I’m really confused what data supports the claim (e.g. post 329) that the “Further 80 per cent of student rapes were not reported while for non students that was 67 per cent.” What dataset gives you that info? How do you even tell?
The data BJS report seems clear enough. And fwiw, based on personal experience (as a male) the idea that living outside of college as a 18-24 year old is more dangerous than inside of it hardly seems a stretch.
- Did you read the methodology? As I read it they clearly adjust for reporting differences between students and non students. To my eyes the authors clearly clearly conclude that student risk is lower than non student.
Still looks to me like my daughters got safer by going to college. And also that risk today is less than it was in the past.
Seems like that’s exactly what those studies say.
I’m still a little baffled why there is resistance to the idea that it is safer being in college than out, given the same age range. If people on here went to a college that was mostly or partly residential, did they feel safer moving off campus? Did they feel safer moving to a place for their first job out of college? Maybe other experiences were much different than mine and the people I have known (although the BJS data suggests not). My best guess is there is a worry that safer in college than not in college will be interpreted as safe enough, but otherwise I’m confused.
northwesty, if you make the comparison: my daughter goes to college vs. my daughter does not go to college, I think it is likely that your daughter’s risk will increase by going to college. Since you are posting on CC, I am going to guess that you are middle class or better, and most likely college-educated yourself. These circumstances shield people from violence that is more common in a number of poorer or less-educated areas.
The rate of drive-by shootings is almost certainly less on college campuses than it is in some areas of Chicago that are plagued by drive-by shootings. That does not mean that any specific individual becomes more likely to be killed in a drive-by shooting if the individual does not go to college. People who live in an area with a lot of drive-by shootings probably are actually safer if they go to college–especially if they go away to college. People who live in an area with essentially zero drive-by shootings do not become safer from them by going to college.
If you want to look at whether your daughters actually will be safer by going to college, then you should look at the crime incidence in your neighborhood, vs. the crime incidence on the campus where they are going. The fact that some areas have a lot of college-age students who are not in college, and may also have a high rate of assault, does not affect your daughter’s safety one way or the other, if she is not living or working in that area.
I think if you look at the issue from this standpoint–compare actual living circumstances and surroundings that your daughters would have in or out of college–then you will conclude that they are less safe in college.
Of course, there is a substantial problem with crime in some areas of the country. Chicago has a comparatively high murder rate, for example. A lot of people with much greater expertise than I have spent a lot of time trying to figure out how to reduce the crime rate. Overall, I believe that violent crime has declined. I hope that as a society, we can figure out ways to improve the circumstances of people who are struggling, and reduce the crime rate further. I have no solutions to offer, though.
Whether the risk of assault during college today is less than it was in the past: it may be less than 20 years ago. I doubt that it is less than it was 40 years ago.
40 ish age group here…the 1 in 5 seems right and maybe even too low from my experience in college 25 years ago. I am ever dismayed by the POV that seems to think because women do not file charges of rape that rape, sexual battery etc are not happening. I am mother to two young men. I do not fret they will be falsely accused of these types of crimes. If I were a mother of a college aged daughter I would be very worried. Admitting women are more vulnerable does not negate their agency or independence, rather it is pragmatic and alerts them to a very real danger.
Couching this conversation in terms of “romance gone amiss” is not only wrong it’s insulting. I thought we as a society had progressed a bit. Obviously we have not…
Crime rates have declined substantially since the peak:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-u-s-murder-rate-is-up-but-still-far-below-its-1980-peak/
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm
But, almost every year, most Americans say that crime is rising even when it is not:
http://news.gallup.com/poll/186308/americans-say-crime-rising.aspx
Most people of age to be parents of high school and traditional age college students today reached adulthood when crime rates were much higher than they are now.
That said, the rate of rape has fallen less than that of the other index crimes (murder, robbery, assault, burglary, theft, and auto theft) since peak crime in 1991.
Risk is a component of where you live and your own personal risk tolerance and lifestyle choices in my opinion.
regarding #343, if the comparison is between going to college and staying in the typically safe upper middle income area of a CC poster, then perhaps the latter is safer. But at some point the 18-24 year old is going to go off on their own - even if to jobs, socializing, etc while living at home, and most likely moving out to their own place. Both data and I think common sense say the latter may readily be more dangerous. As I said above, did CC readers feel they became safer when they left college and moved into their first apartment with their first job? I think that’s the appropriate comparison.
The safest I ever felt was during a period of study in Britain. It was an incredible feeling to be able to work as late as I wanted to (meaning, after midnight), and walk home without needing an escort. It also made accomplishments easier. I don’t know whether the same conditions prevail there any more.
Many of the young women I know consult a crime map before deciding where to live.
Of course, risk is a component of where you live. My point about the people living in high-crime areas is that a number of them have no real choice about it, particularly those who are pre-college age. They will become safer by going to college. As turtle17 posted, women who leave for college from a typically safe (relatively speaking) upper middle income area do become less safe when they go to college. Whether they are more or less safe when they move after graduation depends on where they move–some safer than in college, some the same, some less safe.
Quant – my daughters were fortunate to be raised in a very safe home. So their individual risk profile likely does go up once they leave my house – whether for college, for work, for anything.
But my broad point is the title ix/DCL policies (and the attendant messaging from advocates and media) are just so out of synch with what the actual data is. Which is that: (i) rape incidence in the U.S. population is down 58% from 1994 to 2010; (ii) incidence among college females is down by over half from 1997 to 2013; (iii) incidence for college females is consistently lower than it is for non-student females of college age.
Those facts are completely at odds with what we’ve all heard from the 1 in 5 megaphone. I think the colleges and the cops overall (overall not every single case) take this stuff very seriously and do a pretty good job – certainly a much better job than they did in the past.
My bottom line – the DCL policy was a big over-reach based on extremely faulty data. It deserves to be re-thought with some common sense. I certainly think that the continued lawyerly focus on college litigation process reform is a total waste of time.
northwesty, when you compare 1997 to 2013, I think that partly you are seeing increased wariness among women. I was getting close to 50 before I ever heard of a “roofie.” Now I have met someone who was roofied.
My daughter’s health class in sixth grade included a section on the dangers of roofies. One can buy roofie-detecting nail polish. The messages “do not leave a drink unattended” and “don’t go out alone” have really hit home. Young women are more aware of the dangers of going to frat parties than they used to be. I think that “second-floor bicker” has stopped at the eating clubs at Princeton. Many campuses have emergency phones with direct links to the police every 100 yards or so (the only “regular” phones most students will now see).
My grandmother went to frat parties, and she was 100% safe at them. It was a very long time ago. I think there was an interval when things had turned less safe, but before these safety-related developments, when women were more vulnerable than they are now. Yet there is something wrong that all of the precautions are necessary. (Roofie education in sixth-grade health class. Really?)
The other aspect of this that I think you may be seeing, in the intense reaction, is that it’s a generational thing. When you compare 1997 to 2013, you have a span of 16 or 17 years (depending on cut-offs). That is not typically long enough for a person to graduate from college, get married, and send a child off to college. The comparison many parents make in their heads is: What is it like now, vs. what was it like back when I was in college. (Also, factor in the probability that people posting on CC are older, on average, than the typical college-applicant’s parent.)
It does not stretch belief for me to hear that a person in her 60’s-ish did not know anyone who was raped during college. Ask people in their 20’s about that now.
A lot of the changes that have been made–that you think are extreme–most likely occurred in response to the situation in the late 1990’s. Academic policy and programs move slowly. I admit that I may be integrating over time in finding the 1 in 5 believable. I do find it believable for the campus where I work, though, based on my experience as a faculty member. Surely some colleges are safer than mine, but neither is it unusually dangerous.
(It is interesting that the spell-check on my computer is still back in my pre-50 era. It thinks I mean roomie or roofed.)
It occurred to me that quite a few people in the executive branch of the US government may have had children approaching college age at about the time the Dear Colleague Letter was issued. My guess is that like CC parents, they are probably older than the average, for sending a child off to college for the first time. They are comparing 197x with 201x.
Quant – interesting comments.
My last shot on this. I think things have substantially improved in this area over the past 25 years or so. I generally feel pretty good about my daughters at their schools, although I do worry. In particular, I’m staying on my current freshman – one month of the red zone done, two more to go. If she stays safe until Thanksgiving, the odds are she’ll be safe for the rest of college.
I think the schools are also much better on this than in the olden days. And those efforts probably are one reason why the data seems to have improved so much. But you’d never know that from the media and the advocates.
P.S. The date rape device you need to worry about is a handle of vodka or Fireball. The effects are identical to roofies. But about a million times more prevalent.
Here is a recent court decision re: state schools/due process/cross examination that may be of interest to some posters:
I do wonder if this might have been better played out in the long run with the courts weighing in on due process rights for accused violators. As it is, DCL and what will follow it seem to have become a political football.
I don’t see how the statistics makes any difference in this case. Almost everyone has been a victim of theft or robbery. I personally was several times, including one robbery at knifepoint. That was presumably not as traumatic as rape, but still very unpleasant. The chances of being unfairly accused of being a thieve are minuscule compared to the chances of being a victim. Still, we will not approve of a student being kicked out of college without due process because a roommate has accused him or her of stealing their things.
nope not without presumption of innocence and due process expectations. Now if the thief says yup I did it and wants a plea bargain to save the trial I am Ok with that. And if a college kid says “yup I did it” then the college should call the police if it is criminal and if it’s not criminal then the kid can plea their way through. But if the thief or the accused college offender says “no I didn’t do it” then they are entitled to some due process and presumption of innocence.
Would you say that Stanford banning Brock Turner from campus less than two weeks after the incident met your expectations for presumption of innocence and due process?
More generally, colleges have student conduct rules where violations may be penalized by the college. Some rules are against things that also happen to be illegal (e.g. theft). Should the college be more restricted in dealing with student conduct violations for acts that are also illegal, rather than those that are not also illegal (e.g. academic cheating)?
HUH??? Presumption of innocence is a criminal concept that has nothing to do with college administrative practices.
Due process is based on public interaction and has NOTHING to do with private universities
" nor shall any STATE deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" (from the 14th amendment)
Seems to me the newly released Q & A doesn’t really amount to all that much. Ironically, it seems to mimic the spirit and language of the DCL. If this is a rough template of what this administration will push for in final regulations, then there may well be common ground that would satisfy both sides. These are my thoughts on the Q & A after an admittedly quick read:
– Like the DCL the new guidance confirms a college’s obligation to investigate and respond to sexual misconduct which necessitates them “regulating the conduct of students and faculty.” So hopefully we can move the conversation forward from the “send complaints off to law enforcement” chorus. The schools have a legal obligation to address these complaints under this guidance as well.
– Like the DCL the obligation to investigate extends to circumstances where the alleged victim does not file a complaint or does not ask the school to take action. So schools continue to have the responsibility to respond to third party complaints where a student doesn’t want to cooperate. Under this new guidance schools will continue to have an obligation to investigate cases like the Boermeester/Katz scenario.
– In addition to the formal hearing process the new guidance provides for an informal resolution if all parties voluntarily agree. The school makes the final determination if the case is appropriate for informal resolution. I think this is a good thing. The most comprehensive policy that I have read is Yale’s and they have an informal resolution track where quite a number of complaints are resolved. It’s an appropriate vehicle to resolve less serious allegations of sexual misconduct.
– Like the DCL the new guidance says that any process made available to one party has to be made available to the other. It now gives the schools the freedom to decide whether to allow active participation by an attorney or direct cross examination rather than by submitting questions through the panel. If schools decide on active participation by attorneys what if one party can afford an attorney but the other cannot? That seems to create a whole host of new issues. I am somewhat agnostic on whether direct cross examination is advisable, but each panel could assess that on a case by case basis. I think many complainants would welcome the opportunity to confront the respondent – I know I would.
– The new guidance gives the schools the choice of the “preponderance” or the “clear and convincing” standard of proof, but requires whatever standard they use to be consistent with the standard they apply in other misconduct cases not adjudicated under Title IX. So if schools now want to switch to 'clear and convincing" they have to do so across the board and apply it to all misconduct hearings. That seems reasonable.
I don’t think this particular document proposes any radical changes and simply gives schools more freedom in a few procedural areas, which excepting the informal resolution process, schools could choose not to opt into. We still have Title IX coordinators, hearings and investigations. And my thought is that after all is said and done, whatever we end up with will still not satisfy many.