The U.S. Department of Education’s top civil-rights official set off a firestorm when she told the New York Times — erroneously — that 90 percent of college sexual assault cases “fall into the category of “we were both drunk’” or post-relationship regret.
Candice Jackson quickly and appropriately retracted her remarks, but her comments unintentionally highlighted the practical limits of a federal approach to the tragedy of campus sexual assault.
Consider the following:
- 80 percent of female college sexual assault victims know their attacker.
- 25 percent of sexual assault victims say they were drunk or otherwise unable to provide consent or stop the attack from happening.
- Just 24 percent of victims say physical force was used against them.
The “typical” sexual assault or rape does not conform to the stereotype of the stranger lying in wait to rape his next victim. Rather, predators are more likely to take advantage of the environment or to psychologically manipulate their targets to commit the assaults or rapes. These behaviors are enabled by today’s “hookup” culture that has, for many college students, blurred the lines regarding consent and acceptable behavior.
These cases often lack the physical evidence needed to successfully prosecute a case in conventional criminal and campus investigations. “Hard” evidence is relatively uncommon, and attempts to uncover the truth require lengthy interviews and an understanding of young adult behavior and cultural norms.
Complicating matters further is the variation in college campus climates. A nine-campus survey funded by the U.S. Department of Justice found that sexual assaults reported by undergraduate women varied from 5.8 percent to 20 percent, and the likelihood of rape varied from 2.2 percent to 6.2 percent.
Effective strategies designed to reduce sexual assault and rape have to be designed for the individual campus and culture. In many cases non-adversarial approaches that balance responsibility and culpability in light of the harm perpetrated by the offender are more likely to lead to more-just outcomes.
These nuances require a better approach than federal directives provide under programs such as Title IX, the statute being used to guide sexual assault investigations on college campuses. Indeed, the government’s primary strategy has been to lower evidentiary standards to secure more convictions rather than holding offenders accountable for their actions and changing campus culture.
Campus activism should push for more innovative approaches that focus on bystander intervention, securing individual dignity, and addressing the harm created by assault. This could lead to cultural and procedural shifts what would reduce campus sexual assault.
To be sure, Candice Jackson’s comments were ill-informed and statistically wrong. But those comments should not distract advocates from the real goal of purging campuses of the scourge of sexual assault and recognizing the practical limits of a federal approach.