Prevention Must Include the LGBTQ Community

Recent research suggests that members of the LGBTQ community are just as—if not more—likely to be victims of sexual violence as their heterosexual peers. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2010 Findingson Victimization by Sexual Orientation found that nearly half of lesbian women, four in ten gay men, half of bisexual men, and three-quarters of bisexual women have been victims of sexual violence in their lifetime. Such alarming figures make it clear that sexual assault is a problem that affects students of all sexual orientations. Moreover, the often marginalized position of the LGBTQ community compounds and complicates numerous issues faced by survivors of sexual assault.

For example, as we've written about in the past, it's not unusual for survivors to be discouraged from reporting by the fear that they will encounter hostility on the part of law enforcement and other first responders. The fear of hostility motivated by homophobia compounds the problem for members of the LGBTQ community. For some LGBTQ survivors, reporting a sexual assault could mean "outing" themselves before they're prepared to reveal their sexuality. There's also the fear that, because the conventionally accepted narrative of sexual violence focuses on heterosexual assaults, an assault involving members of the LGBTQ community will be sensationalized.

Another ugly fact is that homophobia not only contributes to underreporting of sexual assault in the LGBTQ community, but can also motivate assaults against members of that community. According to the University of Minnesota Morris Violence Prevention Center, sexual assault is often used as a weapon by those who wish to humiliate LGBTQ people for their sexual orientation, or (especially in cases where a lesbian woman is assaulted by a straight man) somehow "cure" them of their orientation. The unhappy overlap between hate crimes and sexual assault is especially important for administrators to be aware of in light of the Campus SaVE Act's requirements for schools to include hate crimes based on sexual orientation or gender identity in their annual security reports.

These issues make clear the importance of harm-prevention programming that encompasses the entire spectrum of a campus population. The current conversation about sexual assault on college campuses is, of course, incredibly important and a welcome change from decades of silence on an issue that won't go away unless it's addressed directly. But does the conversation campuses are having about sexual violence include all of the students affected by the problem? A conversation about sexual violence on college campuses that revolves around or even assumes scenarios involving heterosexual male perpetrators and heterosexual female victims fails to address the needs of survivors whose experiences fall outside the range of that common but by no means universal experience.

 Administrators need to consider programming designed to help all students by covering the unique problems faced by members of the LGBTQ community. By bringing these issues into the conversation, schools encourage students to report sexual assault, regardless of their gender, race, or sexual orientation.  Inclusive and effective prevention training must recognize the grim but important truth that sexual assault can affect any student on campus.

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.

---

<sup>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).</sup>

Why the Semantics of Rape Matter

In December of 2011, the FBI amended its definition of rape from "the carnal knowledge of a female, forcibly and against her will," to "Penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim." Phrases like "carnal knowledge" and the insistence that rape victims must be female might suggest the outdated definition’s antiquity—in fact, it had stood since 1927.

How rape is defined is an issue with consequences that go beyond the merely semantic. Consider, for example, this recent post on the gulf between the prevalence of sexual assaults as reported by researchers like Mary Koss (who found that 1 in 4 women are the victims of rape or attempted rape before leaving college) and as reported by the FBI, which, in 2012, reported 26.7 forcible rapes per 100,000 inhabitants. The discrepancy can be attributed, at least in part, to how each study defined terms like "rape" and "sexual assault."

The FBI’s new definition will apply to how it collects and reports statistics like the ones quoted above—those regarding the incidence of rape. According to Attorney General Eric Holder, "This new, more inclusive definition will provide us with a more accurate understanding of the scope and volume of these crimes." Indeed, an emphasis on penile-vaginal penetration and the use of force limits what acts are counted as rape. With that in mind, it is particularly alarming to realize that for 84 years the FBI was using a definition of rape that didn’t include date rape or rape involving a male victim, perpetuating the myth that rape is only committed by strangers who jump out of the bushes.

The real-world consequences of how rape is defined make the history of the word itself both significant and instructive. Our English word "rape" is derived from the Latin raptus or rapere.  Its first appearance in British law refers not to any sort of sexual assault, but instead to violent theft of property. That linguistic connection is no coincidence. In the 19^th century restitution for a rape resulting in pregnancy was paid not to the victim but to her father, and the rape of a woman by her husband was not recognized as a crime until the latter half of the 20^th century. The conceptualization of rape as an attack on a woman, instead of the appropriation of the commodity that is her chastity, is a shift that has taken too long to come.

Today, a long-overdue shift in the way we define and conceive of rape is occurring, evidenced by the FBI’s updated definition. The FBI’s old definition bears no small resemblance to the English common law definition of rape: "carnal knowledge of a woman, forcibly and against her will."  Matthew Lyon, writing for the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, parses this definition into three elements: "intercourse, force, and lack of consent." Now that women are widely viewed as people instead of property, the most important change in the way we define rape today is the shifting emphasis from the second element of that ancient definition, force, to the third, lack of consent.

That shift is obvious in the new FBI definition, which notably makes no reference to force.  It also has important legal consequences. At one time many states required rape victims to prove a certain degree of physical resistance beyond a reasonable doubt in order to secure a conviction—so as to prove that force was involved in the sexual assault.  Thanks to rape’s shifting definition, many states have loosened or, in some cases, completely removed the requirement for "rigid resistance" on the part of the victim—a positive outcome, given recent research suggesting that for many sexual assault victims, physical resistance of any kind becomes physically impossible once the assault is initiated. 

Similarly, thanks to the new found emphasis on consent (or rather the lack thereof) as opposed to force, certain states have begun to define the post-penetration continuation of intercourse after consent has been withdrawn as rape. Previously, it was widely held that once a woman gave consent and penetration had occurred, there was, at least legally, no turning back. Emphasizing consent over force, however, leads logically to a different conclusion. Consent can be withdrawn at any time and once it has continued intercourse becomes rape.

The blunders of insensitive politicians have brought notoriety and national attention to the issue. In 2008, Tennessee Senator Douglas Henry declared that rape today "is not what rape was." He elaborated, saying that, "Rape, when I was learning these things, was the violation of a chaste woman, against her will, by some party not her spouse." In an even more infamous incident, former Rep. Todd Akin claimed last year that, "If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down." Such gaffes point to the suspicion with which many still view a definition of rape based on lack of consent as opposed to the use of force.  That such gaffes are being made by people who hold positions of significant power points to what is at stake in this ongoing debate.

In fact, as recently as 2011, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, which, as its name might suggest, would have banned federal subsidization of abortions, made exception specifically for cases of "forcible rape." The distinction raised an outcry from women’s group, who pointed out that such language could exclude victims of date rape or statutory rape. "Forcible" was eventually removed from the bill, although it still failed to pass the Senate.

A common refrain of activists opposed to that particular qualification was that "rape is rape." However, even as rape’s meaning has shifted to focus on a lack of consent, a whole host of qualifiers has sprung up, often to make the distinction between rape that involves force and rape that doesn’t.  Date, statutory, legitimate, forcible, gray, the list goes on and on. The question is whether those qualifiers clarify, or merely diminish? To which one might answer that the definition of "rape" is not merely semantic for the victims.

The Neurobiology of Sexual Assault

In our ongoing coverage of federal investigations of the University of Montana’s response to sexual assault, we reported on a case in which a UM official overturned a previous ruling against a student accused of sexual assault because he believed that certain statements made by the victim were “hesitant and equivocal.”  The deciding factor?  Her use of the phrases “I think” and “I don’t think” when describing the assault.  The official in question determined that those phrases undermined the victim’s credibility, and as a result overturned the previous ruling against her alleged assailant.

The UM case may seem extreme, but researchers suggest that the perceived credibility of the victim of a sexual assault is often the deciding factor in whether or not the assault is prosecuted or even investigated.  Dr. Rebecca Campbell, professor of Psychology and Program Evaluation at Michigan State University and an expert in victimology, especially as it applies to victims of sexual assault, found that 86% of sexual assaults reported to police are never referred to prosecutors.  Moreover, through extensive interviews with both law enforcement and victims, Dr. Campbell determined that the perception of a victim’s credibility (or lack thereof) is often an important contributing factor to the failure to refer these cases to prosecutors.  She quotes law enforcement officials who told her “The stuff (sexual assault victims) say makes no sense,” “I see them hedge, making it up as they go along,” and “They can’t get their story straight.”

Such attitudes not only contribute to case attrition, they discourage victims from reporting sexual assaults in the first place because they don't want to subject themselves to the "secondary trauma" of not being believed. 

Failure to report sexual assault is itself a serious problem, starkly illustrated in this recent post exploring the origins of the oft-quoted statistic that 1 in 4 women are sexually assaulted before graduating from college.  That alarming number is even more disturbing when considered in light of researchers' estimates that less than five percent of attempted and completed sexual assaults of college students are reported.  Which is why new research by Dr. Campbell on the neurobiology of victim’s response to the trauma of sexual assault has the potential to dramatically improve the handling of sexual assault cases.

Dr. Campbell’s research suggests that the hesitancy or even inconsistency with which survivors report sexual assault may have nothing to do with their veracity and everything to do with the brain’s natural response to physical trauma.  Such trauma results in the brain releasing a flood of hormones during the assault.  While those hormones may facilitate fight or flight, they are less beneficial to the process of creating memories.  The two structures in the brain responsible for memory creation, the hippocampus and the amygdala, are both highly sensitive to fluctuations in hormone levels. 

The flood of hormones triggered by a sexual assault can lead to the victim's memory of the trauma being fragmented and difficult to recall.  This, in turn, leads to the confusion and hesitancy that law enforcement officials are trained to interpret as clues of dishonesty.  The problem is only compounded by inebriation, a particularly troubling complication given the fact that 70% of sexual assault victims have been drinking at the time of their assault.

Dr. Campbell’s research has other important implications for professionals dealing with reports of sexual assault.  Those who deal with victims of sexual assault, as well as victims themselves, are often confused by the flat or emotionless affect survivors sometimes display immediately after an assault.  Such a reaction strikes many as being inappropriate for a person who has just undergone a traumatic experience.  It may lead victims to feel guilty, and others to doubt whether they're telling the truth.

Dr. Campbell, however, explains that such a reaction is not a symptom of dishonesty or a sign that a victim is somehow culpable in their own assault, but instead the consequence of natural painkillers released by the human body in response to physical trauma.  During an assault the body releases opiates to block the physical and emotional pain of the attack.  Those opiates are the natural equivalent of the morphine that might be administered to a surgery patient.  As pointed out by Dr. Campbell, “morphine’s not sensitive to subtleties.”  The body’s naturally-occurring painkillers behave the same way, masking emotional pain and leading to the monotone response that strikes some law enforcement officers as suspicious for a victim of recent sexual assault.

Finally, Dr. Campbell’s research posits a phenomenon known as “tonic immobility” as an explanation for certain sexual assault victims' failure to fight back or to run away.  Tonic immobility (also known, at least in this context, as rape-induced paralysis) is an autonomic response wherein the body freezes in situations that provoke extreme fear.  It is an involuntary response, and its most marked characteristic is total muscular paralysis.  Fighting back or running away is literally impossible for a victim of rape-induced paralysis, whose body has decided for her that the safest course of action is to play dead.  Thus, the failure to fight back, run away, or in some other way physically resist sexual assault does not mean that a victim “wanted it” – the assumption of many institutions and officials who treat such failure of resistance as evidence of consent.

And, even when a sexual assault victim is physically capable of moving (research suggests that the proportion of rape victims who suffer from tonic immobility may approach fifty percent) it doesn’t necessarily mean that she is psychologically capable of doing so.  Besides impairing memory formation, the hormones released during a sexual assault prevent optimum operation of the circuits in the prefrontal cortex that make rational thought possible.  For the victim of rape or some other form of sexual assault, the thought process needed to resist may not be present during the assault itself.

Dr. Campbell’s research is important not only because it might alleviate the guilt of survivors struggling to understand their reaction to an assault, but also because it suggests certain crucial improvements that might be made to the way law enforcement and other officials handle sexual assault cases.  Failure to resist assault, inability to recall events clearly or sequentially, and surprisingly flat reactions to such trauma aren't necessarily suspicious, and certainly should not be grounds for throwing out a case. 

Perhaps most significant though are the implications for interviewing victims.  Dr. Campbell’s research not only suggests why victim’s accounts often seem confused and incoherent – it also suggests a solution to the problem.  She says, “It’s just going to take some time and patience for (a survivor’s recollection) to come together.”  She recounts the story of a veteran detective who insisted on getting a sexual assault victim coffee before interviewing her, having found, after years in his position, that “If you give them a few minutes to breathe, it starts to make more sense” – and made little difference to his ability to discern a false report from an honest one.  While this may go against more traditional interview-taking procedures, Dr. Campbell’s research suggests that the institutionalization of a practice similar to that veteran detective’s coffee-break might not only offer survivors a welcome reprieve in which to gather and consolidate fragmented recollections, but also lead to more accurate investigations.

The presentation in which Dr. Campbell outlines these findings, and their implications for law enforcement, began as training for the Sexual Assault Kit Action Research Team in Detroit – around twenty police officers, nurses, prosecutors, and crime lab workers.  Since then, she has educated hundreds of audiences on her findings and what they mean for workers who deal with the victims of sexual assault.  She has delivered a presentation sponsored by the Department of Justice and the National Institute of Justice, and has collaborated with the writers of “Law & Order: Special Victims Unit” to write an episode involving a sexual assault and rape-induced paralysis.

During her presentation for the National Institute of Justice, Dr. Campbell shared a comment posted by a survivor of sexual assault on a blog post connected to that Law & Order episode which movingly illustrated the value of her work.  “I cannot believe I am reading this article. After years of blaming myself, questioning myself, feeling tormented, I now understand why I froze every time I was assaulted. It now has a name. I don't have to wonder why or what's wrong with me or why didn't I do anything. I can't tell you how much relief this article brings me. You must know how much your website and your work helps those of us who have suffered in silent torment and agony. You give us a voice. You give us compassion. You give us strength and hope. There are no words to express the gratitude I feel.”

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?

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.

Standards of Proof

In a typical "he-said-she-said" case of sexual assault, he says it was consensual sex, and she says it was rape. These cases are usually decided on the accused's and victim's credibility, and the standard of proof used to reach a decision may tip the scales, as illustrated by a University of Montana (UM) case.

During its investigation of UM for Title IX compliance, the U.S. Department of Education (ED) reviewed a student conduct case in which the lower "preponderance of evidence" standard of proof was applied in the initial proceeding and the accused student was found guilty of sexual assault. After the student appealed, a higher "clear and convincing evidence" standard was applied and the decision was reversed.

The Department of Education has in fact established "preponderance of evidence" as the standard schools must use in cases involving sexual assault. As clarified in its April 2011 Dear Colleague Letter, "in order for a school’s grievance procedures to be consistent with Title IX standards, the school must use a preponderance of the evidence standard (i.e., it is more likely than not that sexual harassment or violence occurred)."

Unfortunately, the ED has not provided any explanation of the different evidentiary standards. This post will define the standards of proof and look at how those standards apply in the decision-making process.

Three Judicial Standards

Three different standards are used in courts of law. Generally, each of the three judicial standards of proof¹ requires a different level of confidence in the facts supporting a decision:

• beyond a reasonable doubt requires at least 95% confidence that the facts support a guilty verdict
• clear and convincing requires at least 70-75% confidence that the facts support the decision
• preponderance of evidence requires at least 50.1% confidence that the facts support the decision

In reality, the decision-making process is not as precise as these percentages indicate, but they are one of the yardsticks used to measure the fairness of a decision. The different standards reflect the cost of a wrong decision, measured by the harm caused not only to the accused who is wrongfully convicted or the party that suffers financial harm in a civil suit, but to the legitimacy of the judicial system as a whole.²

The "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard of proof used in criminal cases greatly reduces the risk of convicting the wrong person and reflects the high value of personal liberty to society.³  The 18th Century English jurist William Blackstone explained it this way: "It is better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer."⁴  This standard is fundamentally fair and stops short of imposing the impossible burden of having no doubt that the accused is guilty.

The intermediate standard of clear and convincing proof requires a "high probability" or "reasonable certainty" that the weight of evidence favors the decision. It is applied in civil cases involving more than "mere loss of money," such as fraud or other quasi-criminal conduct, deportation, and permanent termination of parental rights.⁵

It is also the standard applied in involuntary commitment proceedings involving mentally ill persons. In Addington v. Texas, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded that, "[g]iven the lack of certainty and the fallibility of psychiatric diagnosis, there is a serious question as to whether a state could ever prove beyond a reasonable doubt that an individual is both mentally ill and likely to be dangerous."⁶

The preponderance standard is the lowest of the three judicial standards of proof and requires that the weight of evidence makes it more likely than not that the decision is correct. This is the standard used in civil litigation that primarily involves a claim for money. Because the risk of harm involves dollars not loss of liberty society places a lower value on the risk of a wrong decision, which is shared equally by both parties.

As the ED confirmed in the UM "blueprint," preponderance of evidence is also the standard required in disciplinary proceedings involving sexual misconduct where the accused faces sanctions ranging from a verbal warning to expulsion from school, as well as a damaged reputation.

A fourth standard of proof, "substantial evidence," is defined as "'more than a mere scintilla. It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.'"⁷ Strictly speaking, this standard only requires a "substantial" amount of evidence to support a decision. It does not require weighing all of the evidence and deciding which way the scale tips.

The "substantial evidence" standard is applied in disciplinary proceedings involving academic misconduct. In Missouri v. Horowitz, the U.S. Supreme Court found a student's failure to meet academic standards "calls for far less stringent procedural requirements," in terms of notice and hearing, than a student conduct violation.⁸

The Fourth Standard

While the ED requires the preponderance standard for Title IX compliance, the U.S. Supreme Court has not squarely answered the question of which standard of proof is constitutionally required in student disciplinary proceedings involving sexual assault. And lower federal courts have not clearly answered this question.

For example, in Smyth v. Lubbers,⁹ a federal court reviewing the suspension of a state university student for possession of marijuana concluded that the substantial evidence standard was not adequate under the circumstances of that case because a "conviction for 'possession of narcotic drugs' in violation of state criminal laws and/or College regulations is plainly an extremely serious attack upon a person's good name and reputation." The court also pointed out that a one-term suspension from school "is a harsher punishment than he was likely to receive from either a state court ... or a federal court, for a first-time offense of simple possession of marijuana."

Under these circumstances, the court found that "any standard lower than a 'preponderance of evidence' would have the effect of requiring the accused to prove his innocence" because the substantial evidence standard only requires that a (substantial) quantity of evidence support the decision. Instead, the court concluded a "constitutionally adequate" standard of proof in that case could not be lower than the preponderance of evidence standard, but the court didn't specify the appropriate standard.

On the other hand, in Gomes v. Univ. of Maine System,¹⁰ another federal court refused to overturn the university's decision to suspend two public university students after they were found guilty of sexual assault even though the university's decision was based on substantial evidence. The court found the disciplinary proceeding, while "not ideal," was fundamentally fair. The court explained the tension between these two principles:

A university is not a court of law, and it is neither practical nor desirable it be one. Yet, a public university student who is facing serious charges of misconduct that expose him to substantial sanctions should receive a fundamentally fair hearing. In weighing this tension, the law seeks the middle ground.

The middle ground was described as "whether, in the particular case, the individual has had an opportunity to answer, explain, and defend, and not whether the hearing mirrored a common law criminal trial." Neither the Court nor the litigants questioned the substantial evidence standard used in that case.

Title IX Compliance Standard

Even when school officials know what standard of proof to apply, they may not understand how to apply it. Going back to the UM case we discussed at the beginning of this post, the official handling the appeal said he found the accused and complainant both credible. He also said he viewed it as "a case of differing perceptions and interpretations of the events in question." It turns out that the deciding factor was that some of the complainant's statements began with "I think" or "I don't think." The official interpreted this as a "hesitant and equivocal response" and concluded that the complainant's credibility did not meet the higher standard of proof.

The ED found that UM's handling of that case on appeal showed an "incomplete understanding" of how to assess credibility, victim responses, force and consent. Therefore, UM officials needed "more training on how to evaluate evidence and the appropriate evidentiary standard to assess it."

Interestingly, the U.S. Supreme Court expressed doubt about whether the different standards of proof actually affect outcomes or simply provide a way to measure the value of what's at stake:

Indeed, the ultimate truth as to how the standards of proof affect decision making may well be unknowable, given that factfinding is a process shared by countless thousands of individuals throughout the country. We probably can assume no more than that the difference between a preponderance of the evidence and proof beyond a reasonable doubt probably is better understood than either of them in relation to the intermediate standard of clear and convincing evidence. Nonetheless, even if the particular standard-of-proof catchwords do not always make a great difference in a particular case, adopting a standard of proof "is more than an empty semantic exercise."¹¹

It has also been suggested that school officials deciding sexual assault cases may "unwittingly require clear and convincing evidence" regardless of the appropriate standard because of the serious consequences to the accused.¹² What we're left with are two possibilities: either the different decisions in the UM case were the result of applying different standards of proof, or one UM official simply believed what she said and the other official believed what he said.

How to evaluate victim credibility is a critical part of the disciplinary process. Brain research has provided insight into trauma victims' behaviors and responses that helps explain why their credibility is often met with skepticism. In later posts, we'll look further into this and other issues that provide a deeper understanding of the complicated nature of student disciplinary proceedings involving sexual misconduct.

---

<sup>1. A corollary of the standard of proof is the burden of proof, which is placed on the party who filed a lawsuit or the prosecutor who brought criminal charges to present evidence that establishes the facts required to prove a civil claim or criminal charge in a court of law. Once evidence is presented, a decision is made by applying one of the three judicial standards of proof.
2. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Harlan explained that establishing a standard of proof reflects the social costs we are willing to pay for making the wrong decision, and noted that erroneous decisions are inevitable: "First, in a judicial proceeding in which there is a dispute about the facts of some earlier event … all the factfinder can acquire is a belief of what probably happened ... In this regard, a standard of proof represents an attempt to instruct the factfinder concerning the degree of confidence our society thinks he should have in the correctness of factual conclusions for a particular type of adjudication. .... A second proposition ... is that the trier of fact will sometimes, despite his best efforts, be wrong in his factual conclusions. In re Winship (USSCt 1970) 397 U.S. 358, 370.
3. In re Winship, 397 U.S. 370; Woodby v. Immigration and Naturalization Service (USSCt 1966) 385 U.S. 276, 285.
4. 4 William Blackstone, Commentaries *358.
5. Addington v. Texas (USSCt 1979) 441 U.S. 418, 431.
6. Id. at 428.
7. Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB (USSCt 1951) 340 U.S. 474, 477.
8. Missouri v. Horowitz (USSCt 1978) 435 U.S. 78, 86.
9. In Smyth v. Lubbers (W.D. Mich. 1975) 398 F. Supp. 777, the court found that the narcotics violation was much more serious than "spiking the punch at an after-school meeting." However, the court did not rule on what standard of proof should be applied but only suggested that the "clear and convincing" standard may be required.
10. Gomes v. Univ. of Maine System (D.Maine 2005) 365 F.Supp.2d 6.
11. Addington v. Texas at 424-425, citing Tippett v. State of Maryland (4th Cir. 1971) 436 F.2d 1153, 1166.
12. Note, "Preponderance of the Evidence and Student-on-Student Sexual Assault." Boston College Law Review Vol. 53:1613, 1649 (2012).</sup>

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."

 

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.

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."

 

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.

---

<sup>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).</sup>

Is an Invitation to Cuddle Consent to Sex?

Jane (11:00 pm):

aww :( come cuddle with mr

Brian (11:01 pm):

I am when you get back hah

Jane (11:04 pm):

yayyy I'm a good cuddler :))

Brian (11:06 pm):

Then ill be expecting nothing less than excellence

Jane (11:10pm) :

are you a gooood cuddler

Brian (11:20pm):

I'm great you better know it

Roughly two hours after this exchange of text messages, Jane let Brian into her dorm room, where she claims he raped her.

The next day, she filed a complaint with the university.

Brian disputed Jane's account during the investigation. He admitted that they had sex but insisted it was consensual, pointing to the text messages.

The school, St. Joseph's University, was not convinced and found Brian Harris responsible for sexual misconduct, suspending him for one year.

Now Harris is suing St. Joseph's and his accuser, Jane Doe, alleging, among other things, that the university panel that heard his case did not properly consider the text messages and therefore the university is at fault for "Rendering a decision...against the clear weight of the evidence."

We won't examine the merit of Harris's legal claims here. The courts will do that. And to be clear, the assault itself was never tried in a criminal court. Harris was found responsible in a university conduct proceeding. His lawsuit is over whether that proceeding was unbiased.

But Harris's interpretation of the messages he exchanged with Jane reveals a problematic view of consent worth examining more closely.

Defining Consent

According to Harris's complaint against the school, Jane's text inviting him to "come cuddddle" is clear evidence of consent.

"In modern parlance," he explains, "the terms 'cuddle' or 'cuddling' are synonymous with, inter alia, 'sex' or 'having sex'." The complaint goes on to suggest this interpretation is "the plain meaning of the text messages." Thus Jane's invitations to cuddle are requests for and consent to sex.

In his complaint, Harris also implies that the text sent at 11:00 pm provided consent for actions that took place almost two hours later.

The problem with Harris's understanding of consent from a campus safety perspective is that it relies on neither clear words nor clear actions.  

Euphemisms like cuddle or the infamous 'hook up' are deliberately vague. While perhaps appropriate in casual conversation, these words should not be used to ask or give consent exactly because they lend themselves to misunderstandings. 

Furthermore, even if Jane had texted him 'let's have sex', Harris would still have needed to get her clear consent again several hours later when they were finally face-to-face.  Past consent does not imply future consent.

Clear words and actions should be one of the unbreakable rules students follow before they engage in any sexual activity. 

We don't want to imply that most sexual assaults are the result of miscommunication. They aren't. But Harris's complaint underscores how important it is that students have a clear concept of consent.

When Katherine Bogle was researching her book Hooking Up on college sexual culture, she discovered students held very different opinions about what the term "hooking up" meant --everything from sex to just kissing. In other words, when it comes to getting intimate with each other, students aren't always speaking the same language, and they may not even know it. A young man may think he's proposing a good night kiss, while his date thinks he's asking her to spend the night.

Starting a conversation on college campuses about terms like "cuddling," "hooking up," and other modern parlance may not resolve the ambiguity surrounding these terms -- in fact it almost certainly won't -- but it might at least force students to acknowledge it.

Further Reading

Bogle, K.A. (2008) Hooking Up: Sex, Dating, and Relationships on Campus. New York: New York UP.

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.

 

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.