcohol-related offense.

The impetus for the wide-ranging rules onalcohol and the expansion of crime reporting codesstem in large part from the recent headlines ofviolent crime and binge-drinking on campus.

Harvard stepped up its efforts "once werealized that there was critical political massbehind passing new [campus crime laws]," saidKevin Casey who is one of Harvard's chief lobbyiston the Hill.

"What became clear to a lot of us who followedthis was that it's a classic issue that foldedinto what was the vehicle this time, [the HigherEducation Act,]" he said.

Crime, Contiguous

The problem of geography has long rankled thosewho feel that campus crimes are unreported. Fivepolice agencies have jurisdiction over areas inand around Harvard campuses.

Previously, schools were only required toreport crimes that happened on their campusesproper. Now, they must report any crime in a"reasonable geographic" area surrounding campus.

For example, Harvard would be obliged to reportlast week's mugging of a graduate student onBryant Street near the Divinity School, a crimehandled by the Cambridge Police Department.

The change in reporting will undoubtedlyincrease the number of robberies reported byHarvard.

Other Ivy League schools in urban areas moredangerous than Cambridge can expect a hugeincrease in crimes reported. According to theDaily Pennsylvanian, the student newspaper of theUniversity of Pennsylvania (Penn), campus policereported only 10 percent of robberies to Pennstudents; the other 90 percent occurred in theenvirons of downtown Philadelphia.

Ironically, the portion of the law that Cartercalls his organization's "greatest success" willhave no affect on Harvard.

Federal law will soon mandate that allinstitutions of higher education maintain openpolice logs. Similar laws already exist inMassachusetts and at least six other states.

Board Plan

Although more about the number of students whogo before Harvard's Ad Board will become public,the tribunal's version of exemplary justice wouldseem to remain intact, at least for theforeseeable future.

Carter, long a critic of Harvard's system, saysthe school will not be required to disclose thedisposition of alcohol-related hearings, onlytheir occurrence.

Harvard bucks a national trend that isoutpacing congressional action, as more and moreschools nationwide are opening up their campuscourts.

Still, the law's most significant impact willbe on interested students, parents and applicants,who will have a more honest accounting of just howmany times students are victims of crime.

After Clinton's expected signature, theDepartment of Education (DOE) will write theregulations to match their congressional mandates,a process that could take at least a year.

And that may prove difficult. The DOE isalready overburdened with federal mandates and maynot have the money initially to enforce these newlaws.

There's no question, though, that Congress willscrutinize the safety of higher education moreclosely than ever before