sexual assault on campus essay

• University News
• Faculty & Research
• Health & Medicine
• Science & Technology
• Social Sciences
• Humanities & Arts
• Students & Alumni
• Arts & Culture
• Sports & Athletics
• The Professions
• International
• New England Guide

The Magazine

• Current Issue
• Past Issues

Class Notes & Obituaries

• Browse Class Notes
• Browse Obituaries

Collections

• Commencement
• The Context
• Harvard Squared
• Harvard in the Headlines

Support Harvard Magazine

• Why We Need Your Support
• How We Are Funded
• Ways to Support the Magazine
• Special Gifts
• Behind the Scenes

Classifieds

• Vacation Rentals & Travel
• Real Estate
• Products & Services
• Harvard Authors’ Bookshelf
• Education & Enrichment Resource
• Ad Prices & Information
• Place An Ad

Follow Harvard Magazine:

University News | 10.15.2019

Campus Survey: Sexual Assault, Harassment Remain Serious Problems

Results from the second campus survey of sexual misconduct show that sexual assault and harassment remain serious problems at institutions of higher education nationwide..

On October 15, Harvard released the results of a  survey intended to estimate the prevalence of sexual assault and other sexual misconduct  among its undergraduate, graduate, and professional-school students. The survey, conducted during the spring of 2019, reached about 23,000 students, of whom 36.1 percent (about 8,300) responded. The data—echoing those from the 32 other private and public Association of American Universities (AAU) institutions that participated in this year’s survey— show that sexual assault and harassment are a serious problem. At Harvard, the prevalence of sexual assault (12.4 percent) was essentially unchanged since  a similar survey was conducted in 2015 . 

Among undergraduates, the vast majority of nonconsensual sexual contact is student to student (82.5 percent), takes place in on-campus housing (more than two-thirds overall, and 79.4 percent in incidents of penetration or sexual touching by physical force and/or inability to consent), and involves alcohol (75.6 percent). Rates among graduate students, who are less likely to live in on-campus housing, less likely to go out drinking with friends, and less likely to be single, are lower, but on-campus housing remains the modal location for sexual assault. Although the rates at which students disclose these incidents have been climbing rapidly (the rate of disclosure increased 56 percent in fiscal year 2018) the majority of students do  not  disclose incidents to the University, the survey showed—and the prevalence of nonconsensual sexual contact has been unaffected by rising disclosure rates. Among all AAU institutions that participated in both the 2015 and 2019 surveys, the prevalence of nonconsensual sexual contact has  risen  slightly overall.

The most significant change to the 2019 survey is that it introduces “incident level reporting” for cases of both sexual assault and sexual harassment: students who indicate that they have been victims of sexual assault, for example, are asked a series of additional questions, such as the nature of their relationship to the perpetrator, where they were during the time leading up to the incident, where they were when the incident occurred, the perpetrator’s relationship to the University, and whether they contacted any of the resources or support services available to them on campus (see table 4, above). With incident level reporting, the assertion made based on 2015 data that among undergraduates “about 15 percent of incidents took place in single-sex organizations that were not a fraternity or sorority”—final clubs—appears incorrect. Among Harvard College students, “on-campus social events” and “restaurants, bars and clubs” figure more prominently in both “leadup location” and “incident location,” behind on-campus housing.

Questions about sexual harassment, as opposed to assault, were changed in the 2019 survey, meaning that the data can’t be reliably compared to the data from the 2015. Harassment, however, remains a serious concern: 39.3 percent of respondents reported experiencing harassing behavior, and 17.7 percent reported that the harassment interfered with their academic or professional performance, limited their ability to participate in an academic program, or created an intimidating, hostile, or offensive social, academic, or work environment. As with allegations of assault, most harassment was perpetrated by other students.

Since the 2015 survey, Harvard has expanded its support services and educational outreach to its student communities. In 2016, the University hired Nicole Merhill as its Title IX officer, and specified that she spend 50 percent of her time designing prevention initiatives. Since then, 65,000 students, staff, and faculty members have participated in online training, and in-person training has been increasing rapidly, too (by 41 percent in the past year). Merhill has created two Title IX liaison groups, one for students and another for staff. And she has made a number of changes designed to increase the likelihood that students will disclose incidents of assault and harassment to University administrators, including expansion of its system of more than 50 Title IX coordinators. “Bystander” training, another initiative, seeks to increase the likelihood that students, faculty and staff will intervene if they see behavior that presages sexual assault. Most recently, Merhill established an online  anonymous disclosure  tool in response to student concerns that reporting an incident might lead to their losing control over the ensuing process. The new tool is designed to allow University affiliates to communicate with the University Title IX Office without revealing their identity until they are ready.

Nevertheless, most students who reported an incident of sexual assault did NOT seek out aid, whether from University Health Services, the office of BGLTQ student life, the mental-health counselors, the Title IX office, the Office for Dispute Resolution, the office of sexual assault prevention and response, Harvard chaplains, or student peer supports. The principal reason students gave for not reporting an incident was that it wasn’t serious enough. However, a majority reported that they did speak with friends and family about the event.

In  written recommendations  to President Lawrence S. Bacow, deputy provost Peggy Newell and Cahners-Rabb professor of business administration Kathleen L. McGinn, co-chairs of the Harvard 2019 AAU Student Survey on Sexual Assault and Misconduct, wrote that:

Knowledge of support services and belief in the fairness of University processes for investigating reports of nonconsensual sexual contact and sexual harassment have both risen since 2015, but less than half of our students feel very or extremely knowledgeable about support services on campus and less than half of our students believe that the outcome of University processes related to reports of sexual misconduct will be fair. In spite of heightened attention to nonconsensual sexual contact and sexual harassment in society, in the media, and at Harvard, only a minority of students experiencing nonconsensual sexual contact or sexual harassment access any of the resources available on campus…. The steady and high rate of nonconsensual sexual contact experienced by Harvard students calls for a cultural change across our community. 

President Bacow, in a letter to the Harvard community , wrote that:

the data support the reality that sexual assault and sexual harassment remain a serious problem at Harvard, and at institutions of higher education across the country….We must do more to prevent sexual and gender-based harassment and assault, and to encourage people to come forward to share their experiences and their concerns with us. And we must not rest until every member of our community has confidence in their institution’s ability to support them. This responsibility starts with the University leadership, but we can only truly effect meaningful change with your ideas and your commitment….

“Initiatives like bystander training,” he continued, “send the message to students that sexual misconduct is not acceptable." He has therefore “asked the Title IX Office to oversee the expansion of more of these bystander intervention initiatives across the University.” But he noted that “A change in culture can only come about through shared efforts by the administration, faculty, staff, and students,” and he invited all members of the Harvard community to a conversation about the issues raised by the survey at the Science Center on October 17. 

“One of my highest priorities,” he concluded, “is to create a community in which all of us can do our best work. To achieve this, we must seek to enhance our policies and procedures, and build out new resources, that are marked by our humanity, and which remind us to care for one another. But most importantly, we must recognize that we all have a role to play in ensuring that each of us who calls Harvard home feels welcome, and safe.”

You might also like

Making the Public Record Public

Harvard legal database released

Paying Student-Athletes?

As NIL money flows, Harvard’s approach remains unchanged.

Harvard, Ivies to Join Big Ten

“Superconference” play to begin in 2025-26; features relegation.

Most popular

Overseer Candidates’ 2024 Harvard Priorities

Nominees for the governing board explain their experiences and detail their perspectives on the University’s challenges.

The Risks of Homeschooling

Elizabeth Bartholet highlights risks when parents have 24/7 authoritarian control over their children.

More to explore

Mysterious Minis

Intricate mosaics shrouded in mystery

How Birds Lost Flight

Scott Edwards discovers evolution’s master switches.

Why Americans Love to Hate Harvard

The president emeritus on elite universities’ academic accomplishments—and a rising tide of antagonism

The Uncomfortable Truth About Campus Rape Policy

At many schools, the rules intended to protect victims of sexual assault mean students have lost their right to due process—and an accusation of wrongdoing can derail a person’s entire college education.

This is the first story in a three-part series examining how the rules governing sexual-assault adjudication have changed in recent years, and why some of those changes are problematic. Read the second installment here , and the third one here .

Kwadwo “Kojo” Bonsu , 23, was on track to graduate in the spring of 2016 with a degree in chemical engineering from the University of Massachusetts at Amherst. Bonsu, who was born in Maryland, is the son of Ghanaian immigrants. He chose UMass because it gave him the opportunity to pursue his two passions, science and music. He told me he hoped to get a doctorate in polymer science or chemical engineering. At UMass he was a member of the National Society of Black Engineers. He also joined a fraternity (he was the only black member), played guitar in a campus jazz band, and tutored jazz guitarists at a local high school.

In the early hours of Saturday, November 1, 2014, Bonsu, then a junior, was at the house where many of his fraternity brothers lived. There he ran into another junior, whom I’ll call R.M., a white female marketing student. According to a written account by R.M., who declined to be interviewed for this story, the two started talking and smoking marijuana; eventually they kissed. As she wrote, “It got more intense until finally I shifted so that I was straddling him.” She told him she wasn’t interested in intercourse and he said he was fine with that.

Then, she wrote, “I started to move my hand down his chest and into his pants.” R.M. interrupted this to take a phone call from a female friend who was also at the house and trying to find her. The call ended and then, R.M. wrote, “I got on my knees and started to give him a blow job.” After a short time, “I removed my mouth but kept going with my hand and realized just how high I was.” She wrote that she felt conflicted because she wanted to stop—she said she told him she was feeling uncomfortable and thought she needed to leave—but that she also felt bad about “working him up and then backing out.” (In Bonsu’s written account, he stated that R.M. said she needed to leave because she was concerned her friend might “barge in” on them.) The encounter continued for a few more minutes, during which, she wrote, he cajoled her to stay—“playfully” grabbing her arm at one point, and drawing her in to kiss—then ended with an exchange of phone numbers. R.M. had not removed any clothing.

R.M. then went down to the kitchen to find her friend. As she explained in her statement, “[My friend] knows I was with Kojo. She probably told all the brothers in the room, and they’re gonna hate me when they find out”—she didn’t explain why. “I can never come back here.” Her friend started teasing her, asking how it had gone. R.M. was a resident adviser in her dormitory—someone tasked with counseling other students—and at that moment, she wrote, “as my RA training kicked in, I realized I’d been sexually assaulted.” She wrote that while in retrospect she should have left if she didn’t want to continue the encounter, she hadn’t wanted to be a bad sport—“that UMass Student Culture dictates that when women become sexually involved with men they owe it to them to follow through.” She added, “I want to fully own my participation in what happened, but at the same time recognize that I felt violated and that I owe it to myself and others to hold him accountable for something I felt in my bones wasn’t right.”

As she talked with her friend, R.M. wrote, she became distraught. She contacted the RAs on duty and reported that she had been sexually assaulted. The RAs called the campus police, who notified the Amherst police. R.M. gave her clothes to a police officer for evidence, although she said she was not ready to file charges. Then she went to the hospital, where she was given a battery of medications for possible STDs.

Just before Thanksgiving, according to a federal lawsuit filed against the university by Bonsu’s attorney, Brett Lampiasi, R.M. went to the dean of students and filed a complaint against Bonsu. She also reported him to the Amherst police. The police investigated and closed the case with no charges filed. On January 12, 2015, Bonsu got an email from a school administrator informing him that a “very serious” allegation had been lodged against him and that until a hearing was held, he was subject to “interim restrictions”: He could not contact R.M., he could visit no dormitories other than his own, he was limited to eating at a single dining hall, and he was forbidden from entering the student union.

The restrictions meant that Bonsu could no longer play with his jazz ensemble at a weekly Sunday brunch. Nor could he attend the meetings of the other organizations he’d joined. He was warned not to talk about the allegation, so he couldn’t explain to his friends why he was suddenly withdrawing from his activities. R.M. soon complained to the school that Bonsu had violated his no-contact order by trying to friend her on Facebook. Bonsu vehemently denied the allegation to administrators. He offered the university full access to his Facebook account and phone records. According to the suit, the university declined the offer. He later sent the records anyway. But in a February 4 letter, Bonsu was told that because of the later allegation, a new set of interim restrictions was being put in place. Effective immediately, Bonsu was banned from all university housing and was allowed on campus only to attend classes. His mother and an uncle drove up from Maryland to help him appeal his restrictions, but were largely unsuccessful.

He reached out to a student group that helps minority and other underrepresented college students, explaining in an email what had happened with R.M., protesting his innocence, and describing his treatment as discriminatory and unlawful. The student who received the email forwarded it to the group’s listserv, adding a note about spreading the news in order to organize a rally on Bonsu’s behalf. This email got back to campus authorities, the lawsuit says, and because Bonsu had used R.M.’s name, he received a new interim restriction: a total ban from campus.

Bonsu’s lawsuit describes the period that followed as one of extreme stress, during which he lost weight, contracted pneumonia, and was forced to drop two courses because the restrictions placed on him precluded him from attending class during his midterm exams. His hearing was on April 2, 2015. By then he was living back home in Maryland, sick a second time with pneumonia and in a state of emotional collapse. His lawyer asked for the hearing to be rescheduled, but the school refused, so it went on without him. He was found not responsible for sexual misconduct. But he was found responsible for using R.M.’s name in the email asking for assistance and for sending her the Facebook friend request.

The university listed Bonsu’s offense as “failure to comply with the direction of university officials.” His punishment: suspension until May 31, 2016—by which time R.M. was expected to graduate—and a permanent ban from living on campus. He was also required to get counseling to address his “decision-making.”

Bonsu decided never to return to UMass. He applied to universities in other states, but was not accepted. He spent a year studying music at a community college, unable to pursue his engineering degree. Eventually he was accepted into the engineering program at the University of Maryland at Baltimore County, for the fall semester of 2016, a year and a half after he had left UMass. He is on track to finally graduate from college in the fall of 2018. UMass denied Bonsu’s allegations against it and otherwise declined to comment. Last September, his lawsuit against the university was settled for undisclosed terms.

T he way in which Bonsu’s case was handled may seem perverse, but many of the university’s actions—the interim restrictions, the full-bore investigation and adjudication even though R.M.’s own statement does not describe a sexual assault—were mandated or strongly encouraged by federal rules that govern the handling of sexual-assault allegations on campus today. These rules proliferated during Barack Obama’s administration, as did threats of sanctions if schools didn’t follow them precisely. The impulse behind them was noble and necessary—sexual assault is a scourge that should not be tolerated in any society, much less by institutions of higher learning. But taken in sum, these directives have left a mess of a system, and many unintended consequences.

On too many campuses, a new attitude about due process—and the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty—has taken hold, one that echoes the infamous logic of Edwin Meese, who served in Ronald Reagan’s administration as attorney general, in his argument against the Miranda warning. “The thing is,” Meese said, “you don’t have many suspects who are innocent of a crime. That’s contradictory. If a person is innocent of a crime, then he is not a suspect.”

There is no doubt that until recently, many women’s claims of sexual assault were reflexively and widely disregarded—or that many still are in some quarters. (One need look no further than the many derogatory responses received by the women who came forward last year to accuse then-candidate Donald Trump of sexual violations.) Action to redress that problem was—and is—fully warranted. But many of the remedies that have been pushed on campus in recent years are unjust to men, infantilize women, and ultimately undermine the legitimacy of the fight against sexual violence.

The Trump administration has recently begun to reconsider—and in some cases, roll back—many of the rules and policies made by the Obama administration regarding campus sexual assault. It has encountered immediate skepticism and fierce pushback; given Trump’s own behavior, this reaction is not surprising.

That pushback grew more forceful in July, after Candice Jackson, the new head of the Office for Civil Rights (OCR), the arm of the Department of Education that governs the adjudication of sexual assault on campus, tossed off some made-up statistics in remarks to The New York Times that were broadly dismissive of assault. Many college administrators have said they will not alter the adjudication policies now enshrined on their campus even if recent federal guidelines are rescinded; capacious campus bureaucracies that were created at the behest of Obama’s OCR are likely to resist change.

The Trump administration has amply demonstrated that its words cannot be taken at face value, and that its policy views, in many cases, are born of ignorance or calculated to inflame. Even so, a reconsideration of the policies surrounding sexual assault on campus, and public debate about them, is necessary.

This article, the first of a three-part series, examines how the rules governing sexual-assault adjudication have changed in recent years, and why some of those changes are problematic. Part II will look at how a new—and inaccurate—science regarding key characteristics of sexual assault has biased adjudications and fostered unhealthy ideas about assault on campus. Part III considers a facet of sexual-assault adjudications that demands considerably more attention than it has received.

On April 4, 2011 , the country’s more than 4,600 institutions of higher education received an unexpected letter from the Obama administration’s Department of Education. It began with the friendly salutation “Dear Colleague,” but its contents were pointed and prescriptive. The letter, and other guidance that followed, laid out a series of steps that all schools would be required to take to correct what the administration described as a collective failure to address sexual assault. Its arrival signaled the start of a campaign to eliminate what Vice President Joe Biden called an epidemic of sexual violence on campus.

The most significant requirement in the “Dear Colleague” letter was the adoption, by all colleges, in all adjudications involving allegations of sexual misconduct, of the lowest possible burden of proof, a “preponderance of evidence”—often described as just over a 50 percent likelihood of guilt. (Many universities were already using this standard, but others favored a “clear and convincing evidence” standard, requiring roughly a 75 percent likelihood of guilt. Criminal courts require proof “beyond a reasonable doubt,” the highest legal standard for finding guilt.)

Severe restrictions were placed on the ability of the accused to question the account of the accuser, in order to prevent intimidation or trauma. Eventually the administration praised a “single investigator” model, whereby the school appoints a staff member to act as detective, prosecutor, judge, and jury. The letter defined sexual violence requiring university investigation broadly to include “rape, sexual assault, sexual battery, and sexual coercion,” with no definitions provided. It also characterized sexually harassing behavior as “any unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature,” including remarks. Schools were told to investigate any reports of possible sexual misconduct, including those that came from a third party and those in which the alleged victim refused to cooperate. (Paradoxically, they were also told to defer to alleged victims’ wishes, creating no small amount of confusion among administrators.)

In total, the procedures laid out by the letter and subsequent directives triggered the creation of a parallel justice system for sexual assault, all under the aegis of Title IX, the 1972 federal law that prohibits discrimination in educational opportunities on the basis of sex. Colleges have traditionally addressed various forms of student misconduct, including sexual misconduct, through a combination of investigation, adjudication, and mediation. But they generally deferred to the criminal-justice system for the most-serious crimes. Today, colleges are required to conduct their own proceeding for every sexual allegation, even if a police investigation or criminal-justice process is under way.

The letter was merely the first of a series of administration reports and actions. In 2013, in a joint finding, the Departments of Education and Justice seemed to further expand the definition of sexually harassing behavior, noting that the standard of whether an “objectively reasonable person” of the same gender would find the actions or remarks offensive was not appropriate in judging whether a violation had occurred. (This contradicted a Supreme Court ruling that sexual harassment in a school setting must be “severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive,” and raised civil libertarians’ concerns about freedom of speech.) Some schools have since written codes that make flirtatious comments or sexual jokes punishable.

These and other measures flowed from a genuine—and justified—belief within the administration that college women faced daunting challenges in seeking justice for sexual assault, and that many colleges had not taken sexual assault seriously enough, at times even disregarding allegations. (Of course, men can be victims of sexual violations and women can be perpetrators, and government regulations regarding assault are written to be neutral to gender and sexual orientation. But it is clear that the Obama administration rightly viewed campus assault overwhelmingly as something male students do to female ones.) In a particularly egregious case, Eastern Michigan University did not publicly reveal the 2006 dorm-room sexual assault and murder of one its students, Laura Dickinson, until some 10 weeks after the fact; by then, students could no longer withdraw from school without forfeiting their tuition.

Pressing schools to improve what were sometimes haphazard procedures surrounding sexual-assault allegations; to provide clear rules about what constitutes consent and to publicize those rules on campus; and to encourage students to look out for one another—these were all worthy ends. Biden said regularly that one sexual assault is too many, and that is inarguably true.

Yet from the beginning, the administration’s efforts showed signs of overreach, and that overreach became more pronounced over time. By early 2014, the terminology used by the federal government to describe the two parties in still-unresolved sexual-assault cases had begun to change. The 2011 “Dear Colleague” letter had used the terms complainant (and sometimes alleged victim ) and alleged perpetrator . But many subsequent federal documents described a complainant as a victim or a survivor , and the accused as a perpetrator .

Investigative practices also changed. OCR began keeping a public list of the schools at which it was investigating possible Title IX violations, putting them, in the words of Janet Napolitano, the former secretary of homeland security in the Obama administration and current president of the University of California system, under “a cloud of suspicion.” (OCR does not publish similar lists for other types of investigations that are still in process.) And investigations, including those begun due to a single complaint, did not result in a narrow inquiry into a given case, but into every aspect of a school’s adjudication process and general climate, and a review of all cases going back years. OCR publicly threatened the withdrawal of federal funds from schools that failed to comply with the new rules, an action that would be devastating to most schools. By 2016, according to BuzzFeed , the average investigation had been open for 963 days, up from an average in 2010 of 289 days. As of March of this year there were 311 open cases at 227 schools.

These measures made sexual assault a priority for every college president. But it’s not hard to see how they may also have encouraged bias against the accused. Several former OCR investigators and one current investigator told me the perceived message from Washington was that once an investigation into a school was opened, the investigators in the field offices were not meant to be objective fact finders. Their job was to find schools in violation of Title IX.

OCR also catalyzed the establishment of gigantic and costly campus bureaucracies. Since its beginning, Title IX has required schools to designate an employee to handle sex-discrimination issues. For decades, this was usually a faculty or staff member who had myriad other duties. But in another “Dear Colleague” letter, issued in 2015, OCR urged all institutions of higher education to hire a full-time Title IX coordinator. Large universities were encouraged to appoint multiple coordinators. These people were to be independent of other administrative offices and to report directly to the school’s senior leadership.

Harvard now has 55 Title IX coordinators (though an undisclosed number of them have additional duties). Wellesley College last year announced its first full-time coordinator to oversee sex discrimination on its all-female campus. Ozarks Technical Community College, which has no residential facilities and has had one report of sexual assault since 2013, now has a full-time Title IX coordinator.

Pushed by federal mandates, activists, fears of negative social-media campaigns, bad press, and increasingly the momentum of their own bureaucracies, schools have written codes defining sexual assault in ways that are at times troubling. Some schools recommend or require that for consent to be valid, it must be given while sober, and others rule that consent cannot be given when a student is “under the influence,” vague standards that could cover any amount of alcohol consumption. Some embrace “affirmative consent,” which, at its limit, requires that each touch, each time, be preceded by the explicit, verbal granting of permission. At times, the directives given to students about sex veer squarely into the absurd: A training video on sexual consent for incoming students at Brown University, for instance, included this stipulation, among many others: “Consent is knowing that my partner wants me just as much as I want them.”

As Jeannie Suk Gersen and her husband and Harvard Law School colleague, Jacob Gersen, wrote last year in a California Law Review article, “The Sex Bureaucracy,” the “conduct classified as illegal” on college campuses “has grown substantially, and indeed, it plausibly covers almost all sex students are having today.”

D ue process is the constitutional guarantee of equal treatment under the law and fundamental fairness in legal proceedings. The late Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas wrote in 1967 that it is “the primary and indispensable foundation of individual freedom,” and the high court has ruled that due process requires that laws not be “unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious.” But many campus proceedings seem to fit that description. For example, it is not unusual for a male student to be investigated and adjudicated for sexual assault, yet to never receive specific, written notice of the allegations against him. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, a civil-liberties group, found in a report released on September 5 analyzing due-process procedures at the country’s top-ranked colleges and universities that about half fail to offer this minimal protection.

To ensure the safety of alleged victims of sexual assault, the federal government requires “interim measures”—accommodations that administrators must offer the complainant before any finding of responsibility, including steps to ensure that she never has to encounter the accused, as in the case of Kwadwo Bonsu. Common interim measures include moving the accused from his dormitory, limiting the places he can go on campus, forcing him to change classes, and barring him from activities. On small campuses, this can mean his life is completely circumscribed. Sometimes he is banned from campus altogether while he awaits the results of an investigation.

Interim measures against the accused make sense in some circumstances, depending on the severity of the alleged incident, the apparent strength of the case, and other matters, but they are too often applied bluntly and reflexively. And even if the accused is cleared during an adjudication, schools can issue a standing no-contact order between him and the accuser. In a 2015 article for the Harvard Law Review , Janet Halley, a Harvard law professor, describes a case at an Oregon college in which a male student was investigated and told to stay away from a female student, resulting in the loss of his campus job and a move from his dorm. He didn’t know why he was being investigated, but it turned out he resembled a man who had raped the female student “months before and thousands of miles away.” He was found “innocent of any sexual misconduct,” but the no-contact order was not lifted. “When the duty to prevent a ‘sexually hostile environment’ is interpreted this expansively,” Halley wrote, indifference to the restrained person’s innocence will tend to follow. But “ending or hobbling someone’s access to education should be much harder than that.”

The preponderance-of-evidence standard demanded by OCR requires schools to make life-altering decisions even when there is great doubt. Penn State, for instance, instructs its adjudicators to find the accused guilty if they deem there is a 50.01 percent likelihood that a violation occurred, adding that this means they “may have considerable reservation” about their decision. Last year, the American Association of University Professors called for universities to be able to return to using the “clear and convincing” standard that many had used previously in Title IX cases. This year, the American College of Trial Lawyers similarly called for the standard of proof in Title IX proceedings to be clear and convincing evidence. Groups of professors at Harvard Law School and the University of Pennsylvania Law School have each released open letters expressing their concern that OCR has undermined due process and justice.

Supporters of the preponderance standard, including Catherine Lhamon, the previous head of OCR, argue that preponderance is the standard that courts say to use in administrative and civil proceedings—and is hence fitting for campus adjudication. OCR guidance emphasizes the difference between a Title IX investigation and a criminal case, noting that the former “will never result in incarceration,” thus “the same procedural protections and legal standards are not required.” And the preponderance-of-evidence standard is held to be appropriate by the Supreme Court in civil litigation involving discrimination. But the Court has also ruled that the clear-and-convincing standard is appropriate for those civil proceedings where “particularly important individual interests or rights are at stake.”

What’s more, even in civil court cases, defendants have myriad protections not typically found in Title IX proceedings, such as receipt of a specific, written complaint; clear rules of evidence; knowledge of the testimony of adverse witnesses; and the rights to discovery, cross-examination, and the calling of expert witnesses. The absence of options and protections such as discovery and cross-examination sometimes works against complainants, too—it’s a bad system. But especially in a context where the standard for finding guilt is so low, it is particularly unjust to the accused. The 2011 “Dear Colleague” letter said that the basic right to question one’s accuser should be severely limited. To accede to OCR’s guidance, some schools ask the accused to assemble a list of questions for the accuser that campus officials can ask on his behalf, at their discretion. A number of young men have asserted in lawsuits that their questions were ignored.

In a 2014 Yale Law & Policy Review article, Janet Napolitano asked, “Should there be any recognition of an accused student’s rights against self-incrimination in the administrative investigation?” The answer has been no in recent years. If the accused declines to answer questions, he can be expelled. But whatever he says in an administrative hearing can be turned over to law-enforcement authorities and used against him in a criminal proceeding.

Geoffrey Stone, a professor at the University of Chicago Law School, and its former dean, told me he believes that the integrity of the legal system requires rules designed to prevent innocent people from being punished, and that these same principles should apply on campus. But he is concerned that severe sanctions are being imposed without the necessary protections for the accused. As he wrote in HuffPost , “For a college or university to expel a student for sexual assault is a matter of grave consequence both for the institution and for the student. Such an expulsion will haunt the student for the rest of his days, especially in the world of the Internet. Indeed, it may well destroy his chosen career prospects.”

Stone also wrote that while campus codes of conduct say sexual assault is a Title IX violation, there is a widespread failure to clearly define sexual assault. Jeannie Suk Gersen and Jacob Gersen, in “The Sex Bureaucracy,” for example, document the frequent conflation on campus of the terms nonconsensual sex and unwanted sex, and explain why this is so concerning: “Many people, regardless of gender and sexual orientation, have consensual sex that is unwanted. Sometimes it is partially unwanted, not fully wanted, or both wanted and unwanted at the same time … Ambivalence—simultaneously wanting and not wanting, desire and revulsion—is endemic to human sexuality.”

Sometimes, of course, there is no ambiguity, as when a woman says no, or sends visible, consistent physical signals that she is not consenting to a sexual act. But many schools no longer require women to say or signal no in order for an encounter to be considered nonconsensual. Affirmative-consent rules, particularly when written or interpreted expansively, do that directly; in California, Connecticut, and New York, affirmative-consent codes for college students have been signed into law. So do policies that treat women who have been drinking—but who are not by any objective standard incapacitated—as unable to give consent.

The problem with both types of policies is that they are intrusive and impractical. Couples are especially unlikely to adhere to contract-negotiation-style bedroom interactions (and it is no small intrusion on privacy to require them to do so). The proscription on drinking before sex is certain to be widely ignored; sexually inexperienced students (and even experienced ones) often drink in order to lower their inhibitions. And yet ignoring these rules puts men in great jeopardy should their partner later reconsider what seemed to have been a consensual encounter.

In the world outside campus, people who are merely intoxicated, not incapacitated, can legally consent to sex, even if they make poor or regrettable decisions. In many states, sex with an incapacitated partner is a crime when the accused knows, or reasonably should know, about the incapacity and intends to act without consent. Recently, some schools have adopted clearer standards for incapacitation, including the requirement that the accused should reasonably know about the incapacity in order for consent to be invalidated. But on many campuses, no such knowledge or intent is required for an adjudication to determine that a violation has occurred.

A central tenet of advocates seeking greater accountability for sexual assault is that the complainant is virtually always the one telling the truth. As a 2014 White House report, “Rape and Sexual Assault: A Renewed Call to Action,” stated, “Only 2–10 percent of reported rapes are false.” Campus materials aimed at students make similar assertions.

But as Michelle J. Anderson, the president of Brooklyn College and a scholar of rape law, acknowledged in a 2004 paper in the Boston University Law Review , “There is no good empirical data on false rape complaints either historically or currently.” The data have not improved since that time. In a 2015 working paper, Lieutenant Colonel Reggie Yager, a U.S. Air Force judge advocate who has defended men accused of sexual assault, took a comprehensive look at the research on the incidence of false rape reports, and concluded that the studies confirming the overwhelming veracity of accusers are methodologically unsound.

For instance, consider Yager’s analysis of a 2010 study titled “False Allegations of Sexual Assault: An Analysis of Ten Years of Reported Cases.” The study is one of the few to examine false reports with specific reference to campus allegations, and is frequently cited by government officials and activists. David Lisak, a former associate professor of psychology at UMass Boston and a prominent consultant on campus sexual assault, is the lead author; when he and his co-authors reviewed the reports of sexual assault at one northeastern university to determine what percentage were false, they concluded that the figure was not quite 6 percent. “Over 90 percent of reports of rape are not fabrications. They’re not false allegations,” he said in a videotaped interview describing the research.

Yager writes, however, that about 45 percent of the cases Lisak reviewed did not proceed, because there was insufficient evidence, or the complainant withdrew from the process or couldn’t identify the perpetrator, or the allegation did not rise to the level of a sexual assault. In other words, no one could possibly determine whether these claims were true or false.

“Policy is being driven,” Yager wrote in his analysis, by the idea “that false allegations are exceedingly rare.” But we simply don’t know how rare they are. What’s more, no legal or moral system purporting to be just can make presumptions about individual cases based on statistics. For many years, feminist activists have said that the legal system and culture tend to prejudge assault claims, with an inclination toward believing men over women, accused over accuser. They have rightly pointed out the deep injustice of that bias. But it is also unjust to be biased against the accused.

A troubling paradox within the activist community, and increasingly among administrators, is the belief that while women who make a complaint should be given the strong benefit of the doubt, women who deny they were assaulted should not necessarily be believed. The rules at many schools, created in response to federal directives, require employees (except those covered by confidentiality protections, such as health-care providers) to report to the Title IX office any instance of possible sexual assault or harassment of which they become aware. One result is that offhand remarks, rumors, and the inferences drawn by observers of ambiguous interactions can trigger investigations; sometimes these are not halted even when the alleged victim denies that an assault occurred.

A recent case at the University of Southern California that resulted in the expulsion of Matt Boermeester, 23, the kicker for the school’s football team, illustrates this. In January of this year, one neighbor thought he saw Boermeester hurting his girlfriend of more than a year, Zoe Katz, 22, a top USC tennis player. The neighbor, also a USC student, told another USC student, who told his father, a USC tennis coach. The coach was a mandatory reporter, and he told the Title IX office. A months-long investigation was launched, Boermeester was put on immediate suspension, and a no-contact order was placed on the couple (which they ignored when off-campus). Eventually USC found Boermeester responsible for violating the school’s student code of conduct, which prohibits intimate-partner violence, as well as for violating the no-contact order. He was expelled.

In a statement issued to the Los Angeles Times through a lawyer, Katz said that on the night in question the two were playing around and that nothing untoward happened. She wrote that Boermeester “has been falsely accused of conduct involving me” and that he “did nothing improper against me, ever. I would not stand for it. Nor will I stand for watching him be maligned and lied about.” She said the investigation went on despite her adamant objection; that Title IX administrators treated her in a “dismissive and demeaning” way and told her she was a “battered” woman; and that during “repeated interrogations,” her words were “misrepresented, misquoted and taken out of context.” Boermeester recently filed suit against the school seeking to have his expulsion overturned. In papers filed in response to the suit, USC has said that it stands by its investigation and has asked the court to deny Boermeester relief, citing the completeness of the university’s investigation and the due process afforded him during the school’s administrative proceeding. The school wrote that Katz “initially confirmed” the version of events supplied by the neighbor and other witnesses, that she asked for the no-contact order, and that she texted that she was worried Boermeester would find out she had spoken with the Title IX investigator. USC said her “attempts to protect Petitioner were consistent with a recognized pattern of recanting in intimate partner violence that may be motivated by love or fear of reprisal.” Katz called the university’s statements “ludicrous,” again denying its allegations, and noted that she and Boermeester are still dating.

There are no national data that let us know the prevalence of third-party reports, but they appear to be a significant source of allegations. The University of Michigan’s most recent “Student Sexual Misconduct Annual Report” says that the school’s Office for Institutional Equity “often receives complaints about incidents from third parties.” Yale releases a semiannual report of all possible sexual-assault and harassment complaints. Its report for the latter half of 2015 included a new category: third-party reports in which the alleged victim, after being contacted by the Title IX office, refused to cooperate. These cases made up more than 30 percent of all undergraduate assault allegations.

Mark Hathaway, a California attorney who has dealt with several no-complainant complaints, says that the zeal with which these complaints are sometimes handled can be wounding psychologically to both the accused and his partner. Hathaway represented a young man who was in bed with his girlfriend in her dorm room. They were fooling around but not having intercourse. In the next bed was the girlfriend’s roommate and a male student. They thought that the girlfriend had had too much to drink to be able to consent to sexual activity. They mentioned their concern to a resident adviser, who was obligated to report it to the Title IX office, which then opened an investigation. “The girl says nothing happened; it was all consensual,” Hathaway told me. “But the school still goes forward.”

Because the school considered her a witness, the girlfriend was compelled to answer questions; had she refused to cooperate, she could have been disciplined. (If she had been the complainant, she would have had the right to decline.) Hathaway told me she “was in tears because she was required to explain to total strangers intimate sexual details.” The school concluded, despite her statements to the contrary, that she couldn’t have consented to the sexual encounter, and suspended her boyfriend for a semester. He was also required to attend eight sessions with a therapist on the topic of alcohol and sexual relationships.

While police and prosecutors, after evaluating an on-campus or off-campus complaint, can make a discretionary decision about whether to pursue further action, OCR guidance makes clear that school administrators are not supposed to render such judgment. In response to any complaint, including those by third parties, they are supposed to investigate. Hathaway says of campus administrators, “There is a machine that needs to be fed, and they are part of the machine.”

University administrators are in an unenviable place today. Students arriving on campus are, by many measures, less socially developed than were those of previous generations. They have dated less and spent less time hanging out with one another without adults present. They also have less experience with alcohol, but suddenly encounter an environment in which binge drinking is a norm. Without a doubt, these characteristics make many students particularly vulnerable to assault. They also create an environment in which sexual experimentation followed by shame or regret is common, as is poor communication by both parties.

Candice Jackson may have intended to say something like this in July. If so, she bungled and dramatically overstated her point, and had to apologize for being flippant. (“Ninety percent” of sexual-assault claims, she had said, were the result of drunken hookups and bad breakups, reported later as sexual assaults.) But the actions she has taken or publicly considered taking so far—she has scaled back investigations to initially  consider only the complaint that was actually made; she has indicated  that she may cease to publicly list the universities under Title IX investigation—are sensible. OCR is considering other measures, some of which may be announced as soon as September 7, in a speech on Title IX by Betsy DeVos, the secretary of education. Any reforms OCR eventually makes should receive a fair public hearing.

It’s likely they will not. Since Trump’s election, many college presidents and administrators have promised that they will not willingly change policies they now have in place. The president of California State University at Northridge, Dianne Harrison, wrote in an op-ed in February that she hoped DeVos would uphold the 2011 “Dear Colleague” letter and added, “This is not something from which we or any campus should retreat, no matter what the U.S. Department of Education under the new administration may propose.”

Harrison won’t have to retreat on preponderance. That standard is already part of a California law governing campus adjudications; preponderance is also a requirement under an Illinois law soon to go into effect. Prescient activists, fearing that federal guidance might be overturned, have already begun lobbying state legislatures to enshrine as law much of the Obama administration’s Title IX sexual-assault guidance—California and Massachusetts are considering such bills.

And while some college administrators express concern about due process, that concern does not always appear to be top of mind, even though lawsuits are piling up. Some 170 suits about unfair treatment have been filed by accused students over the past several years. As K. C. Johnson, the co-author, with Stuart Taylor Jr., of the recent book The Campus Rape Frenzy , notes, at least 60 have so far resulted in findings favorable to them. The National Center for Higher Education Risk Management, one of the country’s largest higher-education law firms and consulting practices specializing in Title IX, recently released a white paper, “Due Process and the Sex Police.” It noted that higher-education institutions are “losing case after case in federal court on what should be very basic due process protections. Never before have colleges been losing more cases than they are winning, but that is the trend as we write this.” The paper warned that at some colleges, “overzealousness to impose sexual correctness”—including the idea that anything less than “utopian” sex is punishable—“is causing a backlash that is going to set back the entire consent movement.” Even so, in a February op-ed, Carol Quillen, the president of Davidson College, wrote that while “criminal justice is founded on due process and the possibility of innocence,” ideals she valued, these goals were inherently in conflict with other important goals. “Nothing about due process says to a rape survivor, ‘I believe you,’” she wrote.

Over the past several years of reporting and writing on this subject, the people I’ve spoken with who deal closely with campus sexual assault—school administrators, lawyers, higher-education-policy consultants, even investigators for the Office for Civil Rights—do not typically describe campuses filled with sociopathic predators. They mostly paint a picture of students, many of them freshmen, who begin a late-night consensual sexual encounter, well lubricated by alcohol, and end up with divergent views of what happened.

Lee Burdette Williams, who from 2009 to 2014 was the vice president for student affairs and dean of students at Wheaton College, in Massachusetts, and before that was the dean of students at the University of Connecticut, spent some of her final years in academia overseeing such tricky cases. She told me that sexual assaults do, of course, happen, that allegations must always be handled seriously and with great care, and that she herself oversaw the expulsion of students who were found to be violators. But she also said that many of the cases she dealt with—especially recently—involved a female student who’d had a sexual encounter that had left her unsettled but that did not fit the definition of a crime.

She told me that one reason so many cases involved first-year students was that these students were particularly “inexperienced and clueless about how to talk to each other about sex.” Many of them didn’t know what they wanted or didn’t want, and many of them experimented, then later felt embarrassed or maltreated. Parsing allegations, considering intent, holding violators accountable, providing guidance and counseling to one or both parties when no violation could be established—these are crucial duties of administrators, and they require judgment and discretion. Williams came to believe that in recent years, this discretion—and the duty to dispassionately weigh the rights of both parties in an assault allegation—has been harmfully eroded. In 2014, she left her career to become a higher-education consultant and writer. She wrote a farewell essay in Inside Higher Education , stating that while she used to think of herself as “Dean of All Students,” her job had become “Dean of Sexual Assault.”

At its worst, Title IX is now a cudgel with which the government and school administrators enforce sex rules too bluntly, and in ways that invite abuse. That’s an uncomfortable statement. It does not cancel or diminish other uncomfortable statements: Women (and men) are assaulted on campus, those assaults can be devastating, and the victims do not always receive justice when they come forward. But we have arrived at a point at which schools investigate, adjudicate, and punish the kind of murky, ambiguous sexual encounters that trained law-enforcement officials are unable to sort out—and also at a point at which the definition of sexual misconduct on many campuses has expanded beyond reason.

Institutions of higher education must protect their students from crimes and physical harm. They should also model for their students how an open society functions, and how necessary it is to protect the civil liberties of everyone.

Thoughts about sexual assault on college campuses

Subscribe to the center for economic security and opportunity newsletter, martha nussbaum martha nussbaum ernst freund distinguished service professor of law and ethics - the university of chicago.

October 21, 2021

• 22 min read

This interlude is from Martha Nussbaum’s book, Citadels of Pride: Sexual Abuse, Accountability, and Reconciliation , published by W. W. Norton & Company in May 2021.

So far we have traced the evolution of legal standards for sexual assault and sexual harassment, and their current defects and challenges. There is, however, a significant area of our national discussion that is not fully covered by these discussions, because it involves a complex and uneasy mixture of federal law (Title IX, discussed in Chapter 5) and informal tribunals: sexual assault and harassment on college campuses. Because my previous discussions have covered the most salient issues in each area of law, I need not devote a full chapter to this case, nor do I wish such a disproportionate focus to suggest that women who attend college deserve more attention than women who do not. Unequal access to higher education is already a major problem of justice in our society, compounding other disadvantages based on race and class. There is no reason to perpetuate the injustice by paying more attention to the problems of those women who have managed to arrive at a college or university. One of the great strengths of the traditions I have described is the fact that working-class and minority women (for example Cheryl Araujo, Mechelle Vinson, Mary Carr) have been among their salient plaintiffs.

Yet, because the institutional structures are different, the topic of campus assault requires separate treatment, albeit briefly. Nobody knows exactly how large a problem this is, but one recent survey by the Association of American Universities found that around 20 percent of female undergraduates are victims of sexual assault or sexual misconduct at some point during their college life. 1 Other studies have found frequent sexual abuse of males as well, amounting to 6 to 8 percent. Although there are disputes over methodology and definition, there’s no doubt about the severity of the issue. It would appear, however, that attending college does not make a woman more likely to suffer sexual assault. 2

Sexual harassment and sexual assault have long included abuses of power between faculty and students, but on the whole, these cases have been understood as workplace abuses of power, and are dealt with under clear public rules, in much the manner of other workplaces. Thus, Chapter 5 has already basically dealt with these cases. In this Interlude I focus on student-student assault and harassment.

The literature on this topic is vast and controversies are heated, in part because the Obama administration guidelines have now been replaced by different guidelines developed by the Department of Education under the aegis of Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos. However, the controversies cross political lines. Thus the group of Harvard Law School professors who protested against the Obama guidelines as unfair to accused men, anticipating the DeVos critique (I’ll describe their intervention as Stage Two below) included some conservatives, but also faculty from the left and even extreme left of the faculty.

I’ll cover the salient issues briefly, without discussing all the ins and outs of all the controversies. Thus the intention of this brief discussion is to indicate, in a general way, how my overall view in this book’s detailed chapters would approach campus cases, rather than to construct a comprehensive argument. 3

A large proportion of sexual assaults and alleged sexual assaults occur when one party, or usually both parties, have been drinking heavily. Heavy drinking makes memory gappy and adjudication very difficult. In general campuses need to do much better with alcohol education and treatment. But one recommendation that most college administrators would support is: lower the drinking age. This approach seems counterintuitive, but it is really sensible. Right now, if adults are present where there is under-age drinking (and most students are under twenty-one), they can be charged with contributing to the delinquency of a minor. So they refrain from providing badly needed supervision, including help for students who have passed out. If the drinking age were reduced to eighteen, adults could attend parties and be prepared to give assistance.

Another alcohol-related issue that needs addressing, in both education and adjudication: sex with a person who has passed out or is close to that point is an assault. This is a species of my point about affirmative consent, but it needs to be repeated again and again. The standard, however, is far from clear in application. Many cases before campus tribunals concern the thorny and as yet unresolved question of how impaired a person must be in order not to be capable of decision-making. Since the evidence comes, typically, from two impaired individuals, it is hard for them to remember how impaired they were. Third-party evidence is usually helpful, but is not always available.

Related Content

R. Shep Melnick

June 11, 2020

January 24, 2019

March 6, 2018

Campus Tribunals

There is considerable confusion in the public mind over why campuses do not simply turn accusations over to the police. So it’s important to point out that campuses have membership conditions, usually spelled out in the admissions contract, that go beyond the letter of the law and that need to be enforced by the campus itself. Plagiarism, not attending class, cheating on exams–all of these things are likely to be punished, sometimes with suspension or expulsion, even though they are not crimes. Similarly campuses may adopt sexual requirements that go beyond the law. Some of these are extreme: honor codes at some religious schools penalize all non-marital sexual conduct. I think such restrictions are counterproductive, creating cultures of silence (if a woman discloses that she has been raped, she can be penalized for engaging in sex). But there are also some reasonable requirements, such as affirmative consent, that are not necessarily the law of the land.

Moreover, the criminal justice system takes a long time, and victims need swift justice in order to deal with the trauma and go forward as students.

Finally, if a perpetrator is convicted in the criminal justice system, that record is ruinous for future life and employment. Campus convictions come in degrees, and many involve mandatory counseling and other lesser penalties. For this reason, having the criminal justice system as the only option, would deter reporting and bringing charges, since victims often hesitate before ruining the perpetrator’s life, and yet they seek some measure of recognition. They want the wrong done to them to be acknowledged—both that it happened and that it was wrong—and they want accountability for the perpetrator; but typically they are not seeking maximal revenge. Nor do they want lengthy involvement with the formal criminal justice system.

These are reasons why campus tribunals are not replaceable by the criminal justice system. However, it must also be said that these tribunals often do their job poorly. Faculty and administrators who serve on them are rarely well trained, and they do not always understand the quasi-legal issues with clarity. Procedures are often poorly defined, and the accused, who typically lack legal representation, are at a disadvantage.

Procedural Issues for Tribunals

How, then, can these tribunals be made to work better?

In this section I’ll refer to several key stages in the debate. Stage One was the “Dear Colleague” letter issued by the Obama administration, laying out standards to which all universities must conform to receive federal money. 4 Stage Two involved a series of objections to these standards, some issued by Betsy DeVos once she became secretary of education, 5 but similar objections were raised earlier by legal professionals—most famously by a group of twenty-eight Harvard Law School professors, drawn from both the left and the right, in a letter published initially in the Boston Globe but widely reprinted. 6 Next, in Stage Three, came the new Department of Education draft rule, which, like all administrative rules was subject to “notice and comment,” 7 and received over 124,000 comments. 8 Finally, in Stage Four (May 2020), the Department of Education issued its Final Rule, which is now legally binding on all colleges and universities that receive federal money. 9 I’ll proceed issue by issue.

First, all involved need to get clear about the best burden of proof. This issue has been one of the largest political disputes. Three standards are currently in use in our legal system. The most stringent, used throughout the United States in the criminal justice system, is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Many countries do not use this standard for criminal trials, but our tradition has judged that convicting an innocent person is more heinous and more to be avoided than letting a guilty person go free. Together with this exacting standard, our criminal justice system gives the accused a constitutional right to the “effective” and cost-free assistance of legal counsel, although great disparities still exist between public defenders provided free of charge and the sort of lawyer that a more affluent defendant typically would engage—not always because of quality, but because public defenders are overworked and usually don’t have enough time to devote to each client. But at least there is cost-free representation. Furthermore, our Constitution’s “confrontation clause” gives accused parties the right to confront witnesses testifying to their guilt. Over time other rights have been inferred from constitutional guarantees, the most famous being the Miranda warnings that must be read to defendants on arrest, warning them of their right to counsel and their right to remain silent. So our system is protective of defendants in multiple ways.

In civil trials, the standard, instead, is “preponderance of the evidence,” which means anything over 50 percent. Obviously this is a much weaker standard. Nor are free lawyers always provided in civil cases (some states do, most don’t). Still, the civil litigation system has firm procedural structures that safeguard the parties—especially a lengthy period of “discovery,” which gives both sides a chance to examine the other side’s evidence. Without such structural safeguards, and without legal counsel assisting the parties, many people feel that the “preponderance” standard is likely to lead to error.

A third intermediate standard is “clear and convincing evidence,” which is used in ways specified by the relevant state laws, often in areas such as paternity and child custody. This standard is typically thought to mean that it is about 75 percent likely that the person did what is alleged.

Before the “Dear Colleague” letter issued by the Obama administration, 10 most universities used “clear and convincing evidence” as the standard in sexual assault tribunals. The Obama administration insisted, instead, on the civil “preponderance of the evidence” standard. The Harvard Law School faculty letter, and DeVos in her own remarks, held that this standard was not protective enough of the accused. So far, it seems that nobody favors the “reasonable doubt” standard, which would be very difficult to apply in the informal and evidentially challenged situation of a tribunal. So the choice is between the other two standards, and in the end the Department of Education’s Final Rule gives every college that choice.

It’s important to be clear that a college tribunal will not take away a defendant’s liberty. That dire consequence is our legal system’s primary reason for choosing reasonable doubt. Courts, however, have repeatedly held that educational opportunities are economic or property interests, not matters of freedom. So it seems that there is nothing at all odd about using either the civil justice standard of preponderance, or the tougher standard of clear and convincing evidence. This is where the debate occurs.

In real life, both sides have merit. Preponderance defenders believe, rightly, that in the typical alcohol-fueled interaction any stronger standard will be very difficult to meet. However, it is also true that education, albeit a property interest, is one of special defining importance in our society. So it’s important to be protective of the accused. And the civil standard is probably a bad idea in a setting that lacks the procedural safeguards that are usually present in civil trials. Clear and convincing makes more sense, I believe; but if a school should opt for preponderance—as I said, the Final Rule ultimately, and rather surprisingly, gives institutions a choice between these two—a careful tribunal would probably think in terms of a kind of preponderance plus, not necessarily convicting someone where the evidence suggests a mere 50.5 percent likelihood of guilt. The 50.5 approach would really not be protective enough of the accused. Many preponderance-based tribunals actually interpret the standards somewhat more strongly. Whatever the standard, members of tribunals need better training about the whole issue of evidence and the burden of proof.

A second issue of great importance is the definition of sexual harassment. The campus process typically runs together the two things our legal system has carefully kept apart—namely sexual assault or abuse, and (workplace) sexual harassment. There is no harm in this combination so long as sub-definitions are clearly drawn. Sexual assault is typically defined as a single act, not a pattern of actions: you only need to rape a woman once to be guilty of rape! Sexual harassment, by contrast, has two forms. If there is a quid pro quo, a single act suffices. But in “hostile environment” harassment, the plaintiff needs to show a pattern of actions that are sufficiently “serious” and “pervasive,” as well as “unwelcome.” One demeaning comment or gross overture will not suffice. This distinction seems correct.

In terms of this legal background, the Dear Colleague letter was far from adequate. It defined sexual harassment as “unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature,” including “unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal, non-verbal, or physical conduct of a sexual nature.” This meant in practice that one gross or demeaning comment, with no prior evidence of its unwelcomeness, would be actionable. The Department of Education’s Final Rule, by contrast (Stage Four), hews closely to legal standards accepted elsewhere in our legal system. There are three categories of sexual harassment: (1) “any instance of quid pro quo harassment by a school’s employee,” (2) “any unwelcome conduct that a reasonable person would find so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it denies a person equal educational access”; and (3) “any instance of sexual assault as defined in the Clery Act [a federal statute dealing with campus security], dating violence, domestic violence, or stalking, as defined in the Violence Against Women Act.” In other words, a single unannounced act can still be sexual assault or a quid pro quo, but verbal harassment must form a pattern that meets the Supreme Court standard of pervasiveness and severity, as determined from the point of view of a reasonable observer. The Final Rule protects someone who makes a deeply offensive remark without advance notice of its unwelcomeness and who does not persist.

On most grounds the Department of Education’s Final Rule is an advance over the Obama administration’s rule, and also over the Department of Education’s first rule (Stage Three), under DeVos, which did not include dating violence, domestic violence, or stalking. The Final Rule is perhaps too narrow in its requirement that the accuser show that the harassment is not just severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive, but that it also has a deleterious effect on the person’s equal educational access. Campuses are academic organizations, but they are also social organizations. Social harassment does not always affect someone’s ability to study, and why should that need to be shown? Why isn’t the poisoning of the person’s campus social life sufficient? There are other issues that have been raised, but on balance the “notice and comment” process seems to have worked pretty well.

I shall not go into the details of the various discussions of the questioning and confrontation process in the old and new rules. What I want to focus on, instead, is what I consider to be one of the largest problems with campus tribunals, which has not been addressed by any of these rules: the lack of access to free legal counsel for the accused. Most institutions not only do not provide a lawyer for the accused party; they actively discourage the hiring of lawyers. Typically the accused is permitted to have one supporter or advisor, but when the accused asks if this person can be a lawyer, they are usually discouraged. This is wrong. “Advisors” are typically faculty or administrators who have no legal training and who cannot do an energetic job of defending their client’s rights. And it is also wrong to require people to hire their own lawyers. Free legal assistance would go a long way to dispelling the worries of the twenty-eight Harvard Law School faculty members (Stage Two) about the system’s unfairness. Columbia University does provide free legal counsel for the accused, and so, now, does Harvard Law School (though not the rest of Harvard). My own university has recently begun to implement a policy offering free legal counsel to both defendants and plaintiffs. I have not been able to find out how many other institutions do this. And some federal grant money is available to support accused students at state universities. But the linchpin of our justice system is legal representation. Perhaps this requirement could be waived for minor offenses for which the likely penalty is alcohol counseling, for example; but in cases where the accused faces expulsion it should be mandatory, no matter what it costs. Colleges and universities have many doctors, nurses, and psychologists on their payrolls. And they do have a staff of lawyers, only not for this purpose. They should enlarge their legal departments to include lawyers at the service of students, for just this sort of problem.

I’ve said that tribunals are often poorly trained. The best solution to this problem, since membership of tribunals rotates, is mandatory sexual assault and sexual harassment training for all faculty and administrators. Such training is now required in most universities, as it is in most businesses. At the University of Chicago, each administrator and faculty member must complete the course online every year. It is not perfect, but it does supply a uniform level of awareness.

The Title IX Process

A welcome element of experienced professionalism is now supplied by the presence of Title IX offices on campuses. Typically they do face-to-face training as well as online training, though not as often. But they also play a crucial role through a strong norm of mandatory reporting, which is helping to close the information gap. If a student discloses sexual harassment or assault to any faculty member or administrator, that person is required immediately to inform the Title IX coordinator, giving the complainant’s name. The coordinator will then contact the complainant, typically promising her complete confidentiality and anonymity if she requests it. The complainant usually also has decisional autonomy: nothing will be done, and the alleged perpetrator will not be contacted, unless the complainant gives a go-ahead. Meanwhile the coordinator can advise the complainant about how the process works.

Mandatory reporting is controversial. Many have feared that it will discourage disclosures: the minute you open up to someone you trust, the information also goes to someone else you don’t know. But on the whole mandatory reporting seems wise. The Title IX staff, in my experience, behave with restraint and professionalism, protecting confidentiality. Once faculty and administrators have experience with the coordinators, my experience is that they do come to trust them. And faculty (and others) are relieved of a huge burden of dealing with the whole of a traumatized person’s subsequent life and choices. Faculty usually are not equipped to shoulder this burden, however well-intentioned they are.

The letter by the twenty-eight Harvard Law School professors objected to too much centralized power being vested in the Title IX office, in the scheme at first proposed by Harvard Law School in its attempt to institutionalize the Obama administration standards. The main problem they identified was that the Title IX office did both investigation and adjudication. Their letter was surely correct to say that this setup is very unfair and unwise. Harvard Law School quickly heeded their criticism, separating the two functions. The primary function of the Title IX office should be—and by now for the most part is—investigative and advisory. The tribunals themselves typically consist of faculty, and sometimes administrators, and are constituted according to procedures subject to faculty autonomy and faculty governance. They have many defects, but they are not an alien bureaucracy invading the campus, as the Harvard letter had feared.

We now need to address the gaps in the process that remain, particularly in the area of legal representation.

We have all learned a great deal from these somewhat painful debates. And progress has been made. Although in some ways DeVos has been a polarizing figure, the Final Rule adopted by the Department of Education under her aegis, thanks to the notice-and-comment process, is debatable but still arguably fair. It seems distinctly superior both to the draft rule and to the standards articulated by the Obama administration. We now need to address the gaps in the process that remain, particularly in the area of legal representation.

• Nick Anderson, Susan Svrluga, and Scott Clement, “Survey: More than 1 in 5 Female Undergrads at Top Schools Suffer Sexual Attacks,” Washington Post, September 21, 2015, https://www​.washingtonpost​.com/local/education/survey​-more​-than​-1​-in​-5​-female​-undergrads​-at​-top​-schools​-suffer​-sexual​-attacks/2015/09/19/c6c80be2​-5e29​-11e5​-b38e​-06883aacba64_story​.html​.
• Charlene L. Muehlenhard et al., “Evaluating the One-​in-​Five Statistic: Women’s Risk of Sexual Assault While in College,” Journal of Sex Research 54, no. 4 (May 16, 2017): 565, https://doi​.org/10​.1080/00224499​.2017​.1295014​. As discussed there, evidence does not support the assumption that college students experience more sexual assault than nonstudents.
• In this area, my two research assistants did such superb and meticulous work on this topic, which naturally interested them greatly, that their work is worthy of note in itself and is on file with me: Sarah Hough, “Legal Approaches toward On-​Campus Sexual Violence in the US: A Brief Overview,” unpublished paper, July 1, 2019; and Jared I. Mayer, “Memo on De Vos’s Changes to Campus Title IX Proceedings,” unpublished paper, May 20, 2020.
• National Sexual Violence Resource Center, “Dear Colleague Letter: Sexual Violence” (US Department of Education, Office of Civil Rights, 2011), https://www​.nsvrc​.org/publications/dear​-colleague​-letter​-sexual​-violence​. The NSVRC website also contains much helpful background information.
• See “Department of Education Issues New Interim Guidance on Campus Sexual Misconduct,” US Department of Education, September 22, 2017, https://www​.ed​.gov/news/press​-releases/department​-education​-issues​-new​-interim​-guidance​-campus​-sexual​-misconduct​.
• “Rethink Harvard’s Sexual Harassment Policy” (Opinion), Boston Globe, October 14, 2014, https://www​.bostonglobe​.com/opinion/2014/10/14/rethink​-harvard​-sexual​-harassment​-policy/HFDDiZN7nU2UwuUuWMnqbM/story​.html​.
• For an overview of the notice-​and-​comment system of regulation making, see “A Guide to the Rulemaking Process,” Office of the Federal Register, January 2011, https://www​.federalregister​.gov/uploads/2011/01/the_rulemaking_process​.pdf​.
• “Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in Education Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance,” Federal Register, November 29, 2018, https://www​.federalregister​.gov/documents/2018/11/29/2018​-25314/nondiscrimination​-on​-the​-basis​-of​-sex​-in​-education​-programs​-or​-activities​-receiving​-federal​.
• See 20 U.S.C. § 1681(a) (2018). A helpful memo clarifying the content of the Final Rule is Apalla U. Chopra et al., “Analysis of Key Provisions of the Department of Education’s New Title IX Regulations,” O’Melveny & Myers LLP, May 15, 2020, https://www​.omm​.com/resources/alerts​-and​-publications/alerts/analysis​-of​-key​-provisions​-of​-doe​.
• National Sexual Violence Resource Center, “Dear Colleague Letter.”

Economic Studies

Center for Economic Security and Opportunity

Sarah Reber, Gabriela Goodman, Rina Nagashima

November 7, 2023

Katharine Meyer

July 28, 2023

William A. Galston

July 7, 2023

Find anything you save across the site in your account

Is There a Smarter Way to Think About Sexual Assault on Campus?

By Jia Tolentino

Audio: Listen to this story. To hear more feature stories, download the Audm app for your iPhone.

If I were asked by a survey to describe my experience with sexual assault in college, I would pinpoint two incidents, both of which occurred at or after parties in my freshman year. In the first case, the guy went after me with sniper accuracy, magnanimously giving me a drink he’d poured upstairs. In the second case, I’m sure the guy had no idea that he was doing something wrong. I had joined a sorority, and all my social circles were as sloppy, intense, and tribal as the Greek system—the groups that made these incidents possible are the same ones that made my life at the time so good. In college, everything is Janus-faced: what you interpret as refuge can lead to danger, and vice versa. One of the most highly valorized social activities, blacking out and hooking up, holds the potential for trauma within it like a seed.

I got to thinking about this—and picturing my college self as a sort of avatar in an extended risk simulation—after talking with Jennifer Hirsch and Claude Ann Mellins, at Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health, in Washington Heights, on a biting, windy day last December. Hirsch, an anthropologist, and Mellins, a clinical psychologist, are Columbia professors. Both women are in their fifties, have shoulder-length brown hair, and grew up in Jewish families in Manhattan. They share a sharp, maternal pragmatism—between them, they have five sons, ranging in age from fifteen to twenty-three. For the past three years, they have been leading a $2.2-million research project on the sexual behavior of Columbia undergraduates. The project is called SHIFT , which stands for the Sexual Health Initiative to Foster Transformation.

The problem of campus sexual assault can seem unfathomable and intractable. We generally think of it as a matter of individual misbehavior, which, various studies have shown, most prevention programs do little to change. But Hirsch and Mellins think about sexual assault socio-ecologically: as a matter of how people act within a particular environment. They are doggedly optimistic that there is, if not a single fix, a series of new solutions.

Watch “The Backstory”: Jia Tolentino discusses reporting on campus sexual assault.

A four-year residential college is what sociologists call a total institution: it controls the conditions under which students eat, sleep, work, and party. “You can just imagine all these contextual dimensions in college that could be tinkered with to create a less stressful, less hard-drinking, more respectful environment,” Hirsch said. The assumption is that some college students are committing sexual assault when they don’t intend to, and that many are more vulnerable to sexual harm than they ought to be. Either idea can be controversial, and focussing on contributing factors, such as drinking, rather than just on the bad acts of perpetrators, can seem beside the point. But Hirsch and Mellins insist that their approach to prevention does not ignore personal responsibility; rather, it aims to nudge students toward responsible behavior on a collective scale. The first time we met, on Columbia’s main campus, Hirsch put it to me more plainly: “We have to stop working one penis at a time!”

SHIFT was born out of a crisis. In the past several years, as students all over the country became more vocal about the problem of rape in college, the press seized on a series of dramatic incidents, including one at Columbia. A rare combination of academic talent and initiative was then unleashed by the university, which may have felt the need to demonstrate its commitment to the cause, and this produced, after two years of sunup-to-sundown effort, the most rigorous, nuanced, and wide-ranging examination of the problem that has ever been carried out on a college campus. “It’s better for universities if sexual assault is positioned as a matter of sexual health, rather than as a scary threat,” the journalist Vanessa Grigoriadis, who published a book last year, “Blurred Lines,” about sexual assault on campus, told me. She added, “We’re in a new phase of the movement.”

You can trace that movement back at least four decades, to 1977, when a senior at Yale named Ann Olivarius—along with another student, three graduates, and a male professor—sued the school, citing quid-pro-quo sexual harassment by professors, a hostile environment, and a lack of reporting procedures. The plaintiffs, advised by a recent Yale Law graduate named Catharine MacKinnon, argued that this was a violation of Title IX—the federal statute, passed five years before, that prohibits gender discrimination in educational institutions. The women lost the case, but the district court ruled that it was “perfectly reasonable to maintain that academic advancement conditioned upon submission to sexual demands constitutes sex discrimination in education.” Two years later, MacKinnon published her landmark book, “Sexual Harassment of Working Women,” which argued that “economic power is to sexual harassment as physical force is to rape.”

The proper scope of Title IX was argued in court over and over in the years that followed; rulings narrowed its application, then expanded it again. Meanwhile, anti-rape activism progressed on campuses across the country. Take Back the Night marches, which had begun in the seventies, became a feature of college life in the eighties; Columbia’s first Take Back the Night march was held, in front of the Barnard gates, in 1988. The Columbia University Senate passed the first school-wide sexual-assault policy in 1995—it required that complaints be handled through an alternative form of the school’s standard disciplinary procedure. Student activists weren’t satisfied: they wanted the deans who handled sexual-assault cases to receive additional training, and they wanted to know how many incidents were being reported. They staged a prolonged campaign that culminated, in 1999, in a twenty-three-hour vigil, during which hundreds of students marched through campus shouting, “Red tape can’t cover up rape!”

Seven years ago, the Office of Civil Rights, under President Obama, issued a “Dear Colleague” letter, reasserting that sexual violence on campus was a violation of Title IX, and pushing universities to handle sexual-assault cases in a timely, transparent, accuser-friendly manner. A year later, the Department of Justice expanded its definition of rape to include male victims and multiple types of violations. (The previous definition—“the carnal knowledge of a female, forcibly and against her will”—had been in place since 1927.) Today, the D.O.J. defines sexual assault as unwanted sexual contact, which means that groping counts, as does attempted assault. The crime hinges on intention, and there are often no witnesses, which makes it uniquely difficult to adjudicate in any legal system, let alone one made up of college administrators. Campus judiciary systems don’t have a criminal court’s investigative powers or evidentiary procedures, but they do have many of a criminal court’s responsibilities. To complicate matters further, everyone involved in the process—accuser, accused, administrator—essentially works under the same roof. Betsy DeVos, Trump’s Secretary of Education, has called the current approach a “failed system,” and said that she would seek to replace it.

Link copied

It might seem simpler to let the criminal-justice system handle things, but universities have a responsibility to insure that women have equal access to education. And, in addition, many students prefer to address these matters outside that system—they don’t necessarily want to send their assaulters to prison, and they may not be able to prove their cases beyond a reasonable doubt. Columbia now has twenty-three staffers with Title IX responsibilities, including case managers, investigators, and administrators, and provides free legal services to accusers and accused. The school’s gender-based misconduct policy is thirty-one pages long.

Freshman year at Columbia, as at any college, can be overwhelming: awkward encounters at parties in the “social dorm,” where the long wooden doors can be taken down to serve as beer-pong tables; a rush to find a home base in extracurriculars and clubs. Juliana Kaplan, a Barnard junior, told me, “On the one hand, you have kids at Columbia who come from kings of Wall Street—you have a secret society based completely on wealth. On the other, you have a demographic of first-generation, low-income students of color. People come in through very different contexts.” When I asked her about the tenor of student conversation on sexual assault, she told me, “I try to remember that some people have been super aware of these issues for their whole life, due to any number of factors, and then there are some people, such as men, who have to actively learn about it while they’re here.”

Five years ago, a Columbia sophomore named Emma Sulkowicz filed a complaint with the university, accusing another student of rape. (Sulkowicz, who has been working as an artist since graduation, identifies as non-binary, and uses the gender-neutral pronouns “they” and “them.”) A consensual encounter on the first day of the school year had turned violent, Sulkowicz alleged: in the midst of sex, the student anally penetrated and choked them while they struggled and told him to stop. (He has consistently maintained that the entire encounter was consensual.) Sulkowicz decided to report the incident after another student said that she’d had a similar experience with the same man. Columbia held a series of hearings and found the man “not responsible,” and Sulkowicz was subsequently denied an appeal. The following April, twenty-three students and alumni, each with a story of assault, filed a hundred-page federal complaint against the university. Student activists formed a group called No Red Tape, evoking the protests of the nineties. When the fall semester began, Sulkowicz, an art major, started carrying a fifty-pound, twin XL mattress around campus. It was a performance project: they would stop carrying it, they said, when the student who had raped them was expelled. (Sulkowicz carried it until graduation; the man they accused later sued Columbia, arguing that the university’s support of the project, for which Sulkowicz had received academic credit, constituted gender discrimination, negligence, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The university settled with him out of court.) Soon after Sulkowicz began carrying the mattress, dozens of other Columbia students brought mattresses to the steps of Low Library and told their own stories of sexual assault.

It was around this time that Jennifer Hirsch attended a meeting of Columbia’s Women’s, Gender, and Sexuality Studies Council, where faculty members gathered in a conference room and picked over a catered breakfast. She sat next to Suzanne Goldberg, who at the time was a special adviser to Columbia’s president, Lee Bollinger, on the subject of sexual-assault prevention and response. The debates concerning rape on campus and what to do about it have been waged primarily between students and administrators, with professors off to the side. Hirsch had become frustrated by the focus, in those debates, on adjudication and punishment, rather than on the ways in which the environment of college makes students vulnerable. As the meeting ended, and people began collecting their things, Hirsch turned to Goldberg and spontaneously proposed conducting an ethnography: she would interview students, learn the everyday context of their sex lives, document the stories that the university couldn’t see. Goldberg said that sounded terrific, and told Hirsch to write up a few pages pitching the project.

A couple of weeks later, Hirsch popped into Mellins’s office, two floors down from hers in the Mailman building. The two professors have been friends since 2005, when Hirsch, who teaches in the sociomedical-sciences department, began doing work at the H.I.V. center at Columbia, which Mellins co-directs. Hirsch handed Mellins the paper she’d drafted, and began peppering her with questions. Mellins was the lead author of a 2011 study into the mental health, drug use, and sexual behavior of adolescents who had been infected with H.I.V. in the womb or as infants. She knew something about discussing uncomfortable matters with young people, and quantifying those conversations for research purposes. She answered Hirsch’s questions, and started asking her own.

Hirsch looked at her closely. “Do you want to do this with me?” she asked.

They spent the next few weeks brainstorming—on the phone, over e-mail, in each other’s offices, on whiteboards. They thought about the relevant expertise of their colleagues. Who really knew about interpersonal violence? Who really knew about epidemiology? Statistics? Trauma in young adults? As the fall turned crisp, they tracked down the faculty members whose help they wanted, and asked them if they would join SHIFT . In November, 2014, they submitted their proposal, and Goldberg quickly secured the university’s approval.

Goldberg, who is in her mid-fifties and speaks with a flat, equanimous affect, became Columbia’s first executive vice-president for university life in 2015. She has a long career of progressive advocacy—she was a co-counsel for the defendants in Lawrence v. Texas, which nullified Texas’s sodomy law. She leads Columbia Law School’s Center for Gender and Sexuality Law, and she was integral to the development of SHIFT . (“We had many breakfasts,” Hirsch explained.) But she has become a maligned figure among student activists. Amelia Roskin-Frazee, a senior involved with No Red Tape, spoke to me dismissively about the Sexual Respect Initiative, a consent-education requirement, instituted by Goldberg in 2014, that included an arts option: students could write a poem, submit a drawing, or perform a dance. When I asked Goldberg about this criticism, she said, “The initiative meets students where they are.”

Roskin-Frazee is a queer activist who, at fourteen, founded a nonprofit that provides schools and shelters with L.G.B.T.Q.-themed books. She is currently suing Columbia. She says that, two months after arriving on campus, she was violently raped in her dorm room by a stranger, and that, a few months later, she was raped again, by an assailant she suspects to be the same person. (She told me more than once that she knew this was not a typical campus assault; last year, she wrote a piece for HuffPost criticizing the notion that “true stranger rapes” are any more serious than those committed by people who know their victims.) She asked to move out of her dorm room, and alleges that Columbia violated Title IX by requiring her to do so within twenty-four hours, and telling her it would cost five hundred dollars. Columbia has moved to dismiss Roskin-Frazee’s lawsuit, arguing that she obstructed her own investigation by waiting months to file an official report. In October of last year, with a group of protesters, Roskin-Frazee barged into one of Goldberg’s law classes to publicly accuse her of endangering student survivors.

The creation of SHIFT was announced to the university at the end of February, 2015, in an e-mail from President Bollinger. Hirsch and Mellins began soliciting applications for a paid undergraduate advisory board, ultimately selecting a dozen or so students, including members of the Greek system, student-government leaders, a ballerina in Columbia’s General Studies program, anti-sexual-assault activists, a sex educator, a Barnard student, and an R.A. For the next two years, when school was in session, the group met over bagels at 8 A . M . every Monday. The board created a typology of Columbia students—the hyper-involved, the completely disinterested, the kids who find their thing and stick to it—and corrected the researchers in their sometimes fumbling attempts to classify student identities. (Each time they pointed out such a mistake, one student-board member told me, the researchers’ eyes would pop in surprise, and then they’d come back the next week saying, “We had seventeen meetings since the last time we saw you, and we’re going to do what you say.”) The students planned promotional events, setting up SHIFT tables outside the dining hall and the gym. They brought the researchers, who answered questions for students, and made sure they always had snacks. “Snacks, we learned, were a really big thing,” Hirsch said.

Meanwhile, Hirsch and the Columbia sociologist Shamus Khan prepared a team of ethnographers—current and recent grad students, who were close to their subjects in age—to talk with undergraduates about intimate subjects. These interviews would be the first big component of SHIFT ’s information-gathering. The ethnographers began, that fall, with “participant observation”—i.e., hanging around football games and drinking club soda at student bars. Shortly afterward, a story appeared in the student newspaper the Daily Spectator , in which an unnamed sophomore said that Khan had been spotted taking notes at 1020, a popular bar near campus. (The plans for the ethnographic research had been announced in the Daily Spectator months before.) The story was picked up by the Post , which reported that “Columbia University researchers are spying on the school’s students at bars and campus parties as part of a new study about sexual health and violence—and the students say it’s creeping them out.”

In fact, by all accounts, the process went pretty smoothly. Some students, after talking to the researchers for a while, invited them to parties, or to kick it in dorm rooms. Many university employees are required to report sexual assault to the Title IX coördinator, but the researchers received a waiver so that they could promise students confidentiality while engaged in SHIFT research. Alexander Wamboldt, an affable, bearded Princeton Ph.D. who worked as a SHIFT ethnographer, told me that it was important, in these encounters, to “model good, consensual research behavior”—he announced his name and his purpose, along with a disclaimer about confidentiality, before entering a conversation. He and the other researchers conducted one-on-one interviews with a hundred and fifty-one students about their sex lives and their experiences at Columbia. (Students were paid for the time they spent in these interviews.) Hirsch and Khan sorted through the data and adjusted their approach when they weren’t getting all the information they needed. Wamboldt was hired to focus on so-called high-status men, such as those involved in athletics and fraternities, a group of students who hadn’t, up to that point, spoken much with the ethnographers, perhaps wary of the possibility that they’d be portrayed badly in whatever the researchers wrote up.

The interviews were bracing. Talking about sex brings a lot to the surface—students discussed loss, family, trauma, hardship, fear. Some of the men Wamboldt spoke to cracked offhand jokes about having been raped. The members of the ethnography team soon decided that they needed to do a mental-health check-in at their weekly meetings: they would go around the room, and everyone would relate how he or she was coping with the work.

In one advisory-board meeting, Mellins and Hirsch shared preliminary observations, and Mellins brought up affirmative consent—the practice of actively, mutually soliciting enthusiasm throughout a sexual encounter, which is now the legal standard for universities in New York and California. Most college students learn about it in orientation seminars or from online modules that they are required to complete. Mellins told the administrators that affirmative consent rarely factored into the experiences that students were describing.

“One of our institutional advisers pretty much fell off her chair,” Mellins told me. “She said, ‘How can it not be a thing? We’re working so hard to teach them.’ And our point was: there’s a really broad disjuncture between what students learn and what they actually practice.” The researchers found that the practice is much simpler to understand than its detractors, who tend to picture a stack of paperwork accompanying every make-out session, seem to think—and also less common than its proponents would like to believe. ( SHIFT plans to publish a paper on affirmative consent later this year.)

Hirsch and Mellins launched the second phase of the study, an enormous daily-diary project, in October. Four hundred and twelve students were asked to fill out a short online questionnaire every day for sixty days. (The student board convinced the researchers that the only way to maintain subject participation through midterms was to pay: diarists got a dollar an entry.) The idea was that researchers would be able to quickly scan each twenty-four-hour period for mood, sleep, sexual activity, substance use, and unusual experiences. The pool of data could then be parsed for patterns and fine-grained interactions. Researchers might find, for example, that unwanted sexual contact is more likely to occur in the midst of other crises, or after a person has experienced unwanted sexual attention in another setting.

In January, 2016, the SHIFT team recruited students for Part 3: a sweeping, onetime survey. The student board roped in peers with the promise of gift cards, and by talking to them about how important the project was, how it could show that Columbia took sexual assault more seriously than other universities, and how, if they participated, they’d get snacks. (Students who took the survey in SHIFT ’s temporary office got fruit, candy, pizza, and chips.)

The survey contains hundreds of questions, many of them startlingly intimate. It seems likely that no previous survey has so accurately reflected how sexual assault actually occurs in college—as an event embedded within the fabric of everyday life, which both perpetrator and victim understand based on their background, their habits, their state of mind. The survey asks students about sleep, exercise, eating habits, mental health, where they get alcohol, what sort of dorm room they live in, where they party and how. It asks about money, family, friends, their sexual experiences before college, their sense of agency and of self-worth. It asks about gender identity and attraction, about the moments just before an incident—who was around, what was happening—and what followed, immediately and in the long term. It asks about consent: if students expect their partners to ask, if they think it’s a matter of body language, if they think that asking once at the beginning of a hookup is fine. It asks about attitudes regarding sex and gender, sussing out common cultural biases: To what degree do they think that women lie to get ahead? Do they think that men should reveal vulnerability? Do they believe that it can’t be rape if both people are drunk? Are they not at all sure, a little sure, somewhat sure, pretty sure, or very sure that they could say no to having sex with someone if they want to date that person? What if they want the person to fall in love with them, or if the person won’t use a condom? What if they’ve had sex with the person before?

Twenty-five hundred Columbia and Barnard undergraduates were invited to participate in SHIFT ’s survey, and sixty-seven per cent of them did so. I took the survey myself one day at the end of December—answering in the present, as a twenty-nine-year-old, and thinking about how I would have answered at eighteen. In the course of a half hour, I felt nauseated, and then oddly comforted, by how well the questions were outlining my life. A detailed constellation emerged of all the things that had protected me in college: a chemically stable disposition, satisfying relationships, a sense of control over my experience at school, a lack of confusion about what I wanted sex to be. My vulnerabilities—a certain recklessness, a freshman-year social life that depended on spaces and substances provided by men—were just as clear. I could see the desires and the habits, sexual and otherwise, that traced the path between then and now. I started to wonder if the research that SHIFT is producing might start closing the gap between two seemingly contradictory realities. Sexual assault on campus is frequently portrayed as lurid and dark and complex. But the experiences that live in our heads are often obvious and ordinary, sometimes heartbreakingly so. SHIFT is, in a sense, a reporting project of unprecedented scale, a map that genuinely reflects the size of the territory. It could be one of the first endeavors to show the magnitude and the texture of the problem at the same time.

S HIFT ’s research concluded in the fall of 2017. Since then, the team has been analyzing the data and preparing to publish a slew of papers about the results in peer-reviewed journals. (In December, Hirsch and Khan sold a book about SHIFT , tentatively titled “The Sexual Project,” to Norton, to be published in 2019.) The first paper, which appeared in the open-access online journal PLOS ONE in November, laid out what the team learned about the frequency of sexual assault at Columbia. Sexual-assault research is notoriously contested and spotty—many regularly cited statistics come from studies with big design flaws, such as small sample sizes, or loose definitions of “college student.” The record-setting response rate for the SHIFT survey makes its data unusually comprehensive and reliable. In certain important respects, its numbers are in keeping with previous findings: a little more than one in five respondents said they had experienced sexual assault since starting college—twenty-eight per cent of women, twelve per cent of men, and nearly forty per cent of gender-nonconforming students. (The survey did not use the term “sexual assault”; it asked about “unwanted sexual contact.”) But there were also surprises. It’s long been established that women and L.G.B.T.Q. students are especially vulnerable to assault; SHIFT found that students who are struggling to pay for basic necessities are, too. Men in fraternities are, in fact, more likely than other male students to be perpetrators; SHIFT found that they were more likely than other men to be victims as well. A culture that doesn’t teach men to ask for consent often doesn’t teach them that they can withhold it, either.

Hirsch and Mellins avoid the term “rape culture” when discussing their work. I’ve never liked that phrase, not because it doesn’t name something real but because it emphasizes the way that the world is already prepared to hurt me, rather than emphasizing my personal, and not entirely predictable, relationship to the world. (As Jennifer Doyle, an English professor at the University of California, Riverside, puts it in her book “Campus Sex, Campus Security,” the term distances sexual violence from “the force of the ordinary.”) Hirsch and Mellins often talk about “sexual citizenship,” which they define as a “person’s understanding of his or her right, and other people’s equivalent right, to sexual self-determination.” In the conference room at the Mailman building, Hirsch told me, “Part of what I see our work doing is disrupting these scripts that women give consent and men secure it—that men are sexual agents and women are gatekeepers, which is affirmed by consent education that frames men exclusively as potential perpetrators.”

“Of course, you don’t want to minimize the fact that women are still holding the burden on this, in terms of absolute numbers,” Mellins said. She hesitated. “But you want to work in a way where there isn’t a single story.” A trans student who is assaulted at a party is experiencing something different from a freshman girl whose hookup is ignoring her protests in a dorm room. Both of them are experiencing something different from a boy who has never imagined that he would ever give or receive a no. Mellins pointed to an article about a Brown University student who’d been assaulted in a bathroom by another man, and then, later that day, attended a standard prevention workshop, where he felt entirely alone. “If you don’t give someone permission to be at risk, then they can’t seek help,” Mellins said.

The researchers discussed their findings with the student board—they’re all still in a group chat together—and also with administrators. Certain fixes, they’ve realized, are impossible to implement. All college students would benefit from drinking alcohol in a gentler manner: often with food, rarely in basements. But colleges can’t encourage that among underage students without breaking federal law. When I was talking with Hirsch and Mellins, I thought about my own experience with the Greek system. The National Panhellenic Conference, which adheres to rather antiquated gender norms, forbids sororities from holding parties where alcohol is served, which means that, at many schools, the most accessible parties for freshmen take place on fraternity terms, and on fraternity turf.

Every school’s environment is different—where students drink, how they get home from parties, the geographies and the conditions of their vulnerability—and the nudges and interventions have to vary accordingly. But Hirsch and Mellins hope that their research can serve as the beginning of a network of innovative cross-campus studies. In the meantime, they’re talking to administrators about the interrelationship of mental health, substance abuse, and sexual assault, and about how different types of incidents and different types of students require different types of prevention and response. Many of these conversations have echoed long-standing conclusions in public-health research, and also what some students are already asking for: more crisis support, more consideration for specific populations, more access to spaces on campus that feel like their own. “I’m grateful the SHIFT team chose to do this,” Roskin-Frazee told me. “I hope they are persuasive to administrators who are not easily persuaded.”

One night in January, I called Emma Sulkowicz to talk about Hirsch and Mellins’s project. Sulkowicz was disarming and philosophical, despite having spent five hours in the dentist’s chair earlier that day. Sulkowicz had not heard about SHIFT before, and was politely resistant to the idea: “My view in this whole thing is that, the more that Columbia can retreat behind ‘Here’s a program, here’s a study, here’s a process,’ the less that any human that finds themselves in this machine will ever be incentivized to act based on their moral compass.”

What if, I asked, the idea behind the study was tinkering with the machine, figuring out how to reorient that moral compass?

“That makes me think of asking someone to wash the dishes, and they tell you, ‘I’ll try,’ ” Sulkowicz said. “I think that’s the difference between spending two million dollars to try to understand the conditions that create a community that’s conducive to sexual assault versus just doing the right thing—expelling people who sexually assault other students.”

Sulkowicz wants to change behavior, too, but thinks that punishment is more efficacious than tweaks to campus life. When Columbia settled the lawsuit filed by the man Sulkowicz accused of rape, it put out a statement, noting that his “remaining time at Columbia became very difficult for him and not what Columbia would want any of its students to experience.” But Sulkowicz believes that what he went through had a salutary effect. “He’s been scared shitless,” they said. (The man’s lawyer called this statement “preposterous,” and said that he had done nothing wrong.)

Sulkowicz also said something that I kept hearing from Columbia students: “It’s about finding a way to make your institution, and the people who run it, more human.” Earlier that week, I’d spoken to a former SHIFT student-board member named Morgan Hughes, a laid-back twenty-three-year-old hip-hop musician. She called me from a coffee shop in Cleveland, where she’d moved after graduation. She had been a disengaged student, by her own account, mainly focussed on her music. Her friends at school, most of whom were people of color, had found it difficult to secure space and permission from Columbia to hold their own events, she told me. “Everything is so regulated, so limited, everything’s super uptight,” she said. “Columbia always says they’re listening, taking students into account, and then they turn around and make a decision that doesn’t acknowledge any of that conversation. But SHIFT did listen. They changed their agenda based on what we talked about. It didn’t feel like we were just wasting our breath.”

Would SHIFT make things different at Columbia? “Every four years, there’s a new student body, and I think Columbia is used to just waiting it out,” she said. “But this time there are professors involved. Shamus Khan is going to be there, Jennifer Hirsch is going to be there. It’s up to Columbia if they want to shoot themselves in the foot and ignore it, but people are actually paying attention to this.” She paused, and coffee-shop noises tinkled in the background. “I mean, Columbia, you should want to solve the problem, so you don’t keep having to solve the problem , you know what I mean?”

The question now is whether Columbia values SHIFT as a flagship research project or as a practical guide to institutional change. I asked Goldberg, over the phone, whether she thought Columbia would change after SHIFT . She had spoken carefully throughout our conversation, seeming to calibrate every word against the various, sometimes competing interests that she’s expected to balance. “I think,” she said, “that SHIFT ’s research is profoundly important to the work we are doing here.” It will be difficult, under Title IX, for people who live or work on campus to entirely separate sex from bureaucracy. When I asked Mellins what she hopes to ultimately accomplish with SHIFT , she said, “I’m a clinician. I’ve come to feel that, if the work we do makes the lives of even a small amount of students better, that’s what we want. We want to eradicate sexual assault, but, short of that, I think we just want to make a difference.”

The SHIFT approach, for all its rigor and scope, is in some ways remarkably modest: the idea is that small structural adjustments to student life could change how students interact with one another—help them find their moral compass more easily, feel more at home on campus, have some obstacles cleared out of their path. These humble expectations can seem deflating. But SHIFT makes a powerful argument that sexual-violence prevention must embrace the ordinary and the particular. Its programming suggestions may matter less than its potential to transform how people think about the problem. At one point in my conversation with Hirsch, she brought up an optimistic analogy. Forty years ago, alcohol played a role in more than sixty per cent of traffic deaths. Since then, a comprehensive, multilevel campaign against drunk driving has cut that number in half. This required institutional change, in the form of new laws, and social change, as school and community programs taught people to designate a driver and to intervene when a wobbly friend grabbed his car keys. It also involved changes to the physical environment: cities established police checkpoints, and offenders were required to install Breathalyzer locks on their cars. Citizens lobbied for better street lights, more speed bumps.

A version of this thinking applies to life in college: there are checkpoints and speed bumps that could decrease the likelihood of harm. Picture the freshman who’s depressed but doesn’t realize it, or can’t get an appointment at the counselling office, or doesn’t trust the counsellors. It’s easier to just drink twenty beers each weekend. On one of those weekends, he goes to a party and meets a girl who hasn’t slept in two days and is subsisting on cereal; she didn’t want to come to this party, but her roommates gave her an iced-tea bottle full of Fireball and dragged her out. The boy and the girl start talking. Their friends cheer when they make out. At 2 A.M. , when the party begins to clear, one of them says they should get a bite, but no place on campus is open. They go to her bedroom, but there’s nowhere comfortable to sit except the bed. What happens next is a blur of mismatched fears and assumptions. The girl panics, freezes, thinks the guy will hurt her if she yells at him, starts making horrible calculations of futility: anyone who hears this story will think it’s her fault for inviting him in. The guy, having half-deliberately drunk himself beyond conscious decision-making, ignores her stiffness and whatever she’s mumbling; he thinks he’s doing exactly what college students are supposed to do. There are at least a dozen small changes beyond their control that might have led to a different outcome. There will always be people, mostly men, who experience a power differential as license to do what they want. But SHIFT proposes that it is possible to protect potential victims and potential perpetrators simultaneously, and that we are, at this moment, less eager to hurt one another than we seem to be. ♦

By signing up, you agree to our User Agreement and Privacy Policy & Cookie Statement . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

By Jeannie Suk Gersen

By Joan Didion

• Follow us on Facebook
• Follow us on Twitter
• Criminal Justice
• Environment
• Politics & Government
• Race & Gender

Expert Commentary

Sexual assault and rape on U.S. college campuses: Research roundup

2014 review of government reports and scholarship on the issue of sexual assault and rape on campus, as well as prevention, risks and related cultural dynamics.

Republish this article

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License .

by Kristina Mastropasqua, The Journalist's Resource September 22, 2015

This <a target="_blank" href="https://journalistsresource.org/education/sexual-assault-rape-us-college-campuses-research-roundup/">article</a> first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="https://journalistsresource.org">The Journalist's Resource</a> and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.<img src="https://journalistsresource.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/cropped-jr-favicon-150x150.png" style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">

Institutions of higher learning across the United States have been rocked by reports of rape and sexual assault . Federal, state and local officials have become involved , as schools work to revise their policies and procedures to prevent further incidents. A survey commissioned by the Association of American Universities, the results of which were released in September 2015 , found that more than 27% of female college seniors reported having experienced some form of unwanted sexual contact since entering college. Meanwhile, two high-profile lawsuits have kept the topic of college sexual assault in the national spotlight. In 2015, a former Florida State University student filed a lawsuit against the school for its handling of her sexual assault report and another against former Florida State football star  Jameis Winston, who she has accused of raping her in 2012 .

The research on many facets of these problems is incomplete, but new reports and data-rich studies can help deepen perspective. In December 2014, the federal Bureau of Justice Statistics released a report focusing on nearly 20 years of data related to rape and sexual assault among women ages 18 to 24. In 2014, President Obama appointed the White House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assaults. During the research phase, the Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network (RAINN) provided the White House with an extensive list of recommendations urging “the task force to remain focused on the true cause of the problem,” pointing out that rape is “not caused by cultural factors but by the conscious decisions of a small percentage of the community to commit a violent crime.” In fact, RAINN points out that research suggests 90% of rapes at colleges are perpetrated by 3% of college men — indicating a real issue of repeat offenders.

Part of RAINN’s recommendations includes a three-tiered approach to prevention: (1) Bystander intervention education: empowering community members to act in response to acts of sexual violence; (2) Risk-reduction messaging: empowering members of the community to take steps to increase their personal safety; and (3), General education to promote understanding of the law, particularly as it relates to the ability to consent.

Similarly, researchers with the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Department of Justice prepared a report, “ Preventing Sexual Violence on College Campuses: Lessons from Research and Practice ,” for use by the White House Task Force. The report cites the proven effectiveness of high-school sexual violence prevention programs, which might be effectively translated into college campaigns. One of the report’s authors, Sarah DeGue, cites a 2013 study — a systematic qualitative review of risk and protective factors for sexual violence perpetration — that finds a high correlation between sexual assault and alcohol use. Therefore, college campuses that can curb the number of nearby liquor stores and instances of binge drinking could potentially reduce the number of assaults.

Although there are thousands of colleges and universities in the United States, the CDC reports that just “over 125 college and university campuses across the U.S. have affiliations with CDC’s Rape Prevention and Education program to facilitate the implementation of sexual violence prevention strategies and activities.” While much more research is needed in order to determine meaningful methodologies in preventing rape and sexual assault on campuses, the report suggests, some significant first steps would be for universities to work to build trust between administrators and the student body and to implement routine anonymous surveys for students to safely express their experiences with sexual (mis)conduct on campus.

After conducting thousands of interviews with various stakeholders, the White House released its final report in April 2014: “ Not Alone: The First Report of the White House Task Force to Protect Students From Sexual Assault .” By increasing awareness and researching new methods for prevention, the project’s goal is to dramatically reduce the number of students — primarily female — who are sexually assaulted on campus, which stands at one in five, according to the federal Campus Sexual Assault (CSA) Study of 2006. A 2014 report from the National Crime Victimization Survey suggests a lower rate among college students, and journalists have noted that there is now a “dueling data” quality to these conflicting reports. (The 2006 CSA Study found that 6.1% of college males were victims of either attempted or completed sexual assault.)

The “Not Alone” report makes a series of key recommendations that begin with gauging the scope of the crisis through routine, anonymous, campus-wide surveys. From there, the Task Force encourages universities to engage their male students and encourage them to step in when someone is in trouble and become part of the solution. In addition the government has created a new website, NotAlone.gov , which provides more transparency on the issue by providing information and pathways for reporting problems.

The report also encourages universities to work to clarify what is — and what is not — consent. This is a major debate that both Time magazine and Philadelphia Magazine have covered recently. A 2013 study explores variables, such as violence, intoxication, and prior romantic relationships, that can impact acknowledged versus unacknowledged sexual assault among college women. Research has found that incoming first-year college students subscribe to a wide variety of “myths” about rape.

Below is a selection of further studies that explore the general issue of sexual assault and rape on campus, as well as prevention, risks and related cultural dynamics:

“Sexual Assault on the College Campus: Fraternity Affiliation, Male Peer Support, and Low Self-Control” Franklin, Courtney A.; Bouffard, Leana Allen; Pratt, Travis C. Criminal Justice and Behavior , 2012, Vol. 39, 1457, doi: 10.1177/0093854812456527.

Abstract: “Research on college sexual assault has focused on offender behavior to understand why men perpetrate sexual violence. Dominant theories have incorporated forms of male peer support paying particular attention to the impact of rape-supportive social relationships on woman abuse. In contrast, Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory of crime proposes that low self-control predicts crime and other related life outcomes – including the kinds of antisocial peer relationships that the male peer support model contends causes sexual violence. The exclusion of measures of self-control on sexual assault may result in a misspecified peer support model. Accordingly, the current research empirically tests Schwartz and DeKeseredy’s male peer support model and examines the role of self-control in the larger male peer support model of sexual assault. Implications for theory and research are discussed.”

“A Randomized Controlled Trial Targeting Alcohol Use and Sexual Assault Risk among College Women at High Risk for Victimization” Gilmore, Amanda K.; Lewis, Melissa A.; George, William. Behaviour Research and Therapy , August 2015. doi: 10.1016/j.brat.2015.08.007.

Abstract: “Current sexual assault risk reduction programs do not target alcohol use despite the widespread knowledge that alcohol use is a risk factor for being victimized. The current study assessed the effectiveness of a web-based combined sexual assault risk and alcohol use reduction program using a randomized control trial. A total of 207 college women between the ages of 18 and 20 who engaged in heavy episodic drinking were randomized to one of five conditions: full assessment only control condition, sexual assault risk reduction condition, alcohol use reduction condition, combined sexual assault risk and alcohol use reduction condition, and a minimal assessment only condition. Participants completed a 3-month follow-up survey on alcohol-related sexual assault outcomes, sexual assault outcomes, and alcohol use outcomes. Significant interactions revealed that women with higher incidence and severity of sexual assault at baseline experienced less incapacitated attempted or completed rapes, less incidence/severity of sexual assaults, and engaged in less heavy episodic drinking compared to the control condition at the 3-month follow-up. Web-based risk reduction programs targeting both sexual assault and alcohol use may be the most effective way to target the highest risk sample of college students for sexual assault: those with a sexual assault history and those who engage in heavy episodic drinking.”

“Correlates of Rape while Intoxicated in a National Sample of College Women” Mohler, Meichun; Dowdall, George W.; Koss, Mary P.; Wechsler, Henry. Journal of Studies on Alcohol , January 2004, Vol. 65, 37-45.

Abstract: “ Objective: Heavy alcohol use is widespread among college students, particularly in those social situations where the risk of rape rises. Few studies have provided information on rapes of college women that occur when they are intoxicated. The purpose of the present study was to present prevalence data for rape under the condition of intoxication when the victim is unable to consent and to identify college and individual-level risk factors associated with that condition. Method: The study utilizes data from 119 schools participating in three Harvard School of Public Health College Alcohol Study surveys. The analytic sample of randomly selected students includes 8,567 women in the 1997 survey, 8,425 in the 1999 survey, and 6,988 in the 2001 survey. Results : Roughly one in 20 (4.7%) women reported being raped. Nearly three quarters (72%) of the victims experienced rape while intoxicated. Women who were under 21, were white, resided in a sorority house, used illicit drugs, drank heavily in high school and attended colleges with high rates of heavy episodic drinking were at higher risk of rape while intoxicated. Conclusions : The high proportion of rapes found to occur when women were intoxicated indicates the need for alcohol prevention programs on campuses that address sexual assault, both to educate men about what constitutes rape and to advise women of risky situations. The findings that some campus environments are associated with higher levels of both drinking and rape will help target rape prevention programs at colleges.”

“ Women’s Risk Perception and Sexual Victimization: A Review of the Literature ” Gidycz, Christine A.; McNamara, John R.; Edwards, Katie M. Aggression and Violent Behavior, September-October 2012, Vol. 11, Issue 5, 441-456, doi: 10.1016/j.avb.2006.01.004.

Abstract: “This article reviews empirical and theoretical studies that examined the relationship between risk perception and sexual victimization in women. Studies examining women’s general perceptions of risk for sexual assault as well as their ability to identify and respond to threat in specific situations are reviewed. Theoretical discussions of the optimistic bias and cognitive–ecological models of risk recognition are discussed in order to account for findings in the literature. Implications for interventions with women as well as recommendations for future research are provided.”

“Bystander Education Training for Campus Sexual Assault Prevention: An Initial Meta-analysis” Katz, J.; Moore, J. Violence and Victims , 2013, Vol. 28, Issue 6, 1054-1067.

Abstract: “The present meta-analysis evaluated the effectiveness of bystander education programs for preventing sexual assault in college communities. Undergraduates trained in bystander education for sexual assault were expected to report more favorable attitudes, behavioral proclivities, and actual behaviors relative to untrained controls. Data from 12 studies of college students (N = 2,926) were used to calculate 32 effect sizes. Results suggested moderate effects of bystander education on both bystander efficacy and intentions to help others at risk. Smaller but significant effects were observed regarding self-reported bystander helping behaviors, (lower) rape-supportive attitudes, and (lower) rape proclivity, but not perpetration. These results provide initial support for the effectiveness of in-person bystander education training. Nonetheless, future longitudinal research evaluating behavioral outcomes and sexual assault incidence is needed.”

“Fear of Rape among College Women: A Social Psychological Analysis” Pryor, D.W.; Hughes, M.R. Violence Vict. , 2013, Vol. 28, Issue 3, 443-465.

Abstract: “This article examines social psychological underpinnings of fear of rape among college women. We analyze data from a survey of 1,905 female undergraduates to test the influence of 5 subjective perceptions about vulnerability and harm: unique invulnerability, gender risk, defensibility, anticipatory shame, and attribution of injury. We include 3 sources of crime exposure in our models: past sexual victimization, past noncontact violent victimization, and structural risk measured by age, parent’s income, and race. Separate measures of fear of stranger and acquaintance rape are modeled, including variables tapping current versus anticipatory fear, fear on campus versus everywhere, and fear anytime versus at night. The data show that fear of rape among college women appears more grounded in constructed perceptions of harm and danger than in past violent experiences.”

“Necessary But Not Sufficient: Sexual Assault Information on College and University Websites” Lund, Emily M.; Thomas, Katie B. Psychology of Women Quarterly , August 2015. doi: 10.1177/0361684315598286.

Abstract: “The objective of our study was to investigate the availability, location, and content of sexual assault information presented on college and university websites. A random sample of 102 accredited, non-profit, bachelors-granting U.S. colleges and universities was selected for webcoding. Websites were coded for the availability and location of sexual assault information, including what resources and information were provided and whether topics such as date rape, consent, and victim blaming were addressed. Ninety (88.2%) of the 102 colleges and universities in our sample had sexual assault information available in their domains. University policy (83.3%) and contact information for law enforcement (72.2%) and other resources (56.7–82.2%) were often included, but most websites failed to provide information on issues related to sexual assault, such as discouraging victim blaming (35.6%) and encouraging affirmative consent (30.0%). Colleges and universities should consider updating the sexual assault information on their websites with the assistance of local, expert practitioners in order to provide more comprehensive, organized, useful, and user-friendly information on sexual assault prevention and intervention.”

“The Role of University Health Centers in Intervention and Prevention of Campus Sexual Assault” Buchholz, Laura. Journal of the American Medical Association , August 2015, Vol. 314. doi: 10.1001/jama.2015.8213.

Summary: This article offers insight into the role that university health centers play in preventing campus sexual assault and providing support to assault victims through programs in areas such as counseling, medical care and survivor advocacy.

“To Whom Do College Women Confide Following Sexual Assault? A Prospective Study of Predictors of Sexual Assault Disclosure and Social Reactions” Orchowski, Lindsay M., Gidycz, Christine A. Violence Against Women, March 2012, Vol. 18, No. 3, 264-288, doi: 10.1177/1077801212442917.

Abstract: “A prospective methodology was used to explore predictors of sexual assault disclosure among college women, identify who women tell about sexual victimization, and examine the responses of informal support providers (N = 374). Women most often confided in a female peer. Increased coping via seeking emotional support, strong attachments, and high tendency to disclose stressful information predicted adolescent sexual assault disclosure and disclosure over the 7-month interim. Less acquaintance with the perpetrator predicted disclosure over the follow-up, including experiences of revictimization. Victim and perpetrator alcohol use at the time of the assault also predicted disclosure over the follow-up. Implications are presented.”

“Community Responsibility for Preventing Sexual Violence: A Pilot Study with Campus Greeks and Intercollegiate Athletes” Moynihan, Mary M., Banyard, Victoria L. Journal of Prevention & Intervention in the Community, October 2008, Vol. 36, Issue 1-2, 23-38, doi:10.1080/10852350802022274.

Summary: “Previous research has noted higher incidences of sexual violence on campus among members of campus Greeks and athletes and the need to do prevention programs with them. This article presents the results of an exploratory pilot study of a sexual violence prevention program with members of one fraternity, sorority, men’s and women’s intercollegiate athletic team. The program, experimentally evaluated and found to be effective with a general sample of undergraduates, was used to determine its efficacy specifically with Greeks and athletes. The model on which the program is based calls for prevention efforts that take a wider community approach rather than simply targeting individuals as potential perpetrators or victims. Results from repeated-measures analysis of variance indicate that the program worked overall. Future directions are discussed.”

Keywords: crime, higher education, sex crimes

About The Author

Kristina Mastropasqua

Cookie Notice

This website uses cookies, including third party ones, to allow for analysis of how people use our website in order to improve your experience and our services. By continuing to use our website, you agree to the use of such cookies.

An Underreported Problem: Campus Sexual Misconduct

The Problem with Reporting

Though many women experience harassment and assault on campus, they are often reluctant to notify officials because they worry they won’t be believed or might face retaliation. As a result, official reports vastly understate its occurrence. 

Harassment and assault can cause long-lasting physical and psychological damage, hindering survivors from learning or continuing to attend their institutions. In the #MeToo era, reports have increased slightly at some schools. Yet many schools continue to make it difficult for students to come forward, and a majority fail to properly report incidents of sexual harassment and violence when they occur.

Yet in 2017, the U.S. Department of Education rescinded a number of sexual harassment protections under Title IX . AAUW regularly examines how schools and colleges report information about sexual harassment and violence. Every public school that receives federal funding and colleges and universities that participate in federal financial aid programs are required to report this information.

Our analysis found that a vast majority of these institutions do not disclose any reported incidents. Contributing factors can include: individual student fears of reporting to school authorities or law enforcement; procedural gaps in how institutions record or respond to incidents; a reluctance on the part of institutions to be associated with these programs; or a combination of factors. Regardless of the reasons, educational institutions have a legal responsibility to accurately monitor, disclose and respond to sexual harassment and assault.

• Despite numerous studies showing that rape is common on campuses, 89% of colleges and universities reported zero incidents of rape. AAUW’s analysis of 2016 data reported under the federal Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act (Clery Act), which requires colleges and universities who participate in federal financial aid programs to disclose campus crime statistics and security information , shows that the vast majority (89%) of 11,000 college and university campuses failed to disclose even a single reported incident of rape that year, even though there are  numerous studies showing that campus rape is common.
• The AAUW analysis also found low rates overall of reports of sexual assault, including rape and fondling, domestic violence, dating violence and stalking. Altogether, 77% of campuses reported zero incidents of sexual assault, including rape and fondling, domestic violence, dating violence and stalking — a shocking statistic that speaks to the inadequacy of reporting structures rather than the frequency of the events.

Middle & High Schools Claim "Zero" Incidents

AAUW also analyzed 2015-16 data from the Department of Education’s Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC) from 96,000 public and public charter P-12 educational institutions — including magnet schools, special education schools, alternative schools and juvenile justice facilities. It found that more than 3/4 (79%) of the 48,000 public schools with grades 7 through 12 disclosed zero reported allegations of harassment or bullying  on the basis of  sex.   This more likely reflects the lack of reporting than it does the incidents of misconduct.

Know Your Rights: Workplace Sexual Harassment

Know Your Rights: Sexual Harassment and Assault on Campus

Policy Recommendations: Campus Sexual Misconduct

Subscribe to our newsletter

You must enable JavaScript to sign up.

Featured Topics

Featured series.

A series of random questions answered by Harvard experts.

Explore the Gazette

Read the latest.

Exploring generative AI at Harvard

Anticipate, accommodate, empower

Navigating Harvard with a non-apparent disability

Peggy Newell (left) and Kathleen McGinn.

File photo Kris Snibbe/Harvard Staff Photographer; courtesy photo

Harvard asks students about sexual assault and misconduct in third survey since 2015

Survey open April 2 through May 2 for degree-seeking students

Nicole Rura

Harvard Correspondent

April is Sexual Assault Awareness Month, and on April 2, the University launched the Higher Education Sexual Misconduct and Awareness (HESMA) Survey. This is the third in a series of surveys that the University has used to understand and address issues related to sexual assault, misconduct, and harassment on campus. (The first two were held in 2015 and 2019 .) Harvard is a member of a 10-university consortium that is administering the HESMA Survey. 

The survey will be open through May 2, and all degree-seeking students can access it by scanning the QR code displayed on materials around campus, visiting hesma.harvard.edu , or following instructions emailed to them by Westat, the independent research firm conducting the survey. To encourage participation, all students who complete the survey will receive a $20 gift card, with an option to donate the funds to select nonprofit organizations.

To learn how these surveys have changed sexual assault and misconduct prevention practices on campus, why it is critical for all eligible students to participate, and how the results can impact campus resources going forward, the Gazette spoke with Deputy Provost Peggy Newell and Kathleen McGinn, the survey’s principal investigator and the Cahners-Rabb Professor of Business Administration at Harvard Business School. The interview has been edited for clarity and length.

Is this survey the same as the ones from 2015 and 2019?

McGinn : The core of the survey is almost identical to the 2015 and 2019 surveys because we want to be able to compare the data across all three surveys. That allows us to learn where students’ experiences have gotten better over time and where they may have remained constant or gotten worse. With data from all three surveys, we can quantify the effects of changes Harvard has made and move forward with steps suggested by survey responses.

Newell : Beyond the core survey, we added questions to ensure that we meet key requirements mandated by Massachusetts law. Students, in particular Harvard students and alumni , were critical in supporting and advocating for Massachusetts campus sexual assault legislation , which requires every higher education institution in Massachusetts to administer a campus climate survey of all students every four years. The HESMA Survey continues our ongoing commitment to engage in climate surveys, and thanks to the hard work of those Harvard students, all Massachusetts colleges and universities will also gather this important data. 

Why is this survey so important?

Newell : It’s very important because it helps us measure what’s happening on our campus, not only the incidence of sexual assault and sexual harassment, but also how well we’re doing in addressing problems that we have on campus. For example, we’re asking participants about their knowledge of available resources and their experiences with accessing resources and University processes designed to address issues of sexual harassment and misconduct on our campus. The results from the HESMA Survey will give us very useful insight that we can use to improve our efforts in this area, with the goal of reducing and ultimately eliminating sex-based harassment and discrimination.

McGinn : The survey is one way for us to be proactive instead of reactive, which is critical. Unfortunately, sexual harassment and sexual assault continue to be a reality of campuses across the U.S. If we don’t have a way to understand what’s going on in terms of sexual harassment and sexual assault, we can only be reactive and address cases after they’ve happened. This survey allows us to take a proactive stance and change things that might stop sexual harassment before it happens.

How did the results from the 2015 and 2019 survey change how the University addresses these issues?

McGinn : The 2015 survey was the first of its kind. People had been talking about the prevalence of harm occurring on college campuses, but there was little data available about the actual prevalence of sexual harassment and misconduct within higher education. We didn’t really know how problematic and pervasive this was as a national public health issue until we got that solid data in 2015. Continuing to survey at regular intervals is essential for us to see how certain strategies are or are not making a difference over time. And as one in a group of universities conducting this survey, we can share information across institutions and learn from our peers. We must work together to find effective solutions.

Newell : Before 2015 and even until 2019, there was a lot of focus on policy. Since 2015, research has confirmed that solely focusing on policies, procedures, and the law doesn’t change behavior or reduce harm. Since that first iteration of the survey, we’ve shifted our approach to looking at the issue of sexual harassment and other sexual misconduct in higher education as a public health issue, which must be addressed from multiple angles, including individual or bystander action, cultural change, and policy awareness. 

McGinn : The survey also provides information about the places and the situations in which sexual harassment and sexual assault takes place, allowing us to focus efforts there. For example, the 2015 and 2019 surveys revealed that alcohol consumption is co-occurring with student-on-student sexual harassment and assault. In response, HBS has supported student-led efforts toward having social events that aren’t centered around alcohol. Additionally, we learned from the 2019 results that Harvard should emphasize bystander strategies more.  Since the 2019 survey, we’ve increased both online and in person training for our students, staff, and faculty on bystander intervention. 

This time of year is hectic at the University, especially for students. Why is important for all degree-seeking students to pause and take the survey?

McGinn : For any survey to be useful, it’s critical to have a representative sample. By hearing from all people across campus regardless of their positive or negative experiences, we can fully understand what’s going on and continue to try to get in front of it.

Newell : My biggest worry is a low response rate. We can’t address and prevent sexual misconduct without engaging the community. The more voices we hear, the stronger the survey results will be and the better positioned we will be to understand what changes are needed. So, we really do need to get as many students to take it as possible.

The survey includes questions about highly sensitive issues and topics, and some students may have concerns about confidentiality. How will students’ privacy be protected?

Newell : Westat, an independent research firm, is conducting the survey. They are contractually required to anonymize all responses and won’t maintain or generate any connection logs with IP addresses. No information about a person’s identity will be shared with Harvard at all — there’s a complete separation. And it’s up to a student to decide whether or not they participate. We hope they will, but it is entirely voluntary.

How could faculty and staff encourage students to participate?

McGinn : I think it’s paramount for faculty to get the word out there. As a faculty member, you can mention it in class; you can put the QR code on your office door. Just talking about it is really, really important.

Share this article

You might like.

Leaders weigh in on where we are and what’s next

How to ensure students with disabilities have an equal chance to succeed?

4 students with conditions ranging from diabetes to narcolepsy describe daily challenges that may not be obvious to their classmates and professors

College accepts 1,937 to Class of 2028

Students represent 94 countries, all 50 states

Pushing back on DEI ‘orthodoxy’

Panelists support diversity efforts but worry that current model is too narrow, denying institutions the benefit of other voices, ideas

So what exactly makes Taylor Swift so great?

Experts weigh in on pop superstar's cultural and financial impact as her tours and albums continue to break records.

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here .

Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

Sexual assault incidents among college undergraduates: Prevalence and factors associated with risk

Contributed equally to this work with: Claude A. Mellins, Kate Walsh, Aaron L. Sarvet, Melanie Wall, Leigh Reardon, Jennifer S. Hirsch

Roles Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Supervision, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

* E-mail: [email protected]

Affiliation Division of Gender, Sexuality and Health, Departments of Psychiatry and Sociomedical Sciences, New York State Psychiatric Institute and Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York, United States of America

Roles Conceptualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Affiliations Ferkauf Graduate School of Psychology, Yeshiva University, New York, New York, United States of America, Department of Epidemiology, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, New York, United States of America

Roles Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Investigation, Visualization, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation Division of Biostatistics, Department of Psychiatry, New York State Psychiatric Institute and Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York, United States of America

Roles Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Visualization, Writing – review & editing

Affiliations Division of Biostatistics, Department of Psychiatry, New York State Psychiatric Institute and Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York, United States of America, Department of Biostatistics, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, New York, United States of America

Roles Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

¶ ‡ These authors also contributed equally to this work.

Affiliation Social Intervention Group, School of Social Work, Columbia University, New York, New York, United States of America

Roles Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation Heilbrunn Department of Population and Family Health, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, New York, United States of America

Roles Methodology, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation Department of Youth, Family, and Community Studies, Clemson University, Clemson, South Carolina, United States of America

Roles Investigation, Methodology, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation Department of Sociomedical Sciences, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, New York, United States of America

Roles Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation Department of Sociology, Columbia University, New York, New York, United States of America

Roles Data curation, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – review & editing

Roles Data curation, Investigation, Methodology

Roles Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Writing – review & editing

Roles Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – review & editing

• Claude A. Mellins, 
• Kate Walsh, 
• Aaron L. Sarvet, 
• Melanie Wall, 
• Louisa Gilbert, 
• John S. Santelli, 
• Martie Thompson, 
• Patrick A. Wilson, 
• Shamus Khan, 

• Published: November 8, 2017
• https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0186471
• Reader Comments

25 Jan 2018: The PLOS ONE Staff (2018) Correction: Sexual assault incidents among college undergraduates: Prevalence and factors associated with risk. PLOS ONE 13(1): e0192129. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0192129 View correction

Sexual assault on college campuses is a public health issue. However varying research methodologies (e.g., different sexual assault definitions, measures, assessment timeframes) and low response rates hamper efforts to define the scope of the problem. To illuminate the complexity of campus sexual assault, we collected survey data from a large population-based random sample of undergraduate students from Columbia University and Barnard College in New York City, using evidence based methods to maximize response rates and sample representativeness, and behaviorally specific measures of sexual assault to accurately capture victimization rates. This paper focuses on student experiences of different types of sexual assault victimization, as well as sociodemographic, social, and risk environment correlates. Descriptive statistics, chi-square tests, and logistic regression were used to estimate prevalences and test associations. Since college entry, 22% of students reported experiencing at least one incident of sexual assault (defined as sexualized touching, attempted penetration [oral, anal, vaginal, other], or completed penetration). Women and gender nonconforming students reported the highest rates (28% and 38%, respectively), although men also reported sexual assault (12.5%). Across types of assault and gender groups, incapacitation due to alcohol and drug use and/or other factors was the perpetration method reported most frequently (> 50%); physical force (particularly for completed penetration in women) and verbal coercion were also commonly reported. Factors associated with increased risk for sexual assault included non-heterosexual identity, difficulty paying for basic necessities, fraternity/sorority membership, participation in more casual sexual encounters (“hook ups”) vs. exclusive/monogamous or no sexual relationships, binge drinking, and experiencing sexual assault before college. High rates of re-victimization during college were reported across gender groups. Our study is consistent with prevalence findings previously reported. Variation in types of assault and methods of perpetration experienced across gender groups highlight the need to develop prevention strategies tailored to specific risk groups.

Citation: Mellins CA, Walsh K, Sarvet AL, Wall M, Gilbert L, Santelli JS, et al. (2017) Sexual assault incidents among college undergraduates: Prevalence and factors associated with risk. PLoS ONE 12(11): e0186471. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0186471

Editor: Hafiz T. A. Khan, University of West London, UNITED KINGDOM

Received: July 28, 2017; Accepted: October 2, 2017; Published: November 8, 2017

Copyright: © 2017 Mellins et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: The data underlying the study cannot be made available, beyond the aggregated data that are included in the paper, because of concerns related to participant confidentiality. Sharing the individual-level survey data would violate the terms of our agreement with research participants, and the Columbia University Medical Center IRB has confirmed that the potential for deductive identification and the risk of loss of confidentiality is too great to share the data, even if de-identified.

Funding: This research was funded by Columbia University through a donation from the Levine Family. The funder (Levine Family) had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

Recent estimates of sexual assault victimization among college students in the United States (US) are as high as 20–25% [ 1 – 3 ], prompting universities to enhance or develop policies and programs to prevent sexual assault. However, a 2016 review [ 4 ] highlights the variation in sexual assault prevalence estimates (1.8% to 34%) which likely can be attributed to methodological differences across studies, including varying sexual assault definitions, sampling methods, assessment timeframes, and target populations [ 4 ]. Such differences can hamper efforts to understand the scope of the problem. Moreover, while accurate estimates of prevalence are crucial for calling attention to the population-health burden of sexual assault, knowing more about risk factors is critical for determining resource allocation and developing effective programs and policies for prevention.

Reasons for the variation in prevalence estimates include different definitions of sexual assault and assessment methods. Under the rubric of sexual assault, researchers have investigated experiences ranging from sexual harassment at school or work, to unwanted touching, including fondling on the street or dance floor, to either unwanted/non-consensual attempts at oral, anal or vaginal sexual intercourse (attempted penetrative sex), or completed penetrative sex [ 3 , 5 – 7 ]. Some studies have focused on a composite variable of multiple forms of unwanted/non-consensual sexual contact [ 8 , 9 ] while others focus on a single behavior, such as completed rape [ 10 ]. Some studies focus on acts perpetrated by a single method (e.g. incapacitation due to alcohol and drug use or other factors) [ 11 ], while others include a range of methods (e.g., physical force, verbal coercion, and incapacitation) [ 12 – 15 ]. In general, studies that ask about a wide range of acts and use behaviorally specific questions about types of sexual assault and methods of perpetration have yielded more accurate estimates [ 16 ]. Behavioral specificity avoids the pitfall of participants using their own sexual assault definitions and does not require the respondent to identify as a victim or survivor, which may lead to underreporting [ 10 , 17 – 19 ].

Although an increasing number of studies have used behaviorally specific methods and examined prevalence and predictors of sexual assault [ 20 , 21 ], they typically have used convenience samples. Only a few published studies have used population-based surveys and achieved response rates sufficient to mitigate some of the concerns of sample response bias [ 4 ]. US federal agencies have urged universities to implement standardized “campus climate surveys” to assess the prevalence and reporting of sexual violence [ 22 ]. Although these surveys have emphasized behavioral specificity, many have yielded low response rates (e.g., 25%) [ 23 ], particularly among men [ 24 ], creating potential for response bias in the obtained data. Population-based probability samples with behavioral specificity, good response rates, sufficiently large samples to examine risk for specific subgroups (e.g., sexual minority students), and detailed information on personal, social, or contextual risk factors (e.g., alcohol use) [ 22 , 23 ] are needed to more accurately define prevalence and inform evidence-based sexual assault prevention programs.

Existing evidence suggests that most sexual assault incidents are perpetrated against women [ 25 ]; however, few studies have examined college men as survivors of assault [ 26 – 28 ]. Furthermore, our understanding of how sexual orientation and gender identity relate to risk for sexual assault is limited, despite indications that lesbian, gay, bisexual (LGB), and gender non-conforming (GNC) students are at high risk [ 29 – 31 ]. It is unclear if these groups are at higher risk for all types of sexual assault or if prevention programming should be tailored to address particular types of assault within these groups. Also, although women appear to be at highest risk for assault during freshman year [ 32 , 33 ], the dearth of studies with men or GNC students have limited conclusions about whether freshman year is also a risky period for them.

Additional factors associated with experiencing sexual assault in college students include being a racial/ethnic minority student (although there are mixed findings on race/ethnicity) [ 34 , 35 ], low financial status, and prior history of sexual assault [ 3 , 33 , 36 ]. Other risk factors include variables related to student social life, including being a freshman [ 24 ], participating in fraternities and sororities [ 19 , 37 , 38 ], binge drinking [ 1 , 39 ] and participating in “hook-up” culture [ 40 – 42 ]. Whether sexual assault is happening in the context of more casual, typically non-committal sexual relationships (“hook-ups”) [ 40 ] vs. steady intimate or monogamous relationships has important implications for prevention efforts.

To fill some of these knowledge gaps, we examined survey data collected from a large population-based random sample of undergraduate women, men, and GNC students at Columbia University (CU) and Barnard College (BC). The aims of this paper are to:

• Estimate the prevalence of types of sexual assault incidents involving a) sexualized touching, b) attempted penetrative (oral, anal or vaginal) sex, and c) completed penetrative sex since starting at CU/BC;
• Describe the methods of perpetration (e.g., incapacitation, physical force, verbal coercion) used; and
• Examine associations between key sociodemographic, social and romantic/sexual relationship factors and different types of sexual assault victimization, and how these associations differ by gender.

Materials and methods

This study used data from a population-representative survey that formed one component of the Sexual Health Initiative to Foster Transformation (SHIFT) study. SHIFT used mixed methods to examine risk and protective factors affecting sexual health and sexual violence among college undergraduates from two inter-related institutions, CU’s undergraduate schools (co-educational) and BC (women only), both located in New York City. SHIFT featured ethnographic research, the survey, and a daily diary study. Additionally, SHIFT focused on internal policy-translation work to inform institutionally-appropriate, multi-level approaches to prevention.

Participants

Survey participants were selected via stratified random sampling from the March 2016 population of 9,616 CU/BC undergraduate students ages 18–29 years. We utilized evidence-based methods to enhance response rates and sample representativeness [ 22 , 43 ]. Using administrative records of enrolled students, 2,500 students (2,000 from CU and 500 from BC) were invited via email to participate in a web-based survey. Of these 2,500 students, 1,671 (67%) consented to participate (see Procedures). Among those who consented to participate, 80.5% were from CU and 19.5% were from BC (see Table 1 below for demographic data on the CU/BC student population, the random sample of students contacted, the survey responders, and the current analytic sample).

• PPT PowerPoint slide
• PNG larger image
• TIFF original image

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0186471.t001

SHIFT employed multiple procedures to assure protection of students involved in our study; these procedures also improve scientific rigor. The study was approved by the Columbia University Medical Center Institutional Review Board and we obtained a federal Certificate of Confidentiality to legally protect our data from subpoena. SHIFT also obtained a University waiver from reporting on individual sexual assaults, as reporting would obviate student privacy and willingness to participate. Students were offered information about referrals to health and mental health resources during the consent process and at the end of the survey, and such information was available from SHIFT via other communication channels. Finally, in reporting data we suppressed data from tables where there were less than 3 subjects in any cell to avoid the possibility of deductive identification of an individual student [ 44 ].

SHIFT used principles of Community Based Participatory Research regarding ongoing dialogue with University stakeholders on study development and implementation to maximize the quality of data and impact of research findings [ 45 ]. This included weekly meetings between SHIFT investigators and an Undergraduate Advisory Board, consisting of 13–18 students, reflecting the undergraduate student body’s diversity in terms of gender, race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, year in school, and activities (e.g., fraternity/sorority membership). It also included regular meetings with an Institutional Advisory Board comprised of senior administrators, including CU’s Office of General Counsel, facilities, sexual violence response, student conduct, officials involved in gender-based misconduct concerns, athletics, a chaplain, mental health and counseling, residential life, student health, and student life.

Following both the Undergraduate Advisory Board’s recommendations and Dillman’s Tailored Design Method for maximizing survey response rates [ 43 ], multiple methods were used to advertise and recruit students. These included: a) email messages, both to generate interest and remind students who had been selected to participate, crafted to resonate with diverse student motives for participation (e.g., interest in sexual assault, compensation, community spirit, and achieving higher response rates than surveys at peer institutions), b) posting flyers, c) holding “study breaks,” in which students were given snacks and drinks, and d) tabling in public areas on campus.

Participants used a unique link to access the survey either at our on-campus research office where computers and snacks were provided (16% of participants) or at a location of their choosing (84% of participants) from March-May, 2016. Before beginning the survey, participants were asked to provide informed consent on an electronic form describing the study, confidentiality, compensation for time and effort, data handling procedures, and the right to refuse to answer any question. Students who completed the survey received $40 in compensation, given in cash to those who completed the survey in our on-campus research office or as an electronic gift card if completed elsewhere. Students were also entered into a lottery to win additional $200 electronic gift cards. This compensation was established based on feedback from student and institutional advisors and reviewed by our Institutional Review Board. It was judged to be sufficient to promote participation, and help ensure that we captured a representative sample, including students who might otherwise have to choose between paid opportunities and participating in our survey, but not great enough to feel coercive for low resource students. This amount of compensation is in line with other similar studies [ 46 ]. On average, the survey took 35–40 minutes to complete.

The SHIFT survey included behaviorally-specific measures of different types of sexual assault, perpetrated by different methods, as well as measures of key sociodemographic, social and sexual relationship factors, and risk environment characteristics. The majority of instruments had been validated previously with college- age students. The survey was administered in English using Qualtrics ( www.qualtrics.com ), providing a secure platform for online data collection.

Sexual assault.

Sexual assault was assessed with a slightly modified version of the revised Sexual Experiences Survey [ 16 ], the most widely used measure of sexual assault victimization with very good psychometric properties including internal consistency and validity previously published [ 17 , 47 ]. The Sexual Experiences Survey employs behaviorally specific questions to improve accuracy [ 18 ]. The scale includes questions on type of assault, including sexualized touching without penetration (touching, kissing, fondling, grabbing in a sexual way), attempted but not completed penetrative assault (oral, vaginal, anal or other type of penetration; herein referred to as attempted penetrative assault) and completed penetrative assault (herein referred to as penetrative assault). We used most of the Sexual Experiences Survey as is. However, with strong urging from our Undergraduate Advisory Board, we made a modification, combining the questions about different types of penetration (oral, vaginal, etc.) rather than asking about each kind separately. In the Sexual Experiences Survey, for each type of assault there are six methods of perpetration. Two of the types reflect verbal coercion: 1) “Telling lies, threatening to end the relationship, threatening to spread rumors about me, making promises I knew were untrue, or continually verbally pressuring me after I said I didn’t want to” (herein referred to as “lying/threats”), and 2) “Showing displeasure, criticizing my sexuality or attractiveness, getting angry but not using physical force, after I said I didn’t want to” (herein referred to as “criticism”). The remaining types included use of physical force, threats of physical harm, or incapacitation (“Taking advantage when I couldn’t say no because I was either too drunk, passed out, asleep or otherwise incapacitated”), and other. For each incident of sexual assault, participants could endorse multiple methods of perpetration. Participants were also asked to report whether these experiences occurred: a) during the current academic year (this was a second modification to the Sexual Experiences Survey) and/or b) since enrollment but prior to the current academic year. For this paper, data for the two time periods were combined, reflecting the entire period since starting CU/BC. See Fig 1 for a replica of the questionnaire.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0186471.g001

Demographics.

Demographics included gender identity (male, female, trans-male/trans-female, gender queer/gender-non-conforming, other) [ 48 ], year in school (e.g., freshman, sophomore, junior, senior), age, US born (yes/no), lived in US less than five years (yes/no; proxy for recent international student status), transfer student (yes/no), low socioeconomic status (receipt of Pell grant-yes/no [need-based grants for low-income students, with eligibility dependent on family income]); how often participant has trouble paying for basic necessities (never, rarely, sometimes, often, all of the time), and race/ethnicity (non-Hispanic white, non-Hispanic-Asian, non-Hispanic black, Hispanic/Latin-x, other [other included: American Indian or Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, More than one Race/Ethnicity, Other]). Gender was categorized as follows: female, male and GNC (students who responded to gender identity question as anything other than male or female).

Fraternity/Sorority.

Fraternity/sorority membership (ever participated) was assessed with one question from a school activities checklist (yes/no). We report on Greek life participation here to engage with the substantial attention this has received as a risk factor.

Problematic drinking.

Problematic drinking during the last year was assessed with the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) [ 49 ], a widely used, well-validated standardized 10-item screening tool developed by the World Health Organization. Psychometrics have been established in numerous studies [ 50 – 52 ]. The AUDIT assesses alcohol consumption, drinking behaviors, and alcohol-related problems. Participants rate each question on a 5-point scale from 0 (never) to 4 (daily or almost daily) for possible scores ranging from 0 to 40. The range of AUDIT scores represents varying levels of risk: 0–7 (low), 8–15 (risky or hazardous), 16–19 (high-risk or harmful), and 20 or greater (high-risk). We also examined one AUDIT item on binge drinking, defined as having 6+ drinks on one occasion at least monthly [ 49 ].

Sexual orientation.

Sexual orientation was assessed with one question with the following response options (students could select all that applied): asexual, pansexual, bisexual, queer, heterosexual and homosexual, as well as other [ 53 , 54 ]. Students were categorized into four mutually exclusive groups for analyses: heterosexual, bisexual, homosexual, and other which included asexual, pansexual, queer, or another identity not listed. Non-heterosexual students who indicated more than one orientation were assigned hierarchically to bisexual, homosexual, then other.

Romantic/sexual relationships.

Romantic/sexual relationships since enrollment at CU/BC were assessed with one question. Response choices included: none, steady or serious relationship, exclusive or monogamous relationship, hook-up-one time, and ongoing hook-up or friends with benefits. Students defined “hookup” for themselves. Students could check all that applied. This variable was trichotomized: at least one hook-up, only steady or exclusive/monogamous relationships, and no romantic/sexual relationships.

Pre-college sexual assault.

Students also were asked one yes/no question on whether they had experienced any unwanted sexual contact prior to enrolling at CU/BC.

Data analysis

To assess the representativeness of the sample, the distribution of demographic variables based on administrative records from CU and BC for the total University undergraduate population were compared to the random sample of students contacted, the survey responders, and the current analytic sample, which consists of students that responded to the questions about sexual assault. Demographics for survey responders are based on self-report from the survey. Cramer’s V effect size was used to assess the magnitude of the differences in demographic distributions between the CU/BC population and respondent sample where smaller values (i.e. Cramer’s V <0.10) indicate strong similarity [ 55 ].

Analyses were performed on each type of sexual assault as well as a combined “Any type of sexual assault” variable: yes/no experienced sexualized touching, attempted penetrative assault, and/or penetrative assault since CU/BC. Prevalence of each type of sexual assault was calculated by gender and year in school, with chi-square tests of difference used to compare prevalence between genders across each year in school versus freshman year. The total number of incidents of assault and the mean, median and standard deviation for number of incidents of assault per person reporting at least one assault were summarized. Among individuals who experienced any type of sexual assault, the proportions that experienced a particular method of perpetration (e.g. incapacitation, physical force) were calculated by type of sexual assault. Chi-square tests compared proportions between males and females for each perpetration method. The associations of each key correlate with the odds of experiencing any sexual assault were calculated and tested using logistic regression stratified by male/female gender. In addition, a multinomial regression with hierarchical categories (no assault, sexualized touching only, attempted penetrative assault [not completed], and penetrative assault [completed]) as the outcome was performed to examine if associations differed by type of sexual assault. To adjust for the fact that the sample comes from a finite population (i.e. CU/BC N = 5,765 women; N = 3,851 men), a standard finite population correction was implemented for standard error estimation using SAS Proc Surveylogistic. Given the low sample size of GNC students, they were excluded from some analyses. All analyses were conducted using SAS (v. 9.4).

Descriptive statistics

Table 1 presents demographic data on the full University, the randomly selected sample, the respondents and the analytic sample for this paper. Among students who consented to the survey (n = 1,671), 46 stopped the survey before the sexual assault questions and 33 refused to answer them resulting in an analytic sample of n = 1,592 (95% completion among responders). Demographic characteristics (i.e. gender [male, female], age, race/ethnicity, year in school, international status, and economic need [Pell grant status]) of the respondent sample were very similar (Cramer’s V effect size differences all <0.10 [ 55 ]) to the full CU/BC population ( Table 1 ) indicating that the responder and final analytic samples were representative of the student body population.

The analytic sample included 58% women, 40% men, and 2% GNC students (4 students refused to identify their gender) and was distributed evenly by year in school with most (92%) between18-23 years of age. Self-reported race/ethnicity was 43% white non-Hispanic, 23% Asian, 15% Hispanic/Latino, and 8% black non-Hispanic; 13% were transfer students, and the majority of the sample was born in the US (76%). Twenty-three percent of participants received Pell grants and 51% of students acknowledged at least sometimes having difficulty paying for basic necessities.

The majority of women (79%) and men (85%) identified as heterosexual. In terms of romantic/sexual relationships since starting CU/BC, 30.0% of women and 21.6% of men reported no relationships, 21.0% of women and 22.6% of men reported only steady/exclusive relationships with no hookups, and 49.0% of women and 55.7% of men reported at least one hook-up. Finally, 25.5% of women, 9.4% of men, and 47.0% of GNC students reported pre-college sexual assault.

Aim 1: Prevalence of sexual assault victimization at CU/BC

Overall rates by gender and school year..

Since starting CU/BC, 22.0% (350/1,592) of students reported experiencing at least one incident of any sexual assault across the three types (sexualized touching, attempted penetrative assault, and penetrative assault). Table 2 presents data on types of assault by gender and year in school. Women were over twice as likely as men to report any sexual assault (28.1% vs 12.5%). There was evidence of cumulative risk for experiencing sexual assault among women over four years of college, so that by junior and senior year, respectively, 29.7% and 36.4% of women reported experiencing any sexual assault, compared to 21.0% of freshman women who had only one year of possible exposure (p < .05). However, one-fifth (21.0%) of women who took the survey as freshman had experienced unwanted sexual contact, compared to 36.4% over 3+ years (seniors), suggesting that as others have found, the risk of assault is highest in freshman year.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0186471.t002

Among men, one in eight indicated that they had been sexually assaulted since starting CU. Similar to women, the risk for sexual assault among men accumulated over the four years of college, with 15.6% of seniors vs 9.9% of freshman reporting a sexual assault since entering CU, although this difference was not statistically significant.

Although the numbers were small, GNC students reported the highest prevalence of sexual assault since starting CU/BC (38.5%; 10/26). Numbers were too small (n<3) to present stratified by year in school (see Table 2 ).

Types of sexual assault by gender ( Table 2 ).

The most prevalent form of sexual assault was sexualized touching; rates for women (23.6%) and GNC students (38.5%) were significantly higher than rates for men (11.0%; p < .05). Prevalence of attempted penetrative assault and penetrative assault were about half that of sexualized touching. Compared to men, women were three times as likely to report attempted penetrative assault (11.1% vs 3.8%) and over twice as likely to experience penetrative assault (13.6% vs 5.2%). Among GNC students, the majority reporting sexualized touching, with rates of the other two types too small to report.

Experiencing multiple sexual assaults ( Fig 2 ; S1 Table ).

Students could report multiple types of sexual assault incidents (i.e. sexualized touching, attempted penetrative, and penetrative assault) as well as multiple incidents experienced of each type. Overall, students reported a total of 1,007 incidents of sexual assault experienced since starting CU/BC. For the 350 students who indicated any sexual assault, the median number of incidents experienced was 3.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0186471.g002

Among the 350 students reporting any sexual assault, Fig 2 presents different combinations of sexual assault experienced by students since CU/BC. Most prevalent, 38.0% reported experiencing only sexualized touching; 19.0% reported both sexualized touching and penetrative assault incidents; 17.0% experienced all three types of assault; and 12.0% sexualized touching and attempted penetrative assault.

Aim 2: Methods of perpetration (lying/threats, criticism, incapacitation, physical force, threats of harm, and other) by gender ( Table 3 )

Across types of assault, incapacitation was the method of perpetration reported most frequently (> 50%) in both men and women. For both women and men, approximately two-thirds of all penetrative assaults and about half of sexualized touching and attempted penetrative assaults involved incapacitation.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0186471.t003

Physical force was reported significantly more frequently by women than men (34.6% vs 12.7%) for any sexual assault. More specifically, compared to men, women were three times more likely to experience sexualized touching via physical force (32.1% vs. 10.0%), and six times more likely to experience penetrative assaults via physical force (33.3% vs 6.1%).

Lastly, a sizeable number of respondents reported verbal coercion (ranging from 21.0% to over 40.0% depending on type of assault). Criticism was cited by women at rates similar to physical force for both sexualized touching and penetrative assaults. Among men, both verbal coercion methods were cited most frequently after incapacitation for all three types of assault.

For GNC students, we examined rates of each perpetration method for only the composite variable any sexual assault (due to small numbers in any specific type of assault). Among those who experienced an assault, incapacitation was the most frequently mentioned method (50.0%), followed by criticism (40.0%).

Aim 3: Identify factors associated with sexual assault experiences

We examined the association between sexual assault (both any sexual assault [ Table 4 ] and each type of sexual assault [ Table 5 ]) and key demographic, sexual history and social activity factors. Results are stratified by gender (women/men).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0186471.t004

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0186471.t005

Race/Ethnicity.

For both women and men, the prevalence of any sexual assault was similar for all race/ethnicity groups compared to non-Hispanic White students with one exception. Asian students (women and men) were less likely to experience any sexual assault than non-Hispanic White students. For women only, differences emerged by type of assault. Asian women compared to non-Hispanic White women were less likely to experience penetrative assault (OR = 0.35, CI: 0.19–0.62), but not attempted penetrative assault (OR = 0.56, CI: 0.25–1.26), nor sexualized touching only (OR = 1.00, CI: 0.59–1.69). Black women were found to have increased odds of touching only incidents compared to non-Hispanic White women (OR = 1.99, CI: 1.05–3.74). There were no other significant racial or ethnic differences.

Economic precarity.

Women who often or always had difficulty paying for basic necessities had increased odds of any sexual assault; for men the trend was similar but it did not reach statistical significance. Considering penetrative assault specifically, both men and women who often or always had difficulty paying for basic necessities had increased risk (women OR = 2.24, CI: 1.23–4.09; men OR = 3.07, CI: 1.04–9.07) compared to those who never had difficulty.

Transfer student.

Women transfer students were less likely to experience any sexual assault than non-transfer students. Closer inspection of type of assault revealed that this protective effect was seen for sexualized touching only (OR = 0.34, CI: 0.15–0.80), but not for penetrative (OR = 0.60, CI: 0.34–1.08), nor attempted penetrative (OR = 1.03, CI: 0.48–2.21) assault. There were no significant differences between men who were transfer students and those who were not.

For women, those who identified as bisexual and those who identified as some other sexual identity besides heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual (includes people endorsing exclusively one or a combination of: Asexual, Pansexual, Queer, or a sexual orientation not listed), were more likely to experience any sexual assault than heterosexual students. For penetrative assault specifically, this increased risk was only present for individuals with some other sexual identity (OR = 2.11, CI: 1.20–3.73). For men, those who identified as homosexual were more likely to experience any sexual assault than heterosexual male students. For penetrative assault specifically, those who identified as homosexual, bisexual, or some other sexual identity all had substantially increased risk compared to those with a heterosexual identity (OR = 4.74, CI: 2.10–10.71; OR = 3.39, CI: 1.03–11.16; OR = 4.74, CI:1.10–20.48, respectively).

Information about the gender of the perpetrator for different gender and sexual orientation groups was available for a subset of incidents (336/997). Among these events, 98.4% (3/184) of the heterosexual women indicated the perpetrator was a man, while 97.1% (33/34) of the bisexual women, 75% (3/4) of the homosexual women, and 88.9% (24/27) of the other sexual identity women indicated it was a man. For men who were assaulted, 84.9% (45/53) of the heterosexual men reported the perpetrator was a woman, while 0 of the homosexual men said the perpetrator was a woman. Numbers for bisexual men and other sexual identity men were too small to report separately, but combined showed that 5/8 (63.0%) of bisexual and other sexual identity men said the perpetrator was a woman. Of the GNC students reporting on a most-significant event, 77.8% (7/9) reported that they were assaulted by a male perpetrator (the numbers are too small to further examine by sexual orientation).

Lived in US less than 5 years.

There was no association found between living in the US for less than 5 years and any sexual assault, nor any specific type of sexual assault.

Relationship status.

Among both women and men, students who had at least one hook-up were more likely to have experienced any sexual assault than students who were in only steady/exclusive relationships since starting college. Among women who had engaged in at least one hook-up, this increased risk held for each type of sexual assault (penetrative: OR = 5.03, CI = 2.91–8.68, attempted penetrative: OR = 4.43, CI = 1.83–10.8, sexualized touching only: OR = 3.26, CI = 1.74–6.09), while among men the increased risk was found for sexualized touching only (OR = 13.33, CI = 2.09–85.08), but could not be estimated (due to small numbers) for completed penetrative assault. Women who did not have any romantic or sexual relationship since CU/BC were found to be less likely to experience penetrative assault than women who had a steady/exclusive relationships only (OR = 0.05, CI: 0.01–0.31).

Fraternity/Sorority membership.

Although a relative minority of students participated in fraternities (24.1%) or sororities (18.2%), for both men and women, those who participated were more likely to experience any sexual assault than those who did not. Examination of type of assault revealed that the effect is driven primarily by sexualized touching only which is significant in both women (OR = 1.63, CI: 1.00–2.67) and men (OR = 2.40, CI: 1.25–4.63) and not significantly increased for penetrative nor attempted penetrative assault.

Risky or hazardous drinking.

For both men and women, individuals who met criteria on the AUDIT for risky or hazardous drinking were more likely to experience any sexual assault than those who did not. When examining each type of assault separately, for men this increased risk was only significant for penetrative assault (OR = 4.07, CI: 2.01–8.21). For women, the increased risk of assault held for each type of assault—penetrative (OR = 6.04, CI: 4.10–8.90), attempted (OR = 3.38, CI: 1.84–6.19) and touching (OR = 2.33, CI: 1.42–3.81). We also looked at one AUDIT item specifically on binge drinking (6 or more drinks on a single occasion). Individuals who reported binge drinking at least monthly were more likely to experience any sexual assault than those who did not. When examining each type of assault separately, for men this increased risk was only significant for penetrative assault (OR = 2.15, CI: 1.12–4.15). For women, this increased risk was significant for penetrative assault (OR = 3.12, CI: 2.09–4.65), attempted assault (OR = 2.28, CI: 1.20–4.33), and touching (OR = 2.42, CI:1.50–3.91).

Pre-college assault ( Table 5 ).

Among both women and men, those who experienced pre-college assault were more likely to experience any sexual assault while at CU/BC. The increased risk held for penetrative assault in both women (OR = 3.01, CI: 2.07–4.37) and men (OR = 2.44, CI: 1.03–5.76). In women, the increased risk also held for attempted penetrative, but not touching only, whereas in men, the increased risk held for touching only, but not attempted penetrative sex.

The SHIFT survey, with a population-representative sample, good response rate and behaviorally-specific questions, found that 22.0% of students reported a sexual assault since starting college, which confirms previous studies of 1 in 4 or 1 in 5 prevalence estimates with national samples and a range of types of schools [ 23 , 24 ]. However, a key finding is that focusing only on the “1 in 4/ 1 in 5” rate of any sexual assault obscures much of the nuance concerning types of sexual assault as well as the differential group risk, as prevalence rates were unevenly distributed across gender and several other social and demographic factors.

Similar to other studies [ 4 , 24 ], women had much higher rates of experiencing any type of sexual assault compared to men (28.0% vs 12.0%). Moreover, our data suggest a cumulative risk for sexual assault experiences over four years of college with over one in three women experiencing an assault by senior year. However, our data also suggest that freshman year, particularly for women, is when the greatest percentage experience an assault. This supports other work on freshman year as a particularly critical time for prevention efforts, otherwise known as the “red zone” effect for women [ 32 ].

Importantly, our study confirms that GNC students are at heightened risk for sexual assault [ 23 ]. They had the highest proportion of sexual assaults, with 38.0% reporting at least one incident, the majority of which involved unwanted/non-consensual sexualized touching. These data should be interpreted very cautiously given the small number of GNC students. However, increasingly studies suggest that transgender and other GNC students have sexual health needs that may not be targeted by traditional programming [ 57 ]; thus, a better understanding of pathways to vulnerability among these students is of high importance.

Similarly, students who identified as a sexual orientation other than heterosexual were at increased risk for experiencing any sexual assault, with bisexual women or women who identified as “other” and men who identified as any non-heterosexual category at increased risk. Similar to GNC students, understanding the specific social and sexual health needs of LGB students, particularly as it relates to reducing sexual assault risk is critical to prevention efforts [ 58 ]. Factors such as stigma and discrimination, lack of communication, substance use, as well as a potential lack of tailored prevention programs may play a role. To our knowledge, there are no evidence-based college sexual assault prevention programs targeting LGB and GNC students. Our data suggest that the LGB and GNC experiences are not uniform; more research should be done within each of these groups to understand the mechanisms behind their potentially unique risk factors.

Our data also suggest that the 20–25% rate of any sexual assault obscures variation in assault experiences. Sexualized touching accounted for the highest percentage of acts across gender groups, with over one-third of participants reporting only sexualized touching incidents. Rates of attempted and completed penetrative sexual assault were about half the rate of sexualized touching. This finding does not minimize the importance of addressing unacceptably high rates of attempted penetrative and penetrative assault (14%-15%), but it does suggest the importance of specificity in prevention efforts. For GNC students, for example, the risk of assault was primarily for sexualized touching with very few reporting attempted penetrative assault or penetrative assault during their time at CU/BC. These elevated rates of unwanted sexual touching may be a combination of GNC students’ focus on their gendered sexual boundaries–and thus potentially greater awareness of when advances are unwanted–at a developmental moment when they are building non-traditional gender identities, as well as these students’ social vulnerability. Further investigation is warranted.

Moreover, there was variation in methods of perpetration reported by survivors of sexual assault. Incapacitation was the most common method reported across all gender groups for each type of assault, and female and male students who reported risky or hazardous drinking were at increased risk for experiencing any sexual assault, particularly penetrative assault. Across campuses in the US, hazardous drinking is a national problem with substantive negative health outcomes, risk for sexual assault being one of them [ 2 , 39 , 59 ]. Our data underline the potential of programs and policies to reduce substance use and limit its harms as one element of comprehensive sexual assault prevention; we found few evidence-based interventions that address both binge drinking and sexual assault prevention. Of course, any work addressing substance use as a driver of vulnerability must do so in a way that does not replicate victim-blaming.

However, similar to other studies with broad foci, incapacitation was not the only method of perpetration reported. For women, physical force, particularly for penetrative sex, was the second most frequently endorsed method. Verbal coercion, including criticism, lying and threats to end the relationship or spread rumors, was also employed at rates similar to physical force for women, and was the second most frequently endorsed category for men and GNC students. Prevention programs, such as the bystander interventions which are the focus of efforts on many campuses [ 60 ], often focus on incapacitation or physical force. These interventions tend to highlight situations where survivors (typically women) are vulnerable because they are under the influence of substances. In SHIFT, verbal coercion is also shown to be a powerful driver of assault; however, it typically does not receive as much attention as rape, which is legally defined as penetration due to physical force or incapacitation. If a survivor is verbally coerced into providing affirmative consent, the incident could be considered within consent guidelines of “yes means yes” but it may have been unwanted by the survivor [ 61 , 62 ]. Assertiveness interventions and those that focus on verbal consent practices may be useful for addressing this form of assault.

We also found high rates of re-victimization. As others have found, pre-college sexual assault was a key predictor for experiencing assault at CU/BC [ 33 , 36 ]. However, we also found high rates of repeat victimization since starting at CU/BC with a median of 3 incidents per person reporting any sexual assault since starting CU/BC, and the highest risk of repeat victimization in women and GNC students. These data underline the importance of prevention efforts that include care for survivors to reduce the enhanced vulnerability that has been shown in other populations of assault survivors [ 36 ]. Future studies should also seek to disaggregate the relationship between type of victimization (sexualized touching, attempted penetrative assault, penetrative assault) and repeat victimization.

This study also identified a number of variables associated with sexual assault, some similar to previous studies and others different. As noted, gender was a key correlate. While prevention efforts should respond to the population-level burden by focusing on the needs of women and GNC students, it is important to note that men were also at risk of sexual assault. In our study, nearly 1 in 8 men reported a sexual assault experience, a rate also found in the Online College Social Life survey [ 56 ], but higher than other studies [ 63 , 64 ]. Few programs target men, and issues around masculinity and gender roles may make it difficult for men to consider or report what has happened to them as sexual assault. Importantly, this study found that men who were members of fraternities were at higher risk for experiencing assault (specifically unwanted/nonconsensual sexualized touching) than those who were not members. This is consistent with previous findings, including the Online College Social Life survey [ 56 ], but is of particular note because research has identified men in fraternities as more likely to be perpetrators [ 64 ], but few, if any, studies have looked at fraternity members’ vulnerability to sexual assault. Our data suggest a need for further examination of the cultural and organizational dimensions of Greek life that produce this heightened risk of being assaulted for both men and women. However, it is important to note that we did not examine a range of other social and extracurricular groups which may have produced risk as well and thus a more full examination of student undergraduate life is needed.

One other key factor associated with assault was participation in “hook ups”. Both male and female students who reported hooking up were more likely to report experiencing sexual assault, compared to students who only had exclusive or monogamous relationships and those who had no sexual relationships. The role of hooking up on college campuses has received much attention in the popular press and in a number of books [ 65 , 66 ], but little has been written about its connection to sexual assault, although several recent studies are in line with ours about its role as a risk factor for experiencing sexual assault on college campuses [ 40 , 41 ]. Multiple mechanisms may be at work: students who participate in hookups may be having sex with more people, and thus face greater risk of assault due to greater exposure to sex with a potential perpetrator, but students who participate in hookups may also face increased vulnerability because many hookups involve “drunk” sex, or because hookups by definition involve sexual interactions between people who are not in a long-term intimate relationship, and thus whose bodies and social cues maybe unfamiliar to each other. Alternatively some aspects of hook-ups may be more or less risky than others and therefore continued study of different dimensions of these more casual relationships that can refer to a wide-range of behaviors is necessary.

Several demographic characteristics were not for the most part associated with sexual assault. We did not find racial or ethnic differences in sexual assault risk with primarily one exception, Asian male and female students were at less risk overall compared to white students. We also did not find transfer students to be at greater risk; female transfer students were actually at lower risk, potentially due to less exposure time, particularly during freshman year. International student status as indicated by having been in the US<5 years was also not associated with increased risk. However, this study highlights the role of economic factors that have received limited attention in the literature. Little is known about how economic insecurity may drive vulnerability, but issues of power, privilege, and control of alcohol and space all require further examination.

There are several limitations to this study. Participants came from only two private schools that are interconnected in one city, and thus findings may not generalize to the rest of the US. There is a continued need for more national studies with different types of colleges and universities in urban and rural environments with more varied economic backgrounds in order to fully understand institutional and contextual differences. Although we had a response rate that was higher than many prior studies and our rates of sexual assault are consistent with prior studies [ 4 ], we cannot assess the extent to which selection bias may have occurred and therefore, our rates could be an underrepresentation or overrepresentation depending on who chose to participate. Although this concern is somewhat mitigated by findings that basic demographic data between respondents and the total population of students at two colleges suggest no significant differences, there may be some bias in factors we did not consider. Our present analysis has focused only on bivariate associations between risk factors and assault. While this analysis provides a valuable description of which groups are at elevated risk or not, future work will consider how combinations of risk factors at different levels may interact to increase risk. Critically, the analysis presented here reflects a focus on those who experience being assaulted, but in other work we look at the characteristics of perpetrators, both from those who reported perpetrating and from a subset of incidents that survey respondents described in depth, which provided more information about the perpetrator. A greater understanding of the characteristics and contexts of perpetration is without question vital for effective prevention. Finally, our data are cross sectional. Longitudinal studies with a comprehensive range of predictors are critical for identifying pathways of causality and targets for interventions.

Despite these limitations, this study confirms the unacceptably high rates of sexual assault and suggests diversity in experiences and methods of perpetration. A key conclusion is that a”one size fits all” approach that characterizes the extant literature on evidence-based prevention programs [ 67 ] may need to be altered to more effectively prevent sexual assault in college. Clearly different groups had differential risk for assault and may require much more targeted prevention efforts. Bystander interventions have shown promise in addressing risk in social situations, including fraternity parties and other settings with high alcohol use [ 68 , 69 ]. However, bystander interventions may not be sufficient for incidents occurring in non-party contexts where verbal coercion methods or physical force may be used without others around.

Creating effective and sustainable changes to campus culture requires engaging with a broad range of institutional stakeholders. SHIFT investigators are in the process of sharing selected findings with both student and institutional advisory boards, and an intensive collaborative process allows us to explore the implications of our results for a broad range of policies and programs, including both elements commonly considered as sexual assault prevention (consent education, bystander trainings), more general topics related to sexual orientation and verbal discussions of sex, and aspects of the institutional context across diverse domains including alcohol policy, mental health services, residential life policies, orientation planning, and the allocation of space across campus.

Overall, our findings argue for the potential of a systems-based [ 70 ] public health approach–one that recognizes the multiple interrelated factors that produce adverse outcomes, and perhaps particularly emphasizes gender and economic disparities and resulting power dynamics, widespread use of alcohol, attitudes about sexuality, and conversations about sex–to make inroads on an issue that stubbornly persists.

Supporting information

S1 table. number of incidents of sexual assault since enrolling at cu/bc, among individuals with at least one incident..

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0186471.s001

Acknowledgments

The authors thank our research participants; the Undergraduate Advisory Board; Columbia University’s Office of the President and Office of University Life, and the entire SHIFT team who contributed to the development and implementation of this ambitious effort.

• 1. Fisher BS, Cullen FT, Turner MG. The Sexual Victimization of College Women. Research Report. 2000; Available: http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED449712
• 2. Krebs CP, Lindquist CH, Warner TD. The Campus Sexual Assault Study (CSA) Final Report: Performance Period: January 2005 Through December 2007. 2007.
• 3. Kilpatrick D, Resnick H, Ruggiero KJ, Conoscenti LM, McCauley J. Drug-facilitated, Incapacitated, and Forcible Rape: A National Study [Internet]. 2007 Jul. Report No.: 219181. Available: http://www.antoniocasella.eu/archila/Kilpatrick_drug_forcible_rape_2007.pdf
• View Article
• Google Scholar
• 5. Black MC, Basile KC, Breiding MJ, Smith SG, Walters ML, Merrick MT, et al. The national intimate partner and sexual violence survey (NISVS): 2010 summary report. 2011 Nov.
• 6. Catalano S, Harmon M, Beck A, Cantor D. BJS Activities on Measuring Rape and Sexual Assault [Internet]. Poster presented at; 2005. Available: https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/bjs_amrsa_poster.pdf
• 7. Calhoun K, Mouilso E, Edwards K. Sexual assault among college students. Sex in College. Richard D. McAnulty. Santa Barbara, CA: Greenwood Publishing Group; 2012. pp. 263–288.
• PubMed/NCBI
• 9. Baum K, Klaus P. National Crime Victimization Survey: Violent Victimization of College Students, 1995–2002 [Internet]. 2005 pp. 1–7. Report No.: NCJ 206836. Available: https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/vvcs02.pdf
• 23. Cantor D, Fisher B, Chibnall S, Bruce C, Townsend R, Thomas G, et al. Report on the AAU Campus Climate Survey on Sexual Assault and Sexual Misconduct. Rockville, MD: Westat; 2015 Sep.
• 24. Krebs C, Lindquist C, Berzofsky M, Shook-Sa B, Peterson K. Campus Climate Survey Validation Study Final Technical Report [Internet]. Bureau of Justice Statistics Research and Development Series; 2016. Report No.: NCJ 249545. Available: https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/ccsvsftr.pdf
• 25. Breiding M, Smith S. Prevalence and Characteristics of Sexual Violence, Stalking, and Intimate Partner Violence Victimization—National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey, United States, 2011. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep Surveill Summ Wash DC 2002. 2014;63: 1–18.
• 29. Cantor D, Fisher B, Chibnall S, Townsend R, Lee H, Bruce C, et al. Report on the AAU Campus Climate Survey on Sexual Assault and Sexual Misconduct. Rockville, MD: Westat; 2015 Sep.
• 43. Dillman DA. Internet, Phone, Mail, and Mixed-Mode Surveys: The Tailored Design Method. 4th ed. Wiley; 2014.
• 44. Statistical Policy Working Paper 22 (Second version, 2005): Report on Statistical Disclosure Limitation Methodology. Federal Committee on Statistical Methodology, Statistical and Science Policy; Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs; Office of Management and Budget; 2005 Dec.
• 48. The GenIUSS Group. Best Practices for Asking Questions to Identify Transgender and Other Gender Minority Respondents on Population-Based Surveys. [Internet]. Los Angeles, CA: The Williams Institute.; 2014. Available: https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/geniuss-report-sep-2014.pdf
• 53. Redford J, Van Wagenen A. Measuring Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in a Self-Administered Survey: Results from Cognitive Research with Older Adults [Internet]. San Francisco, CA: American Institutes for Research; 2012. Available: http://paa2012.princeton.edu/papers/122975
• 54. Sell R. Measures. In: LGBTData.com [Internet]. Available: http://www.lgbtdata.com/measures.html
• 55. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1988.
• 57. Rankin S, Weber G, Blumenfeld W, Frazer M. 2010 State of Higher Education For Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual & Transgender People [Internet]. Charlotte, NC; 2010. Report No.: 978-0-9830176-0–8. Available: https://www.campuspride.org/wp-content/uploads/campuspride2010lgbtreportssummary.pdf
• 65. Wade L. American Hookup: The new culture of sex on campus. 1st ed. W. W. Norton & Company; 2017.
• 66. Cohen R, Klahr R, Vedantam S, Penman M, Boyle T, Schmidt J, et al. Hookup Culture: The Unspoken Rules Of Sex On College Campuses [Internet]. Available: http://www.npr.org/2017/02/14/514578429/hookup-culture-the-unspoken-rules-of-sex-on-college-campuses

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List

Sexual assault incidents among college undergraduates: Prevalence and factors associated with risk

Claude a. mellins.

1 Division of Gender, Sexuality and Health, Departments of Psychiatry and Sociomedical Sciences, New York State Psychiatric Institute and Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York, United States of America

2 Ferkauf Graduate School of Psychology, Yeshiva University, New York, New York, United States of America

3 Department of Epidemiology, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, New York, United States of America

Aaron L. Sarvet

4 Division of Biostatistics, Department of Psychiatry, New York State Psychiatric Institute and Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York, United States of America

Melanie Wall

5 Department of Biostatistics, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, New York, United States of America

Louisa Gilbert

6 Social Intervention Group, School of Social Work, Columbia University, New York, New York, United States of America

John S. Santelli

7 Heilbrunn Department of Population and Family Health, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, New York, United States of America

Martie Thompson

8 Department of Youth, Family, and Community Studies, Clemson University, Clemson, South Carolina, United States of America

Patrick A. Wilson

9 Department of Sociomedical Sciences, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, New York, United States of America

Shamus Khan

10 Department of Sociology, Columbia University, New York, New York, United States of America

Stephanie Benson

Karimata bah, kathy a. kaufman, leigh reardon, jennifer s. hirsch, associated data.

The data underlying the study cannot be made available, beyond the aggregated data that are included in the paper, because of concerns related to participant confidentiality. Sharing the individual-level survey data would violate the terms of our agreement with research participants, and the Columbia University Medical Center IRB has confirmed that the potential for deductive identification and the risk of loss of confidentiality is too great to share the data, even if de-identified.

Sexual assault on college campuses is a public health issue. However varying research methodologies (e.g., different sexual assault definitions, measures, assessment timeframes) and low response rates hamper efforts to define the scope of the problem. To illuminate the complexity of campus sexual assault, we collected survey data from a large population-based random sample of undergraduate students from Columbia University and Barnard College in New York City, using evidence based methods to maximize response rates and sample representativeness, and behaviorally specific measures of sexual assault to accurately capture victimization rates. This paper focuses on student experiences of different types of sexual assault victimization, as well as sociodemographic, social, and risk environment correlates. Descriptive statistics, chi-square tests, and logistic regression were used to estimate prevalences and test associations. Since college entry, 22% of students reported experiencing at least one incident of sexual assault (defined as sexualized touching, attempted penetration [oral, anal, vaginal, other], or completed penetration). Women and gender nonconforming students reported the highest rates (28% and 38%, respectively), although men also reported sexual assault (12.5%). Across types of assault and gender groups, incapacitation due to alcohol and drug use and/or other factors was the perpetration method reported most frequently (> 50%); physical force (particularly for completed penetration in women) and verbal coercion were also commonly reported. Factors associated with increased risk for sexual assault included non-heterosexual identity, difficulty paying for basic necessities, fraternity/sorority membership, participation in more casual sexual encounters (“hook ups”) vs. exclusive/monogamous or no sexual relationships, binge drinking, and experiencing sexual assault before college. High rates of re-victimization during college were reported across gender groups. Our study is consistent with prevalence findings previously reported. Variation in types of assault and methods of perpetration experienced across gender groups highlight the need to develop prevention strategies tailored to specific risk groups.

Introduction

Recent estimates of sexual assault victimization among college students in the United States (US) are as high as 20–25% [ 1 – 3 ], prompting universities to enhance or develop policies and programs to prevent sexual assault. However, a 2016 review [ 4 ] highlights the variation in sexual assault prevalence estimates (1.8% to 34%) which likely can be attributed to methodological differences across studies, including varying sexual assault definitions, sampling methods, assessment timeframes, and target populations [ 4 ]. Such differences can hamper efforts to understand the scope of the problem. Moreover, while accurate estimates of prevalence are crucial for calling attention to the population-health burden of sexual assault, knowing more about risk factors is critical for determining resource allocation and developing effective programs and policies for prevention.

Reasons for the variation in prevalence estimates include different definitions of sexual assault and assessment methods. Under the rubric of sexual assault, researchers have investigated experiences ranging from sexual harassment at school or work, to unwanted touching, including fondling on the street or dance floor, to either unwanted/non-consensual attempts at oral, anal or vaginal sexual intercourse (attempted penetrative sex), or completed penetrative sex [ 3 , 5 – 7 ]. Some studies have focused on a composite variable of multiple forms of unwanted/non-consensual sexual contact [ 8 , 9 ] while others focus on a single behavior, such as completed rape [ 10 ]. Some studies focus on acts perpetrated by a single method (e.g. incapacitation due to alcohol and drug use or other factors) [ 11 ], while others include a range of methods (e.g., physical force, verbal coercion, and incapacitation) [ 12 – 15 ]. In general, studies that ask about a wide range of acts and use behaviorally specific questions about types of sexual assault and methods of perpetration have yielded more accurate estimates [ 16 ]. Behavioral specificity avoids the pitfall of participants using their own sexual assault definitions and does not require the respondent to identify as a victim or survivor, which may lead to underreporting [ 10 , 17 – 19 ].

Although an increasing number of studies have used behaviorally specific methods and examined prevalence and predictors of sexual assault [ 20 , 21 ], they typically have used convenience samples. Only a few published studies have used population-based surveys and achieved response rates sufficient to mitigate some of the concerns of sample response bias [ 4 ]. US federal agencies have urged universities to implement standardized “campus climate surveys” to assess the prevalence and reporting of sexual violence [ 22 ]. Although these surveys have emphasized behavioral specificity, many have yielded low response rates (e.g., 25%) [ 23 ], particularly among men [ 24 ], creating potential for response bias in the obtained data. Population-based probability samples with behavioral specificity, good response rates, sufficiently large samples to examine risk for specific subgroups (e.g., sexual minority students), and detailed information on personal, social, or contextual risk factors (e.g., alcohol use) [ 22 , 23 ] are needed to more accurately define prevalence and inform evidence-based sexual assault prevention programs.

Existing evidence suggests that most sexual assault incidents are perpetrated against women [ 25 ]; however, few studies have examined college men as survivors of assault [ 26 – 28 ]. Furthermore, our understanding of how sexual orientation and gender identity relate to risk for sexual assault is limited, despite indications that lesbian, gay, bisexual (LGB), and gender non-conforming (GNC) students are at high risk [ 29 – 31 ]. It is unclear if these groups are at higher risk for all types of sexual assault or if prevention programming should be tailored to address particular types of assault within these groups. Also, although women appear to be at highest risk for assault during freshman year [ 32 , 33 ], the dearth of studies with men or GNC students have limited conclusions about whether freshman year is also a risky period for them.

Additional factors associated with experiencing sexual assault in college students include being a racial/ethnic minority student (although there are mixed findings on race/ethnicity) [ 34 , 35 ], low financial status, and prior history of sexual assault [ 3 , 33 , 36 ]. Other risk factors include variables related to student social life, including being a freshman [ 24 ], participating in fraternities and sororities [ 19 , 37 , 38 ], binge drinking [ 1 , 39 ] and participating in “hook-up” culture [ 40 – 42 ]. Whether sexual assault is happening in the context of more casual, typically non-committal sexual relationships (“hook-ups”) [ 40 ] vs. steady intimate or monogamous relationships has important implications for prevention efforts.

To fill some of these knowledge gaps, we examined survey data collected from a large population-based random sample of undergraduate women, men, and GNC students at Columbia University (CU) and Barnard College (BC). The aims of this paper are to:

• Estimate the prevalence of types of sexual assault incidents involving a) sexualized touching, b) attempted penetrative (oral, anal or vaginal) sex, and c) completed penetrative sex since starting at CU/BC;
• Describe the methods of perpetration (e.g., incapacitation, physical force, verbal coercion) used; and
• Examine associations between key sociodemographic, social and romantic/sexual relationship factors and different types of sexual assault victimization, and how these associations differ by gender.

Materials and methods

This study used data from a population-representative survey that formed one component of the Sexual Health Initiative to Foster Transformation (SHIFT) study. SHIFT used mixed methods to examine risk and protective factors affecting sexual health and sexual violence among college undergraduates from two inter-related institutions, CU’s undergraduate schools (co-educational) and BC (women only), both located in New York City. SHIFT featured ethnographic research, the survey, and a daily diary study. Additionally, SHIFT focused on internal policy-translation work to inform institutionally-appropriate, multi-level approaches to prevention.

Participants

Survey participants were selected via stratified random sampling from the March 2016 population of 9,616 CU/BC undergraduate students ages 18–29 years. We utilized evidence-based methods to enhance response rates and sample representativeness [ 22 , 43 ]. Using administrative records of enrolled students, 2,500 students (2,000 from CU and 500 from BC) were invited via email to participate in a web-based survey. Of these 2,500 students, 1,671 (67%) consented to participate (see Procedures). Among those who consented to participate, 80.5% were from CU and 19.5% were from BC (see Table 1 below for demographic data on the CU/BC student population, the random sample of students contacted, the survey responders, and the current analytic sample).

a Cramer’s V is a measure of effect size for the difference between the demographic distributions in the responders (n = 1671) vs the full sample (n = 2500). Cohen (1988) recommends that when Cramer’s V <0.10 this indicates small effects suggesting no practical difference between samples.

b Senior responders included (n = 9) students who self-reported their year in school as fifth or more (undergrad only).

SHIFT employed multiple procedures to assure protection of students involved in our study; these procedures also improve scientific rigor. The study was approved by the Columbia University Medical Center Institutional Review Board and we obtained a federal Certificate of Confidentiality to legally protect our data from subpoena. SHIFT also obtained a University waiver from reporting on individual sexual assaults, as reporting would obviate student privacy and willingness to participate. Students were offered information about referrals to health and mental health resources during the consent process and at the end of the survey, and such information was available from SHIFT via other communication channels. Finally, in reporting data we suppressed data from tables where there were less than 3 subjects in any cell to avoid the possibility of deductive identification of an individual student [ 44 ].

SHIFT used principles of Community Based Participatory Research regarding ongoing dialogue with University stakeholders on study development and implementation to maximize the quality of data and impact of research findings [ 45 ]. This included weekly meetings between SHIFT investigators and an Undergraduate Advisory Board, consisting of 13–18 students, reflecting the undergraduate student body’s diversity in terms of gender, race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, year in school, and activities (e.g., fraternity/sorority membership). It also included regular meetings with an Institutional Advisory Board comprised of senior administrators, including CU’s Office of General Counsel, facilities, sexual violence response, student conduct, officials involved in gender-based misconduct concerns, athletics, a chaplain, mental health and counseling, residential life, student health, and student life.

Following both the Undergraduate Advisory Board’s recommendations and Dillman’s Tailored Design Method for maximizing survey response rates [ 43 ], multiple methods were used to advertise and recruit students. These included: a) email messages, both to generate interest and remind students who had been selected to participate, crafted to resonate with diverse student motives for participation (e.g., interest in sexual assault, compensation, community spirit, and achieving higher response rates than surveys at peer institutions), b) posting flyers, c) holding “study breaks,” in which students were given snacks and drinks, and d) tabling in public areas on campus.

Participants used a unique link to access the survey either at our on-campus research office where computers and snacks were provided (16% of participants) or at a location of their choosing (84% of participants) from March-May, 2016. Before beginning the survey, participants were asked to provide informed consent on an electronic form describing the study, confidentiality, compensation for time and effort, data handling procedures, and the right to refuse to answer any question. Students who completed the survey received $40 in compensation, given in cash to those who completed the survey in our on-campus research office or as an electronic gift card if completed elsewhere. Students were also entered into a lottery to win additional $200 electronic gift cards. This compensation was established based on feedback from student and institutional advisors and reviewed by our Institutional Review Board. It was judged to be sufficient to promote participation, and help ensure that we captured a representative sample, including students who might otherwise have to choose between paid opportunities and participating in our survey, but not great enough to feel coercive for low resource students. This amount of compensation is in line with other similar studies [ 46 ]. On average, the survey took 35–40 minutes to complete.

The SHIFT survey included behaviorally-specific measures of different types of sexual assault, perpetrated by different methods, as well as measures of key sociodemographic, social and sexual relationship factors, and risk environment characteristics. The majority of instruments had been validated previously with college- age students. The survey was administered in English using Qualtrics ( www.qualtrics.com ), providing a secure platform for online data collection.

Sexual assault

Sexual assault was assessed with a slightly modified version of the revised Sexual Experiences Survey [ 16 ], the most widely used measure of sexual assault victimization with very good psychometric properties including internal consistency and validity previously published [ 17 , 47 ]. The Sexual Experiences Survey employs behaviorally specific questions to improve accuracy [ 18 ]. The scale includes questions on type of assault, including sexualized touching without penetration (touching, kissing, fondling, grabbing in a sexual way), attempted but not completed penetrative assault (oral, vaginal, anal or other type of penetration; herein referred to as attempted penetrative assault) and completed penetrative assault (herein referred to as penetrative assault). We used most of the Sexual Experiences Survey as is. However, with strong urging from our Undergraduate Advisory Board, we made a modification, combining the questions about different types of penetration (oral, vaginal, etc.) rather than asking about each kind separately. In the Sexual Experiences Survey, for each type of assault there are six methods of perpetration. Two of the types reflect verbal coercion: 1) “Telling lies, threatening to end the relationship, threatening to spread rumors about me, making promises I knew were untrue, or continually verbally pressuring me after I said I didn’t want to” (herein referred to as “lying/threats”), and 2) “Showing displeasure, criticizing my sexuality or attractiveness, getting angry but not using physical force, after I said I didn’t want to” (herein referred to as “criticism”). The remaining types included use of physical force, threats of physical harm, or incapacitation (“Taking advantage when I couldn’t say no because I was either too drunk, passed out, asleep or otherwise incapacitated”), and other. For each incident of sexual assault, participants could endorse multiple methods of perpetration. Participants were also asked to report whether these experiences occurred: a) during the current academic year (this was a second modification to the Sexual Experiences Survey) and/or b) since enrollment but prior to the current academic year. For this paper, data for the two time periods were combined, reflecting the entire period since starting CU/BC. See Fig 1 for a replica of the questionnaire.

Demographics

Demographics included gender identity (male, female, trans-male/trans-female, gender queer/gender-non-conforming, other) [ 48 ], year in school (e.g., freshman, sophomore, junior, senior), age, US born (yes/no), lived in US less than five years (yes/no; proxy for recent international student status), transfer student (yes/no), low socioeconomic status (receipt of Pell grant-yes/no [need-based grants for low-income students, with eligibility dependent on family income]); how often participant has trouble paying for basic necessities (never, rarely, sometimes, often, all of the time), and race/ethnicity (non-Hispanic white, non-Hispanic-Asian, non-Hispanic black, Hispanic/Latin-x, other [other included: American Indian or Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, More than one Race/Ethnicity, Other]). Gender was categorized as follows: female, male and GNC (students who responded to gender identity question as anything other than male or female).

Fraternity/Sorority

Fraternity/sorority membership (ever participated) was assessed with one question from a school activities checklist (yes/no). We report on Greek life participation here to engage with the substantial attention this has received as a risk factor.

Problematic drinking

Problematic drinking during the last year was assessed with the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) [ 49 ], a widely used, well-validated standardized 10-item screening tool developed by the World Health Organization. Psychometrics have been established in numerous studies [ 50 – 52 ]. The AUDIT assesses alcohol consumption, drinking behaviors, and alcohol-related problems. Participants rate each question on a 5-point scale from 0 (never) to 4 (daily or almost daily) for possible scores ranging from 0 to 40. The range of AUDIT scores represents varying levels of risk: 0–7 (low), 8–15 (risky or hazardous), 16–19 (high-risk or harmful), and 20 or greater (high-risk). We also examined one AUDIT item on binge drinking, defined as having 6+ drinks on one occasion at least monthly [ 49 ].

Sexual orientation

Sexual orientation was assessed with one question with the following response options (students could select all that applied): asexual, pansexual, bisexual, queer, heterosexual and homosexual, as well as other [ 53 , 54 ]. Students were categorized into four mutually exclusive groups for analyses: heterosexual, bisexual, homosexual, and other which included asexual, pansexual, queer, or another identity not listed. Non-heterosexual students who indicated more than one orientation were assigned hierarchically to bisexual, homosexual, then other.

Romantic/sexual relationships

Romantic/sexual relationships since enrollment at CU/BC were assessed with one question. Response choices included: none, steady or serious relationship, exclusive or monogamous relationship, hook-up-one time, and ongoing hook-up or friends with benefits. Students defined “hookup” for themselves. Students could check all that applied. This variable was trichotomized: at least one hook-up, only steady or exclusive/monogamous relationships, and no romantic/sexual relationships.

Pre-college sexual assault

Students also were asked one yes/no question on whether they had experienced any unwanted sexual contact prior to enrolling at CU/BC.

Data analysis

To assess the representativeness of the sample, the distribution of demographic variables based on administrative records from CU and BC for the total University undergraduate population were compared to the random sample of students contacted, the survey responders, and the current analytic sample, which consists of students that responded to the questions about sexual assault. Demographics for survey responders are based on self-report from the survey. Cramer’s V effect size was used to assess the magnitude of the differences in demographic distributions between the CU/BC population and respondent sample where smaller values (i.e. Cramer’s V <0.10) indicate strong similarity [ 55 ].

Analyses were performed on each type of sexual assault as well as a combined “Any type of sexual assault” variable: yes/no experienced sexualized touching, attempted penetrative assault, and/or penetrative assault since CU/BC. Prevalence of each type of sexual assault was calculated by gender and year in school, with chi-square tests of difference used to compare prevalence between genders across each year in school versus freshman year. The total number of incidents of assault and the mean, median and standard deviation for number of incidents of assault per person reporting at least one assault were summarized. Among individuals who experienced any type of sexual assault, the proportions that experienced a particular method of perpetration (e.g. incapacitation, physical force) were calculated by type of sexual assault. Chi-square tests compared proportions between males and females for each perpetration method. The associations of each key correlate with the odds of experiencing any sexual assault were calculated and tested using logistic regression stratified by male/female gender. In addition, a multinomial regression with hierarchical categories (no assault, sexualized touching only, attempted penetrative assault [not completed], and penetrative assault [completed]) as the outcome was performed to examine if associations differed by type of sexual assault. To adjust for the fact that the sample comes from a finite population (i.e. CU/BC N = 5,765 women; N = 3,851 men), a standard finite population correction was implemented for standard error estimation using SAS Proc Surveylogistic. Given the low sample size of GNC students, they were excluded from some analyses. All analyses were conducted using SAS (v. 9.4).

Descriptive statistics

Table 1 presents demographic data on the full University, the randomly selected sample, the respondents and the analytic sample for this paper. Among students who consented to the survey (n = 1,671), 46 stopped the survey before the sexual assault questions and 33 refused to answer them resulting in an analytic sample of n = 1,592 (95% completion among responders). Demographic characteristics (i.e. gender [male, female], age, race/ethnicity, year in school, international status, and economic need [Pell grant status]) of the respondent sample were very similar (Cramer’s V effect size differences all <0.10 [ 55 ]) to the full CU/BC population ( Table 1 ) indicating that the responder and final analytic samples were representative of the student body population.

The analytic sample included 58% women, 40% men, and 2% GNC students (4 students refused to identify their gender) and was distributed evenly by year in school with most (92%) between18-23 years of age. Self-reported race/ethnicity was 43% white non-Hispanic, 23% Asian, 15% Hispanic/Latino, and 8% black non-Hispanic; 13% were transfer students, and the majority of the sample was born in the US (76%). Twenty-three percent of participants received Pell grants and 51% of students acknowledged at least sometimes having difficulty paying for basic necessities.

The majority of women (79%) and men (85%) identified as heterosexual. In terms of romantic/sexual relationships since starting CU/BC, 30.0% of women and 21.6% of men reported no relationships, 21.0% of women and 22.6% of men reported only steady/exclusive relationships with no hookups, and 49.0% of women and 55.7% of men reported at least one hook-up. Finally, 25.5% of women, 9.4% of men, and 47.0% of GNC students reported pre-college sexual assault.

Aim 1: Prevalence of sexual assault victimization at CU/BC

Overall rates by gender and school year.

Since starting CU/BC, 22.0% (350/1,592) of students reported experiencing at least one incident of any sexual assault across the three types (sexualized touching, attempted penetrative assault, and penetrative assault). Table 2 presents data on types of assault by gender and year in school. Women were over twice as likely as men to report any sexual assault (28.1% vs 12.5%). There was evidence of cumulative risk for experiencing sexual assault among women over four years of college, so that by junior and senior year, respectively, 29.7% and 36.4% of women reported experiencing any sexual assault, compared to 21.0% of freshman women who had only one year of possible exposure (p < .05). However, one-fifth (21.0%) of women who took the survey as freshman had experienced unwanted sexual contact, compared to 36.4% over 3+ years (seniors), suggesting that as others have found, the risk of assault is highest in freshman year.

Note: Some respondents reported multiple unique incidents corresponding to multiple types of unwanted sexual contact; therefore, total number of respondents who experienced each of the three types of unwanted sexual contact do not sum to total number of respondents who experienced "Any type" of unwanted sexual contact.

* p < .05 for test of proportion difference vs. Freshman within each gender.

Cells with 3 or fewer respondents have been suppressed, noted here with a dash through the cell.

Among men, one in eight indicated that they had been sexually assaulted since starting CU. Similar to women, the risk for sexual assault among men accumulated over the four years of college, with 15.6% of seniors vs 9.9% of freshman reporting a sexual assault since entering CU, although this difference was not statistically significant.

Although the numbers were small, GNC students reported the highest prevalence of sexual assault since starting CU/BC (38.5%; 10/26). Numbers were too small (n<3) to present stratified by year in school (see Table 2 ).

Types of sexual assault by gender ( Table 2 )

The most prevalent form of sexual assault was sexualized touching; rates for women (23.6%) and GNC students (38.5%) were significantly higher than rates for men (11.0%; p < .05). Prevalence of attempted penetrative assault and penetrative assault were about half that of sexualized touching. Compared to men, women were three times as likely to report attempted penetrative assault (11.1% vs 3.8%) and over twice as likely to experience penetrative assault (13.6% vs 5.2%). Among GNC students, the majority reporting sexualized touching, with rates of the other two types too small to report.

Experiencing multiple sexual assaults ( Fig 2 ; S1 Table )

Students could report multiple types of sexual assault incidents (i.e. sexualized touching, attempted penetrative, and penetrative assault) as well as multiple incidents experienced of each type. Overall, students reported a total of 1,007 incidents of sexual assault experienced since starting CU/BC. For the 350 students who indicated any sexual assault, the median number of incidents experienced was 3.

Among the 350 students reporting any sexual assault, Fig 2 presents different combinations of sexual assault experienced by students since CU/BC. Most prevalent, 38.0% reported experiencing only sexualized touching; 19.0% reported both sexualized touching and penetrative assault incidents; 17.0% experienced all three types of assault; and 12.0% sexualized touching and attempted penetrative assault.

Aim 2: Methods of perpetration (lying/threats, criticism, incapacitation, physical force, threats of harm, and other) by gender ( Table 3 )

* p < .05 for test of proportion difference between male vs female for specific method of coercion by type.

a % can add up to more than 100% within type due to multiple coercion methods reported.

Across types of assault, incapacitation was the method of perpetration reported most frequently (> 50%) in both men and women. For both women and men, approximately two-thirds of all penetrative assaults and about half of sexualized touching and attempted penetrative assaults involved incapacitation.

Physical force was reported significantly more frequently by women than men (34.6% vs 12.7%) for any sexual assault. More specifically, compared to men, women were three times more likely to experience sexualized touching via physical force (32.1% vs. 10.0%), and six times more likely to experience penetrative assaults via physical force (33.3% vs 6.1%).

Lastly, a sizeable number of respondents reported verbal coercion (ranging from 21.0% to over 40.0% depending on type of assault). Criticism was cited by women at rates similar to physical force for both sexualized touching and penetrative assaults. Among men, both verbal coercion methods were cited most frequently after incapacitation for all three types of assault.

For GNC students, we examined rates of each perpetration method for only the composite variable any sexual assault (due to small numbers in any specific type of assault). Among those who experienced an assault, incapacitation was the most frequently mentioned method (50.0%), followed by criticism (40.0%).

Aim 3: Identify factors associated with sexual assault experiences

We examined the association between sexual assault (both any sexual assault [ Table 4 ] and each type of sexual assault [ Table 5 ]) and key demographic, sexual history and social activity factors. Results are stratified by gender (women/men).

a As measured by a score of 8 or more on the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT).

NE = Not estimable due to small cell sizes.

Race/Ethnicity

For both women and men, the prevalence of any sexual assault was similar for all race/ethnicity groups compared to non-Hispanic White students with one exception. Asian students (women and men) were less likely to experience any sexual assault than non-Hispanic White students. For women only, differences emerged by type of assault. Asian women compared to non-Hispanic White women were less likely to experience penetrative assault (OR = 0.35, CI: 0.19–0.62), but not attempted penetrative assault (OR = 0.56, CI: 0.25–1.26), nor sexualized touching only (OR = 1.00, CI: 0.59–1.69). Black women were found to have increased odds of touching only incidents compared to non-Hispanic White women (OR = 1.99, CI: 1.05–3.74). There were no other significant racial or ethnic differences.

Economic precarity

Women who often or always had difficulty paying for basic necessities had increased odds of any sexual assault; for men the trend was similar but it did not reach statistical significance. Considering penetrative assault specifically, both men and women who often or always had difficulty paying for basic necessities had increased risk (women OR = 2.24, CI: 1.23–4.09; men OR = 3.07, CI: 1.04–9.07) compared to those who never had difficulty.

Transfer student

Women transfer students were less likely to experience any sexual assault than non-transfer students. Closer inspection of type of assault revealed that this protective effect was seen for sexualized touching only (OR = 0.34, CI: 0.15–0.80), but not for penetrative (OR = 0.60, CI: 0.34–1.08), nor attempted penetrative (OR = 1.03, CI: 0.48–2.21) assault. There were no significant differences between men who were transfer students and those who were not.

For women, those who identified as bisexual and those who identified as some other sexual identity besides heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual (includes people endorsing exclusively one or a combination of: Asexual, Pansexual, Queer, or a sexual orientation not listed), were more likely to experience any sexual assault than heterosexual students. For penetrative assault specifically, this increased risk was only present for individuals with some other sexual identity (OR = 2.11, CI: 1.20–3.73). For men, those who identified as homosexual were more likely to experience any sexual assault than heterosexual male students. For penetrative assault specifically, those who identified as homosexual, bisexual, or some other sexual identity all had substantially increased risk compared to those with a heterosexual identity (OR = 4.74, CI: 2.10–10.71; OR = 3.39, CI: 1.03–11.16; OR = 4.74, CI:1.10–20.48, respectively).

Information about the gender of the perpetrator for different gender and sexual orientation groups was available for a subset of incidents (336/997). Among these events, 98.4% (3/184) of the heterosexual women indicated the perpetrator was a man, while 97.1% (33/34) of the bisexual women, 75% (3/4) of the homosexual women, and 88.9% (24/27) of the other sexual identity women indicated it was a man. For men who were assaulted, 84.9% (45/53) of the heterosexual men reported the perpetrator was a woman, while 0 of the homosexual men said the perpetrator was a woman. Numbers for bisexual men and other sexual identity men were too small to report separately, but combined showed that 5/8 (63.0%) of bisexual and other sexual identity men said the perpetrator was a woman. Of the GNC students reporting on a most-significant event, 77.8% (7/9) reported that they were assaulted by a male perpetrator (the numbers are too small to further examine by sexual orientation).

Lived in US less than 5 years

There was no association found between living in the US for less than 5 years and any sexual assault, nor any specific type of sexual assault.

Relationship status

Among both women and men, students who had at least one hook-up were more likely to have experienced any sexual assault than students who were in only steady/exclusive relationships since starting college. Among women who had engaged in at least one hook-up, this increased risk held for each type of sexual assault (penetrative: OR = 5.03, CI = 2.91–8.68, attempted penetrative: OR = 4.43, CI = 1.83–10.8, sexualized touching only: OR = 3.26, CI = 1.74–6.09), while among men the increased risk was found for sexualized touching only (OR = 13.33, CI = 2.09–85.08), but could not be estimated (due to small numbers) for completed penetrative assault. Women who did not have any romantic or sexual relationship since CU/BC were found to be less likely to experience penetrative assault than women who had a steady/exclusive relationships only (OR = 0.05, CI: 0.01–0.31).

Fraternity/Sorority membership

Although a relative minority of students participated in fraternities (24.1%) or sororities (18.2%), for both men and women, those who participated were more likely to experience any sexual assault than those who did not. Examination of type of assault revealed that the effect is driven primarily by sexualized touching only which is significant in both women (OR = 1.63, CI: 1.00–2.67) and men (OR = 2.40, CI: 1.25–4.63) and not significantly increased for penetrative nor attempted penetrative assault.

Risky or hazardous drinking

For both men and women, individuals who met criteria on the AUDIT for risky or hazardous drinking were more likely to experience any sexual assault than those who did not. When examining each type of assault separately, for men this increased risk was only significant for penetrative assault (OR = 4.07, CI: 2.01–8.21). For women, the increased risk of assault held for each type of assault—penetrative (OR = 6.04, CI: 4.10–8.90), attempted (OR = 3.38, CI: 1.84–6.19) and touching (OR = 2.33, CI: 1.42–3.81). We also looked at one AUDIT item specifically on binge drinking (6 or more drinks on a single occasion). Individuals who reported binge drinking at least monthly were more likely to experience any sexual assault than those who did not. When examining each type of assault separately, for men this increased risk was only significant for penetrative assault (OR = 2.15, CI: 1.12–4.15). For women, this increased risk was significant for penetrative assault (OR = 3.12, CI: 2.09–4.65), attempted assault (OR = 2.28, CI: 1.20–4.33), and touching (OR = 2.42, CI:1.50–3.91).

Pre-college assault ( Table 5 )

Among both women and men, those who experienced pre-college assault were more likely to experience any sexual assault while at CU/BC. The increased risk held for penetrative assault in both women (OR = 3.01, CI: 2.07–4.37) and men (OR = 2.44, CI: 1.03–5.76). In women, the increased risk also held for attempted penetrative, but not touching only, whereas in men, the increased risk held for touching only, but not attempted penetrative sex.

The SHIFT survey, with a population-representative sample, good response rate and behaviorally-specific questions, found that 22.0% of students reported a sexual assault since starting college, which confirms previous studies of 1 in 4 or 1 in 5 prevalence estimates with national samples and a range of types of schools [ 23 , 24 ]. However, a key finding is that focusing only on the “1 in 4/ 1 in 5” rate of any sexual assault obscures much of the nuance concerning types of sexual assault as well as the differential group risk, as prevalence rates were unevenly distributed across gender and several other social and demographic factors.

Similar to other studies [ 4 , 24 ], women had much higher rates of experiencing any type of sexual assault compared to men (28.0% vs 12.0%). Moreover, our data suggest a cumulative risk for sexual assault experiences over four years of college with over one in three women experiencing an assault by senior year. However, our data also suggest that freshman year, particularly for women, is when the greatest percentage experience an assault. This supports other work on freshman year as a particularly critical time for prevention efforts, otherwise known as the “red zone” effect for women [ 32 ].

Importantly, our study confirms that GNC students are at heightened risk for sexual assault [ 23 ]. They had the highest proportion of sexual assaults, with 38.0% reporting at least one incident, the majority of which involved unwanted/non-consensual sexualized touching. These data should be interpreted very cautiously given the small number of GNC students. However, increasingly studies suggest that transgender and other GNC students have sexual health needs that may not be targeted by traditional programming [ 57 ]; thus, a better understanding of pathways to vulnerability among these students is of high importance.

Similarly, students who identified as a sexual orientation other than heterosexual were at increased risk for experiencing any sexual assault, with bisexual women or women who identified as “other” and men who identified as any non-heterosexual category at increased risk. Similar to GNC students, understanding the specific social and sexual health needs of LGB students, particularly as it relates to reducing sexual assault risk is critical to prevention efforts [ 58 ]. Factors such as stigma and discrimination, lack of communication, substance use, as well as a potential lack of tailored prevention programs may play a role. To our knowledge, there are no evidence-based college sexual assault prevention programs targeting LGB and GNC students. Our data suggest that the LGB and GNC experiences are not uniform; more research should be done within each of these groups to understand the mechanisms behind their potentially unique risk factors.

Our data also suggest that the 20–25% rate of any sexual assault obscures variation in assault experiences. Sexualized touching accounted for the highest percentage of acts across gender groups, with over one-third of participants reporting only sexualized touching incidents. Rates of attempted and completed penetrative sexual assault were about half the rate of sexualized touching. This finding does not minimize the importance of addressing unacceptably high rates of attempted penetrative and penetrative assault (14%-15%), but it does suggest the importance of specificity in prevention efforts. For GNC students, for example, the risk of assault was primarily for sexualized touching with very few reporting attempted penetrative assault or penetrative assault during their time at CU/BC. These elevated rates of unwanted sexual touching may be a combination of GNC students’ focus on their gendered sexual boundaries–and thus potentially greater awareness of when advances are unwanted–at a developmental moment when they are building non-traditional gender identities, as well as these students’ social vulnerability. Further investigation is warranted.

Moreover, there was variation in methods of perpetration reported by survivors of sexual assault. Incapacitation was the most common method reported across all gender groups for each type of assault, and female and male students who reported risky or hazardous drinking were at increased risk for experiencing any sexual assault, particularly penetrative assault. Across campuses in the US, hazardous drinking is a national problem with substantive negative health outcomes, risk for sexual assault being one of them [ 2 , 39 , 59 ]. Our data underline the potential of programs and policies to reduce substance use and limit its harms as one element of comprehensive sexual assault prevention; we found few evidence-based interventions that address both binge drinking and sexual assault prevention. Of course, any work addressing substance use as a driver of vulnerability must do so in a way that does not replicate victim-blaming.

However, similar to other studies with broad foci, incapacitation was not the only method of perpetration reported. For women, physical force, particularly for penetrative sex, was the second most frequently endorsed method. Verbal coercion, including criticism, lying and threats to end the relationship or spread rumors, was also employed at rates similar to physical force for women, and was the second most frequently endorsed category for men and GNC students. Prevention programs, such as the bystander interventions which are the focus of efforts on many campuses [ 60 ], often focus on incapacitation or physical force. These interventions tend to highlight situations where survivors (typically women) are vulnerable because they are under the influence of substances. In SHIFT, verbal coercion is also shown to be a powerful driver of assault; however, it typically does not receive as much attention as rape, which is legally defined as penetration due to physical force or incapacitation. If a survivor is verbally coerced into providing affirmative consent, the incident could be considered within consent guidelines of “yes means yes” but it may have been unwanted by the survivor [ 61 , 62 ]. Assertiveness interventions and those that focus on verbal consent practices may be useful for addressing this form of assault.

We also found high rates of re-victimization. As others have found, pre-college sexual assault was a key predictor for experiencing assault at CU/BC [ 33 , 36 ]. However, we also found high rates of repeat victimization since starting at CU/BC with a median of 3 incidents per person reporting any sexual assault since starting CU/BC, and the highest risk of repeat victimization in women and GNC students. These data underline the importance of prevention efforts that include care for survivors to reduce the enhanced vulnerability that has been shown in other populations of assault survivors [ 36 ]. Future studies should also seek to disaggregate the relationship between type of victimization (sexualized touching, attempted penetrative assault, penetrative assault) and repeat victimization.

This study also identified a number of variables associated with sexual assault, some similar to previous studies and others different. As noted, gender was a key correlate. While prevention efforts should respond to the population-level burden by focusing on the needs of women and GNC students, it is important to note that men were also at risk of sexual assault. In our study, nearly 1 in 8 men reported a sexual assault experience, a rate also found in the Online College Social Life survey [ 56 ], but higher than other studies [ 63 , 64 ]. Few programs target men, and issues around masculinity and gender roles may make it difficult for men to consider or report what has happened to them as sexual assault. Importantly, this study found that men who were members of fraternities were at higher risk for experiencing assault (specifically unwanted/nonconsensual sexualized touching) than those who were not members. This is consistent with previous findings, including the Online College Social Life survey [ 56 ], but is of particular note because research has identified men in fraternities as more likely to be perpetrators [ 64 ], but few, if any, studies have looked at fraternity members’ vulnerability to sexual assault. Our data suggest a need for further examination of the cultural and organizational dimensions of Greek life that produce this heightened risk of being assaulted for both men and women. However, it is important to note that we did not examine a range of other social and extracurricular groups which may have produced risk as well and thus a more full examination of student undergraduate life is needed.

One other key factor associated with assault was participation in “hook ups”. Both male and female students who reported hooking up were more likely to report experiencing sexual assault, compared to students who only had exclusive or monogamous relationships and those who had no sexual relationships. The role of hooking up on college campuses has received much attention in the popular press and in a number of books [ 65 , 66 ], but little has been written about its connection to sexual assault, although several recent studies are in line with ours about its role as a risk factor for experiencing sexual assault on college campuses [ 40 , 41 ]. Multiple mechanisms may be at work: students who participate in hookups may be having sex with more people, and thus face greater risk of assault due to greater exposure to sex with a potential perpetrator, but students who participate in hookups may also face increased vulnerability because many hookups involve “drunk” sex, or because hookups by definition involve sexual interactions between people who are not in a long-term intimate relationship, and thus whose bodies and social cues maybe unfamiliar to each other. Alternatively some aspects of hook-ups may be more or less risky than others and therefore continued study of different dimensions of these more casual relationships that can refer to a wide-range of behaviors is necessary.

Several demographic characteristics were not for the most part associated with sexual assault. We did not find racial or ethnic differences in sexual assault risk with primarily one exception, Asian male and female students were at less risk overall compared to white students. We also did not find transfer students to be at greater risk; female transfer students were actually at lower risk, potentially due to less exposure time, particularly during freshman year. International student status as indicated by having been in the US<5 years was also not associated with increased risk. However, this study highlights the role of economic factors that have received limited attention in the literature. Little is known about how economic insecurity may drive vulnerability, but issues of power, privilege, and control of alcohol and space all require further examination.

There are several limitations to this study. Participants came from only two private schools that are interconnected in one city, and thus findings may not generalize to the rest of the US. There is a continued need for more national studies with different types of colleges and universities in urban and rural environments with more varied economic backgrounds in order to fully understand institutional and contextual differences. Although we had a response rate that was higher than many prior studies and our rates of sexual assault are consistent with prior studies [ 4 ], we cannot assess the extent to which selection bias may have occurred and therefore, our rates could be an underrepresentation or overrepresentation depending on who chose to participate. Although this concern is somewhat mitigated by findings that basic demographic data between respondents and the total population of students at two colleges suggest no significant differences, there may be some bias in factors we did not consider. Our present analysis has focused only on bivariate associations between risk factors and assault. While this analysis provides a valuable description of which groups are at elevated risk or not, future work will consider how combinations of risk factors at different levels may interact to increase risk. Critically, the analysis presented here reflects a focus on those who experience being assaulted, but in other work we look at the characteristics of perpetrators, both from those who reported perpetrating and from a subset of incidents that survey respondents described in depth, which provided more information about the perpetrator. A greater understanding of the characteristics and contexts of perpetration is without question vital for effective prevention. Finally, our data are cross sectional. Longitudinal studies with a comprehensive range of predictors are critical for identifying pathways of causality and targets for interventions.

Despite these limitations, this study confirms the unacceptably high rates of sexual assault and suggests diversity in experiences and methods of perpetration. A key conclusion is that a”one size fits all” approach that characterizes the extant literature on evidence-based prevention programs [ 67 ] may need to be altered to more effectively prevent sexual assault in college. Clearly different groups had differential risk for assault and may require much more targeted prevention efforts. Bystander interventions have shown promise in addressing risk in social situations, including fraternity parties and other settings with high alcohol use [ 68 , 69 ]. However, bystander interventions may not be sufficient for incidents occurring in non-party contexts where verbal coercion methods or physical force may be used without others around.

Creating effective and sustainable changes to campus culture requires engaging with a broad range of institutional stakeholders. SHIFT investigators are in the process of sharing selected findings with both student and institutional advisory boards, and an intensive collaborative process allows us to explore the implications of our results for a broad range of policies and programs, including both elements commonly considered as sexual assault prevention (consent education, bystander trainings), more general topics related to sexual orientation and verbal discussions of sex, and aspects of the institutional context across diverse domains including alcohol policy, mental health services, residential life policies, orientation planning, and the allocation of space across campus.

Overall, our findings argue for the potential of a systems-based [ 70 ] public health approach–one that recognizes the multiple interrelated factors that produce adverse outcomes, and perhaps particularly emphasizes gender and economic disparities and resulting power dynamics, widespread use of alcohol, attitudes about sexuality, and conversations about sex–to make inroads on an issue that stubbornly persists.

Supporting information

Acknowledgments.

The authors thank our research participants; the Undergraduate Advisory Board; Columbia University’s Office of the President and Office of University Life, and the entire SHIFT team who contributed to the development and implementation of this ambitious effort.

Funding Statement

This research was funded by Columbia University through a donation from the Levine Family. The funder (Levine Family) had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Data Availability

• Anti-Abortion Movement
• Women’s History
• Film & TV
• Gender Violence
• #50YearsofMs

More Than A Magazine, A Movement

• Justice & Law
• Violence & Harassment

I’m 18 and I’m Afraid: The Looming Threat of On-Campus Sexual Assault

Social media has allowed students across the u.s. to connect and share stories of harassment and sexual assault on campus—increasing awareness, protecting each other and motivating universities to take action..

At 10:12 p.m. on Nov. 29, I sat alone in the middle of one of my university libraries and began to cry. I wasn’t crying over a calculus problem or the final papers I needed to write, but an article published about sexual violence at Tulane .

I am 18, a first-year college student at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, more than 800 miles away from my family. At the beginning of the school year, I became aware of the “ Red Zone ,” a time when sexual assaults on campus are higher, partly due to students struggling to navigate a new environment. At Vanderbilt, from move-in day until early October, we have had six sexual assault alerts . And since then, there have been four more sexual assault reports spanning from early October to mid-December. Throughout my first semester, I have often heard stories about spiked drinks and a lack of consent . Each time I receive an email from Vanderbilt Public Safety, my body stiffens and I feel afraid.

When I found the article about Tulane on Instagram, I started paying more attention to the experience of my peers. I realized my college life is interconnected to that of all students, especially teenagers who grew up in the age of social media. The stories from Tulane were simply one slice of a larger campus rape culture that has somehow become normalized.

I set out to speak to students across the U.S. about how they want to see their school take action and how to dismantle the pervasive campus culture which condones predatory actions.

Sidney Stamm, a junior at Tulane University, led protests against sexual assault on her campus last semester . Stamm told Ms . the first on-campus protest happened before students left for Thanksgiving break, in response to the deactivation of an anonymous Instagram account, @BoysBeware.Tulane .” The page had quickly become an avenue for support and community awareness , where students could warn each other about predators on campus.

“The protest gained traction because students needed an outlet,” wrote Stamm in an email to Ms . “This account was for survivors to share their stories.”

In late October, my Instagram overflowed with posts about the link between USC’s Greek life and sexual assault on campus. Greek life’s connection to sexual assault isn’t new to me—I know guys in fraternities are three times more likely to rape women than guys who aren’t. (My school also has a well-known Greek system, despite Abolish Greek Life’s strong presence.)

“There are plenty of issues with Greek life,” Stamm admitted, “but targeting it as the primary location for sexual assault ignores how it’s a systemic issue and allows administrators to point their fingers at a ‘culprit’ and take themselves off the hook. I think fraternities contribute to rape culture, but non-fraternity students do too. It’s important to not scapegoat so we can place blame accordingly, which I believe should be on our culture of consent, the miseducation of autonomy, the American patriarchy, Title IX failures and administrators.”

Caden Pope, a junior at Auburn University, another SEC school which held protests against sexual assault in 2021, has a different take than Stamm. Pope believes sexual assaults on campus are a direct problem stemming from Greek life at Auburn.

“[Auburn] is always willing to protect the name and reputation of that Greek organization rather than protect the welfare of the students and warn which [Greek organizations] are dangerous and which ones have never been reported,” Pope told Ms .

Pope said Auburn’s loosened COVID-19 restrictions contribute to this culture , since campus events had previously been more regulated.

AnnaOlivia Schwedt, a freshman at the University of Southern California, said USC’s Timely Warning Crime Alerts warned her about two separate incidents of sexual assault on campus last semester. “The first regarded a party at the Sigma Nu fraternity house a month prior which led to multiple students reporting drugging and sexual assault,” Schwedt wrote to Ms . “The second was an individual sexual assault report made against one of the members of that same fraternity during mid-October.” As a result of these alerts, protests occurred across campus.

While Schwedt has felt safe at most of the parties she’s attended at USC, she has heard many accounts of uncomfortable experience from her peers. She said her friends call one fraternity in her hometown with the abbreviation SAE, “Sexual Assault Expected.”

Schwedt recognizes sexual assault as a national problem. She hopes for better education on college campuses around sexual assault, especially within fraternities. If fraternities are here to stay at USC, Schwedt wants to see changes to their events . She believes initiatives like drink testing strips and having licensed and trained bartenders, will be critical contributions to creating safe spaces for students at parties. 

Another USC freshman, who asked to remain anonymous, said USC and other campuses need to create a “more reliable and easily accessible system for [young women] to anonymously report sexual assault so universities can quickly find the culprits and deliver the appropriate punishment for their actions.”

This summer, I heard about Brown University’s alleged mishandling of sexual assault. Carter Woodruff, who will be graduating in December 2022, is a plaintiff in a pending class-action lawsuit against Brown related to campus sexual violence. Woodruff told me in an email she “witnessed, heard about and experienced numerous instances of sexual violence” beginning her freshman year. “The underlying power imbalances and forms of systemic oppression that Greek life embodies, such as racism, ableism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, etc. exist whether or not fraternities are a large part of campus culture.”

Woodruff believes sports teams and fraternities are sources of toxic masculinity and rape culture on Brown’s campus.

Woodruff and another Brown student founded the Instagram account, @voicesofbrown , for students to share stories anonymously. Woodruff later co-founded the group End Sexual Violence at Brown , which led large protests and dialogue around sexual violence on campus.

“Now that this movement has emerged, survivors and allies at Brown are a force to be reckoned with,” Woodruff said. “We won’t back down until we see real progress.”

View this post on Instagram A post shared by Voices of Brown (@voicesofbrown)

Students like me in universities in the Southeast are extra fearful for our reproductive rights and abortion access . It’s hard not to feel the blatant anti-abortion and anti-reproductive rights politics in Tennessee. Since I arrived in college, I have been aware of new cases regarding abortion brought before the Supreme Court, such as Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization , which originated in Mississippi. During my first month at university, a bill banning abortion after six weeks was blocked in Tennessee , and in Texas abortion has been essentially outlawed for almost half a year.

As I head back to campus for spring semester, I acknowledge the importance of education regarding consent and sexual assault. I long for the day when “don’t rape” pervades childhood teachings as much as “don’t get raped” has, when school administrators value the lives of students more than the university’s reputation, and when the nighttime security emails no longer disrupt our dreams.

Hugh Hefner’s Playboy Empire Was Built on the Abuse of Women

Defamation Lawsuits: Another Tactic to Silence Survivors

Kids Learn About Sex From Porn. Comprehensive Sex Ed Could Help Change That.

About Ilana Drake

You may also like:, why the era is needed—even with the 14th amendment, date rape: the story of an epidemic and those who deny it.

Laurell Sinai

A Blogs@Baruch site

Research-Based Argument Essay

Sexual assault and rape are serious social issues in the United States. Sexual assault can happen to anyone, regardless of age, gender, race, or sexual orientation; However, women are most commonly the victims of sexual assault. Many students in colleges don’t know the true meaning behind sexual assault, which increases the rates of college rape. Sexual assault is “any unwanted sexual act against a person or without a person’s consent—any sexual, physical verbal or visual act that forces a person against their will to have unwanted sexual contact or attention” (“Sexual Assault and Rape”). Many colleges disregard campus rapes in order to keep their reputation intact. Caroline Heldman discusses in her article how “no college in the U.S. has come up with a plan to effectively shift rape culture on their campus”. People need to start understanding that if this shift does not occur soon, we are putting girls all over the world in danger.

Rape is known to be the most common violent crime on American college campuses today. Rana Sampson goes into further detail in her article on how college years are the most vulnerable for women since “women ages 16 to 24 experience rape at rates four times higher than the assault rate of all women”. College women are more at risk for rape and other forms of sexual assault than women the same age, but not in college. Sampson state that it is estimated that almost 25 percent of college women have been victims of rape or attempted rape since the age of 14. Many students in college experience rape but decide not to report it. Many victims think that their college will not do anything about it. Jed Rubenfeld explains that “because of low arrest and conviction rates, lack of confidentiality, and fear they won’t be believed, only a minuscule percentage of college women who are raped — perhaps only 5 percent or less — report the assault to the police. Research suggests that more than 90 percent of campus rapes are committed by a relatively small percentage of college men — possibly as few as 4 percent — who rape repeatedly, averaging six victims each. Yet, these serial rapists overwhelmingly remain at large, escaping serious punishment”. This raises the question of why should women feel confident enough to come forward about their sexual assault without reassurance that the state and college will correctly handle the situation?

One college that has been convicted of continuous mishandlings of sexual assault is Vanderbilt. Even though, Vanderbilt is known to be one of the most prestigious colleges in the United States. Recently, there was an ugly rape case involving their football team that just can’t get worse. On the second floor of the Gillette House dorm at Vanderbilt, there was a broken door that has been knocked off. When school officials checked the security cameras, they found one of their highly rated football players who just transferred, Brandon Vandenburg. Bobby Allyn published in 2013, only a few months after the initial assault and stated that “hat officials eventually discovered about the events of that night would lead to the indictment of four football players for rape and another for alleged involvement in a cover-up”. On a Saturday night in June, Vandenburg went out with a 21-year-old student from Oklahoma who he had been casually dating. When they both returned to Vandenburg’s dorm after a long night of drinking, the girl was seen to be completely unconscious. Vandenburg called down three of his teammates, Cory, Brandon, and JaBorian, to help him bring the girl into his room. Some time after, 4 football players entered the room; different objects were used to penetrate the victim. Vandenburg took pictures and videos on his phone, and sent the others the footage. This was used as the main component of evidence during the trial. Even though there is such a graphic video, the coach of the football team claims, that “people always speculate and gossip. There is no truth to that accusation whatsoever. It’s inflammatory” (Allyn). Vanderbilt has kept quiet about these accusations until further notice. They will do whatever they can in order to keep this story under wraps. Situations like this is exactly why women do not usually come forward.

Similarly, Emerson College’s handling of a student’s sexual assault case caused so much stress that the victim ended up in the hospital and eventually dropped out of school, a new lawsuit contends (Kingkade). In April 2012, Jillian Doherty had consensual sex with a male student, but declined when he requested anal sex, it was then that he choked her and forcibly penetrated her. Doherty reported the assault in March 2013, and concluded with a final hearing in May. At the hearing, Tyler Kingkade writes that “the accused ‘was allowed to present new evidence, a letter of character, from a fellow Emerson student, who had no involvement with the hearing, assault, or the investigation’, the suit claimed.” According to Doherty, she was not given an opportunity to view the letter. The suspect was found not responsible because both he and the victim admitted to have been drinking before the incident and the court ruled her statement “inconsistent”. As a result of the first hearing, Doherty told Huffington Post “It was just the worst feeling in the world knowing you’re telling the truth and no one believes you.” Doherty was granted an appeal in the summer of 2013, and a new hearing took place in October. After the second hearing, the accused was found responsible for the assault and was expelled from school. By the time the hearing was over, the damage has already been done. Doherty’s grades dropped she had chronic depression and PTSD. She began “an outpatient treatment program at Arbor Hospital to address the emotional distress from reporting her assault” (Kingkade). According to the lawsuit, she was not granted academic accommodations to do her class work from home during that time, and unfortunately had to leave Emerson in Spring 2014, which was her dream school. The suit against Emerson claims that they violated the campus safety law, the Clery Act, by underreporting the sexual assault. This further proves, that even with laws against sexual assault are in tact, colleges and the government are still not handling these situations correctly. All in all, Walt Bogdanich explains that “school disciplinary panels are a world unto themselves, operating in secret with scant accountability and limited protections for the accuser or the accused.”

The difference in the amount of people who do and do not report their sexual assault is overwhelming.About 80 percent of campus rapes are not reported to police, according to a U.S. Department of Justice report on sexual assault. Julia Glum states that “researchers found that 26 percent of students and 23 percent of non-students chose not to report their rapes because it was too personal to tell police. More non-students than students said they didn’t report the crime because, they believed, the police could not or would not do anything to help.” Victims most of the times feel like they do not have a voice after being sexually assaulted. Society needs to seem more open and understanding when a situation like rape arises. Many victims of rape blame themselves for what has happened to them. They usually put the blame on what they were wearing, what they drank, where they were, and the time of day etc. These victims have to understand that no one is perfect and they were in a situation that they could not have controlled. Rebecca Nagle, co-director of the Baltimore-based activist group FORCE, told International Business Times earlier this week “We live in a culture where survivors are taught … to doubt your experiences, We need to build a culture of support for survivors”. Sexual assault is never the victim’s fault. You deserve to feel safe and supported. From the perspective of a university administrator who is mostly concerned with his school’s reputation, a rape that goes unreported is a rape that never actually happened (Kitchener). This shows exactly why women do not report their assault, because of the clear mindset of a highly respected school administrator.

There are a couple of things we know for sure about rape on college campuses, but here are two: It happens, and universities lie about it (Stern). Many colleges decide to keep their rape victims in the shadow and will decide not to tell state police of what has happened. “’When it comes to sexual assault and rape, the norm for universities and colleges is to downplay the situation and the numbers’, researcher Corey Rayburn Yung, a law professor at the University of Kansas, said in a release ’ (Timm). In 2006, Fox News reported that administrators at Eastern Michigan University covered up a rape and murder of a student, 22-year-old Laura Dickson, all while letting her parents think that she died of natural causes. Joseph Shapiro explains that, “despite federal laws created to protect students, colleges and universities have failed to protect women from this epidemic of sexual assault.” Colleges have a lot to lose when they admit to having a rape problem on campus. College codes and procedures were designed to punish for plagiarism and underage drinking, not to prove the crime of sexual assault. Many administrators use that excuse to justify them keeping the rape a secret. Many women face interrogations by administrators who do not seem to know what a rape exam is.

Many colleges will try to resolve the problem on their own. But, instead of making it better, they only make it worse. Last year, Bridgewater State University withheld the names of two men charged with rape on campus and did not notify any students or faculty about the incident. The school didn’t notify its 11-member board of trustees. Maria Papadopoulos quoted when Richard M. Freeland said, “Students and parents have a right to be concerned if they learn about such activity from the media, rather than from campus officials.” “O’Neill said withholding the names of accused rapists from a college community and the public is ‘ridiculous’ – and it shows that university officials are reluctant to be transparent about crimes reported on campus.”

In 2012 at Grinnell College, Emily Barlett received text messages from a guy “if you ever tell anyone God help you”, only ten minutes after he left her dorm room. That night, she told an advocate on campus that she was sexually assaulted. A few days later she went to campus security to file an official report. College administrators decided to set up a meditation session between the rapist and the victim, a practice the U.S. Department of Education prohibited a year before. The meditation was a failure because it re-traumatized the victim and didn’t bring a resolution to her case (Kingkade). She later took the case to a college court, where they found the accused not responsible for sexual misconduct, despite the photos of deep bruising on her body and the text message he sent the victim-threatening her if she told anyone about what had happened. “He was deemed responsible for “disorderly misconduct” and “psychological harm” and punished with a year of probation” (Kingkade). The accused was still allowed to play baseball and take the same courses as the victim. At Grinnell College, students were forced to attend class with men the school knew have sexually assaulted them. The college made the offenders write short apology letters to the victim.

Some women started to struggle in their classes due to stress related to their assaults, they say, the college decided to push them off campus. In many cases, the victim would be placed on academic suspension while the offender would be allowed to return to campus. When one of the professors at Grinnell told the administration office that a victim was placed right next to her offender, the college said there was nothing they could do about it. During one case at Grinell, the attacker landed an on campus job as the head of security, just after being accused. The way Grinell has handled their sexual assaults has driven two victims away from their dream school and caused daily anxiety for the third, who decided to stay on campus. The college constantly places the blame of them not doing anything about the accusations on the fact that it is a small campus. They believe that also because Grinell, Iowa is a small city, there isn’t any way for the victim and the attacker not to run into each other, so things at school cannot be any different than the two running into each other on the street. In 2013, almost a year after the assault, Emily Barlett decided to transfer to the University of Missouri. In 2014, Grinell sent Barlett a letter asking her to reconsider returning to the college, and had the indecency to ask her why she left. Another high profile case that occurred at Grinell, only a few months after Barletts initial assault. India Vannoy was assaulted by a classmate in her scholarship program. She filed school conduct charges against the male student, as did another women who was assaulted by the same man. The hearing occurred 5 months after the assault. Grinell found him to be responsible for psychological trauma in Vannoy’s case. He was suspended for a short 3 semesters before returning to campus. Vannoy was clinically diagnosed with PTSD and took the spring 2013 semester to recover. She returned in the fall, but landed on academic probation. Grinell promised to do anything to help her out during the ordeal, but Vannoy said that she did not receive any assistance. Instead, an administrator told her she was “mentally unstable” and suggested, “she take time off to get over it”. She was later placed on academic suspension, banning her from returning to campus; meaning that the attacker is allowed back on campus, but Vannoy is not.

The mishandling of sexual assaults led to a Senate report, it was found that 41% of schools conducted no investigation in the past 5 years, even though there were numerous complaints made by female students. Many women keep an assault a secret to prevent embarrassment, shame and the trauma of reliving the nightmare during legal proceedings. Some administrators care less about the victim, and more about their own image. Schools are terrified of the result if the world hears that such an awful crime has been committed on their campus. Colleges fear that any negative publicity will ruin their sterling reputations, which will result in diminished enrollment applications (Jarrett). Colleges need to step out of their own alternative world, and step back into reality. Gregg Gregg Jarrett explains that “these cases reveal an unsettling fact: many colleges are dilatory or derelict in failing to prevent attacks. Once they do occur, campus investigations have proven to be scant, shoddy and incompetent. All too often, complaints are brushed aside; local police are kept in the dark, survivors are encouraged to drop it and crimes are covered up. The alleged victim is victimized all over again.” Colleges will not change their course of action unless they are forced to do so. Until then, not much will be done about correctly handling a campus rape.

Since all of these mishandlings of sexual assault cases, the government was forced to make laws in order to prevent colleges from mishandling rape. A few of them are: “Yes Means Yes”, “Title IX”, and “It’s On Us”. “Governor Jerry Brown of California signed Senate Bill 967, nationally known as the “Yes Means Yes” bill, into action on September 28” (Hwang). The “Yes Means Yes” bill aims to provide help for victims of sexual assault on college campuses. This bill requires colleges to define affirmative consent as a clear “yes” rather than the absence of a verbal “no”. Additionally, the bill mandates that colleges educate their students on consent and sexual assault in order to prevent further rapes (Hwang). Senator Kevin de Leon of California said in a speech “our sisters, our daughters, our nieces — every woman deserves the right to pursue the dream of higher education without being threatened by the nightmare of violence and sexual abuse.” The bill also provides multiple resources funded by the state in which victims can use to assist them in the legal process of reporting, investigating and finalizing the case. Unfortunately, as of now the bill has only been passed in California. Officials are working to pursue this bill across America. Even “President Obama decided to join Vice President Biden and American people across the country to launch the “It’s On Us” initiative- an awareness campaign to help put an end to sexual assaults on college campuses” (Somanader). “It’s On Us” asks everyone, both men and women to make a personal commitment to step off the sidelines and be a part of the mission to end the epidemic of college rape. This bill sends guidance to every school that receives federal funding on their legal obligations to prevent and to deal with sexual assaults that occur on their campuses. Adding onto the bill, Obama created the “White House task force” to protect students from sexual assault to work with colleges on developing the best practices on how to prevent and deal with sexual assault. “Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 is a federal civil rights law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in any education program or activity that receives federal funding” (“What is Title IX”). Even a single instance of rape or sexual assault by another student or staff member could meet the standards of getting the victim justice.

The “Yes Means Yes”, “Title IX”, and “It’s On Us” bills do not implement a transfer of power between the victim and the rapist, as they aim to give victims a fighting chance (Hwang). Sarah Yang said, “It takes a lot of strength to report in the first place, and having to deal with an administrator that doesn’t understand the whole situation is very difficult.” Many of these bills will continue to arise due to this continuously rising problem of sexual assault, giving the universities more incentive and pressure to find more evidence in reports where there is none.

College rape has been and will continue to be a huge problem around the world if people do not make an effort to put an end to it. Many colleges have experienced handling huge rape cases such as: Vanderbilt, Emerson and Grinnell. College Rape is an important topic to be educated on because many students reading this will soon be attending or are already attending college and need to know about the different ways you could get help if you are sexually assaulted. Since this is such a huge problem in many colleges today it is important for everyone to know what you could do in order to help prevent future campus rapes.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

What 'The Red Zone' on college campuses teaches us about sexual assault

College students are gearing up to return to campus, with tens of thousands arriving for the first time. New classes, friends, environments and routines await.

But something else also comes along with back-to-school on college campuses – and it's what's known as " The Red Zone ," the period of time between the first day students arrive on campus through Thanksgiving break. Research has revealed this is when 50% of sexual assaults on campuses occur. Perpetrators go after college freshmen or incoming transfer students as they adjust to college life and partying .

While opinions differ on "The Red Zone" and whether it's best to emphasize its importance – other research has questioned the importance of this time frame – experts agree more needs to be done to educate all those on college campuses about sexual assault and consent .

"College campuses shouldn’t necessarily just ramp up  general  sexual violence prevention efforts from August to November," says Sam Judd, youth prevention specialist at the Rape Recovery Center . "If anything, they should be targeting specific risk factors during those months."

'The biggest misconception' about 'The Red Zone' and sexual assault

The first few months at school is a critical period in a new college student's development on campus.

They are more vulnerable "because first-year college students lack strong social ties that can offer them safer spaces to socialize – like house parties with a group of trusted friends," says sociologist Nicole Bedera .

Some started calling this period " The Double Red Zone" in 2021 and 2022, given that the COVID pandemic thwarted students' ability to start their freshman years on campus the traditional way.

None of this means "The Red Zone" should be the only time people are concerned about sexual assault. Out of all college students, 13% are raped or sexually assaulted by physical force, violence or incapacitation, according to statistics gathered by RAINN.

"The biggest misconception people have about 'The Red Zone' is that it can stand alone as a trend in rates of reported sexual assault without any context or further investigation into risk factors," Judd says. "There may be many reasons that campuses often see higher reporting during this time period – and it might not even be that students are experiencing more sexual assault ."

For example, Judd says, after the first few months on campus, fewer people may be comfortable reporting abuse because they fear retaliation from now-established social circles. And Judd speculates reporting may also dwindle after the "Red Zone" period because people lose energy to "interact with systems they have discovered are ineffective," such as college disciplinary boards.

What can schools do?

Kenyora Lenair Parham, executive director of End Rape on Campus , says it's on the schools to provide education and awareness about what to expect and what types of behaviors are not tolerated on college campuses . They also must provide students with support mechanisms so they know where to turn if they ever endure sexual assault: what to do, where to go, who to speak to. This ideally wouldn't be the first time they've heard of these topics.

"I like to believe it's not something that should start in college, but actually should be implemented through even the K-through-12 space," Lenair Parham says.

The key is teaching the meaning of consent: "Teaching young people of all genders the importance of consent , effective ways to get involved as bystander, and which resources are available to them for treatment are all ways to create healthier environments for students," says Halle Nelson, communications specialist at the National Sexual Violence Resource Center .

In case you missed: Rape at college: Why back to school is so dangerous for women

What can students do?

Look to prevention organizations for safety advice. End Rape on Campus, for example, has a Campus Accountability Tool that allows students and survivors to check out individual colleges ' sexual assault investigation policies, prevention work and survivor support resources.

But sexual assaults ultimately come down to individual decision-making on the part of the potential abusers.

"Not only is it difficult to task students with preparing for something about which they may not know anything, but it can also be harmful to place the expectation on students – often women – to protect themselves and prevent others from sexually assaulting them, ultimately leading to victim-blaming attitudes," Judd says.

That said, people "can practice and increase their skills and confidence in asserting their romantic and sexual boundaries and in using bystander intervention techniques. And they can normalize conversations about consensual and non-consensual sexual activity among their peers, which is the most effective form of sexual violence mitigation."

On the legal front, some confusion lies exactly when the Biden administration's Title IX policies will be fully implemented; whether President Trump or President Biden's policy is in effect may make someone question whether they wish to disclose or not ( explore policy differences here ).

"Our hope is that we're getting to as many students as much as possible in order to make sure that they understand their rights under the law, as well as what to expect with these new Title IX regulations," Lenair Parham says.

If you are a survivor of sexual assault, RAINN offers support through the National Sexual Assault Hotline (800.656.HOPE &  online.rainn.org ). 

Important: 'The most intense violation of my life': A beloved camp, a lost boy and the lifelong impact of child sexual trauma

An official website of the United States government

Here's how you know

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• U.S. Department of Health & Human Services

Call the OWH HELPLINE: 1-800-994-9662 9 a.m. — 6 p.m. ET, Monday — Friday OWH and the OWH helpline do not see patients and are unable to: diagnose your medical condition; provide treatment; prescribe medication; or refer you to specialists. The OWH helpline is a resource line. The OWH helpline does not provide medical advice.

Please call 911 or go to the nearest emergency room if you are experiencing a medical emergency.

Sexual Assault on Campus: What We Can Do

Content warning: Sexual assault

The Office on Women's Health is committed to preventing sexual assault  on college and university campuses. That's why we launched the College Sexual Assault Policy and Prevention Initiative . This initiative provides technical assistance and support for implementing sexual assault policies and prevention strategies on college campuses.

At just a year into the initiative, we're encouraged by the programs being implemented around the country. Schools are conducting bystander intervention trainings that are focused on fraternity and sorority advisors. Others are offering awareness and prevention video resources. Some have been conducting trainings on trauma-informed responses for their staff and incorporating messages about consent and bystander intervention into fall festivals.

I'm personally excited about these programs and prevention activities because they address this issue from multiple angles: awareness, prevention, intervention, and response. Demonstrating to students that their schools are aware of this issue and care enough to provide these activities and resources is a huge step in the right direction. So, what else can we do to help prevent sexual assault?

What Communities Can Do

Education about sexual assault and consent begins long before college, in the messages children receive from their parents and other adults. We can plant the seed of consent and respect in children from an early age with this simple lesson: People should not touch each other without asking first. As children grow, the messages grow with them. We also all have a role in modeling respectful and consensual interactions, both sexual and nonsexual. In addition, community members should pay attention to their local and state policies and legislation, and they should advocate for positive change in support of sexual violence prevention efforts and effective reporting and supportive services for survivors.

What Colleges Can Do

Administrators, faculty, staff, and coaches must work with students to implement comprehensive prevention programs. Schools should consider teaching consent and healthy relationship/communication skills throughout the academic year, institute stricter intolerance policies on assault, and make it clear that sexual assault has no place in higher education.

What Students Can Do

Students have a large role in preventing sexual assault of others, too. If they see someone at risk for assault, they can help prevent it by using the C.A.R.E. bystander intervention technique: C reate a distraction, A sk the person directly, R efer to an authority like a resident assistant or security guard, and E nlist others' help.

Every person on campus has a role to play in eradicating sexual assault from universities and colleges. When your sons and daughters go off to college, remind them what respecting themselves and others looks like. After that, it's up to them to make the right choices and for the colleges to support them.

This National Campus Safety Awareness Month, I encourage students, administrators, faculty, and coaches to take the first steps together to prevent sexual assault. For more info on preventing sexual assault, visit Sexual Violence on Campus: Strategies for Prevention (PDF - 3.5 MB) and STOP SV  (PDF - 2.85 MB).

• HHS Non-Discrimination Notice
• Language Assistance Available
• Accessibility
• Privacy Policy
• Disclaimers
• Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
• Use Our Content
• Vulnerability Disclosure Policy
• Kreyòl Ayisyen

A federal government website managed by the Office on Women's Health in the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

1101 Wootton Pkwy, Rockville, MD 20852 1-800-994-9662 • Monday through Friday, 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. ET (closed on federal holidays).

• Academics & Research
• Administration
• Student Government
• Student Life
• Bloomington
• Business & Economy
• Crime & Courts
• Investigations
• National News
• Men's Basketball
• Women's Basketball
• Men's Soccer
• Women's Soccer
• Swimming & Diving
• Community Events
• IU Auditorium
• Jacobs School of Music
• Local Music
• Perspectives
• Black Voices
• Classifieds
• IDS Religious
• Press Releases

Two on-campus sexual assault reported March 28-30

Editor’s Note: This story includes mention of sexual assault. Resources are available here .    

Two separate reports of sexual assault at Eigenmann Hall were reported in March. One was reported March 28 and the other March 30.  

IUPD Public Information Officer Hannah Skibba said in an email that IUPD received a report from the Title IX Office regarding a student who had been sexually assaulted March 23 at Eigenmann Hall. The student involved did not report the incident themselves to IUPD.  

The case has been referred to university officials for review.  

On March 30, IUPD officers picked up a sexual assault evidence kit from IU Health Bloomington Hospital to store at IUPD, Skibba said in an email. The student it occurred at Eigenmann Hall on March 30. The victim has not filed a police report and told police they do not wish to pursue criminal charges at this time.  

According to IUPD’s crime log, there have been six sexual batteries and five rapes reported on campus since Feb 6.  

According to IU’s 2023 Security and Public Safety Report, there were 38 rapes reported on IU-Bloomington’s campus and five rapes reported off campus in 2022. Off-campus cases include incidents that occurred at any building or property owned or controlled by a student organization, buildings owned or controlled by an institution directly supporting IU’s educational purposes and properties frequently used by students not within the geographic area of the institution. Off-campus incidents also include incidents occurring on public property within or immediately adjacent to campus.  

In the same year, there were 35 cases of fondling , defined as the unconsensual touching of private body parts of another person for the purpose of sexual gratification, reported on Bloomington’s campus, with an additional two occurring off campus.  

These numbers are all increases from previous years. In 2021, there were a combined 31 cases of rape and 21 cases of fondling on and off campus. In 2020, there were 25 reports of rape and seven reports of fondling, although on-campus instruction paused mid-March that year due to the pandemic and did not resume until the fall.  

 These numbers are most likely the minimum number of cases, as more than 90% of sexual assault victims on college campuses do not report their assaults, according to the National Sexual Violence Resource Center . This is due to fear , shame, uncertainty, guilt and avoidance, according to Jackson Health System.  

A list of resources is available here if you or someone you know has experienced sexual harassment or abuse .    

Featured Local Savings

Holcomb signs bill requiring election campaign communications with fabricated media to include disclaimer

Bloomington farm stop collective: helping local farmers and food systems, permanent jewelry store 'missing link jewelry' opens in fountain square mall.

Inside Indiana women’s basketball’s devastated locker room after season-ending loss to South Carolina

Iu ready for once-in-a-lifetime eclipse but urges patience, ‘definitely difficult’: liam mcneeley talks decommitment from indiana men’s basketball, press release: city of bloomington encourages bloomington residents to join the monroe county broadband challenge, bryson tucker cites culture, coaching staff for indiana men’s basketball commitment, get the ids in your inbox.

The Daily Rundown is published Monday through Friday and gives you a quick look at the day's top stories.

Friday's weekly recap will let you catch up on the most important and most popular stories of the week.

Find out what the IDS is saying about IU basketball. The Monday edition, distributed during the IU basketball season, includes links to articles, columns, podcasts and more.

See the top stories every weekday

UTSA champions connected communities during Sexual Assault Awareness Month

APRIL 2, 2024 — Editor’s note: The following message was sent today via email from UTSA President Taylor Eighmy and Senior Vice Provost for Student Affairs and Dean of Students LT Robinson to all faculty, staff and students.

Throughout April, we encourage you to focus on  building connected communities  to help reduce the likelihood of sexual abuse, assault and harassment. 

Sexual Assault Awareness Month (SAAM)   provides an important opportunity to reflect on the issues of sexual violence and its effects on survivors, and UTSA offers various ways for you to connect to resources to promote healing, advocacy and prevention. Below are a few ways to participate:

Engage 

UTSA’s  Wellbeing Services  is leading several  Sexual Assault Awareness Month events  to encourage learning to create a culture of responsibility and support. Start By Believing Wednesday, April 3 11 a.m., Student Union Denman Galleria, Main Campus  The Start By Believing campaign invites the community to sign a pledge vowing to believe and support survivors of sexual assault.

RAINN Day Tuesday, April 9, 11 a.m., Student Union Rowdy Lawn, Main Campus

The RAINN Day campaign invites the community to #LETSGETLOUD as allies in the movement to end sexual violence. 

Denim Day Tuesday, April 9, 11 a.m., Student Union Window Lounge, Main Campus The Denim Day campaign is a way to support survivors and educate the community about all forms of sexual violence.

The PEACE Center, under the umbrella of Wellbeing Services, provides  confidential advocacy services  to all Roadrunners who have experienced issues related to sexual assault, intimate partner/domestic violence, stalking or other sexual misconduct. PEACE Center Advocates provide consultations on reporting options and support to those navigating  Title IX   institutional and/or other processes. Advocates address the physical, emotional and academic needs of survivors to help them heal and prevent further violence.

Support 

There is no better way to be an ally than by being aware and willing to educate others. The Peace Center offers  training, prevention and education programs  to empower students with support and active practice to maintain a healthy and safe campus environment. In addition to on-campus resources, the PEACE Center’s signature program, Green Dot at UTSA, offers bystander intervention training for the campus community.  We encourage our Roadrunner community to learn more. Thank you all for your continuous efforts to increase awareness and implement prevention measures for those who have experienced issues related to sexual misconduct. We appreciate your work to create a safe and supportive Roadrunner community for all. 

UTSA Today is produced by University Communications and Marketing , the official news source of The University of Texas at San Antonio. Send your feedback to [email protected] . Keep up-to-date on UTSA news by visiting UTSA Today . Connect with UTSA online at Facebook , Twitter , Youtube and Instagram .

Automate Your Citations With EndNote

Learn to use the simple but powerful features of EndNote®, a citation management tool. In this hands-on workshop, participants will learn to setup an EndNote library, save references and PDFs, and automatically create and edit a bibliography.

Simplifying Citations With Zotero

Learn to use Zotero®, a citation manager that can help you store and organize citations you find during your research. Zotero can generate bibliographies in various styles, insert in-text citations and allow you to share sources with collaborators.

Narrating A Digital Archive Map Of Family History

Join this workshop to create a digital map through archival curation of your personal identity and family history, blending multilingual storytelling with cartography to explore your family's journey and cultural heritage.

Text Analysis Using Python

This workshop will introduce participants to the basics of text analysis using Python and Jupyter Notebook on the Constellate Lab platform. We will create datasets in Constellate to analyze patterns, trends, and relationships of contents and more.

Dia en la Sombrilla

Día en la Sombrilla, formerly Fiesta UTSA, is a festival hosted each spring as a part of Fiesta® San Antonio events. Sponsored by Roadrunner Productions, the event features music, food, confetti, games, event t-shirts, and more.

Commencement Ceremony One

Celebrate the accomplishments of College of Education and Human Development, College for Health, Community and Policy, College of Sciences and University College.

Commencement Ceremony Two

Celebrate the accomplishments of Alvarez College of Business, College of Liberal and Fine Arts and Klesse College of Engineering and Integrated Design.

Submit an Event

University of Texas at San Antonio receives ‘transformational’ $40M gift

Utsa’s mission.

The University of Texas at San Antonio is dedicated to the advancement of knowledge through research and discovery, teaching and learning, community engagement and public service. As an institution of access and excellence, UTSA embraces multicultural traditions and serves as a center for intellectual and creative resources as well as a catalyst for socioeconomic development and the commercialization of intellectual property - for Texas, the nation and the world.

UTSA’s Vision

To be a premier public research university, providing access to educational excellence and preparing citizen leaders for the global environment.

UTSA’s Core Values

We encourage an environment of dialogue and discovery, where integrity, excellence, inclusiveness, respect, collaboration and innovation are fostered.

UTSA’S Destinations

• UTSA will be a model for student success
• UTSA will be a great public research university
• UTSA will be an innovative place to work, learn and discover

UTSA is a proud Hispanic Serving Institution (HSI) as designated by the U.S. Department of Education .

Our Commitment to Inclusivity

The University of Texas at San Antonio, a Hispanic Serving Institution situated in a global city that has been a crossroads of peoples and cultures for centuries, values diversity and inclusion in all aspects of university life. As an institution expressly founded to advance the education of Mexican Americans and other underserved communities, our university is committed to promoting access for all. UTSA, a premier public research university, fosters academic excellence through a community of dialogue, discovery and innovation that embraces the uniqueness of each voice.

Related Links

• News Archive
• Sombrilla Magazine
• 50th Anniversary
• Social Media
• For the Media

CU Boulder holds panel for sexual assault awareness on heels of student arrest

B OULDER, Colo. ( KDVR ) — On the heels of another alleged sexual assault, University of Colorado Boulder students are taking action. 

A University of Colorado Boulder student is facing charges of sexual assault after he was accused of raping and choking a woman he met on a dating app back in December, according to an affidavit. 

Police arrested Henry Terhaar, 22, on Monday. Formal charges are set to be filed on Friday. 

For the third year in a row, students at CU Boulder organized a Sexual Assault Awareness Panel . Gaby Aguijosa, internal tri-executive for CU student government and a leader of the event, said the focus this year is on sexual assault prevention.

“It was something I became more aware of my senior year of high school during some incidents that occurred, and I didn’t realize that these could happen in my community, let alone my own high school,” Aguijosa said. “I thought the position I’m in in student government could help me bring awareness to this issue.” 

Boulder District Attorney Michael Dougherty joined experts from the Office of Victim Assistance, the Office of Institutional Equity and Compliance and CU Boulder Police in a conversation with students on Tuesday.

“Usually, the victim and the offender are known to one another, to some extent, so making sure that the offenders are held fully responsible is part of prevention so that they can’t go on to re-offend,” Dougherty said. 

Since 2020, data from CU Boulder Police shows a steady increase in sexual assault reports. According to the data, there were 20 sexual assault cases reported in 2020, 28 reported in 2021 and 41 reported in 2022. 

“I also think we’ve had more awareness in our society and across the country around sex assaults. And as a state, we are providing more support for victims when they do come forward,” Dougherty said. “As a result of those things we might be having more sex assault victims willing to come forward.” 

In the state of Colorado, Dougherty said victims of sexual assault can seek medical treatment without having to go to law enforcement, only if and when they’re ready.  

“Given how many sex assaults go unreported in our country, I want to make sure the victims in Boulder County know it’s a top priority for us,” Dougherty said. 

For the latest news, weather, sports, and streaming video, head to FOX31 Denver.