Search News


Browse Archives

News

Ambiguity and Ignorance on Crime

March 27, 2008

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

With the anniversary of the Virginia Tech killings fast approaching, campus crime remains a concern to many academic leaders, politicians and parents. A group of studies conducted by scholars at the University of Southern California (in many cases with a national focus) found considerable evidence of weak links in colleges' efforts to prevent crime and to deal with it when it happens.

Among the findings of the studies:

  • Those who counsel victims of sexual assaults on campus (and many of the victims themselves) feel disconnected from the campus judicial systems designed to adjudicate these cases on many campuses, in part because of a tendency of those offices to view the process as "educational," not judicial.
  • Student affairs officials have a less than complete understanding of the Clery Act, the primary law governing reporting of campus crime.
  • A small subset of male students pose the most significant threat to women on their campuses, and these men are not necessarily those who have been the focus of many colleges' educational programs designed to prevent assaults and rapes.

Much of the data for the studies was collected just prior to the Virginia Tech killings, and the researchers acknowledged that the tragedy no doubt increased awareness and changed policies on many campuses. But the researchers also said that they haven't seen evidence of major shifts in some of the policies and attitudes they found in their work. The findings were presented Wednesday at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, in New York.

Different Perspectives on Sexual Assault Cases

Linda A. Fischer, an assistant professor of clinical education at Southern Cal, said she wanted to explore whether two key campus offices -- those that counsel victims of sexual assaults and those that adjudicate complaints -- are working in a complementary or contradictory manner. She found the latter. She based her work on in-depth interviews at 24 colleges and universities -- a range of four-year institutions -- where she could speak extensively with someone responsible for victim counseling and with someone responsible for handling complaints.

She found significantly differing points of view. While counselors focused their work -- and wanted their institutions focused -- on making victims feel supported and safe enough to continue their educations, those running campus judicial systems focused on the "educational process" of their work. In addition, she found that while many counselors are aware that many students who file complaints about sexual assaults have been in situations where they have been drinking or in some cases using drugs, this seems to pose an insurmountable challenge to judicial systems on campus, and that the presence of alcohol or drugs in a case seems to doom it.

Fischer said that one reason for these disconnects is that many campus judicial systems were set up to deal with plagiarism or cheating allegations -- academic matters -- and were never envisioned as bodies that would handle these sorts of cases. She said it was important that more training be provided, especially about biased ideas that suggest a crime couldn't have taken place if a woman was drinking.

Asked if her findings suggested that more colleges should -- as many have done -- turn over such cases to local police authorities, Fischer said that was one option, but that she believed victims should have more than one place to take a complaint.

Melora Sundt, associate dean of Southern California's School of Education, added that there were many cases in which victims were not comfortable going to local police authorities, or where local police would take too long to investigate, so just turning over the duty wouldn't work. She also noted that many campus judicial systems once took the view of "kick them out" when finding a violation of a campus code. On matters related to sexual assault, she said it was time to move back in that direction, and away from the idea that every situation could be an opportunity for more education.

The Clery Act -- What's That?

The Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Crime Statistics Act is the federal legislation that requires students to be informed promptly of situations that could pose dangers and colleges to file annual reports with data on different kinds of campus crime. The legislation is named for a Lehigh University freshman who was raped and murdered in her dormitory room in 1986 and whose family then crusaded for safer campuses and more information about crime on campuses.

Kevin T. Colaner, associate vice president for student services at California State Polytechnic University at Pomona, wanted for his USC dissertation to see how much student affairs professionals knew about the law. So he conducted a survey in which he received responses from 1,803 professionals at four-year colleges who are members of one of two national organizations for student affairs. One finding he found particularly surprising, even pre-Virginia Tech, was that 67 percent said that they believed campus violence was only a small problem or very small problem, while only 4 percent viewed it as a large problem.

On the Clery Act, he gave the participants a test of questions about it, such as asking whether it applies to private institutions, whether a crime must result in a conviction to be covered by the act's reporting requirements, and whether a college can be kicked out of federal student aid programs for violating the law. (The answers are yes, no, yes respectively.) Only 60 percent of student affairs professionals earned a grade of C (70 percent) or higher on the quiz. And asked about awareness of the law, while 83 percent said they were aware, a majority of those had only heard of the law or described themselves as "somewhat familiar."

Colaner said that while he suspected that post-Virginia Tech, the knowledge base has grown, he said that his sample might have been biased to include people more likely to be knowledgeable since they are people involved with a professional group for the field.

He said that the results showed that colleges need to do much more education of their own student affairs staff, and that degree programs in the field should up their programming on campus crime regulations.

Which Men Should Be Feared?

Sundt described new research focused on whether there are particular characteristics of male students who are more likely than others to commit sex assaults. Much recent research on sexual assaults in the entire population has suggested that there is a small group of serial attackers or would-be attackers, and Sundt wanted to see if she could isolate such groups in a campus population. With two others at USC -- Tamara Battle and Jing Li -- she examined survey results from 700 undergraduate men at a single institution. They were asked a series of questions, and one statement was used to identify some men as "possible perpetrators': "I stop sexual activity when asked, even if I am sexually aroused."

Just over 4 percent of the students said that they disagreed with that statement, and they were the focus of the study. They shared a number of attitudes, according to other parts of the survey. These men were more likely to believe that if they pay for a date with a woman, she "owes" them sex; that women who approach them must want sex; and that any healthy woman can resist a rapist if she wants to.

The big surprise though, Sundt said, was in the correlations she did not find. There was no correlation between fitting in the "possible perpetrator" category and being either a fraternity member or an athlete. That's significant, Sundt said, because many colleges have assumed that members of those groups are more likely to attack women than are other students, and as a result, many colleges have developed programs focused on educating Greeks and athletes.

If a college is forced to think of potential attackers among the male population as a whole, reaching people may be much more difficult Sundt said. As a result, she said one idea deserving more research and attention is "bystander" education -- in which students are encouraged to report or intervene when they see a situation that could turn into a sexual assault.

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Ambiguity and Ignorance on Crime

  • Trmendous Disconnect among campus perspectives
  • Posted by Bob Zuley , Executive Director at Chicago Area Endangered Residents on March 27, 2008 at 12:10pm EDT
  • As a former university police officer with a strong background in victim advocacy, sex crimes and investigations, I can attest to the tremendous level of disconnect between administration, counseling, police, public relations, and campus adjudicators.
    Administrators' primary concern is with reducing liability and publicity, while police seek community awareness of crime as an effective tool for open, constructive dialogue and an important step in reducing crime. Counselors frequently are ineffective and naive as to realistic life experiences, and poorly serve the actual victim.
    Every reported crime must include the possibility of false allegations, but should also include desiginated university police within the response team with victim advocacy always the primary objective.

  • A necessary disconnect
  • Posted by Kathy Anderson , Director, Diversity & Equity on March 27, 2008 at 6:05pm EDT
  • I have spent the last six years serving universities as an investigator of harassment and sexual assault. I can tell you that there are some very good reasons to support "disconnects" between victim advocates and those who investigate and/or adjudicate sexual assaults. I never open an investigation by referring to a victim and a perpetrator. Someone who reports sexual assault is the complainant. The person they report is the accused. The conclusions I reach in my investigation determine for the university whether someone perpetrated an act for which they should be disciplined. Victim advocacy is certainly an important component of creating a safe and secure campus, but do not ask investigators to serve in that capacity. They are finders of fact and their neutrality while performing that task must be maintained.

  • 5 REASONS WHY COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES ARE NOT SAFE
  • Posted by Laura Collins , Asst to Pres at SERAPH on March 27, 2008 at 6:05pm EDT
  • The SERAPH Research Team, consisting of education and law enforcement experts, has discovered five reasons for unsafe college campuses.

    The SERAPH Research Team provides a bi-yearly school-safety report for Congress and in 2006 prepared an assessment of the “The Virginia Tech Review Panel Report”.

    In its analysis of security concerns at colleges and universities across the country, SERAPH has determined:

    1. Since the Columbine massacre in 1999, police departments across the United States have been training in “active shooter” response. This has been a well-established practice for use in public [K-12] schools.

    However, our survey of college and university security directors and police chiefs shows that few have had this training. Two reasons were given: Administrators often do not want to pay for the training or in some cases bar campus security/police from participating in training to avoid what they perceived to be a "militaristic campus atmosphere”.

    2. College administrators have no training in security or police operations and as a result micromanage security operations on their campuses. This is problematic because of the obvious delay it causes in response time. In addition, when a college or university has a police department, administrative micromanagement can violate state law regarding obstruction of justice.

    3. A proper security audit is vitally important to campus security. However, our survey of security directors / police chiefs indicates that most college administrators will not allow these assessments to be done out of fear of liability exposure and the chance the audit would require changes in management systems.

    4. Threat assessment as a science has existed in the United States since the early 1940s. Predication and prevention of violence is a critical aspect of campus security and one that, in SERAPH’s experience, seriously is lacking on higher-education campuses. All Resident Assistants, security / police and department administrators should be trained to identify violent behavior in students, staff and visitors.

    A lack of systematic monitoring of people on campus contributes to crime.

    5. An emergency plan is only as good as the data in it and the ability of key personnel to use it effectively.

    Training is important for the effective management of an emergency by key personnel. You cannot ask untrained people to do what trained people do.

    SERAPH Research Team: http://www.seraph.net/about_seraph.html

  • CALLS FOR CRIMINAL CHARGES AGAINST UNIVERSITY ADMINISTRATORS
  • Posted by Laura Collins , Asst to pres at SERAPH on March 27, 2008 at 6:05pm EDT
  • The SERAPH Research Team consisting of education and law enforcement experts has assessed “The Virginia Tech Review Panel Report”, http://www.vtreviewpanel.org/report/index.html KEY FINDINGS [Chapter II, pages 17-19]

    Note: Starting in 2000 the SERAPH Research Team has at the request of members of Congress supplied three reports on school safety.

    SERAPH Virginia Tech Report Assessment

    The review panel isolated seven critical problems with Virginia Tech’s emergency response, emergency management and administrators’ response.

    The reports’ summary states that, “The Emergency Response Plan of Virginia Tech was deficient in several respects”. The following is a list of each issue and the SERAPH response.

    1. “It did not include provisions for a shooting scenario.”

    Since the Columbine massacre in 1999, police departments across the United States have been training in “active shooter” response. This has been a well established practice for use in public schools.

    However our survey of colleges and universities security directors and police chiefs shows that few have had this training. Two reasons were given for this, the first was the cost, administrators did not want to pay for the training and second administrators barred campus security / police administrators from seeking out the training because they did not want a “militaristic campus atmosphere”.

    2. “…did not place police high enough in the emergency decision-making hierarchy. The police had to await the deliberations of the Policy Group, of which they are not a member, even when minutes count.”

    The report indicates that administrators who had no training in security or police operations micromanaged the security operations of the campus. This is problematic because of the obvious delay it causes in response time and the fact that under Virginia law it is illegal.

    Virginia criminal code 18.2-460 A, Obstructing justice: If any person without just cause knowingly obstructs a judge, magistrate, justice, juror, attorney for the Commonwealth, witness or any law-enforcement officer in the performance of his duties as such or fails or refuses without just cause to cease such obstruction when requested to do so by such judge, magistrate, justice, juror, attorney for the Commonwealth, witness, or law-enforcement officer, he shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.

    The Policy Group as it relates to police operations on campus is in violation of this law. And from the report it is equally obvious that on the day of the shooting the administrators obstructed the police in their investigation of the original dorm murder and their response to managing the campus with a murder suspect on the loose.

    The SERAPH Team addressed this issue in a letter to the Virginia Attorney General McDonnell [dated May 26 2007].

    3. “It also did not include a threat assessment team.”

    Threat assessment as a science has existed in the United States since the early 1940s. Predication and prevention of violence is a critical aspect of campus security and one that in SERAPH’s experience is seriously lacking on higher education campuses. All Resident Assistants, security / police and department administrators should be trained to identify violent behavior in students, staff and visitors.

    4. “The Emergency Response Plan… was out of date on April 16”

    An emergency plan is only as good as the data in it and the ability of key personnel to use it effectively. This did not happen at Virginia Tech.

    5. “The training of staff and students for emergencies situations at Virginia Tech did not include shooting incidents.”

    Training is important for the effective management of an emergency by key personnel. You cannot ask untrained people to do what trained people do.

    6. “No security cameras were in the dorms or anywhere else on campus on April 16.”

    A lack of systematic monitoring of a campus contributes to crime.

    7. “A risk analysis needs to be performed and decisions made as to what risks to protect against.”

    A proper security audit is vitally important to campus security. However our survey of security directors / police chiefs indicates that most college administrators will not allow these assessments to be done. Two reasons for this refusal is the fear of liability exposure and the chance that the audit would require changes in management systems.

    The Review Panel ironically found,

    “That the VTPD statement of purpose in the Emergency Response Plan does not reflect that law enforcement is the primary purpose of the police department.” Again the report indicates that university administrators who had no training in security or police operations micromanaged the security operations of the campus through policies that control the actions of the campus police force.

    Lastly, the report found that this attitude was consistent throughout the Virginia college and university community.

    “It was the strong opinion of groups of Virginia college and university presidents with whom the panel met that the state should not impose required levels of security on all institutions, but rather let the institutions choose what they think is appropriate. Parents and students can and do consider security a factor in making a choice of where to go to school.”