Veritas on the Beat

Harvard is dedicated to the pursuit of truth and the dissemination of information. But the University is betraying those founding ideals—and violating Massachusetts law—by creating a culture of secrecy in the Harvard University Police Department (HUPD) and withholding important crime records from the public.

HUPD operates a full-service police department that functions in exactly the same manner as a municipal police force. Harvard police officers carry firearms and are empowered to stop, question, detain and even formally arrest any individual in Massachussetts. HUPD officers possess deputy sheriff powers in Middlesex and Suffolk counties and are sworn special state police officers. But unlike other police forces, Harvard claims its police department is exempt from public records laws that permit the public to see reports created by individual police officers.

This summer, The Harvard Crimson filed a lawsuit to force the University to release campus crime records. The suit is a landmark case for accountability of police departments at private universities in Massachusetts and has garnered supported from national advocacy groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, which is representing The Crimson in the case.

The suit seeks to lift the veil of secrecy obscuring the true nature of crime at Harvard and other universities. Without access to HUPD records, it is impossible to fully evaluate important issues such as the scope of sexual assault, student suicides and racial profiling on campus.

The Massachusetts Public Records Law is clear and unambiguous. The law defines public records as any records “made or received by any officer or employee of any agency,…department…or any political subdivision thereof, or of any authority established by the general court to serve a public purpose.” HUPD officers are, in fact, deputies of the Middlesex and Suffolk County Sheriff’s offices as well as special state police officers appointed by the Colonel of the Massachusetts State Police. They are clearly officers of state agencies and therefore subject to the public records law.

But even if the law did not define HUPD as subject to the public records law, it would still be good public policy for the government to mandate openness and accountability for University police officers who operate under the color of law and have the power to deprive individuals of their rights and their liberty. Such powers must be closely monitored by the public to prevent their abuse. Our Founding Fathers conceived of a system of government with checks and balances to prevent the abuse of power. This principle is no less true for police officers at Harvard than it is for any other official with government powers.

The need to hold HUPD accountable has been demonstrated repeatedly. Over the past decade, HUPD has been accused of cover-ups of campus rapes, racial harassment by its officers, sexist behavior by its chief, influence peddling by its top lieutenant and abuse of authority by the head of its criminal investigations division. By blocking access to records that should be public, HUPD continues to give the impression that it has something to hide.

Furthermore, it is critical to the safety of students that HUPD is more open and forthcoming. Shedding light on campus crime can only increase safety at Harvard. Gaining access to these records would allow the press and the public to discern trends in campus crime as well as the police handling of individual incidents. By keeping these records secret, HUPD impedes its own goal of creating a safer campus.

Harvard’s policy of secrecy has no compelling justification. The University has attempted to defend its irrational secrecy by claiming it is concerned about student privacy. But this specious argument is a red herring. The public records law in Massachusetts is as stringent as any in the nation at protecting the rights of victims of sexual assault and the privacy of individuals. Under the public records law, Harvard would be obligated to continue protecting the privacy of students, as well it should. Student privacy and openness about crime are not mutually exclusive. HUPD can provide important information about crime to students while redacting names and highly personal information—just as every other police department in Massachusetts does.

In his inaugural address, University President Lawrence H. Summers said: “What we do must never obscure what is most special and distinctive about universities like this one: that they are communities in which truth—veritas—is pursued first and last as an end in itself.” The University’s policy of secrecy and obfuscation at HUPD flies in the face of Summers’ words and Harvard’s guiding principles of openness and truth.

The University should lift the veil of secrecy shrouding HUPD and comply with the Massachusetts Public Records Law. Doing so would improve safety for students on campus, prevent abuses of unchecked police powers and demonstrate that Harvard truly is committed to veritas.