Search News


Browse Archives

News

Keeping a Secret, Paying a Price

June 9, 2006

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

It was either betray her students’ confidence or perhaps let rape go unpunished.

Patricia O’Toole, former dean of students at Notre Dame College, in Ohio, may have thought she was bound to stay tight-lipped about students who confided in her, but the Cuyahoga County Prosecutor’s Office didn’t agree.

On Tuesday, a grand jury indicted O’Toole on three counts of failure to report a felony.

According to officials in the prosecutor’s office, two Notre Dame students told O’Toole last October that they had been sexually assaulted by Daniel Carl Wolfe, a 19-year-old student. The officials said the dean then received an internal complaint in which a third woman said Wolfe had assaulted her. That report indicated that Wolfe had a 17-year-old woman in his room who was so drunk she had to be taken to the hospital, according to court filings.

Jamie Dalton, a spokeswoman for the prosecutor’s office said that, in December, police were investigating a separate incident involving Wolfe, and came to ask O’Toole a question. O'Toole then told campus police officers that she had knew of two other incidents that the college should include in its filings under the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act, a federal law that requires colleges to make an annual report of campus crime.

O’Toole had not come forward with the information earlier, however, and declined to give officers the names of the accusers, because she apparently had told the students that she would keep their identities secret. Police had to find the students on their own.

"If she would have reported this immediately, we might not have any other Jane Doe's," Dalton said, referring to other unnamed women who were allegedly assaulted by Wolfe.

"She was concerned about their identities," Dalton said, "but what about the whole rest of the campus? What about other people that could have been victimized?"

According to Ohio law, failure to report a felony is a fourth degree misdemeanor, which carries a maximum penalty of 30 days in a jail and a $250 fine.

The law grants exemptions from the reporting requirement in specific circumstances, for members of the clergy, for example, and for counseling services “provided in an informal setting by a person who, by education or experience, is competent to provide those services.”

Peter D. Brown, associate executive director of the American College Personnel Association, said that “every student affairs professional has to balance the confidence of students and helping students, with, of course, legal obligations,” he said. “It’s often a tight line to follow.”  

Brown added that staff members who deal with student conduct are often faced with students saying “Hey this happened to me, I’m just telling you but don’t want you to do anything about it.”

Mary Ann Kovach, a spokeswoman for Notre Dame, said that, when the allegations came to light in December, O’Toole was placed on administrative leave “while we were trying to figure out what was going on,” Kovach said. O’Toole then resigned. Kovach said Notre Dame could not comment further on the matter, because of the pending legal action.

Wolfe was suspended, and, before he could be expelled, transferred to Defiance College in Ohio. Defiance has learned of the allegations, and is currently preparing to expel Wolfe. He is being charged with 22 counts of crimes, ranging from rape and assault, to kidnapping, against six different women. Wolfe could not be reached for comment.

O’Toole could not be reached, either, and officials at the prosecutor’s office said that she may not have a lawyer yet.

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Keeping a Secret, Paying a Price

  • Tough line
  • Posted by Sandra on June 9, 2006 at 10:40am EDT
  • It was her job/responsibility to talk to the students and strongly encourage them to report it and let them know she would stand by them and be there for them. I don't believe that she should be legally charged for not reporting it if the women asked her not to do anything. They were already victimized once; if the dean went back on her word and reported it, they would feel victimized again. Is it a crime against the women for not reporting it? Then why is it a crime against the dean for not reporting it if they asked her not to? All she could do is continue to encourage them to report it for the sake of others or ask them again if it would be ok if she reported it. Without their permission, to do so would be just another violation against them.

  • Tough choice but...
  • Posted by Alex Herzog , Director of One Card Services at UNLV on June 9, 2006 at 1:40pm EDT
  • I have to say that while the Dean was trying to keep the confidence of the women involved she was letting another student continue to endanger the rest of the student body. One must consider the threat and safety to the general student when such an inccident occurs. The police should have been included right away. The have more expereince in these matters.

  • this is a bit of a stretch
  • Posted by Larry on June 9, 2006 at 1:40pm EDT
  • To say that she is paying a price is a bit of a stretch. Sure, it is inconvenient to be charged with a crime and perhaps arrested, especially if you are not someone in the ghetto, but are a college president, but the constitutionality of “failure to report” statutes is somewhat questionable. Most of the time, statutes pass constitutional muster by vesting affirmative duties in holders of specific licenses. But laws that require reporting of specific knowledge. While one Ohio court of appeals has upheld the statute in part (ironically, people who, themselves, committed the crime are constitutionally exempt form having to report their own misdeeds), (State v. Wardlow, 20 Ohio App.3d 1 (1995)), other courts have found similar laws to be unconstitutional. See, e.g., Pope v. State, 284 Md. 309 (1979) (reversing conviction for misprisonment of felony.)

    In this case, she is indicted under a state law requiring reporting. Not the federal law tying funding to statistics.

    Indicting someone for making law enforcement’s life harder is, unfortunately, a common tactic. But, it isn’t necessarily constitutionally sound, and most of the time the charges are either dropped or the indictments dismissed.

  • a broader interest
  • Posted by donald King on June 9, 2006 at 1:40pm EDT
  • While I understand the argument about protecting victims, that must also extend to "potential victims" who are at risk whenever there is a known perpetrator at large. It becomes the responsibility of someone with knowledge of a crime to report it to the appropriate authorities in order to protect further victimization. If there is a way to do that without divulging a victim's identity, that should be the preferred route to follow, but if not, then the greater public interest must take precedence. In this case, one would also have to make the case that the role of Dean of Students can be equated with the role of counsellor or clergy and protected by privilege. How far could the original victims take this claim of privilege? What if they had told a friend, or parent, or professor? Wouldn't we want one of those people to report the crime? The rest of the student body has a right to know that a dangerous predator is at large and poses a threat to them.

  • Tough choice but....
  • Posted by Alexander Herzog at UNNLV on June 9, 2006 at 1:40pm EDT
  • I sent in my last comment prematurely….

    I have to say that while the Dean was trying to keep the confidence of the women involved she was letting another student continue to endanger the rest of the student body. I believe a Dean of Students must consider the threat and safety to the general student body when such an incident occurs. The police should have been consulted and included right away. The have more experience in handling these matters and may have been able to help provide additional insight.
    .

  • Posted by Daniel at Wash U on June 9, 2006 at 1:45pm EDT
  • Do you think she would have felt obligated to not speak to authorities if Wolfe told her that he had performed these crimes but asked her not to do anything? Do we respect the confidentiality of a confession of guilt?

  • Posted by Larry on June 12, 2006 at 9:40am EDT
  • Daniel, While I have always advised people to be tight-lipped when talking to people that claim to be “law enforcement” (and to NEVER do so without a lawyer present), there is no generally no privilege in a confession of guilt! In fact, testimony regarding confession is generally admissible as hearsay, because it is a statement against “penal interest.” (See, e.g., FRE 804(b)(3). Also, you have to be particularly stupid to complain to a dean about a crime.