The mishandling of sexual misconduct at Yale University, have called into question the way these allegations are handled in institutions of higher learning. Investigation of criminal acts are supposed to be conducted solely by the police force; however, many universities, such as Yale and Syracuse, instead seek to take the law into their own hands and process these claims internally. These attempts are not only misguided, as many campuses lack the faculty or facilities necessary to fully investigate criminal claims – they are also ethically wrong.

In the instance of the ongoing sexual harassment case at Yale, some faculty purposely mishandled the case in an attempt to protect Yale’s image and also to protect the alleged perpetrator’s employment. The faculty member in question, Dr. Simons, reportedly brings in a total of more than $5 million a year in grant money, benefiting the university directly. If the university were to do the proper thing and fire Dr. Simons, they would lose the grant money he previously provided, and the administration of the school would risk appearing incompetent for not handling the case sooner. This display of incompetency, if exposed, would adversely affect the school’s reputation, arguably one of the most important assets that a college possesses.

Because of the importance of reputation, many universities use control over criminal cases to bury the issues. The sexual assault scandals at Penn State and Syracuse University illustrate this phenomenon. In both instances the universities failed to properly handle the scandal and refused to fully cooperate with the police.

By allowing universities to internally handle criminal cases, institutional biases can affect the process and results of the findings that the university publishes. In turn, this further dilutes the actual police investigation as the police must rely on the information provided by the university.

Universities seem to be the only institutions that actively participate in the initial investigations of crimes committed by those who attend or work there. If IBM, for example, were caught withholding information on a sexual crime that occurred at its facility, the company would most likely be liable for damages caused to the affected party. The fact that universities are allowed to handle their own affairs over and over again with disastrous results is inexcusable. Recent media coverage only further exposes the failure of an internal investigation method.

Many university administrations argue that they are better connected to campus life than local law enforcement and therefore better equipped to handle internal criminal allegations. No matter how well connected campus administrators might be, it does not give them the right to supersede the legal process. Law enforcement are specially trained to handle these situations. A university’s only job in this legal process should be to disclose information asked of them and fully comply with the police.