Do you disagree or agree with this analysis? Please explain.

The purpose of the Clery Act is to serve as a report for all colleges campus that receive government funding. The report provides information to include all reported sexual assaults and the policies that each campus has put in place to prevent them. The Clery Act serves the victim by offering support but also transparency of what is happening on campus.

There are flaws to the Clery Act that make it less than accurate, such as the report only publishes crimes reported to campus authorities. This excludes any violence reported to counselors outside of the school or religious advisors, such as pastors. Also, any assaults by college students that happen off campus, are not included in the report (Coughlin & Schroeder, 2015).

I initially thought this was going to be an easy side for me to take, to support the Clery Act in favor of the victims. After learning more, I quickly realized that an accuser does not get due process. Under the policy, there's no hearing and the parties meet separately with an investigator, who submits a report to a panel of faculty and staff, according to the lawsuit. The accuser and accused each submit a written statement and can respond to the investigators' report but may not call witnesses (Coughlin & Schroeder, 2015). I started thinking about the accuser, what if in fact some were innocent. Do they not deserve to defend their reputation? Susan Kaplan, an attorney in New York City explained it in a way that changed my mind. She referred to colleges where you report these crimes to campus police as an alternate universe. Anywhere else in society, you would have no choice but to go to police (Coughlin & Schroeder, 2015). I dont think the Clery Act needs to be scrapped entirely but amended to give the accuser legal rights as well.