A non−profit organization that advocates for the prevention of campus crime has alleged that the university's judicial process for handling cases of alleged sexual assault does not comply with federal regulations.
The nonprofit organization Security on Campus, Inc. (SOC) claims that a provision in the adjudication process that calls for the destruction of all case materials after the case has been resolved may conflict with certain provisions of a federal statute and could require reworking or revision. But Dean of Student Affairs Bruce Reitman refuted the idea and said that Tufts' current policies are compliant with federal regulations.
Page seven of the Student Judicial Process for Allegations of Violence, including Sexual Assault Cases, states that "after the case has been decided, and all appeals exhausted … all materials created by or reviewed by the Dean and/or the fact−finder will be destroyed, unless the case or elements of the case are in litigation or moving toward litigation, in which case the materials will be preserved until the litigation is resolved."
Daniel Carter, the director of public policy for SOC, told the Daily that the stipulation violates the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act (Clery Act), a 1990 federal statute that requires all institutions receiving federal financial aid funding to disclose their crime statistics to the U.S. Department of Education.
Carter first took note of Tufts' new policy, implemented this fall after extensive deliberations, when he saw a post about it on an independently run website that addresses rape issues at Tufts.
"The biggest red flag was that destruction of records policy," Carter told the Daily in November.
Reitman denied the allegations in an e−mail to the Daily, saying that that the university's judicial process is in line with the stipulations of the Clery Act.
According to Reitman, the process was also designed to comply with the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) and to maintain the privacy of those involved in cases of alleged sexual assault.
"The outcome of all cases in the Student Judicial Process are made part of the public record at Tufts, to the extent that they can be made available to the Tufts community without compromising the privacy of the individuals involved," he said.
Reitman drew a distinction between formal and informal records and said that the Department of Public and Environmental Safety retains all of the documents that the Clery Act requires be kept.
The university updates its policies and judicial processes according to changes in federal statutes, according to Reitman.
"We take great care to comply with the requirements of FERPA and of the Clery Act.
"Almost every year, there are modifications to these laws and their accompanying regulations, as well as to other areas enforced by the Department of Education," he said. "University Counsel monitors these changes and the University's policies are modified, as required, to be in compliance with the current regulations."
Reitman added that far from noncompliance, Tufts has been recognized for its adherence to the Clery Act. "The university, through the Department of Public Safety, has been a recipient of an award from the Clery Foundation for being a model in meeting the requirements of the [Jeanne] Clery Initiative," he said. The Daily could not independently confirm the award, as the Clery Foundation does not have an online presence.
"The university considers the privacy of students to be of utmost importance and FERPA prohibits disclosure of educational records, including disciplinary records, to anyone other than the student, unless the student consents or FERPA allows the disclosure as an exception," Reitman said.
Sara Gast, a public affairs specialist for the U.S. Department of Education, reiterated the Clery Act's statute about record retention in an e−mail to the Daily but would not comment on whether or not Tufts' policy violates the standards. She said the matter of compliance is not necessarily cut−and−dry.
"I'm afraid that we can't really say what would or would not be in violation of Clery for a specific case like this," Gast told the Daily in an e−mail Monday. "A conclusion like that takes a lot of time and research to come to. We can't say either way just based on this."
Carter also called for a reworking of the judicial process' confidentiality provision, which he said prohibits the victim from discussing the outcome of the case after it has concluded.
"Victims have an unconditional right to disclose the final outcome; they cannot be required to keep that confidential," he said, adding that such restrictions could have an adverse psychological effect on the victim.
According to Reitman, complainants and respondents involved in the student judicial process are prohibited from discussing the case with anyone other than those directly involved with the case.
"This is a long standing policy here and elsewhere. It helps maintain the integrity of the process and minimizes the chance that witness testimony will be rehearsed," he said. "Students involved in cases may always seek the support and consultation of many available confidential resources in the community."
