For Immediate Release November 20, 2002

Washington, DC-The light sanctions imposed by Georgetown University on students found responsible for serious crimes on campus aren’t enough to deter future violence according to the parents of a student killed on campus in 2000, and a student raped on campus in 2001. They also decried the abuse of student privacy laws to keep these practices secret, and called on Congress to require colleges to disclose the sanctions imposed on campus criminals.

David Shick died in February 2000 from injuries sustained during an assault on the Georgetown University campus.

“It is time to hold a student publicly accountable for his actions when found responsible for a violent crime,” said Debbie and Jeff Shick, David’s parents, in a written statement issued today responding to the lack of sanctions imposed by Georgetown. “It is time to hold Colleges and Universities accountable for upholding their Code of Conduct.” The Shicks released the information after hearing about a similar assault during homecoming weekend.

Student crime victims like Kate Dieringer, a campus rape victim, share their concern. “Georgetown’s adjudication process fails because it places all of its interest in protecting a crystal clean image of the University instead of protecting the well being and safety of its students,” she said echoing the concerns raised by the Shick family. Dieringer was raped on campus last year and recently went public with concerns about how her case was handled.

Critics charge that a federal law, the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), which permits schools to keep the results of disciplinary proceedings secret perpetuates these problems. “Georgetown University reported David Shick’s death as a homicide in their campus crime statistics, but citing FERPA kept the sanctions a secret from the Shick family and other students despite the severity of the crime,” said S. Daniel Carter the Senior Vice President of Security On Campus, Inc., a national nonprofit agency that has assisted both the Shick and Dieringer families.

“Perhaps if this information had been made public, this community would have demanded changes to the disciplinary process and disclosure,” said the Shicks. “Changes that would discourage future violence such as the homecoming weekend assault or Kate Dieringer’s rape.” The Shicks were only able to obtain the final results after making their disclosure part of a settlement agreement resolving a lawsuit against the student who injured their son.

“It is time for Congress to remove the loophole in FERPA that allows disclosure but does not require it,” said the Shicks calling for an end to this type of secrecy in any future case. “A society that does not learn from past mistakes is bound to repeat them in the future.”

In light of the altercation over homecoming weekend and subsequent comparisons with the incident that lead to the death of our son, David Shick (MSB ’01), we have decided we must share with the campus community the truth about how the University dealt with the student involved. Perhaps we should have shared it sooner.

On February 18, 2000, David was involved in an altercation in the parking lot of Launinger Library. David was punched in the face, fell backwards, and hit his head on the pavement. He died four days later as a result of his injury.

Disciplinary violations were brought against several students involved in the incident. We were not informed of the decision and/or sanctions imposed by the hearing board because we refused to sign a confidentiality agreement that would have prohibited us from sharing the information with David’s brother and sister. While allowed to release this information under FERPA, it was and still is Georgetown’s policy not to release any information without a confidentiality agreement.

After more than 18 months of emotional turmoil and enormous legal fees, we obtained the decision of the hearing boards and sanctions imposed as part of a settlement with the student who punched David. This student was found responsible for:

1. Physical assault with Bodily Injury - Category C Offense
2. Disorderly Conduct - Category B Offense
3. Alcohol Policy – Category A Offense

The hearing board unanimously found that the evidence clearly and convincingly established that the student had contact, that the contact was intentional, and that it caused injury. The student’s contention of self-defense was neither corroborated nor credible. The student’s demeanor, description of events, and lack of injury all undercut the veracity of the student’s explanation. The hearing board was troubled by the student’s repeated assertion that he had “no choice” and the student’s failure to accept responsibility.

The decision and sanctions of the initial hearing board were appealed and after another delay of over 5 months, the appeals board affirmed the findings of responsibility. But, the appeals board decided the original board’s sanctions were “disproportionate” considering the range of sanctions previously imposed for like violations. They then reduced the sanctions imposed to a warning and a Ten Page Reflection Paper. No further action was taken.

Is it any wonder that Colleges and Universities do not want to disclose how they deal with violent offenders on campus? The climate of secrecy surrounding disciplinary hearings combined with non-disclosure policies and confidentiality requirements allow Colleges and Universities to manipulate the process in order to preserve their reputation.

Perhaps if this information had been made public, this community would have been demanded changes to the disciplinary process and disclosure. Changes that would discourage future violence such as the homecoming weekend assault or Kate Dieringer’s rape.

It is time to hold a student publicly accountable for his actions when found responsible for a violent crime. It is time to hold Colleges and Universities accountable for upholding their Code of Conduct. It is also time for Congress to remove the loophole in FERPA that allows disclosure but does not require it.

A society that does not learn from past mistakes is bound to repeat them in the future.

Debbie and Jeff Shick