The miscommunication surrounding the closing of the Advocacy Center has detracted from the positive changes Syracuse University has made regarding sexual assault. The university needs to improve the way in which it presents changes to students, as well as how it communicates with them after decisions are made.

An email sent from Chancellor Kent Syverud to SU students on May 30 included a memo detailing that the services offered at the Advocacy Center, formerly the Center for Sexual and Relationship Violence, would be realigned and integrated into the Counseling Center, Office of Student Assistance and Office of Health Promotion. The way the university handled this announcement was inappropriate, as the information was initially distributed via email. This led to some students thinking that resources for victims of sexual assault were being removed, not realigned. 

A campaign to bring back the Advocacy Center erupted on social media and a student-created petition gathered 8,222 signatures shortly after the announcement. Some students were misinformed about what the changes facing the Advocacy Center actually were, something that could have been avoided had the university publicized their announcement rather than burying it in an email. 

The university’s response to student concern seemed reactionary and made SU seem ill-equipped to handle the outpour of questions from students. Even months after the initial announcement, communication with students still needs vast improvements. 

In general, the changes implemented by the university seem positive. The number of trained counselors has increased, for example, and the services offered by the Counseling Center are now completely confidential, a problem the Advocacy Center faced in 2013 when its confidentiality was revoked under Title IX’s “employee responsibility clause.” The clause stated that any employee must report any information they receive about a sexual assault if they do not have a professional counseling or therapy degree. 

But there are still some components that aren’t as clearly stated. The confidentiality of the Office of Student Assistance, the intended entry point for the students who want to pursue a judicial case within the university, is still in question. Administration has given conflicting answers to students inquiring about the confidentiality of the Office of Student Assistance and there doesn’t seem to be a concrete answer. 

If the university expects students to embrace the changes, it needs to fix its problem of reactionary communication. Students need credible information to form educated opinions and SU must do a better job of providing that information.