Campus Sexual Assault: Future Directions for Research

Abstract

Campus sexual assault (CSA) has received unprecedented attention over recent years, resulting in an abundance of federal guidance and mandates. In response, efforts to address and prevent CSA at Institutions of Higher Education (IHE) across the country have grown quickly, including the development and implementation of programs and policies. Because the changes on campuses have occurred at such a rapid pace, a number of gaps exist within the field of CSA research. To ensure that changes on IHE are evidence-based, there is a need to review the existing research available and the inquiry still needed, based on key areas outlined in federal guidance, the expressed needs of campus community members, survivors, and students who commit sexual offenses on college campuses. The purpose of this review is to summarize the empirical research related to CSA gained from the past two decades and identify areas in which further work is needed, specifically related to key areas identified in recent guidance provided to IHE. This article concludes with guidance for research moving forward to help strengthen response and prevention efforts.

Exploring Definitions and Prevalence of Verbal Sexual Coercion and Its Relationship to Consent to Unwanted Sex: Implications for Affirmative Consent Standards on College Campuses

“…Sexual violence is a complex problem that requires complex and comprehensive solutions [ 190 ]. The good news is that scholars and public health personnel are beginning to utilize ways, such as campus climate surveys [ 3 ] and environmental scans [ 6 ], to examine the campus culture as a whole to develop targeted interventions specific to individual campuses. This is one way in which unique factors that contribute to differences in rape-free and rape-prone campuses can be identified and addressed [ 98 ].…”

“…Campus sexual assault has been labeled an “epidemic” [ 2 ], citing the high prevalence of sexual victimization found in studies. Perhaps due to this widespread attention, in recent years, there have been increased efforts to address campus sexual assault, including the previous White House Administration identifying it as a national priority [ 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 ]. Nonetheless, research suggests that a number of gaps in evidence-based programs and policies remain [ 6 ].…”

“…Perhaps due to this widespread attention, in recent years, there have been increased efforts to address campus sexual assault, including the previous White House Administration identifying it as a national priority [ 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 ]. Nonetheless, research suggests that a number of gaps in evidence-based programs and policies remain [ 6 ]. The emphasis on addressing campus sexual assault, the failure of universities to adequately combat and respond to sexual assault, and the focus on consent as central to address campus sexual assault [ 10 ], have led campus administrators to adopt affirmative consent policies.…”

“…This effectively shifted sexual assault policy from a no-means-no standard to a yes-means-yes standard [ 20 ]. While this may seem like the most ideal response to CSA, an affirmative consent standard suffers from the same critique as other CSA policies that have not been carefully empirically or critically evaluated [ 6 , 21 ]. For instance, adopting an affirmative consent standard operates on least three major assumptions: (1) men, as the primary initiators of sex, will seek affirmative consent; (2) all women feel that they can freely say no to sex that is not wanted; and (3) initiators will take refusals seriously and respect them by ceasing all initiation of and requests for sexual activity.…”

Law, campus policy, social movements, and sexual violence: Where do we stand in the #MeToomovement?

“…While schools had sexual consent policies before 2011, their requirements varied as well. Today, schools increasingly adopt affirmative consent policies, partially due to the expansion of affirmative consent laws (Halley, 2016;McMahon, Wood, Cusano, & Macri, 2018). These policies emphasize that consent should be verbal, sober, and free from coercion (Johnson & Hoover, 2015).…”