SALT LAKE CITY — Student leaders at the University of Utah have condemned the administration in a surprising public statement — criticizing how it handled fears reported by track-star Lauren McCluskey, denied responsibility after her murder and created an atmosphere where students now worry campus police won’t protect them, The Salt Lake Tribune reports.
The rebuke comes nearly a year after McCluskey was killed outside her dorm last October. It’s the first time the U.’s student government has put forth such a formal critique, which members say they drafted after reaching a breaking point this week.
“Students are angry,” said Devon Cantwell, a Ph.D. candidate and senator for the Associated Students of the University of Utah who wrote the resolution. “We continue to be. And we were just really disturbed by some of the statements that the university has made.”
Click here to read the full story from The Salt Lake Tribune.
The University of Utah released the following statement in response to the student leaders’ statement:
Dear ASUU Leadership, Senate and Assembly,
Thank you for sharing your concerns and for your diligent efforts to represent your peers and their experience at the University of Utah. I want to address perceptions and clarify information about the motion to dismiss the lawsuit filed against the university by the family of Lauren McCluskey. I hope the following explanation will add some clarity in a complex and tragic situation.
Let me address a few specific points from the resolution.
Nowhere in the motion does it state that the university’s “officers had no obligation to protect McCluskey from her attacker.” That specific phrase is taken from a local media outlet’s interpretation and coverage of the lawsuit. You can read the motion in its entirety online.
In the motion, the university has not argued that its police have no responsibility to protect students. The motion to dismiss simply reflects current federal law which prohibits monetary judgments against the university and its officers under the circumstances in this case.
The university is deeply committed to improving campus safety. The university embraces its moral and ethical responsibilities to engage in continuous improvement of safety on our campus. Mounting a legal defense against a monetary judgment cannot and should not be equated with a rejection of that responsibility. The university has taken concrete steps since Lauren’s death to improve and to foster a culture of safety across campus through our SafeU initiative. This work is ongoing and we welcome feedback and partnership with students, faculty and staff in strengthening our efforts.
The university has its own police force to provide local, campus-centric security for our community—something we believe would be lost if policing were integrated into a larger outside law enforcement entity. A university-governed campus police department is a national best practice for a campus this size. The university intends to continue investing in its police force through new leadership, additional training and expanded resources.
Our campus is safer today than it was last year. The university has made significant improvements to infrastructure and staffing, as well as practices and policies across campus. We have completed virtually all items identified by the independent review team enlisted last year, as well as additional recommendations from the campus safety task force. These include hiring new personnel, requiring specific trainings, clarifying reporting structures and revising policies. Significant and meaningful work has taken place and is ongoing across campus.
Regarding your concern about language used in the motion to dismiss, that document cites the facts as alleged by the McCluskeys in their legal filing and legal standards applied by courts to evaluate claims like this. Therefore, none of the statements in the motion were intended, or should be read, to suggest victim blaming. Let me be clear, the university does not believe that Lauren McCluskey had any responsibility for the heinous actions of her murderer.
Now, I would like to put the motion to dismiss in context. A motion to dismiss is a standard initial response to a lawsuit and is based entirely on the factual allegations stated in the complaint. The purpose of the motion is to address the legal theories presented by the plaintiffs in their pursuit of a monetary judgment. The federal court will apply current legal standards to the plaintiffs’ facts as outlined in their complaint. Filing a motion to dismiss does not preclude the university from seeking a negotiated resolution.
In litigation, the university works collaboratively with other state entities. Under Utah law, the Utah Attorney General’s Office conducts litigation on behalf of the university. The Utah State Division of Risk Management approves and pays monetary judgments and settlements against the state, including the university. Settlements over $1 million require the approval of the governor and the state legislature.
Thank you again for sharing your concerns. I hope that this information is helpful.
Sincerely,
Phyllis Vetter
General Counsel, University of Utah
