Due to a horrific crime some years ago, the federal government passed what is known as the Clery Act (named for a young woman raped and killed in her dorm room). The law requires universities to record and report the crimes on campus, including but not limited to violent crimes.
Needless to say, this law has had unintended consequences. Crimes are relatively rare on campus, and compiling this information is a chore that takes a lot of time.
The requirements are somewhat vague and the law has a long reach. Robert Whaples, an economics professor at Wake Forest University, wrote a post in the Independent Institute’s Beacon about having to take crime-reporting training and passing a test—simply because he is a club advisor. (Okay, it only took an hour and a half because he was able to get out of the in-person training and did it online. But he’ll probably have to take the test again next year, and he is just one among many.)
Did it accomplish anything? He wrote:
In my twenty-plus years as coach of the Wake Forest Quiz Bowl Club and as a professor, I cannot recall even once becoming aware of a crime that needed to be reported. If I had, I would have reported the crime.
So what does the law accomplish? It’s not clear that it accomplishes anything. In a Pope Center article, George Leef contends that this is another example of the overreaching that comes with federal laws that are enacted by emotion not reason.