The Department of Education sent a letter to University President John J. DeGioia on April 18 requesting a written explanation of the university’s judicial, non-disclosure and sanctioning policies after Kate Dieringer (NHS ’05) and Security on Campus, Inc., a non-profit advocacy group, filed a complaint with the department on March 3.

The department notified the university that it had 15 days to “fully address and describe” issues pertaining to the university’s judicial adjudication process “as a matter of general policy and as applied in the case of Ms. Dieringer.”

The Department of Education also sent a copy of the letter to Associate Vice President for Student Affairs Todd Olson, Associate Dean and Director of Off Campus Student Life Jeanne Lord and Director of Student Conduct Judy Johnson.

“We have worked carefully to ensure that our practices and policies are lawful, and we will respond thoughtfully to the issues raised in the letter,” Olson said. “In terms of individual students who make complaints through the Student Conduct system, we certainly take their needs seriously and are committed to sharing follow-up information with them in ways that are appropriate and in compliance with the law and university policies.”

The complaint filed with the Department of Education alleges violations of the Clery Act, a federal law that requires colleges and universities to disclose information about campus crime and security policies and provides that the university should inform the accuser and the accused of “the outcome of any campus disciplinary proceeding brought alleging a sexual assault.” The law applies to most institutions of higher education, both public and private, because the law is tied to participation in federal student financial aid programs. Disclosure involves the publication of the results of the judicial hearing board to the involved parties.

If the department finds the university in violation of the law, it could face up to $27,500 in fines and lose eligibility to participate in federal student aid programs. The Dieringer and Security on Campus, Inc. have also filed a complaint with the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights alleging violations of Dieringer’s civil rights arising from the same incident.

Dieringer notified the Office of Student Conduct in April 2002 that she had been sexually assaulted in fall 2001, and in order for her to hear the results of the adjudication process of the accused student, she was required to sign a confidentiality, or non-disclosure, agreement. The agreement said that she would not reveal, or `re-disclose,’ any details of the hearing, including any sanctions levied by the university.

Dieringer and Security on Campus, Inc. objected to the restrictions against re-disclosure. “Specifically, we agree with Ms. Dieringer that Georgetown’s policy of requiring sexual assault victims to sign a confidentiality agreement [to prevent re-disclosure] before they will be told the final results of any disciplinary action taken against their alleged assailants violates the Clery Act, and serves as an unconscionable revictimization,” Daniel Carter of Security on Campus, Inc. said in a letter to the Department of Education.

The university maintains that it fully complies with the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act and the Clery Act. “Under FERPA, most records directly related to a student that are maintained by a university, e.g. transcripts, financial records and disciplinary records, are considered `education records.’ According to federal law, such education records generally may not be publicly disclosed by a university without a student’s consent,” states a university document entitled “The Confidentiality of Student Disciplinary Records at Georgetown University.”

The letter from the Department of Education emphasized that it was “only in the early stages of evaluating the claims raised by the complainants,” but stated that, “a plain reading of the federal regulations . does not seem to indicate that an institution may impose conditions on re-disclosure even though re-disclosure is prohibited in other contexts.”

Advocates for Improved Response Methods to Sexual Assault, the Georgetown student group commonly known as AFIRMS, which was formed in January to initiate a discussion to revise the university’s sexual assault policy, responded positively to the news that the Department of Education had become involved in the dispute. “AFIRMS was very excited that the Department of Education issued this letter,” group spokesperson Amy Hseuh (COL ’03) said.

“The [department’s] letter will supplement all the hard work that is being done here on campus in regards to sexual assault,” Dieringer said. “It will create an outside pressure that the university cannot afford to ignore.”

Dieringer maintained that the university is violating the Clery Act by enforcing a re-disclosure policy that requires complainants to sign a confidentiality agreement. “The letter clearly outlines that the victim must be informed of the outcome of his or her hearing – under no circumstances can any stipulations be put on that law,” she said.

Olson said that the university works to publicize results of the cases collectively in reports issued each semester by the Office of Student Conduct entitled “Public Disclosure of University Student Disciplinary Proceedings.”

“The document is designed to inform the university community about the types of violations that have taken place recently on campus and share a sense of the types of sanctions associated with those violations, while protecting the confidentiality of individual students,” he said.