Student Victims Sue College

In the wake of the several violent incidents on campus, two students are blaming Oberlin College for not providing adequate protection against crime. On Dec. 10, 1999, two women attacked on campus filed a complaint against the College, citing negligent security practices and a lack of support from the administration as examples of what they view as the College's mishandling of recent attacks against students.

President Nancy Dye said in response to the lawsuit, "I was very surprised. That's not how we feel about that," but was reluctant to comment further due to the litigious nature of the subject.

The plaintiffs are two women who were allegedly brutalized by DeLucas Lucas in 1998. The first attack occurred in the parking lot of Keep Cottage. The victim was assaulted with a blunt metal object and sustained numerous injuries to her face and head. The second victim was surprised while asleep in her room in Fairchild House, where she was beaten with a five-pound industrial egg beater. She talked her assailant out of rape by claiming she was a medical student and knew she needed immediate medical help. She suffered a fractured skull and numerous deep cuts on her face. Campus Dining Service employee DeLucas Lucas later confessed to both crimes, and was also named as a defendant in the suit.

The complaint claimed that the College falsely represented itself as a safe and secure environment, prompting students to feel protected from sexual or otherwise violent assaults on campus. "Oberlin is a rather deceivingly tranquil place. There seems to be probably a good state of denial on the part of the administration," said Pierce Cunningham, the lawyer for the plaintiffs. The two students claimed that they were not made aware of other violent crimes that were committed in the past at Oberlin, and that this omission contributed to their false sense of security.

The lawsuit also alleges that the ege did not adequately support the plaintiffs after they were attacked. The victim of the first incident was unable to receive psychological counseling at the student health center on her return due to a lack of of appointments, and the College declined to rearrange the counseling schedule to accommodate her. The second victim returned to the College two weeks after she was attacked, recovering from severe injuries and a fractured skull, but College officials refused to allow her to take a reduced course load or register for classes that might have let her remain.

The suit also alleged that under Director of Security Keith James, Oberlin Security was lax in its prevention and response to these attacks, as well as other violent incidents on campus in the past five years. Noting labor grievances within the department and a reduction in cooperation between Security and the Oberlin Police Department, the suit claimed that the department was negligent in regards to the aforementioned attacks.

James was reluctant to comment because of pending litigation, but said, "The feedback I have been getting is that people feel quite comfortable with our services. When an issue is brought to my attention, I move quite quickly to remedy it."

The Security Department has experienced internal disagreements under James's direction. In 1998, the union representing Oberlin's security officers filed two unfair labor charge against the College and James with the National Labor Relations Board. Later that year, the security officer in charge of campus crime prevention resigned, after claiming James had exhibited "intimidating and abusive behavior" towards her. The lawsuit claimed that this was evidence of a lack of cohesiveness within the department that may have circumvented the prevention of the assaults. James felt that too much is being made of these past personal problems, saying, "Before I came here there was always staff turnover. To correlate staff turnover with my arrival would be a little presumptuous. The nature of the job is that you have to be committed 24 hours a day, seven days a week. [Asking this of the staff] could negatively impact, as a manager, your relationship with employees."

The complaint also cited the Security Department's failure to implement changes suggested by a security consultant the College retained in 1996, and suggested that Security was unable to do so because of lack of funds. The security report called for, among other things, increased identification checks and visibility of security forces on campus, a more detailed security procedures manual, and a greater attention to the lighting of highly traveled areas. The suit pointed out the Keep Cottage parking lot where one plaintiff was attacked was not adequately lit at the time. Security has since initiated a program known as the "Lighting Walk," in which students accompany officers and identify sites on campus they feel need to be better illuminated. As for tightening identification checks, James said, "I could have a Safety and Security officer at each residence hall saying, 'Hey, let me check your ID.' But is the College community, the students, willing to say this is what they want?"

President Dye denied any mishandling on the part of the College, and said, "One is under no obligation to follow recommendations from consultants. They're usually not very good. We're always examining what we put into operating budgets, and I have no reason to think our security operation is underfunded."

James responded similarly, saying, "I really feel that we have done a good job. We struggle at how to create an environment with zero incidents like these." He requested more feedback from students in the future. "I would like the community to come forward and tell us what changes they would like made."

At this time, the College's lawyers have not responded formally to the complaint.