Fresno State's student-run newspaper

The Collegian

ADVERTISEMENT
Fresno State's student-run newspaper

The Collegian

Fresno State's student-run newspaper

The Collegian

ASI: Revised sex offender resolution passes

A debate over a revised resolution regarding the disclosure of sex offenders on campus, which has been among the main focuses of Fresno State’s Associated Students, Inc. agenda for most of the semester, came to a near-unanimous conclusion Wednesday.

The resolution, authored by Neil O’Brien, senator for the College of Health and Human Services, calls for students to receive a general notification email from the University Police Department that informs a student if a registered sex offender is enrolled in their class, lives in the same campus housing as them or is involved in a university-sponsored organization or program.

Two more statements””one intended to provide alternatives to the student and another detailing instructions on the process of obtaining the sex offender’s identity and information from campus police””are included in the resolution.

ASI passed the resolution with a 13-1 vote. The resolution is a non-binding formal statement of the student government’s position.

The resolution does not have the power to change the law or any university policies. ASI President Moses Menchaca described the resolution’s passage as “a symbolic gesture.”

“I feel that this [version] focuses more on raising awareness and raising the resources students have to identify them,” Menchaca said. “… Whether it has any influence in the future, we don’t know.”

It was passed more than two months after its original version was introduced to the senate on Aug. 28 at the first ASI meeting of the semester.

Where that version differed was in its language. The first version of the resolution called for the full disclosure of the sex offenders who are enrolled at the university.

“The previous one, the problem with it was that it was asking the administration to advertise and make public who the sex offenders are on this campus,” said Sean Kiernan, vice president of external affairs. “Some senators took issue with that being unfair or discriminatory to a sex offender … I think it’s more reasonable, it’s less extreme.”

Repeat sex offender Fidel Tafoya was arrested on Oct. 8 by Fresno police after being suspected of groping a woman the night before in a public area of the Henry Madden Library.­ He allegedly entered the campus after cutting off the GPS ankle monitor he was required to wear while on parole.

Tafoya was not a registered student when he allegedly committed the sexual battery.

“I understand why it might be a difficult topic to talk about because it does involve the image of the university. … In my view, safety trumps image,” O’Brien said.

The initial six-page proposal was rejected on Sept. 18 six votes to four.

ASI senators who voted against the first version of the resolution voiced concerns about the adverse effects that the resolution’s enforcement would create.­ They feared that revealing the identities of sex offenders on campus could trigger violence and retaliation against them.

Questions about the violation of sex offenders’ constitutional rights were also posed.

“The purpose [of the revision] is so that they do respect their rights,” O’Brien said. “But, in my view, someone that commits felonies and crimes makes the conscious decision that they’re forfeiting certain rights for life.”

Now that the resolution has passed, the next step, O’Brien said, is to persuade university administration to enforce it. O’Brien said he sought input from the university’s Women’s Resource Center, students, faculty members and campus law enforcement.

“Now, it’s in the administration and faculty’s hands,” O’Brien said. “The ball is in their court, and I really hope that they adopt this resolution.”

View Comments (7)
Donate to The Collegian
$100
$500
Contributed
Our Goal

Your donation will support the student journalists of Fresno State Your contribution will allow us to purchase equipment and cover our annual website hosting costs.

Donate to The Collegian
$100
$500
Contributed
Our Goal

Comments (7)

All The Collegian Picks Reader Picks Sort: Newest

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  • V

    Virginia HallNov 11, 2013 at 7:46 am

    As a survivor of rape, I support laws which genuinely promote public safety. This resolution is not one of them. Under existing law, registered offenders disclose their identities and presence on campus to campus police. They register with city/county law enforcement. This is more than adequate.
    “Outing” one’s classmates who have completed their sentences, probation/parole and are on lifetime law enforcement monitoring, reeks of discrimination. Worse than such un-American behavior is the fact that engaging in it, makes no one safer. Sex offenders have the second lowest reoffense rate of all former offenders. While recidivism in general is at 50% or more, a recent CDCR study placed sex offender reoffense rates at 2%. Low recidivism isn’t an attempt to excuse past crimes or soften the nature of sexual violence. It’s just a fact, one that has been proven conclusively in the past two decades. Though it may feel empowering and vindictive to ostracize sex offenders, it doesn’t actually do anything for public safety.

    Law enforcement, Departments of Correction, parole/probation, treatment providers of victims and offenders, and policy researchers have all cautioned against sex offender laws that aren’t founded in fact. It’s not about feeling sorry for sex offenders or letting them off easy; no crimes are going to be prevented if the focus continues to be on those who statistically are the least likely to perpetrate this type of crime.

    Finally, any former offender who has completed their sentence and is now seeking to improve their life via higher education, should be encouraged, and not ostracized. We don’t have to look far in the Central Valley, to see the results of the glaring failures of our justice system, or its inequities. Don’t let FSU become part of that sick paradigm.

    Reply
  • D

    David LariatNov 11, 2013 at 5:38 am

    This will “work” just like the Registries “work”. It will harass/punishment/ostracize all the families that are listed on the Registries that are pursuing higher education and all the while it will do absolutely nothing to even slightly hinder anyone else from committing any crime that he/she would like. A true panacea. Good job.

    And I couldn’t help but notice that there is no mention of any other type of crime. Is it too hard to give notices about those? Just too much work? As usual, this has little to do with public safety.

    Reply
  • M

    MarkNov 10, 2013 at 10:02 am

    This is a terrible idea. Sex offenders, and all people trying to rebuild their lives after incarceration, have an almost impossible time finding jobs and housing because of public notification laws. NOW these people, who may be trying to improve their chances at employment by going to school, will DROP OUT out of fear and shame, the only result of this resolution. So now, no chance at education in additon to all the other obstacles The offenders who are assaulting women and others on campus are NOT the ones enrolled in classes, trying to improve their lives. Note that this horrible person committing assaults was NOT a student; so this resolution would do NOTHING to stop him. Of all registered people, less than 2% go on to commit another offense. Also, the majority of registered people are not dangerous; you will be registered for life in CA simply for peeing in public, streaking, or having a younger bf/gf at the age of 18. How many of you did that??? EDUCATE yourselves and stop these alarmaist and reactionary laws. I am in the legal field btw.

    Reply
  • M

    mikeNov 10, 2013 at 7:25 am

    I understand the concern and this is probably in response to what happened at the school library with the sex offender who had already shown his disregard for rules by removing his GPS bracelet. But consider that these laws sweeping the nation have proven to be counterproductive in their efforts. The truth is 95% of sex crimes being prosecuted today are committed by someone who is not on the registry. Most likely the person you’re told to focus on will never commit another sex offense.
    This type of law will likely cause a registrant who is trying to reform to drop out of school instead and possibly give up hope that society will offer any redemption.
    Post-prison Reintegration in society is less likely for those restricted employment, housing and education. It’s part of the revolving door policies that keep the prison industry thriving today.
    Before the administrators approve this I hope they will look at the schools history of sex related crimes committed by registered sex offenders vs. those with mo previous convictions and realize this will likely only offer a false sense of security.

    Reply
  • M

    MingaNov 10, 2013 at 6:56 am

    Mr. O’Briem, do you not realize that education is one of the keys to rehabilitation? From your statements I am beginning to think you are not interested in reducing crime, but keeping those that have served their time from re integrating into society which we all know perpetuates criminal activity. Those on the registry have the lowest recidivism rates, yet they are targeted from every direction. I know this resolution does not prohibit them from an education, but it could eventually lead to such, it will be a sad day when we deny anyone a higher education. “A mind is a terrible thing to waste”, is it not?

    Reply
  • V

    ValigatorNov 8, 2013 at 6:57 am

    This is long overdue, There are way too many instances of sex offenders enrolled anonymously on a campus. Knowledge is power and the power to KNOW who could tear your world apart is Priceless..

    Reply
    • J

      JusticeNov 9, 2013 at 10:10 pm

      Long overdue, eh?

      “Too many instances where sex offenders are enrolled anonymously on a campus.”

      I dont understand what this statement is supposed to mean. This statement of yours implies that they are there for the sole purpose to commit a crime and that being anonymous is what they seek.

      And what is the point of this notification? Is it for safety? It can’t be; the re-offense rate for Sex Offenders is 5.2% across the nation, and 1.9% in the state of California. This is fact based on the Department of Corrections’ statistics.

      The only point to this proposal is to:

      A) Bolster someone’s political (or within the university) career to make it appear they have the public’s safety in mind.

      B) To name and shame Sex Offenders who are clearly interested in bettering their lives.

      After their identities are made public, how long do you think it will be before there is a backlash against these STUDENTS with a past who just want to improve their life?

      It will be EXACTLY like the Sex Offender Registry has on the community: Threats, Anger, Outrage, and pressure for them to transfer/quit school.

      As you said, “Knowledge is Power” and it would be best if you actually researched this topic yourself.

      Reply