In a decision handed down July 16, the U.S. Department of Education ordered Georgetown University to modify its disclosure policy concerning sexual assault cases. The policy previously required alleged victims to sign a confidentiality agreement before learning the sanctions imposed upon their alleged assailants. The new policy does not include a non-disclosure clause and complies with both the Federal Educational Rights and Privacy Act, which protects student records, and the Clery Act, which mandates that universities disclose security information and crime statistics annually. The Department of Education’s decision was a fair and reasonable step in correcting an unjust policy and proving the power of student activism.
The claim against Georgetown was brought before the Department of Education by Kate Dieringer (NUR ‘05) after Georgetown administrators forced her to sign a confidentiality agreement before being informed of the sanctions imposed upon her alleged assailant in 2002. Dieringer said she was led to believe the agreement was mandated by FERPA rather than dictated by University policy.
Georgetown’s original policy failed to keep in mind both common sense and practicality in prohibiting discussion of the outcomes in sexual assault cases. Under the old policy, Dieringer was unable to discuss the matter with therapists or her friends-an unreasonable restriction on her rights. While it is true that the issue of disclosure in sexual assault cases was recognized by the Department of Education as causing ’”genuine confusion in the higher educational community,’” confusion is not an excuse for inaction. The administration should have examined the faults of the old policy and sought to change it, rather than avoiding the issue and forcing the Department of Education to intervene.
The new policy also represents a resounding victory for student activism. Dieringer should be commended for her perseverance, and her success should encourage students to continue fighting against policies they deem unfair. Daniel Carter, Senior Vice President of Security on Campus Inc., the campus safety advocate group that aided Dieringer with her claim, said that the policy changes can be traced directly to Dieringer.
Although the issue of disclosure in sexual assault may have been resolved by this decision, students should hold this case as an example of the ability of students to affect change in University policy. The University, on the other hand, should use this as an example of what not to do: waiting to mend broken policies until the government intervenes.
