It's that time of the year: the trees are all bare, a coat of frost shines on the sidewalk, the smell of anxietys hangs in the air, and sleep-deprived students lumber around campus unshowered and unshaven. Ah, finals season!
Most of us intuitively understand that stress is connected to students' failure to fulfill even the most basic self-care during finals, but why? After all, students usually don't have class or other commitments during finals week, so they should be able to focus exclusively on studying without ignoring the basics like brushing their teeth and getting enough to eat.
Indeed, one might think that faced with the intense pressure of finals, students would renew their focus and effort. In fact, research suggests otherwise, demonstrating how stress alters the way we make decisions.
When stressed out we tend to focus on short-term rewards and pleasurable outcomes of a decision while ignoring the less savory and long-term consequences. That's why it's so hard to resist eating that pint of ice cream in your freezer after a tough day or to forgo buying that new pair of shoes you covet but can't afford after a miserable meeting at the office.
In other words, it is exactly because students have to study for five finals that a friend's invitation to party tempts them so much. The stress causes them to focus on the immediate reward of going to the party (socializing and drinking) and not the downside of losing a night's sleep to late night carousing (hang over and poor grades).
Stress also makes it more difficult for students to connect bad decisions to their consequences. Even if students go out the night before a test, stress will help them remember the pleasurable experience of socializing and drinking and forget the fact that they were horribly hung over for the exam. This is one reason why researchers also link stress to substance abuse and addiction. Under stress, you focus on the pleasures of the drug and lose sight of the negative consequences.
Am I saying that stress makes us short-sighted and irresponsible? Not quite. Another recent study shows that under stress some people are actually more likely to sacrifice their time to help someone they care about. The research supports the uplifting hypothesis that humankind's default setting is to self-sacrifice (when it comes to close relationships). This is well and good for our species, but it also explains why some harried students take on big social commitments during finals week when they should be making more time for themselves.
All this rather paradoxically suggests that exactly when we need to buckle down and get the most done, we have the fewest cognitive resources to do so because stress saps our willpower. Given this fact, a nudge in the right direction might help students keep their cool and improve their grades.
A few common tips worth reminding students about:
Exercise (like walking) has long been touted as an important stress reliever and memory aid. Recent studies suggest that regular exercise also boosts creativity.
Mindfulness and meditation are also good ways to decompress and still the turbulent waters of daily life.
Also remind students to wait until after finals to make big decisions. The simple act of waiting can help students make better, more reflective choices.
Showing posts with label campus safety. Show all posts
Showing posts with label campus safety. Show all posts
Monday, December 9, 2013
Monday, November 25, 2013
Privacy vs. Safety: Does FERPA Apply to Sexual Assault Cases?
Navigating the muddy
waters between protecting student privacy and addressing complaints of sexual
misconduct still causes confusion. Does FERPA prohibit disclosure of
information about sexual assault cases? Many perceive a conflict between the
confidentiality of student records under the Family Educational Rights and
Privacy Act (FERPA) on the one hand, and the competing rights of sexual assault
victims and other students under Title IX and the Clery Act on the other.
While this post is only intended to address whether FERPA prohibits disclosure of information about peer sexual assault complaints, a few basics are in order. As the Department of Education explained in a 2006 interpretation letter, FERPA protects "education records" maintained by or for the school which are tangible documents (including media and electronic data). FERPA does not, however, protect personal knowledge or observations:
While this post is only intended to address whether FERPA prohibits disclosure of information about peer sexual assault complaints, a few basics are in order. As the Department of Education explained in a 2006 interpretation letter, FERPA protects "education records" maintained by or for the school which are tangible documents (including media and electronic data). FERPA does not, however, protect personal knowledge or observations:
FERPA applies to the disclosure of tangible records and of
information derived from tangible records … As a general rule, information that
is obtained through personal knowledge or observation, and not from an
education record, is not protected from disclosure under FERPA.
Therefore, even if an education record exists containing the same information,
FERPA doesn't protect the confidentiality of information independently obtained
from personal knowledge or observations.
In addition, the education records must contain "information directly
related to a student" — in other words, they must directly or indirectly
identify the student. So far this seems pretty straightforward. However, the
various exceptions to FERPA protection when sexual assault is involved seem to
cause confusion.
Starting with a clear exception, schools may disclose — without the accused
student's consent — the final results of a disciplinary proceeding involving
alleged acts that, if proven, would constitute a violent crime or non-forcible
sex offense:1
- to anyone if the alleged perpetrator is found to have committed the offense
- only to the alleged victim if the accused is not found responsible. In this case the victim must be told not to disclose the outcome to a third party
The result of a disciplinary proceeding is not final until after any appeals. Once the result is final the school may disclose the student's name, the offense, and any sanction imposed, as indicated above.
Another slightly more confusing exception allows disclosure of the investigative reports and other records2of campus police and security units involving sexual assault complaints if they are created for a "law enforcement purpose." Whether the records qualify for this exception depends on (1) who created the records, (2) why they were created, and (3) who maintains them.
Under FERPA, if the records are created "exclusively for the purpose of a possible disciplinary action against the student" those records would be "education records." However, the ED Secretary has said that it "expects such occasions to be very rare, especially when incidents involv[e] criminal conduct by students at postsecondary institutions." Thus, if a student reports a sexual assault to campus police and other security staff their records are probably not protected from disclosure by FERPA.
A couple of cases illustrate how FERPA has been misapplied at the expense of student safety. Last year Oklahoma State University did not alert campus or local police when a victim reported to Student Affairs that he'd been molested. Over the next month the accused molester committed more assaults. Finally, a student newspaper reporter received an anonymous tip and contacted police, which led to the perpetrator's arrest. In September, Nathan Cochran pled guilty to three criminal counts of sexual battery for fondling and performing oral sex on other male students while they slept in his fraternity house. Cochran was suspended from OSU for three years.
When the OSU victim first came forward, no tangible education record existed relating to the accused student. LeRoy Rooker, the ED's chief FERPA enforcer for 21 years, said "Just forget FERPA at that point."
And even if an education record existed a third exception, FERPA's health and safety exception likely applied. Again, Rooker provides guidance in ED's 2006 interpretation letter:
This provision allows an educational agency or institution to
disclose personally identifiable information from education records, without
prior written consent,
in connection with an emergency [to] appropriate persons if the
knowledge of such information is necessary to protect the health or safety of
the student or other persons. 20 U.S.C. §1232g(b)(1)(I); 34 CFR §§99.31(a)(10)
99.36.3
In another case, Swarthmore College's disciplinary proceeding found the accused student responsible but the victim felt the sanction did not protect her or other students in part because the accused's identity was never revealed by the school. Though her assailant was found responsible for rape and suspended, he will be allowed to re-enroll after she graduates. In the meantime, his suspension wasn't made public so he continues to visit the campus and present a safety risk. When Liz Braun, Dean of Students at Swarthmore, asked for student feedback about the school's College Judiciary Committee process, the victim described the CJC process as "unnecessarily torturous." She asked a valid question in her response to Dean Braun: "Should the outcomes of CJC hearings and appeals be made public with identifiable names of perpetrators?" In fact, the accused student's name could be made public if the CJC's final decision found him responsible. This would not violate FERPA and could help protect other students.
Responding to a question about obtaining information from schools regarding sexual assaults against college students, ED Secretary Arne Duncan encouraged journalists to seek assistance from Department of Education staff if they encounter schools misapplying FERPA. While participating in a conference call organized by the Education Writers Association, Duncan stated, "Where districts or schools are — I'm not saying they are — but if they're sort of hiding behind FERPA and not sharing simple information, we're happy to try and assist there."
A journalist from Student Press Law Center said she plans to follow up with ED's chief privacy officer, Kathleen Styles. We'll be looking for further guidance on this issue but hope that in the meantime this post provides some explanation of what is and isn't a legitimate use of FERPA when it comes to protecting the privacy of students accused of committing sexual assault.
1. While this post
focuses on sexual assault complaints, this exception to FERPA protection covers
a number of violent crimes and non-forcible sex offenses listed in 34 CFR §99.39 and 34 CFR §99.31(13)and
(14) covers the conditions that allow disclosure of information
without consent.
2. 34 CFR §99.8(b)(1) defines "law enforcement records" as "records, files, documents, and other materials that are — (i) Created by a law enforcement unit; (ii) Created for a law enforcement purpose; and (iii) Maintained by the law enforcement unit." While FERPA allows disclosure, the confidentiality of records maintained by a school's security staff may be restricted by the school's policies or applicable State law.
3. 34 CFR §99.31(10) provides that prior consent not required to disclose information where "The disclosure is in connection with a health or safety emergency, under the conditions described in §99.36."
2. 34 CFR §99.8(b)(1) defines "law enforcement records" as "records, files, documents, and other materials that are — (i) Created by a law enforcement unit; (ii) Created for a law enforcement purpose; and (iii) Maintained by the law enforcement unit." While FERPA allows disclosure, the confidentiality of records maintained by a school's security staff may be restricted by the school's policies or applicable State law.
3. 34 CFR §99.31(10) provides that prior consent not required to disclose information where "The disclosure is in connection with a health or safety emergency, under the conditions described in §99.36."
Monday, November 11, 2013
Do You Know Your Campus's Sexual Assault Red Zones?
Most schools concentrate their substance-abuse and sexual-violence prevention efforts during the first six weeks of the academic year, a period called the "red zone." First-year women are believed to be at the highest risk for sexual assault during these first six weeks because they are unfamiliar with college social life and thus vulnerable to sexual predators.
Though research does show that first-year women are at greater risk for sexual assault than other undergraduates, no studies (that we're aware of) have shown that the first six weeks of school are the highest-risk period for them.
Researchers, however, have found evidence for other "red zones." These red zones, researchers suggest, are particular to schools and are the result of local factors, such as rush periods, big games, or other important social events.
In a 2008 study, William Flack and his colleagues found that second-year women at one college were at a higher risk for sexual assault between the end of the first month of school and fall break. Flack tentatively attributed this spike in risk to the fact that many second-year women were pledging local sororities before fall break. The high number of parties and heavier drinking during pledge week, Flack suggested, put the young women at greater risk for sexual assault.
Flack concluded: "Risk for unwanted sex associated with the academic calendar year may have more to do with the available range of types of social events in which students engage...the contexts within which those events take place, and the sometimes intense pressures on students to conform to campus social mores, than with students’ inexperience of college social life per se."
Other research, meanwhile, has found that the risk of sexual victimization is evenly spread out across the school year (Fisher et al., 94-95).
Taken together, this research suggests that schools should consider spacing their prevention effects across the entire first year instead of frontloading prevention efforts in the first six weeks of school.
To determine the timing of the programming, administrators might identify major campus events that put students at greater risk for sexual violence or substance abuse and then schedule programming around those events.
Schools could also develop follow-up programming and re-orientations for students in their second, third, and fourth years. These follow ups could present students with new information that is more relevant to their experience -- such as upcoming rush or pledge weeks -- thus allowing students to continue a discussion that often seems to end after first-year orientation. After all, though women may be at a relatively lower risk of sexual assault later in their college careers, programming should be addressed to potential bystanders and perpetrators as well.
Indeed, spreading programming out isn't just consistent with research about red zones, it's also good pedagogy. Spacing any kind of practice across time (rather than massing it in one long event) promotes better long-term retention of material.
Sexual violence is not just a problem in the first six weeks of school and it's not just a first year problem. All students are responsible for preventing sexual violence.
Fisher, B.S., Cullen, F.T., Turner, M.G. (1999) "Extent and Nature of the Sexual Victimization of College Women: A National-Level Analysis." Washington, DC: Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.
Flack, W.F., Jr., Caron, M.L., Leinen, S.J., et al. (2008) "'The Red Zone': Temporal Risk for Unwanted Sex Among College Students," Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 23, 1177-1196.
Kimble, M., Neacsiu, A.D., Flack, W.F., Jr. and Horner, J. "Risk of Unwanted Sex for College Women: Evidence for a Red Zone." Journal of American College Health, 57, 331-337.
Thalheimer, Will. (2006) Spacing Learning Events Over Time: What the Research Says. Work-Learning Research, Inc. Accessed 18th November 2013 <http://www.work-learning.com/catalog.html>
Though research does show that first-year women are at greater risk for sexual assault than other undergraduates, no studies (that we're aware of) have shown that the first six weeks of school are the highest-risk period for them.
Researchers, however, have found evidence for other "red zones." These red zones, researchers suggest, are particular to schools and are the result of local factors, such as rush periods, big games, or other important social events.
In a 2008 study, William Flack and his colleagues found that second-year women at one college were at a higher risk for sexual assault between the end of the first month of school and fall break. Flack tentatively attributed this spike in risk to the fact that many second-year women were pledging local sororities before fall break. The high number of parties and heavier drinking during pledge week, Flack suggested, put the young women at greater risk for sexual assault.
Flack concluded: "Risk for unwanted sex associated with the academic calendar year may have more to do with the available range of types of social events in which students engage...the contexts within which those events take place, and the sometimes intense pressures on students to conform to campus social mores, than with students’ inexperience of college social life per se."
Other research, meanwhile, has found that the risk of sexual victimization is evenly spread out across the school year (Fisher et al., 94-95).
Taken together, this research suggests that schools should consider spacing their prevention effects across the entire first year instead of frontloading prevention efforts in the first six weeks of school.
To determine the timing of the programming, administrators might identify major campus events that put students at greater risk for sexual violence or substance abuse and then schedule programming around those events.
Schools could also develop follow-up programming and re-orientations for students in their second, third, and fourth years. These follow ups could present students with new information that is more relevant to their experience -- such as upcoming rush or pledge weeks -- thus allowing students to continue a discussion that often seems to end after first-year orientation. After all, though women may be at a relatively lower risk of sexual assault later in their college careers, programming should be addressed to potential bystanders and perpetrators as well.
Indeed, spreading programming out isn't just consistent with research about red zones, it's also good pedagogy. Spacing any kind of practice across time (rather than massing it in one long event) promotes better long-term retention of material.
Sexual violence is not just a problem in the first six weeks of school and it's not just a first year problem. All students are responsible for preventing sexual violence.
Further Reading
Fisher, B.S., Cullen, F.T., Turner, M.G. (1999) "Extent and Nature of the Sexual Victimization of College Women: A National-Level Analysis." Washington, DC: Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.
Flack, W.F., Jr., Caron, M.L., Leinen, S.J., et al. (2008) "'The Red Zone': Temporal Risk for Unwanted Sex Among College Students," Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 23, 1177-1196.
Kimble, M., Neacsiu, A.D., Flack, W.F., Jr. and Horner, J. "Risk of Unwanted Sex for College Women: Evidence for a Red Zone." Journal of American College Health, 57, 331-337.
Thalheimer, Will. (2006) Spacing Learning Events Over Time: What the Research Says. Work-Learning Research, Inc. Accessed 18th November 2013 <http://www.work-learning.com/catalog.html>
Wednesday, November 6, 2013
Campus Climate Surveys and the "Information Problem"
Education surveys are nothing new. In fact, the Department of Education was established in 1867 to collect "such statistics and facts … as shall … promote the cause of education throughout the United States."1 In his 1860 education treatise, Herbert Spencer said that asking people how they "think, feel, and act under given circumstances" to solve social problems was a self-evident conclusion: "Society is made up of individuals … and therefore, in individual actions only can be found the solutions of social phenomena."2
Fast forward to the 21st century and schools are using student surveys to help them address the epidemic of sexual assault affecting college women. In a previous post we talked about the University of Montana's "rape-tolerant campus" and its agreement with the U.S. Department of Education to take steps to change the campus climate.
On October 29, 2013, the University of Montana used Amazon gift cards to entice students to complete an annual safe campus survey on their knowledge, attitudes, program use, and experiences. The survey will help UM develop "effective programs and [create] positive change in sexual and interpersonal violence," said UM psychology professor Christine Fiore. This annual survey is part of the "blueprint" for Title IX compliance that resulted from UM's settlement agreement with the ED. The blueprint also includes educating students, faculty, and staff on what is sexual misconduct and how to file complaints.
Other investigations by the ED's Office of Civil Rights call for annual student surveys. The State University of New York reached a settlement agreement with ED on October 31, 2013, and will begin conducting annual campus climate assessments to help improve sexual misconduct policies and procedures at its twenty-nine campuses. In May 2013, the Yale News reported that the school's second "campus climate assessment" found, based on feedback from more than 300 students, it was making progress in addressing sexual misconduct issues.
In addition to a federal investigation, there is the risk of expensive Title IX liability to victims. When schools are faced with six- and seven-figure settlements, why does it take a federal investigation to get to the root of the problem? One possible explanation is what legal scholar Nancy Chi Cantalupo calls an "information problem" about sexual assault and how that impacts a school's reputation for safety.
According to Cantalupo, many schools are reluctant to confront the problem of sexual violence precisely because helping victims and punishing perpetrators requires reporting. Increased reporting drives crime statistics up and makes the school look like a dangerous place to send your children. On the other hand, when victims are discouraged from reporting crimes statistics go down, making the school look safer. Thus, schools have an incentive to discourage reporting to protect their reputations.
However, sociologists and criminologists who study campus violence suggest that ignoring the problem feeds a rape-tolerant culture that leads to higher rates of sexual assault.3 Fortunately, these tragic consequences are turning into stricter enforcement and grassroots action: federal complaints by sexual assault victims are increasing, Title IX enforcement is being taken more seriously,4 and student organizations like Know Your IX are focusing national attention on the problem.
Cantalupo argues that annual student surveys provide more accurate information on the incidence of sexual violence, which helps schools turn their policies, procedures, and education programs into meaningful change. Therefore, Cantalupo recommends that all schools require students to respond to a campus climate survey before they can graduate or register for classes.
Tucker Reed has filed two federal complaints over the University of Southern California's handling of her sexual assault complaint. She agrees that exit surveys of graduating seniors would not only be a better way to find out how many students were sexually assaulted while in college, but could also "pinpoint which programs are working and which aren't."
Student surveys provide a direct source of data that inform a school's Campus SaVE Act education programs, and confront the sexual assault problem with a targeted approach to reducing the rate of sexual violence in all schools, not just those featured in the latest headlines for another federal investigation.
1. The History and Origins of Survey Items for the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System. Report of the National Postsecondary Education Cooperative (2011).
2. Spencer, H. Education: Intellectual, Moral, and Physical, p. 70 (London: D. Appleton and Company 1860).
3. Cantalupo, N. Burying Our Heads in the Sand: Lack of Knowledge, Knowledge Avoidance, and the Persistent Problem of Campus Peer Sexual Violence (2011) 43 Loyola Univ. Chicago L.J. 205, 218.
4. Cantalupo says, "In fiscal year 2009, OCR had 582 full-time staffers—fewer than at any time since its creation. And it received 6,364 complaints, an increase of 27% since 2002," citing Lax Enforcement of Title IX in Campus Sexual Assault Cases: Feeble Watchdog Leaves Students at Risk, Critics Say, Center For Public Integrity (Feb. 25, 2010).
Fast forward to the 21st century and schools are using student surveys to help them address the epidemic of sexual assault affecting college women. In a previous post we talked about the University of Montana's "rape-tolerant campus" and its agreement with the U.S. Department of Education to take steps to change the campus climate.
On October 29, 2013, the University of Montana used Amazon gift cards to entice students to complete an annual safe campus survey on their knowledge, attitudes, program use, and experiences. The survey will help UM develop "effective programs and [create] positive change in sexual and interpersonal violence," said UM psychology professor Christine Fiore. This annual survey is part of the "blueprint" for Title IX compliance that resulted from UM's settlement agreement with the ED. The blueprint also includes educating students, faculty, and staff on what is sexual misconduct and how to file complaints.
Other investigations by the ED's Office of Civil Rights call for annual student surveys. The State University of New York reached a settlement agreement with ED on October 31, 2013, and will begin conducting annual campus climate assessments to help improve sexual misconduct policies and procedures at its twenty-nine campuses. In May 2013, the Yale News reported that the school's second "campus climate assessment" found, based on feedback from more than 300 students, it was making progress in addressing sexual misconduct issues.
In addition to a federal investigation, there is the risk of expensive Title IX liability to victims. When schools are faced with six- and seven-figure settlements, why does it take a federal investigation to get to the root of the problem? One possible explanation is what legal scholar Nancy Chi Cantalupo calls an "information problem" about sexual assault and how that impacts a school's reputation for safety.
According to Cantalupo, many schools are reluctant to confront the problem of sexual violence precisely because helping victims and punishing perpetrators requires reporting. Increased reporting drives crime statistics up and makes the school look like a dangerous place to send your children. On the other hand, when victims are discouraged from reporting crimes statistics go down, making the school look safer. Thus, schools have an incentive to discourage reporting to protect their reputations.
However, sociologists and criminologists who study campus violence suggest that ignoring the problem feeds a rape-tolerant culture that leads to higher rates of sexual assault.3 Fortunately, these tragic consequences are turning into stricter enforcement and grassroots action: federal complaints by sexual assault victims are increasing, Title IX enforcement is being taken more seriously,4 and student organizations like Know Your IX are focusing national attention on the problem.
Cantalupo argues that annual student surveys provide more accurate information on the incidence of sexual violence, which helps schools turn their policies, procedures, and education programs into meaningful change. Therefore, Cantalupo recommends that all schools require students to respond to a campus climate survey before they can graduate or register for classes.
Tucker Reed has filed two federal complaints over the University of Southern California's handling of her sexual assault complaint. She agrees that exit surveys of graduating seniors would not only be a better way to find out how many students were sexually assaulted while in college, but could also "pinpoint which programs are working and which aren't."
Student surveys provide a direct source of data that inform a school's Campus SaVE Act education programs, and confront the sexual assault problem with a targeted approach to reducing the rate of sexual violence in all schools, not just those featured in the latest headlines for another federal investigation.
1. The History and Origins of Survey Items for the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System. Report of the National Postsecondary Education Cooperative (2011).
2. Spencer, H. Education: Intellectual, Moral, and Physical, p. 70 (London: D. Appleton and Company 1860).
3. Cantalupo, N. Burying Our Heads in the Sand: Lack of Knowledge, Knowledge Avoidance, and the Persistent Problem of Campus Peer Sexual Violence (2011) 43 Loyola Univ. Chicago L.J. 205, 218.
4. Cantalupo says, "In fiscal year 2009, OCR had 582 full-time staffers—fewer than at any time since its creation. And it received 6,364 complaints, an increase of 27% since 2002," citing Lax Enforcement of Title IX in Campus Sexual Assault Cases: Feeble Watchdog Leaves Students at Risk, Critics Say, Center For Public Integrity (Feb. 25, 2010).
Friday, October 18, 2013
How do we know 1 in 4 women will be sexually assaulted in college?
You've probably seen the statistic before: 1 in 4 women will be the victim of attempted or completed rape by the time they graduate from college.
It's a startling number -- one that illustrates the urgency of efforts to stop sexual violence on college and university campuses.
But where does this alarming statistic come from? And is it accurate?
The first major study to report the one in four statistic was based on the Sexual Experiences Survey (SES), a questionnaire developed by Mary Koss and her colleagues in the 1980s to correct what they perceived to be shortcomings in the way law enforcement agencies measured sexual violence.
At that time, estimates of rape relied on the FBI's Uniform Crime Report (UCR) and the Bureau of Justice Statistics' (BJS) National Crime Survey (now called the National Crime Victimization Survey).
The UCR, as critics pointed out, only measured rapes reported to law enforcement agencies, even though research dating back to the 1950s indicated that many if not most rapes went unreported (see Kirkpatrick, cited below).
The BJS attempted to make up for this reporting gap by administering the National Crime Survey, which asked representative households about reported and unreported crimes. But critics objected to the way that survey was administered and how its narrow definition of rape, which focused on penile-vaginal penetration, excluded other acts that legally qualified as rape. Furthermore, researchers discovered that the very wording of survey questions about sexual assault influenced how (and if) women responded.
As Koss explained in her journal article, "The Hidden Rape Victim," researchers couldn't simply ask women if they had been the victim of "rape" or "sexual assault" because not all victims recognized or acknowledged that they had been raped. Indeed, the confusion surrounding the definition of rape and stigma attached to its victims made some women reluctant to report or even realize that they had been raped.
Koss called these women "unacknowledged rape victims," explaining, "[a]n unacknowledged rape victim is a woman who has experienced a sexual assault that would legally qualify as rape but who does not conceptualize herself as a rape victim" (Koss 1987, 195).
To overcome this problem, Koss and her colleagues designed survey questions which graphically described rape and other forms of sexual assault without using the word "rape." Koss's descriptions were based on legal definitions and included a broader range of victimization than just penile-vaginal penetration. (It's worth pointing out, however, that Koss's study did not include verbal coercion in the definition of rape, as is sometimes assumed.)
Using the SES questionnaire, Koss found that 27.5% of college women reported experiencing attempted or completed rape since the age of 14 (Koss 1987) . In other words, roughly 1 in 4 women in college had experienced rape -- though not necessarily while in college.
The survey stirred up considerable controversy when Koss published the results in Ms. Magazine. Critics were quick to point out that most of the women identified as rape victims in the survey nonetheless answered "no" to the question "Have you ever been raped," the final item in the survey. Of course, the criticism ignored the fact that Koss designed the survey specifically to correct for the expectation that not all women who had been raped would identify themselves as rape victims.
Critics also argued that the way Koss phrased her questions led to over-reporting. Neil Gilbert, a professor of social welfare at Berkeley and prominent critic of the results, described the survey as "awkward and vaguely worded."
Gilbert was especially critical of Koss's questions about incapacitated assault. For example, one of Koss's questions asked, "Have you had sexual intercourse when you didn't want to because a man gave you alcohol or drugs?" "What does having sex 'because' a man gives you drugs or alcohol signify," wrote Gilbert. "[A]s the question stands it would require a mind reader to detect whether an affirmative response corresponds to a legal definition of rape" (Gilbert 357).
Koss and her colleagues have since revised (and continue to revise) the Sexual Experiences Survey in response to these criticisms, rewording some of the questions to more accurately reflect legal definitions and to be sure that an affirmative response means a crime occurred. However, the approach remains the same: creating a survey with graphically-worded questions that avoid the labels of rape and sexual assault.
Koss's original findings continue to be widely cited and are one source of the 1 in 4 statistic.
However, similar surveys have found comparable levels of sexual violence nationally or on college campuses: 1 in 6 U.S. women said they experienced a completed or attempted rape (National Violence Against Women 2000), 1 in 4 to 1 in 5 women experienced completed or attempted rape while at college (The Sexual Victimization of College Women 2000), and 1 in 5 U.S. women have been raped at some time in their lives (CDC 2010).
Most recently the Campus Sexual Assault Study (2007), funded by the National Institute of Justice, reported that 19% or 1 in 5 undergraduate women reported experiencing completed or attempted sexual assault since entering college. When the researchers focused on seniors they found that the number rose to 1 in 4 or 26.3% of college women.
(The Campus Sexual Assault's definition of sexual assault included both sexual battery [forced touching] and rape.)
However, when researchers conducted the same study at four historically black colleges and universities in fall 2008, they found a lower prevalence of sexual assault. 14.2% or 1 in 7 women reported experiencing attempted or completed sexual assault since entering college. When restricted to seniors, that number rose to 16.1%, or 1 in 6 women. These results suggest that the numbers may vary depending on the type and size of institution surveyed.
Nonetheless, today the 2007 Campus Sexual Assault Study is widely cited as the source of both the 1 in 4 and the 1 in 5 statistic.
Controversy still hounds the Sexual Experiences Survey. Skeptics continue to point to the FBI's and
BJS's reports that show a lower incidence of rape.
In fact, in 2012 the FBI's UCR reported 26.7 forcible rapes per 100,000 inhabitants -- nowhere close to 1 in 4. In 2010, the BJS's National Crime Victimization Survey (which has been revised in response to the SES) reported 2.1 completed and attempted rapes and sexual assaults per 1,000 females 12 or older. While much higher than the FBI's numbers, it is nowhere close to 1 in 4.
The numbers aren't entirely comparable. 1 in 4 is a measure of the prevalence of sexual assault: how many women have experienced sexual assault while at college. The BJS and FBI measure the incidence of sexual assault: how many occurrences there are each year.
And of course, as we've seen, these numbers are affected by what's included in the definition of sexual assault and how the questions are asked.
Nonetheless, the 1 in 4 statistic provides an important context for campus safety and advocacy efforts. Even critics of this statistic acknowledge that rape is vastly under reported. The Sexual Experiences Survey and other similar studies highlight an important problem facing efforts to fight sexual assault on college campuses.
It isn't just about statistics. It's about educating students so they can protect themselves and each other.
Gilbert, Neil. (1992) "Realities and Mythologies of Rape," Society, 4, 356-362.
Kirkpatrick, C. and Kanin, E. (1957) "Male Sex Aggression on a University Campus," American Sociological Review, 22, 52-58.
Koss, M.P. (1985) "The Hidden Rape Victim: Personality, Attitudnal, and Situational Characteristics," Pyschology of Women Quarterly, 9, 193-212.
Koss, M.P., Gidycz, C.A., Wisniewski, N. (1987) "The Scope of Rape: Incidence and Prevalence of Sexual Aggression and Victimization in a National Sample of Higher Education Students," Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 55, 162-170.
It's a startling number -- one that illustrates the urgency of efforts to stop sexual violence on college and university campuses.
But where does this alarming statistic come from? And is it accurate?
Changing How Sexual Violence Is Measured: The Sexual Experiences Survey
The first major study to report the one in four statistic was based on the Sexual Experiences Survey (SES), a questionnaire developed by Mary Koss and her colleagues in the 1980s to correct what they perceived to be shortcomings in the way law enforcement agencies measured sexual violence.
At that time, estimates of rape relied on the FBI's Uniform Crime Report (UCR) and the Bureau of Justice Statistics' (BJS) National Crime Survey (now called the National Crime Victimization Survey).
The UCR, as critics pointed out, only measured rapes reported to law enforcement agencies, even though research dating back to the 1950s indicated that many if not most rapes went unreported (see Kirkpatrick, cited below).
The BJS attempted to make up for this reporting gap by administering the National Crime Survey, which asked representative households about reported and unreported crimes. But critics objected to the way that survey was administered and how its narrow definition of rape, which focused on penile-vaginal penetration, excluded other acts that legally qualified as rape. Furthermore, researchers discovered that the very wording of survey questions about sexual assault influenced how (and if) women responded.
As Koss explained in her journal article, "The Hidden Rape Victim," researchers couldn't simply ask women if they had been the victim of "rape" or "sexual assault" because not all victims recognized or acknowledged that they had been raped. Indeed, the confusion surrounding the definition of rape and stigma attached to its victims made some women reluctant to report or even realize that they had been raped.
Koss called these women "unacknowledged rape victims," explaining, "[a]n unacknowledged rape victim is a woman who has experienced a sexual assault that would legally qualify as rape but who does not conceptualize herself as a rape victim" (Koss 1987, 195).
To overcome this problem, Koss and her colleagues designed survey questions which graphically described rape and other forms of sexual assault without using the word "rape." Koss's descriptions were based on legal definitions and included a broader range of victimization than just penile-vaginal penetration. (It's worth pointing out, however, that Koss's study did not include verbal coercion in the definition of rape, as is sometimes assumed.)
Using the SES questionnaire, Koss found that 27.5% of college women reported experiencing attempted or completed rape since the age of 14 (Koss 1987) . In other words, roughly 1 in 4 women in college had experienced rape -- though not necessarily while in college.
Criticism of "Sexual Politics"
The survey stirred up considerable controversy when Koss published the results in Ms. Magazine. Critics were quick to point out that most of the women identified as rape victims in the survey nonetheless answered "no" to the question "Have you ever been raped," the final item in the survey. Of course, the criticism ignored the fact that Koss designed the survey specifically to correct for the expectation that not all women who had been raped would identify themselves as rape victims.
Critics also argued that the way Koss phrased her questions led to over-reporting. Neil Gilbert, a professor of social welfare at Berkeley and prominent critic of the results, described the survey as "awkward and vaguely worded."
Gilbert was especially critical of Koss's questions about incapacitated assault. For example, one of Koss's questions asked, "Have you had sexual intercourse when you didn't want to because a man gave you alcohol or drugs?" "What does having sex 'because' a man gives you drugs or alcohol signify," wrote Gilbert. "[A]s the question stands it would require a mind reader to detect whether an affirmative response corresponds to a legal definition of rape" (Gilbert 357).
Koss and her colleagues have since revised (and continue to revise) the Sexual Experiences Survey in response to these criticisms, rewording some of the questions to more accurately reflect legal definitions and to be sure that an affirmative response means a crime occurred. However, the approach remains the same: creating a survey with graphically-worded questions that avoid the labels of rape and sexual assault.
Subsequent Surveys: Validating the Original Findings
Koss's original findings continue to be widely cited and are one source of the 1 in 4 statistic.
However, similar surveys have found comparable levels of sexual violence nationally or on college campuses: 1 in 6 U.S. women said they experienced a completed or attempted rape (National Violence Against Women 2000), 1 in 4 to 1 in 5 women experienced completed or attempted rape while at college (The Sexual Victimization of College Women 2000), and 1 in 5 U.S. women have been raped at some time in their lives (CDC 2010).
Most recently the Campus Sexual Assault Study (2007), funded by the National Institute of Justice, reported that 19% or 1 in 5 undergraduate women reported experiencing completed or attempted sexual assault since entering college. When the researchers focused on seniors they found that the number rose to 1 in 4 or 26.3% of college women.
(The Campus Sexual Assault's definition of sexual assault included both sexual battery [forced touching] and rape.)
However, when researchers conducted the same study at four historically black colleges and universities in fall 2008, they found a lower prevalence of sexual assault. 14.2% or 1 in 7 women reported experiencing attempted or completed sexual assault since entering college. When restricted to seniors, that number rose to 16.1%, or 1 in 6 women. These results suggest that the numbers may vary depending on the type and size of institution surveyed.
Nonetheless, today the 2007 Campus Sexual Assault Study is widely cited as the source of both the 1 in 4 and the 1 in 5 statistic.
Important Context
Controversy still hounds the Sexual Experiences Survey. Skeptics continue to point to the FBI's and
BJS's reports that show a lower incidence of rape.
In fact, in 2012 the FBI's UCR reported 26.7 forcible rapes per 100,000 inhabitants -- nowhere close to 1 in 4. In 2010, the BJS's National Crime Victimization Survey (which has been revised in response to the SES) reported 2.1 completed and attempted rapes and sexual assaults per 1,000 females 12 or older. While much higher than the FBI's numbers, it is nowhere close to 1 in 4.
The numbers aren't entirely comparable. 1 in 4 is a measure of the prevalence of sexual assault: how many women have experienced sexual assault while at college. The BJS and FBI measure the incidence of sexual assault: how many occurrences there are each year.
And of course, as we've seen, these numbers are affected by what's included in the definition of sexual assault and how the questions are asked.
Nonetheless, the 1 in 4 statistic provides an important context for campus safety and advocacy efforts. Even critics of this statistic acknowledge that rape is vastly under reported. The Sexual Experiences Survey and other similar studies highlight an important problem facing efforts to fight sexual assault on college campuses.
It isn't just about statistics. It's about educating students so they can protect themselves and each other.
Works Cited
Gilbert, Neil. (1992) "Realities and Mythologies of Rape," Society, 4, 356-362.
Kirkpatrick, C. and Kanin, E. (1957) "Male Sex Aggression on a University Campus," American Sociological Review, 22, 52-58.
Koss, M.P. (1985) "The Hidden Rape Victim: Personality, Attitudnal, and Situational Characteristics," Pyschology of Women Quarterly, 9, 193-212.
Koss, M.P., Gidycz, C.A., Wisniewski, N. (1987) "The Scope of Rape: Incidence and Prevalence of Sexual Aggression and Victimization in a National Sample of Higher Education Students," Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 55, 162-170.
Tuesday, September 24, 2013
Study Abroad Increases Risk for Sexual Assault
Last month, University of Chicago student Michaela Cross posted a harrowing account of her study abroad experience in India. "For three months I lived...in a traveler's heaven and a woman's hell," Cross wrote. As a South Asian Studies major who had previously spent time in India, she thought she was prepared. But she wasn't.
In the short account of her travels, posted on CNN's iReport, Cross described a study abroad experience that mixed wonder and fear, "half dream, half nightmare." "I was stalked, groped, masturbated at;" she wrote, "and yet I had adventures beyond my imagination."
In one particularly terrifying moment, she remembers "lying hunched in a fetal position, holding a pair of scissors with the door bolted shut, while the staff member of the hotel who had tried to rape my roommate called me over and over...breathing into the phone."
After returning from abroad, Cross said she was diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and has been unable to attend to classes.
"PTSD strikes me as a euphemism," wrote Cross, "because a syndrome implies a cure. What, may I ask, is the cure for seeing reality, of feeling for three months what its [sic] like for one's humanity to be taken away."
Study abroad is an increasingly large part of undergraduate education at U.S. colleges and universities.
According to the Institute for International Education, in 2010-2011, 273,996 U.S. students studied abroad for academic credit, a slight increase from the previous year. It's likely that the numbers will continue to grow as leaders and educators tout study abroad as central to education in a global economy.
But Cross's experience and others like it illustrate that studying abroad does not come without dangers. As students plunge themselves into unfamiliar cities and cultures, they also expose themselves to new dangers.
Indeed, a recent study in the journal Psychological Trauma reports that female undergraduates are three to five times more likely to experience sexual assault while studying abroad than on a U.S. campus, where women are already at a high risk of sexual assault.
The study was the first to measure the prevalence of sexual assault in study abroad programs. Researchers asked women who had studied abroad in the past two academic years to fill out the Sexual Experiences Survey, a widely-used questionnaire for measuring the incidence of sexual assault. The results were startling:
The researchers speculated as to why the prevalance of sexual assault is higher for students studying abroad.
Some factors might include students' lack of familiarity with the culture and greater reluctance to go to local authorities for help, both of which make foreign students easier targets for perpetrators.
Researchers also pointed to other factors, such as the large number of study abroad programs in major cities, local stereotypes about American women, and the legal access to alcohol increasing student drinking rates.
Although the study does not offer recommendations for schools running study abroad programs, the high prevalence of sexual assault during study abroad suggests that schools may want to coordinate between their study abroad program and the campus Title IX coordinator.
At the very least, schools should review and update the information they provide students before the students arrive in a host country, establish clear procedures for reporting and handling sexual assault complaints while students are abroad, and make sure students are aware of counseling and other student health services that are available abroad and after students return.
The U.S. State Department has a website that provides student travelers with many valuable resources.
Kimble, M., Flack, W.F., Burbridge, E. (2013). "Study Abroad Increases Risk for Sexual Assault in Female Undergraduates: A Preliminary Report." Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy, 5, 426-430.
In the short account of her travels, posted on CNN's iReport, Cross described a study abroad experience that mixed wonder and fear, "half dream, half nightmare." "I was stalked, groped, masturbated at;" she wrote, "and yet I had adventures beyond my imagination."
In one particularly terrifying moment, she remembers "lying hunched in a fetal position, holding a pair of scissors with the door bolted shut, while the staff member of the hotel who had tried to rape my roommate called me over and over...breathing into the phone."
After returning from abroad, Cross said she was diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and has been unable to attend to classes.
"PTSD strikes me as a euphemism," wrote Cross, "because a syndrome implies a cure. What, may I ask, is the cure for seeing reality, of feeling for three months what its [sic] like for one's humanity to be taken away."
Students Abroad
Study abroad is an increasingly large part of undergraduate education at U.S. colleges and universities.
According to the Institute for International Education, in 2010-2011, 273,996 U.S. students studied abroad for academic credit, a slight increase from the previous year. It's likely that the numbers will continue to grow as leaders and educators tout study abroad as central to education in a global economy.
But Cross's experience and others like it illustrate that studying abroad does not come without dangers. As students plunge themselves into unfamiliar cities and cultures, they also expose themselves to new dangers.
Indeed, a recent study in the journal Psychological Trauma reports that female undergraduates are three to five times more likely to experience sexual assault while studying abroad than on a U.S. campus, where women are already at a high risk of sexual assault.
The study was the first to measure the prevalence of sexual assault in study abroad programs. Researchers asked women who had studied abroad in the past two academic years to fill out the Sexual Experiences Survey, a widely-used questionnaire for measuring the incidence of sexual assault. The results were startling:
- 83% of women reported an unwanted sexual experience, 6% an attempted sexual assault, and 4.6% a completed sexual assault.
- 87% of the nonconsensual sexual contact was committed by nonstudent local residents.
- Women studying abroad in Africa and the Americas reported more sexual assaults than those studying in Europe. There was no information on study abroad in Asia.
The researchers speculated as to why the prevalance of sexual assault is higher for students studying abroad.
Some factors might include students' lack of familiarity with the culture and greater reluctance to go to local authorities for help, both of which make foreign students easier targets for perpetrators.
Researchers also pointed to other factors, such as the large number of study abroad programs in major cities, local stereotypes about American women, and the legal access to alcohol increasing student drinking rates.
Although the study does not offer recommendations for schools running study abroad programs, the high prevalence of sexual assault during study abroad suggests that schools may want to coordinate between their study abroad program and the campus Title IX coordinator.
At the very least, schools should review and update the information they provide students before the students arrive in a host country, establish clear procedures for reporting and handling sexual assault complaints while students are abroad, and make sure students are aware of counseling and other student health services that are available abroad and after students return.
Further Resources
The U.S. State Department has a website that provides student travelers with many valuable resources.
Work Cited
Kimble, M., Flack, W.F., Burbridge, E. (2013). "Study Abroad Increases Risk for Sexual Assault in Female Undergraduates: A Preliminary Report." Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy, 5, 426-430.
Friday, September 20, 2013
CampusClarity Wins Gold at the Annual Stevie Awards
Think About It won a Gold Stevie Award for Best Training Site at the 11th Annual American Business Awards. Think About It is CampusClarity's online training program on sexual violence and substance abuse for undergraduates and a compliance resource for college and university administrators. The Stevies, considered the Oscars of the business world, are open to all U.S.-based organizations. With over 3,200 entries, this year's awards were a record-breaking size. More than 320 executives from across the country judged the entries.
The award-winning Think About It addresses campus sexual violence and substance abuse through a harm-reduction model that also helps schools comply with the Campus SaVE Act and Title IX.
The program is a collaboration between CampusClarity, a service of LawRoom, and the University of San Francisco's Division of Student Life. Instructional designers, student affairs administators, and lawyers worked alongside students to develop an effective course that would speak to students' college experiences.
Think About It includes bystander intervention training, customizable campus policies and resources, state specific laws on sexual and domestic violence, social norming exercises, a comprehensive discussion of consent, and in-depth reports on student attitudes and behaviors.
More than thirty-five colleges and universities nationwide use Think About It to train their students.
Accepting the gold for Think About It were Jeremy Beckman, Chief Instructional Designer at LawRoom, and Peter Novak, Vice Provost for Student Life at the University of San Francisco.
"It means a great deal," Novak said about the award. "It allows us to further collaborate on prospective projects and to really be of service to university students across the country."
LawRoom has been a leader in employment law compliance and training since it began in 1994. It has helped private and public companies, non-profits, and government entities comply with employment regulations. This year marked the first time the company participated in the American Business Awards or Stevies.
In addition to winning gold for Think About It, LawRoom also took home silver for its online sexual-harassment training, Lenses.
Wednesday, September 18, 2013
The University of Montana's Cautionary Tale
"A rape-tolerant campus with ineffective programming, inadequate support services for victim survivors, and inequitable grievance procedures threatens every student." Diane G. Barz, retired Associate Justice Montana Supreme Court, Investigation Report dated January 31, 2012
Yearlong federal investigations of the University of Montana (UM) provide a cautionary tale for colleges and universities about how not to respond to reports of sexual assault. The U.S. Department of Education (ED) and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) concluded that UM's responses to female students who reported sexual assaults were delayed, inadequate, and discriminatory.1
ED's Title IX compliance review of UM produced "a blueprint for colleges and universities throughout the country to protect students from sexual harassment and assault." The DOJ's parallel investigation of UM's Office of Public Safety (OPS) resulted in a "roadmap for reform" that "will stand as a model" for other schools to prevent sex discrimination from interfering with an effective response to sexual assault complaints.
These problems were not confined to UM's Missoula campus. The DOJ also investigated the Missoula Police Department (MPD) and reviewed over 350 reports of sexual assault made by Missoula women, including UM students, received between January 2008 and May 2012. In the opening paragraph of its May 15, 2013 Letter of Findings, the DOJ concluded that the MPD's "response to sexual assaults compromise the effectiveness of sexual assault investigations from the outset, make it more difficult to [uncover] the truth, and have the effect of depriving female sexual assault victims of basic legal protections."
We'll first look at the underlying problems that contributed to UM's "rape-tolerant campus" because policies and procedures alone cannot fix systemic problems. Instead, they require an ongoing commitment to effect change in attitudes that turn into action. In later posts, we'll discuss the specific steps to Title IX compliance laid out in the "blueprint" and "roadmap."
Before the federal investigations, UM had been grappling with its sexual assault problem. In December 2010, a female student reported to the MPD that four UM football players drugged and raped her.2 While the MPD found there wasn't enough evidence for criminal charges, police informed UM's football coach about the allegations, but that report was not passed along to UM administrators until a year later.3
In December 2011, Royce Engstrom had been UM's president for just fourteen months when he received a call about the allegations. Once President Engstrom became involved, UM hired retired Montana Supreme Court Justice Diane Barz to investigate sexual assault reports at UM. Her final report found nine incidents reported between September 2010 and December 2011. Her recommendations included making information and resources on sexual assault readily available, training UM personnel on how to report and respond to sexual assault, and educating students on the consequences of risky behavior.4
Despite Barz's report, there was internal resistance to acknowledging UM's sexual assault problem. Around that time, internal email messages showed that UM Vice President Jim Foley questioned UM Dean of Students Charles Couture's use of the term "gang rape" to describe the December 2010 incident. Foley suggested that Couture should have called it "date rape." Couture replied, "Jim, I used that term [gang rape] when I accused the four football players of rape … because that is what it was.”
Over the next six months, Engstrom had fired UM's football coach and athletic director, and Foley had stepped down as UM's Vice President.
But just a month after Justice Barz's report, two more women complained to UM employees that they were sexually assaulted on the same night by the same male student, but he fled the country after UM's Dean of Students notified him of the charges and there was a one-week delay in reporting the incidents to local law enforcement.
Against this backdrop, the ED and DOJ reviewed UM's responses to twenty-three sexual assault complaints and ten sexual harassment complaints received by UM over the prior three school years. They found that UM's delayed and inadequate responses to complaints resulted in students not feeling safe on campus, suffering mental health problems, becoming suicidal, withdrawing from classes, or leaving the University altogether.
A sampling of cases discussed in the ED and DOJ's Joint Letter of Findings shows that UM's problematic responses were not confined to a particular area. In one case, the UM official investigating a sexual assault complaint knew that the victim was upset because she repeatedly saw her attacker on campus, but took no steps to protect her. Another sexual assault victim's roommate reported to their Resident Assistant (RA) that the victim was suicidal. The RA reported this to the Residence Life Office but there was no record of any action taken to ensure her safety. In yet another case, sufficient evidence was found to expel the student accused of sexual assault, but he was allowed to stay on campus for six more weeks to finish the semester. While the victim had left the University shortly after she reported the sexual assault, allowing her attacker to remain on campus may have left other students at risk of assault or harassment.
In two other cases, UM stopped its investigation because it "assumed the victims had stopped cooperating," even though UM had not received any communication from the victims that they no longer wished to continue with the grievance process.
Given these experiences, it is not surprising that other students were reluctant to report sexual assault because they feared retaliation, or that the University wouldn't respond, or, if it did, would respond negatively. One student said that University employees said things that indicated they didn't believe her. Another former student said she didn't report being sexually assaulted by a football player because they "could get away with whatever they wanted." Other students, community members, and faculty echoed that assessment, with some people saying that football players were treated like they were "Gods."5
And the DOJ's investigation of UM's campus security revealed another major problem: OPS's responses to student reports of sexual assault were "marked by confusion, repetition, and poor investigative practices."
For example, one OPS case narrative focused on the woman's alcohol-scented breath and "clean and undamaged" clothing. A victim advocate said OPS interviews were "painful" for the victims because they were interviewed by several officers who asked "very personal questions" without warning or explanation of their relevance, and students were also discouraged from filing a police report. Victims who did report their assault to the Missoula Police Department (MPD) had to relive their trauma by answering the same questions because OPS officers didn't provide MPD with enough information.
Two OPS officers described a sexual assault reported in a university residence hall as "regretted sex." And OPS Chief Taylor told investigators that the responding officer's job is to determine if the sexual assault is "provable." However, as the DOJ found, determining the veracity of the woman reporting a sexual assault before a thorough and unbiased investigation is completed not only indicates a failure to adequately respond to sexual assault, but "is particularly problematic given the data showing that the overwhelming majority of sexual assault allegations reported to the police are true."6
Based on ample evidence, the DOJ concluded that the OPS's "failure to adequately respond to reports of sexual assault is due at least in part to gender discrimination." By discouraging them from reporting sexual assaults to law enforcement, OPS discriminated against women, deprived them of basic legal protections, and put their safety at risk.
With mounting evidence and media coverage of UM's sexual assault problems, Missoula City Councilman Dave Strohmaier told over 100 community members gathered to hear from UM and community leaders, "If there are systemic problems with how we are addressing violence within our community then we absolutely need to move aggressively on all fronts to address it."
As Justice Barz said, a rape-tolerant campus climate threatens every student. So, Title IX requires that when systemic problems discourage students from reporting sexual assault, schools must take "actions … to address the educational environment, including special training, the dissemination of information about how to report sexual harassment, new policies, and other steps designed to clearly communicate the message that the college or university does not tolerate, and will be responsive to any reports of, sexual harassment."
The ED's and DOJ's findings and conclusions in the UM case show that a top-down strategy is the foundation for creating a campus culture that does not tolerate sexual assault, and that other key components of the ED-DOJ strategy are education and effective procedures for handling problems when they arise.
In future blog posts, we'll dig deeper into the UM investigations and the resulting documents that provide the ED's and DOJ's "blueprint" and "roadmap" for schools on how to respond to sexual assault, create a safe learning environment, and avoid becoming a cautionary tale.
1. The settlement agreement relating to the Title IX compliance review among UM, the DOJ, Civil Rights Division, and ED, Office for Civil Rights is set forth in the Resolution Agreement dated May 9, 2013. The settlement agreement between the DOJ and UM Regarding OPS's Response to Sexual Assault is set forth in the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) dated May 9, 2013.
2. Another female student reported that she was drugged and raped around that same time but did not want to pursue action against her assailants (Investigation Report dated January 31, 2012).
3. Missoula County Attorney Fred Van Valkenburg discussed the case with a local newspaper reporter, stating "I think that clearly the evidence in the case indicates that what happened was with consent, not without consent," he says. "There may have been sex with more than one person—that may seem sort of odd to people that someone might agree to have sex with more than one person—but I don't think because it's odd makes it automatically a non-consensual situation."
4. Justice Barz also noted, "I am disappointed with the lack of response from students with knowledge of house parties where the incidents were alleged to have occurred. Some that have been questioned have not been truthful. I believe 'lying' is also covered under the Student Conduct Code" (Investigation Report dated January 31, 2012).
5. In August 2012, the New York Times reported pending rape charges against two UM football players, and a "widespread feeling in Missoula that players had been coddled, their transgressions ignored or played down." In January 2013, running back Beau Donaldson pled guilty to rape and was sentenced to ten years in prison. Quarterback Jordan Johnson was acquitted on rape charges on March 1, 2013.
6. The Letter of Findings cites Kimberly A. Lonsway, Joanne Archmbault & David Lisak, "False Reports: Moving Beyond the Issue to Successfully Investigate and Prosecute Non-Stranger Sexual Assault," 3 The Voice 1-3, NDAA's National Center for the Prosecution of Violence Against Women (2009).
Yearlong federal investigations of the University of Montana (UM) provide a cautionary tale for colleges and universities about how not to respond to reports of sexual assault. The U.S. Department of Education (ED) and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) concluded that UM's responses to female students who reported sexual assaults were delayed, inadequate, and discriminatory.1
ED's Title IX compliance review of UM produced "a blueprint for colleges and universities throughout the country to protect students from sexual harassment and assault." The DOJ's parallel investigation of UM's Office of Public Safety (OPS) resulted in a "roadmap for reform" that "will stand as a model" for other schools to prevent sex discrimination from interfering with an effective response to sexual assault complaints.
These problems were not confined to UM's Missoula campus. The DOJ also investigated the Missoula Police Department (MPD) and reviewed over 350 reports of sexual assault made by Missoula women, including UM students, received between January 2008 and May 2012. In the opening paragraph of its May 15, 2013 Letter of Findings, the DOJ concluded that the MPD's "response to sexual assaults compromise the effectiveness of sexual assault investigations from the outset, make it more difficult to [uncover] the truth, and have the effect of depriving female sexual assault victims of basic legal protections."
We'll first look at the underlying problems that contributed to UM's "rape-tolerant campus" because policies and procedures alone cannot fix systemic problems. Instead, they require an ongoing commitment to effect change in attitudes that turn into action. In later posts, we'll discuss the specific steps to Title IX compliance laid out in the "blueprint" and "roadmap."
Acknowledging the Problem
Before the federal investigations, UM had been grappling with its sexual assault problem. In December 2010, a female student reported to the MPD that four UM football players drugged and raped her.2 While the MPD found there wasn't enough evidence for criminal charges, police informed UM's football coach about the allegations, but that report was not passed along to UM administrators until a year later.3
In December 2011, Royce Engstrom had been UM's president for just fourteen months when he received a call about the allegations. Once President Engstrom became involved, UM hired retired Montana Supreme Court Justice Diane Barz to investigate sexual assault reports at UM. Her final report found nine incidents reported between September 2010 and December 2011. Her recommendations included making information and resources on sexual assault readily available, training UM personnel on how to report and respond to sexual assault, and educating students on the consequences of risky behavior.4
Despite Barz's report, there was internal resistance to acknowledging UM's sexual assault problem. Around that time, internal email messages showed that UM Vice President Jim Foley questioned UM Dean of Students Charles Couture's use of the term "gang rape" to describe the December 2010 incident. Foley suggested that Couture should have called it "date rape." Couture replied, "Jim, I used that term [gang rape] when I accused the four football players of rape … because that is what it was.”
Over the next six months, Engstrom had fired UM's football coach and athletic director, and Foley had stepped down as UM's Vice President.
But just a month after Justice Barz's report, two more women complained to UM employees that they were sexually assaulted on the same night by the same male student, but he fled the country after UM's Dean of Students notified him of the charges and there was a one-week delay in reporting the incidents to local law enforcement.
Sexual Assault Case Reviews
Against this backdrop, the ED and DOJ reviewed UM's responses to twenty-three sexual assault complaints and ten sexual harassment complaints received by UM over the prior three school years. They found that UM's delayed and inadequate responses to complaints resulted in students not feeling safe on campus, suffering mental health problems, becoming suicidal, withdrawing from classes, or leaving the University altogether.
A sampling of cases discussed in the ED and DOJ's Joint Letter of Findings shows that UM's problematic responses were not confined to a particular area. In one case, the UM official investigating a sexual assault complaint knew that the victim was upset because she repeatedly saw her attacker on campus, but took no steps to protect her. Another sexual assault victim's roommate reported to their Resident Assistant (RA) that the victim was suicidal. The RA reported this to the Residence Life Office but there was no record of any action taken to ensure her safety. In yet another case, sufficient evidence was found to expel the student accused of sexual assault, but he was allowed to stay on campus for six more weeks to finish the semester. While the victim had left the University shortly after she reported the sexual assault, allowing her attacker to remain on campus may have left other students at risk of assault or harassment.
In two other cases, UM stopped its investigation because it "assumed the victims had stopped cooperating," even though UM had not received any communication from the victims that they no longer wished to continue with the grievance process.
Given these experiences, it is not surprising that other students were reluctant to report sexual assault because they feared retaliation, or that the University wouldn't respond, or, if it did, would respond negatively. One student said that University employees said things that indicated they didn't believe her. Another former student said she didn't report being sexually assaulted by a football player because they "could get away with whatever they wanted." Other students, community members, and faculty echoed that assessment, with some people saying that football players were treated like they were "Gods."5
And the DOJ's investigation of UM's campus security revealed another major problem: OPS's responses to student reports of sexual assault were "marked by confusion, repetition, and poor investigative practices."
For example, one OPS case narrative focused on the woman's alcohol-scented breath and "clean and undamaged" clothing. A victim advocate said OPS interviews were "painful" for the victims because they were interviewed by several officers who asked "very personal questions" without warning or explanation of their relevance, and students were also discouraged from filing a police report. Victims who did report their assault to the Missoula Police Department (MPD) had to relive their trauma by answering the same questions because OPS officers didn't provide MPD with enough information.
Two OPS officers described a sexual assault reported in a university residence hall as "regretted sex." And OPS Chief Taylor told investigators that the responding officer's job is to determine if the sexual assault is "provable." However, as the DOJ found, determining the veracity of the woman reporting a sexual assault before a thorough and unbiased investigation is completed not only indicates a failure to adequately respond to sexual assault, but "is particularly problematic given the data showing that the overwhelming majority of sexual assault allegations reported to the police are true."6
Based on ample evidence, the DOJ concluded that the OPS's "failure to adequately respond to reports of sexual assault is due at least in part to gender discrimination." By discouraging them from reporting sexual assaults to law enforcement, OPS discriminated against women, deprived them of basic legal protections, and put their safety at risk.
Systemic Change
With mounting evidence and media coverage of UM's sexual assault problems, Missoula City Councilman Dave Strohmaier told over 100 community members gathered to hear from UM and community leaders, "If there are systemic problems with how we are addressing violence within our community then we absolutely need to move aggressively on all fronts to address it."
As Justice Barz said, a rape-tolerant campus climate threatens every student. So, Title IX requires that when systemic problems discourage students from reporting sexual assault, schools must take "actions … to address the educational environment, including special training, the dissemination of information about how to report sexual harassment, new policies, and other steps designed to clearly communicate the message that the college or university does not tolerate, and will be responsive to any reports of, sexual harassment."
The ED's and DOJ's findings and conclusions in the UM case show that a top-down strategy is the foundation for creating a campus culture that does not tolerate sexual assault, and that other key components of the ED-DOJ strategy are education and effective procedures for handling problems when they arise.
In future blog posts, we'll dig deeper into the UM investigations and the resulting documents that provide the ED's and DOJ's "blueprint" and "roadmap" for schools on how to respond to sexual assault, create a safe learning environment, and avoid becoming a cautionary tale.
1. The settlement agreement relating to the Title IX compliance review among UM, the DOJ, Civil Rights Division, and ED, Office for Civil Rights is set forth in the Resolution Agreement dated May 9, 2013. The settlement agreement between the DOJ and UM Regarding OPS's Response to Sexual Assault is set forth in the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) dated May 9, 2013.
2. Another female student reported that she was drugged and raped around that same time but did not want to pursue action against her assailants (Investigation Report dated January 31, 2012).
3. Missoula County Attorney Fred Van Valkenburg discussed the case with a local newspaper reporter, stating "I think that clearly the evidence in the case indicates that what happened was with consent, not without consent," he says. "There may have been sex with more than one person—that may seem sort of odd to people that someone might agree to have sex with more than one person—but I don't think because it's odd makes it automatically a non-consensual situation."
4. Justice Barz also noted, "I am disappointed with the lack of response from students with knowledge of house parties where the incidents were alleged to have occurred. Some that have been questioned have not been truthful. I believe 'lying' is also covered under the Student Conduct Code" (Investigation Report dated January 31, 2012).
5. In August 2012, the New York Times reported pending rape charges against two UM football players, and a "widespread feeling in Missoula that players had been coddled, their transgressions ignored or played down." In January 2013, running back Beau Donaldson pled guilty to rape and was sentenced to ten years in prison. Quarterback Jordan Johnson was acquitted on rape charges on March 1, 2013.
6. The Letter of Findings cites Kimberly A. Lonsway, Joanne Archmbault & David Lisak, "False Reports: Moving Beyond the Issue to Successfully Investigate and Prosecute Non-Stranger Sexual Assault," 3 The Voice 1-3, NDAA's National Center for the Prosecution of Violence Against Women (2009).
Wednesday, September 11, 2013
Study Drug and Party Aid: Prescription Stimulant Abuse on College Campuses
In June 2007, freshman Johnny Edwards went to Harvard University's Health Services clinic complaining about trouble concentrating and studying. A nurse practitioner diagnosed him as suffering from attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and prescribed Adderall, a stimulant. Six months later Edwards killed himself.
Edwards's father is now suing Harvard for wrongful death, alleging that the diagnosis of ADHD and the Adderall prescription did not meet medical standards.
For two years, Richard Fee struggled with an addiction to Adderall that doctors prescribed him to treat attention ADHD. He had been in an out of psychiatric care, and kicked out of his house by his parents who feared his violent outbursts.
Fee had been introduced to Adderall in college as study aid, only obtaining a prescription for himself after he graduated to help him with medical school applications.
In late 2011, Fee hanged himself in his bedroom closet. His mother found the body.
These tragic cases highlight the dangers of prescription stimulants.
Like Fee and Edwards, many young people are first introduced to these drugs in college. And like Fee, many students' first experience with the drug is not under a doctor's order but under academic pressure. Unlike Fee and Edwards, many students obtain the drugs illegally.
Because of their widespread abuse and potentially dire consequences, schools need to develop policies that directly address the use of prescription stimulants on campus.
Students who don't have a legitimate medical need often take stimulants to get a leg up academically. Though untested on individuals without ADHD, students claim prescription drugs like Adderall and Ritalin help them concentrate, study longer, or simply stay up later to finish a project. They usually take the drugs during finals week or other times of "high academic stress."[1]
"Adderall has become to college what steroids are to baseball," explains Roger Cohen in a NY Times column, "an illicit performance enhancer for a fiercely competitive environment."
In one study, students described the drugs' effects glowingly. "I get everything done, quickly. I am crazy on it that way," said one student. Another insisted he was "so much more productive...It's just a different level on Adderall." For other students "stuff just registers better" or "I grasp everything so much easier...I feel like a genius on it."[2]
Given these drugs' reputations as academic miracle workers, it's unsurprising that college students are more likely than their non-college peers to have abused prescription stimulants.[3] The estimates vary, but studies have found as many as 34% of college students use prescription stimulants for non-medical reasons.[4]
The medications are easy to get. Friends and acquaintances are the most common suppliers. Nor does there seem to be much of a stigma attached to the drugs. Instead students often see them as safe alternatives to "illegal" drugs.[5]
That they're legal, however, does not mean that the drugs are safe, especially when used without a doctor's supervision. The federal government classifies Adderall, Ritalin, and Concerta (all used to treat ADHD) as schedule II drugs, the same classification as cocaine, methadone, and methamphetamines. According to federal guidelines, schedule II substances have "a high potential for abuse which may lead to severe psychological or physical dependence."
Indeed, the Food and Drug Administration warns that Ritalin, Adderall, and Concerta can cause heart problems, aggressive behavior, and even psychotic symptoms in children and teenagers.
To make matters worse, students often ingest them in ways that are not prescribed, such as snorting them or taking higher dosages. As one student explained to researchers, Adderall often comes in time release capsules, but "if you mash it up, you get it all at once, like a rush."[6]
Some students are less coy about prescription stimulants' potential for recreational and not just academic abuse. One described Adderall to researchers as "cheap coke. You know you get the same high, but you can get it for like 5 bucks."[7]
Indeed, while most students cite academic reasons as their motive for abusing prescription stimulants, 22.5% reported they used the drugs to party -- not study -- longer.[8] Sadly, the consequences of abusing these stimulants as party drugs are now appearing in emergency rooms.
According to the Drug Abuse Warning Network, in 2005 the number of emergency room visits related to "nonmedical" use of central nervous system stimulants like Ritalin, Adderall, and caffeine pills was 5,605. In 2012, it was 22,949. Thirty percent of those visits in 2012 -- over 6,800 -- involved alcohol.
Studies show that college students who used non-medical prescription stimulants while drinking are more likely than other drinkers to experience alcohol-related consequences. Some researchers speculate that this is because the stimulants hide the depressive effects of intoxication, leading users to drink more.[9]
Users of illicit prescription stimulants are also more likely than other drug users to report taking several drugs, often simultaneously, a dangerous and potentially fatal practice.[10]
Stimulants such as Adderall and Ritalin have important, legitimate medical uses.
But these drugs also lend themselves to abuse by students looking for an academic edge or cheap high. And the potential for abuse will only grow as more students with prescriptions to Adderall or Ritalin (and hence more pills) arrive on campuses.
According to the CDC, between 1997 and 2006, rates of ADHD diagnosis increased by 3% every year. As of 2007, 9.5% of children 4 to 17 years old were diagnosed with ADHD. 66.3% of those children received medication for the disorder.
In fact, studies have shown that colleges students can effectively fake ADHD symptoms based on information available on the web, which might mean that motivated college students are dishonestly obtaining prescriptions.[11]
Unfortunately, abusers of prescription stimulants end up hurting students with legitmate reasons to take the medications. On College Confidential, an online forum for college students, one poster complained that abusers of medications damaged the reputations of students with ADHD:
Cracking down on abuse might help remove the label of "fraud" or "cheater" that also sticks to legitimate users of the medications.
Several schools have already put policies in place to prevent abuse. Duke University, for instance, includes "the unauthorized use of prescription medication to enhance academic performance" as a form of cheating in its policy on academic dishonesty. Other colleges and universities have begun to require a more rigorous diagnosis before any medication is prescribed.
Regardless of the approach, colleges and universities need to be actively addressing this issue in a sensitive and effective manner.
[1] DeSantis, A.D., Webb, E.M., Noar, S.M. (2008). "Illict Use of Prescription ADHD Medications on College Campus: A Multimethodological Approach." Journal of American College Health, 57, 315-323, esp. 319.
[2] Ibid.
[3] McCabe, S.E., Teter, C.J. (2007). "Drug use related problems among nonmedical users of prescription stimulants: A web-based survey of college students from a Midwestern university." Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 91, 69-76.
[4] DeSantis 2009.
[5]Bavarian, N., Flay, B.R., Ketcham, P.L., Smit, E. (2013). "Illicit use of prescription stimulants in a college student sample: A theory-guided analysis." Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 132, 665-673. DesSantis 2009, 322. Bavarian 2013.
[6] DeSantis 2009, 320.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Bavarian 2013.
[9] Egan, K.L., Reboussin, B.A., Blocker, J.N., Wolfson, M., Sutfin, E.L. (2013). "Simultaneous use of non-medical ADHD prescription stimulants and alcohol among undergraduate students. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 131, 71-77.
[10] McCabe 2007.
[11] Sollman, M., Ranseen, J.D., Berry, D.T.R. (2010). "Detection of Feigned ADHD in College Students." Psychological Assessment, 22, 325-335.
Edwards's father is now suing Harvard for wrongful death, alleging that the diagnosis of ADHD and the Adderall prescription did not meet medical standards.
For two years, Richard Fee struggled with an addiction to Adderall that doctors prescribed him to treat attention ADHD. He had been in an out of psychiatric care, and kicked out of his house by his parents who feared his violent outbursts.
Fee had been introduced to Adderall in college as study aid, only obtaining a prescription for himself after he graduated to help him with medical school applications.
In late 2011, Fee hanged himself in his bedroom closet. His mother found the body.
These tragic cases highlight the dangers of prescription stimulants.
Like Fee and Edwards, many young people are first introduced to these drugs in college. And like Fee, many students' first experience with the drug is not under a doctor's order but under academic pressure. Unlike Fee and Edwards, many students obtain the drugs illegally.
Because of their widespread abuse and potentially dire consequences, schools need to develop policies that directly address the use of prescription stimulants on campus.
"I Feel Like a Genius on It"
Students who don't have a legitimate medical need often take stimulants to get a leg up academically. Though untested on individuals without ADHD, students claim prescription drugs like Adderall and Ritalin help them concentrate, study longer, or simply stay up later to finish a project. They usually take the drugs during finals week or other times of "high academic stress."[1]
"Adderall has become to college what steroids are to baseball," explains Roger Cohen in a NY Times column, "an illicit performance enhancer for a fiercely competitive environment."
In one study, students described the drugs' effects glowingly. "I get everything done, quickly. I am crazy on it that way," said one student. Another insisted he was "so much more productive...It's just a different level on Adderall." For other students "stuff just registers better" or "I grasp everything so much easier...I feel like a genius on it."[2]
Given these drugs' reputations as academic miracle workers, it's unsurprising that college students are more likely than their non-college peers to have abused prescription stimulants.[3] The estimates vary, but studies have found as many as 34% of college students use prescription stimulants for non-medical reasons.[4]
The medications are easy to get. Friends and acquaintances are the most common suppliers. Nor does there seem to be much of a stigma attached to the drugs. Instead students often see them as safe alternatives to "illegal" drugs.[5]
That they're legal, however, does not mean that the drugs are safe, especially when used without a doctor's supervision. The federal government classifies Adderall, Ritalin, and Concerta (all used to treat ADHD) as schedule II drugs, the same classification as cocaine, methadone, and methamphetamines. According to federal guidelines, schedule II substances have "a high potential for abuse which may lead to severe psychological or physical dependence."
Indeed, the Food and Drug Administration warns that Ritalin, Adderall, and Concerta can cause heart problems, aggressive behavior, and even psychotic symptoms in children and teenagers.
To make matters worse, students often ingest them in ways that are not prescribed, such as snorting them or taking higher dosages. As one student explained to researchers, Adderall often comes in time release capsules, but "if you mash it up, you get it all at once, like a rush."[6]
"Cheap Coke"
Some students are less coy about prescription stimulants' potential for recreational and not just academic abuse. One described Adderall to researchers as "cheap coke. You know you get the same high, but you can get it for like 5 bucks."[7]
Indeed, while most students cite academic reasons as their motive for abusing prescription stimulants, 22.5% reported they used the drugs to party -- not study -- longer.[8] Sadly, the consequences of abusing these stimulants as party drugs are now appearing in emergency rooms.
According to the Drug Abuse Warning Network, in 2005 the number of emergency room visits related to "nonmedical" use of central nervous system stimulants like Ritalin, Adderall, and caffeine pills was 5,605. In 2012, it was 22,949. Thirty percent of those visits in 2012 -- over 6,800 -- involved alcohol.
Studies show that college students who used non-medical prescription stimulants while drinking are more likely than other drinkers to experience alcohol-related consequences. Some researchers speculate that this is because the stimulants hide the depressive effects of intoxication, leading users to drink more.[9]
Users of illicit prescription stimulants are also more likely than other drug users to report taking several drugs, often simultaneously, a dangerous and potentially fatal practice.[10]
Preventing Abuse
Stimulants such as Adderall and Ritalin have important, legitimate medical uses.
But these drugs also lend themselves to abuse by students looking for an academic edge or cheap high. And the potential for abuse will only grow as more students with prescriptions to Adderall or Ritalin (and hence more pills) arrive on campuses.
According to the CDC, between 1997 and 2006, rates of ADHD diagnosis increased by 3% every year. As of 2007, 9.5% of children 4 to 17 years old were diagnosed with ADHD. 66.3% of those children received medication for the disorder.
In fact, studies have shown that colleges students can effectively fake ADHD symptoms based on information available on the web, which might mean that motivated college students are dishonestly obtaining prescriptions.[11]
Unfortunately, abusers of prescription stimulants end up hurting students with legitmate reasons to take the medications. On College Confidential, an online forum for college students, one poster complained that abusers of medications damaged the reputations of students with ADHD:
I have some serious gripes about these bad practices. First of all, we don't take meds to get ahead. We take meds to level the goddamn playing field by controlling our symptoms and making our minds like one of yours, and these people are just messing it up for us. Secondly, all of this is giving us a bad reputation and personally I'm sick of hearing how kids with AD(H)D are all frauds and cheaters. Abusing medication is repulsive to me.
Cracking down on abuse might help remove the label of "fraud" or "cheater" that also sticks to legitimate users of the medications.
Several schools have already put policies in place to prevent abuse. Duke University, for instance, includes "the unauthorized use of prescription medication to enhance academic performance" as a form of cheating in its policy on academic dishonesty. Other colleges and universities have begun to require a more rigorous diagnosis before any medication is prescribed.
Regardless of the approach, colleges and universities need to be actively addressing this issue in a sensitive and effective manner.
Works Cited
[1] DeSantis, A.D., Webb, E.M., Noar, S.M. (2008). "Illict Use of Prescription ADHD Medications on College Campus: A Multimethodological Approach." Journal of American College Health, 57, 315-323, esp. 319.
[2] Ibid.
[3] McCabe, S.E., Teter, C.J. (2007). "Drug use related problems among nonmedical users of prescription stimulants: A web-based survey of college students from a Midwestern university." Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 91, 69-76.
[4] DeSantis 2009.
[5]Bavarian, N., Flay, B.R., Ketcham, P.L., Smit, E. (2013). "Illicit use of prescription stimulants in a college student sample: A theory-guided analysis." Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 132, 665-673. DesSantis 2009, 322. Bavarian 2013.
[6] DeSantis 2009, 320.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Bavarian 2013.
[9] Egan, K.L., Reboussin, B.A., Blocker, J.N., Wolfson, M., Sutfin, E.L. (2013). "Simultaneous use of non-medical ADHD prescription stimulants and alcohol among undergraduate students. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 131, 71-77.
[10] McCabe 2007.
[11] Sollman, M., Ranseen, J.D., Berry, D.T.R. (2010). "Detection of Feigned ADHD in College Students." Psychological Assessment, 22, 325-335.
Wednesday, August 7, 2013
One Persistent Myth about College Rape That Could Be Endangering Your Campus
When forensic psychologist David Lisak began researching rape in the early 1980s, most scholars assumed acquaintance rape on college campuses was the result of misunderstandings or miscommunication. It's a myth that still persists.
But Lisak soon discovered something startling: a small number of serial offenders were responsible for a vast majority of these crimes.[1]
In one early study, out of a sample of 1882 male college students, 120 admitted to committing rape. Of those 120 rapists, 76 were serial offenders, who committed an average of six rapes each. None of these men had been detected or disciplined by campus authorities.
In total, 76 men admitted to 439 rapes and 49 sexual assaults. They represented only four percent of the sample, but these men were responsible for over 90% of the rapes. As Lisak explained, these numbers resembled those of convicted rapists more than "the still-prevalent image of a male college student who...mistakenly crosses the line between sexual pressure and rape" (Lisak & Miller 81).
Lisak has since suggested that each report of rape represents an opportunity "to identify a person who is very likely to be a serial offender" (Harwell & Lisak, 1), and should be followed up by a thorough investigation of the suspect.[2] Removing serial offenders from the campus environment may go a long way to reducing sexual violence on campus.
Schools could also find useful allies in other men, encouraging them to intervene when they witness sexual violence. Most men do not support beliefs and attitudes that condone sexual violence. But they are often afraid to speak up when confronted with offensive language or behavior, because they hold mistaken beliefs about their peers' attitudes and beliefs concerning gender and sex. In their desire to conform, they stay silent.[3]
Indeed according to one study, the sole predictor of men's willingness to intervene in a potential sexual assault was their perception of other men's willingness to intervene.[4]
Disturbingly, researchers also suggest that when men perceive rape-myths to be widely accepted, they report a greater "willingness to engage in sexually aggressive behavior." [5] Thus silence itself encourages harmful behavior.
Campuses should break that silence and make heard the voices of the majority of young men who oppose harmful attitudes and behaviors.
For more information about perpetrators of sexual violence see the CDC's page, "Sexual Violence: Risk and Protective Factors."
For more on Lisak's research see:
"Myths That Make It Hard To Stop Campus Rape," NPR, 4th March 2010"
Q&A with David Lisak, a leading expert on non-stranger rape," The Star-Telegram, 20th August 2012.
[1] Lisak, D., Miller, P. (2002). Repeat Rape and Multiple Offending among Undetected Rapists. Violence and Victims, 1, 73-84.
[2] Harwell, M.C., & Lisak, D. (2010). Why Rapists Run Free. Sexual Assault Report, 14, 17-18 & 26-27, esp. 17.
[3] Berkowitz, A.D. (2011). Using How College Men Fell about Being Men and "Doing the Right Thing" to Promote Men's Development. In Laker, J.A., and Davis, T. (Eds). Masculinities in Higher Education: Theoretical and Practical Considerations (pp. 161-176). New York, NY: Routledge.
[4] Fabiano, P.M, Perkins, W.H., Berkowitz, A, Linkenbach, J., Stark, C. (2003). Engaging Men as Social Justice Allies in Ending Violence Against Women: Evidence for a Social Norms Approach. Journal of American College Health, 52, 105-112.
[5] Bohner, G., Siebler, F., and Schmelcher, J. (2006). Social Norms and the Likelihood of Raping: Perceived Rape Myth Acceptance of Others Affects Men's Rape Proclivity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 286-297, esp. 293. Eyssel, F., Bohner, G., Siebler, F. (2006). Perceived Rape Myth Acceptance of Others Predicts rape Proclivity: Social Norm or Judgmental Anchoring? Swiss Journal of Psychology, 65, 93-99.
But Lisak soon discovered something startling: a small number of serial offenders were responsible for a vast majority of these crimes.[1]
In one early study, out of a sample of 1882 male college students, 120 admitted to committing rape. Of those 120 rapists, 76 were serial offenders, who committed an average of six rapes each. None of these men had been detected or disciplined by campus authorities.
In total, 76 men admitted to 439 rapes and 49 sexual assaults. They represented only four percent of the sample, but these men were responsible for over 90% of the rapes. As Lisak explained, these numbers resembled those of convicted rapists more than "the still-prevalent image of a male college student who...mistakenly crosses the line between sexual pressure and rape" (Lisak & Miller 81).
Lisak has since suggested that each report of rape represents an opportunity "to identify a person who is very likely to be a serial offender" (Harwell & Lisak, 1), and should be followed up by a thorough investigation of the suspect.[2] Removing serial offenders from the campus environment may go a long way to reducing sexual violence on campus.
Other Steps
Schools could also find useful allies in other men, encouraging them to intervene when they witness sexual violence. Most men do not support beliefs and attitudes that condone sexual violence. But they are often afraid to speak up when confronted with offensive language or behavior, because they hold mistaken beliefs about their peers' attitudes and beliefs concerning gender and sex. In their desire to conform, they stay silent.[3]
Indeed according to one study, the sole predictor of men's willingness to intervene in a potential sexual assault was their perception of other men's willingness to intervene.[4]
Disturbingly, researchers also suggest that when men perceive rape-myths to be widely accepted, they report a greater "willingness to engage in sexually aggressive behavior." [5] Thus silence itself encourages harmful behavior.
Campuses should break that silence and make heard the voices of the majority of young men who oppose harmful attitudes and behaviors.
Further Reading
For more information about perpetrators of sexual violence see the CDC's page, "Sexual Violence: Risk and Protective Factors."
For more on Lisak's research see:
"Myths That Make It Hard To Stop Campus Rape," NPR, 4th March 2010"
Q&A with David Lisak, a leading expert on non-stranger rape," The Star-Telegram, 20th August 2012.
Works Cited
[1] Lisak, D., Miller, P. (2002). Repeat Rape and Multiple Offending among Undetected Rapists. Violence and Victims, 1, 73-84.
[2] Harwell, M.C., & Lisak, D. (2010). Why Rapists Run Free. Sexual Assault Report, 14, 17-18 & 26-27, esp. 17.
[3] Berkowitz, A.D. (2011). Using How College Men Fell about Being Men and "Doing the Right Thing" to Promote Men's Development. In Laker, J.A., and Davis, T. (Eds). Masculinities in Higher Education: Theoretical and Practical Considerations (pp. 161-176). New York, NY: Routledge.
[4] Fabiano, P.M, Perkins, W.H., Berkowitz, A, Linkenbach, J., Stark, C. (2003). Engaging Men as Social Justice Allies in Ending Violence Against Women: Evidence for a Social Norms Approach. Journal of American College Health, 52, 105-112.
[5] Bohner, G., Siebler, F., and Schmelcher, J. (2006). Social Norms and the Likelihood of Raping: Perceived Rape Myth Acceptance of Others Affects Men's Rape Proclivity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 286-297, esp. 293. Eyssel, F., Bohner, G., Siebler, F. (2006). Perceived Rape Myth Acceptance of Others Predicts rape Proclivity: Social Norm or Judgmental Anchoring? Swiss Journal of Psychology, 65, 93-99.
Wednesday, July 31, 2013
Blurred Lines: How Gendered Descriptions of Drinking Hurt Campus Safety
Imagine a young man and woman, both heavily intoxicated, stumbling around a college party. What would their friends say? Would they perceive the man and the woman in the same way? And if they didn't, what might be the consequences?
According to a new study, college students are likely to describe the man as heavily intoxicated --- wasted, tanked, trashed. But they'll probably describe the woman as only moderately intoxicated -- maybe just tipsy or buzzed.[1] This is true even when the man and woman are equally intoxicated.
It may not seem like a big deal, but students' misperceptions about how drunk someone is carry serious consequences.
For example, the study notes that misperceptions could normalize heavy drinking. If a male student boasts that everyone was wasted at a party -- even if everyone wasn't -- other men may be encouraged to drink more when they hear how fun the party was.
These misperceptions could also lead college women to underestimate the risks associated with intoxication. For example, a young woman who thinks she's just "tipsy" may also believe she's fine to drive home, even when she's not.
Another potentially more troubling issue, however, surrounds alcohol and consent to sexual activities. Alcohol abuse and sexual violence are intimately connected. Consider these findings:
Though research suggests that campus sexual assaults are rarely just drunken misunderstandings,[5] alcohol does play a role in most campus sexual assaults. If a man thinks a severely intoxicated woman is only "tipsy," he may misjudge her ability to consent. Similarly, friends and bystanders may underestimate the risk of a situation, and let a friend do something (or have something done to her) that puts her at risk.
Researchers also speculate that men may use alcohol to justify sexual coercion.[6] By labeling himself and his friends as "wasted" or "tanked," a man absolves them of any responsibility for their actions and implicitly condones coercive behaviors that are seen as part of being drunk.
Although it's not clear what causes these differences in perceptions, the researchers hypothesize that while women are encouraged to drink as much as men, they must also navigate the negative stereotypes applied to women who drink heavily. "This double standard," the researchers explain, "may lead women to apply moderate intoxication terms to themselves and to other women to downplay their level of intoxication and not violate perceived social and gender norms" (Levitt et al. 2013, 5).
For men, meanwhile, heavy drinking constitutes an important part of what it means to be a "man" in college. Thus, they want to be seen as heavy drinkers and describe themselves as such.
The study only reinforces the importance of drinking cultures on campuses. It's not just alcohol, but students' perceptions about alcohol that are problematic.
In response, student affairs specialist should consider dedicating some of their time to helping students become more aware of how they describe each other's drinking behaviors and encouraging students to discuss the relationship between drinking and gender stereotypes.
[1] Levitt, A., Schlauch, R.C., Barholow, B.D., Sher, K.J. (2013). Gender Differences in Natural Language Factors of Subjective Intoxication in College Students: An Experimental Vignette Study. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research. DOI: 10.1111. <accessed 20 July 2013>. See also the earlier study Levitt, A. Sher, K.J., Bartholow, B.D. (2009). The Language of Intoxication: Preliminary Investigations. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 33, 448-454.
[2] Abbey, A., Zawacki, T., Buck, P.O., Clinton, A.M., McAuslan, P. Alcohol and Sexual Assault. National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. <Accessed 26th July 2013>. Abbey, A. (2002) Alcohol-Related Sexual Assault: A Common Problem among College Students. Journal of Studies on Alcohol Supplement, 14. Available on College Drinking. <Accessed 8th July 2013>.
[3] Mohler-Kuo, M., Dowdall, G.W., Koss, M.P., Wechlser, H. (2004). Correlates of Rape while Intoxicated in a National Sample of College Women. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 65,37-45.
[4] College Drinking. National Institue on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. Web. <Accessed 8th July 2013>.
[5] See for instance Lisak, D., Miller, P. (2002). Repeat Rape and Multiple Offending among Undetected Rapists. Violence and Victims, 1, 73-84.
[6] Abbey, A., Zawacki, T., Buck, P., Clinton, A.M., McAuslan, P.. (2004). Sexual assault and alcohol consumption: what do we know about their relationship and what types of research are still needed. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 9, 271-303.
According to a new study, college students are likely to describe the man as heavily intoxicated --- wasted, tanked, trashed. But they'll probably describe the woman as only moderately intoxicated -- maybe just tipsy or buzzed.[1] This is true even when the man and woman are equally intoxicated.
The Problems of Misperception
It may not seem like a big deal, but students' misperceptions about how drunk someone is carry serious consequences.
For example, the study notes that misperceptions could normalize heavy drinking. If a male student boasts that everyone was wasted at a party -- even if everyone wasn't -- other men may be encouraged to drink more when they hear how fun the party was.
These misperceptions could also lead college women to underestimate the risks associated with intoxication. For example, a young woman who thinks she's just "tipsy" may also believe she's fine to drive home, even when she's not.
Another potentially more troubling issue, however, surrounds alcohol and consent to sexual activities. Alcohol abuse and sexual violence are intimately connected. Consider these findings:
- Half of all sexual assaults are committed by men who have been drinking.
- Half of all sexual assault victims report that they had been drinking when they were assaulted.[2]
- 72% of college women who were raped were intoxicated at the time of the attack.[3]
- Each year more than 97,000 students between 18 and 24 suffer alcohol-related sexual assault or rape.[4]
Though research suggests that campus sexual assaults are rarely just drunken misunderstandings,[5] alcohol does play a role in most campus sexual assaults. If a man thinks a severely intoxicated woman is only "tipsy," he may misjudge her ability to consent. Similarly, friends and bystanders may underestimate the risk of a situation, and let a friend do something (or have something done to her) that puts her at risk.
Researchers also speculate that men may use alcohol to justify sexual coercion.[6] By labeling himself and his friends as "wasted" or "tanked," a man absolves them of any responsibility for their actions and implicitly condones coercive behaviors that are seen as part of being drunk.
Ways Forward
Although it's not clear what causes these differences in perceptions, the researchers hypothesize that while women are encouraged to drink as much as men, they must also navigate the negative stereotypes applied to women who drink heavily. "This double standard," the researchers explain, "may lead women to apply moderate intoxication terms to themselves and to other women to downplay their level of intoxication and not violate perceived social and gender norms" (Levitt et al. 2013, 5).
For men, meanwhile, heavy drinking constitutes an important part of what it means to be a "man" in college. Thus, they want to be seen as heavy drinkers and describe themselves as such.
The study only reinforces the importance of drinking cultures on campuses. It's not just alcohol, but students' perceptions about alcohol that are problematic.
In response, student affairs specialist should consider dedicating some of their time to helping students become more aware of how they describe each other's drinking behaviors and encouraging students to discuss the relationship between drinking and gender stereotypes.
Works Cited
[1] Levitt, A., Schlauch, R.C., Barholow, B.D., Sher, K.J. (2013). Gender Differences in Natural Language Factors of Subjective Intoxication in College Students: An Experimental Vignette Study. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research. DOI: 10.1111. <accessed 20 July 2013>. See also the earlier study Levitt, A. Sher, K.J., Bartholow, B.D. (2009). The Language of Intoxication: Preliminary Investigations. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 33, 448-454.
[2] Abbey, A., Zawacki, T., Buck, P.O., Clinton, A.M., McAuslan, P. Alcohol and Sexual Assault. National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. <Accessed 26th July 2013>. Abbey, A. (2002) Alcohol-Related Sexual Assault: A Common Problem among College Students. Journal of Studies on Alcohol Supplement, 14. Available on College Drinking. <Accessed 8th July 2013>.
[3] Mohler-Kuo, M., Dowdall, G.W., Koss, M.P., Wechlser, H. (2004). Correlates of Rape while Intoxicated in a National Sample of College Women. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 65,37-45.
[4] College Drinking. National Institue on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. Web. <Accessed 8th July 2013>.
[5] See for instance Lisak, D., Miller, P. (2002). Repeat Rape and Multiple Offending among Undetected Rapists. Violence and Victims, 1, 73-84.
[6] Abbey, A., Zawacki, T., Buck, P., Clinton, A.M., McAuslan, P.. (2004). Sexual assault and alcohol consumption: what do we know about their relationship and what types of research are still needed. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 9, 271-303.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)