<p>There seems to be some confusion surrounding the request to change the confidentiality policy of the College Judiciary Committee for cases of sexual assault. Here’s the clarification and please let me know if you have any questions!</p>
<p>As it stands now, CJC cases at Swarthmore are strictly confidential and all parties must sign a non-disclosure agreement. That means that a victim of sexual assault who goes through the CJC is only allowed to tell her immediate family and confidential therapists about the outcome of the case, even if her rapist is found responsible. This is in direct violation of federal law, the Clery Act to be specific. The Clery Act overrides FERPA in this area. The US Department of Education says that the Clery Act requires access to the outcomes of the sanctions without condition. Additionally, the Clery Act permits institutions of higher education to release the final results, which includes the name of the accused, of disciplinary actions against students found to have violated school rules in connection with a crime of violence.</p>
<p>Here’s some more information on this ruling if you’re interested:
A statement of the law – [Policy</a> Accomplishments | Clery Center For Security On Campus](<a href=“http://clerycenter.org/policy-accomplishments]Policy”>http://clerycenter.org/policy-accomplishments)
The Georgetown case that sparked the revision – [How</a> one student changed Georgetown’s sexual assault policy - The Georgetown Voice](<a href=“http://georgetownvoice.com/2004/09/16/how-one-student-changed-georgetowns-sexual-assault-policy/]How”>How one student changed Georgetown's sexual assault policy - The Georgetown Voice)
Otterbein University’s policy change from two days ago – [Following</a> criticism, Otterbein changes sexual assault policy | Inside Higher Ed](<a href=“http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/05/14/following-criticism-otterbein-changes-sexual-assault-policy]Following”>Following criticism, Otterbein changes sexual assault policy)</p>
<p>So basically Swarthmore is in violation of this law right now and that’s what we believe needs to be changed. Basically the non-disclosure requirement is the only thing we are protesting at this point. We are not arguing that, for example, the name of the victim be published on the CJC board or anything of that nature.</p>