Berkeley police car patrolling through UC Berkeley campus in San Francisco bay area on July 13, 2019 Sundry Photography / Getty Images
The concern over enforcing the Federal Clery Act without the U.S. Department of Education
COMMENTARY | Dismantling the Department of Education is a multi-faceted challenge with potentially dire consequences for public safety in our universities.
The President of the United States has signed a series of executive orders to rain on bureaucracy presumably and to control the fiscal deficit of the United States. Neither the executive orders nor the desire to reduce spending are new interests of presidents. However, not every executive order is the same. A one-size-fits-all approach does not work in governance.
My colleague Ali Abbas and I recently penned a commentary on this platform about the correlation between the importance of genuine reform, sound decision-making and good governance. While tackling wasteful government spending and inefficiencies creates an opportunity for this administration, the decisions must be "strategic and based on the science of good decision-making." Actions have consequences, and some are more dire than others.
I am a "pracademic," which means I practice public policy and administration as an elected local government official, as well as research, write and teach my discipline of policy and law in one of the best public affairs schools in the country. As part of my academic responsibilities, I oversee university programs, making me a Campus Security Authority (CSA) as defined by the federal law known as the Clery Act.
Under the Clery Act, CSAs play a vital role in campus safety, security and well-being. This responsibility is not much different than my public safety challenge and responsibility as an elected mayor for my constituents.
The Jeanne Clery Act
The Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Statistics Act of 1990, a federal statute with implementing regulations more commonly known today as the Clery Act, requires all postsecondary educational institutions of higher learning participating in the Title IV federal student financial aid programs to comply with several mandates related to disclosure of crime on campus. Compliance is monitored by the Department of Education, which is authorized to impose civil penalties of up to $70,000 per violation against institutions of higher education for each infraction and suspension from participating in federal student financial aid programs.
The law is named after Jeanne Clery, a 19-year-old Lehigh University student who was raped and murdered in her campus residence hall in 1986. Her murder triggered a backlash against unreported crime on campuses across the country.
The Clery Act finds its roots in the Higher Education Act of 1965. It requires institutions of higher education to gather and disclose crime statistics from local law enforcement for incidents occurring in "Clery geography." As of 2025, an institution of higher education must keep the most recent seven years of crime statistics on-campus, on-campus student housing, non-campus and public property. The category of offenses covered by these incidents is defined in the Uniform Crime Reporting Handbook, also known as the Green Book, published by the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
"Today's Executive Order is a history-making action by President Trump to free future generations of American students and forge opportunities for their success. We are sending education back to the States where it so rightly belongs. Education is fundamentally a state responsibility." This statement and policy direction may be true on various levels, but the Clery Act is neither a state law nor a state responsibility.
The Critical Compliance with the Clery Act
To this day, universities take compliance with the Clery Act very seriously. Aside from the CSA courses I take every year, universities have included the Clery Act in their university policies as part of their commitment to promoting the safety and well-being of students. The consequences of non-compliance are dire for universities that rely on federal funding and the civil monetary penalties each violation generates. Some very prominent universities have experienced the high price of their violations.
The dismantling of the Department of Education begs the question of who will enforce this federal statute and regulations to maintain this critical public safety measure in our universities. As we alluded to in our previous article on decision-making, our research and practice connect good decision-making to good governance. "It is insufficient to examine a project's cost or outcome alone," as consequences matter.
One of the critical elements of good decision-making applicable to this decision to dismantle the Department of Education is "the information available at the time of making the decision, and the uncertainties that are incorporated to capture the consequences and various scenarios that follow the decision." In this case, one hopes the administration will "incorporate and capture" the dire consequences of failing to enforce the federal Clery Act methodically.
Professor Frank V. Zerunyan's principal areas of expertise include law, governance, public-private partnerships, civic and ethical leadership, land use, medical regulation, negotiation, and executive education.