Campus Crime

Campus Crime JOHN J. SLOAN III and BONNIE S. FISHER Mass shootings on the campuses of Virginia Polytechnic and State University (“Virginia Tech”), Northern Illinois University, and the University of Alabama at Huntsville resulted in scores of faculty members and students being killed and injured. As media provided nearsaturation coverage of these events, the public was stunned and many wondered if the ivory tower of academe had succumbed to the kind of violence more commonly found in America’s big cities. While crime perpetrated on college or university campuses may be shocking, it is not new. For more than 300 years, colleges and universities have experienced “violence, vice, and victimization” (Sloan and Fisher 2011). Yet, only recently has criminal behavior on campus created a stir in the public’s consciousness. Further, only recently have researchers begun systematically exploring campus crime through studies that estimate the extent and nature of campus crime; describe the characteristics of on-campus incidents; or explain the dynamics of campus crime such as how certain lifestyles increase students’ risk for victimization. Finally, only recently have the federal government and the courts become involved in addressing campus crime, and have colleges and universities implemented programs intended to reduce and prevent crime on campus, especially sexual and dating violence. Crimes against the person and property crime have existed on postsecondary campuses since their founding in the 1600s. History reveals that during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries US colleges and universities operated largely in loco parentis (“in place of the parents”) and regulated student conduct as they saw fit through rigid conduct codes and harsh discipline. However, despite the rules and punishment, welldocumented incidents of criminal behavior by college students exist, including vandalism of

private and university property, theft from other students and faculty members, and shootings and stabbings of students and faculty as well. As colleges and universities expanded westward during the nineteenth century, accounts of campus crime noted that students were increasingly comprised of young men accustomed to the individualistic ways of the frontier who routinely consumed alcohol, gambled, and pursued sexual liaisons. Students also dueled, rioted to voice their displeasure, and engaged in interpersonal assaults. Those housed in dormitories lived in harsh conditions that included overcrowding, poor food, and significant class divisions, which helped fuel violence not only against each another but also the institution. Moving into the twentieth century, criminal behavior on campus did not change much. The first two decades routinely witnessed public brawls after college football games, often fueled by students’ drunkenness, that resulted in not only scores of arrests but in the deaths of, and injuries to, police officers, bystanders, and participants – not to mention property damage. “Beer busts” and other forms of celebration routinely occurred at elite universities and likewise resulted in arrests, injuries, and property destruction. The 1930s through the 1950s saw various fads sweep college campuses, including goldfish swallowing, stuffing students into phone booths or small cars, and “panty raids” which resulted not only in arrests of participants, but in injuries to them and even the occasional death. The 1960s brought college student involvement with the antiwar movement, women’s liberation, civil rights, and other political issues and saw student protestors illegally occupy campus buildings, burn their draft cards, and engage in violence. That decade is perhaps best remembered for the tragedy that occurred at Kent State University when more than a dozen student demonstrators were killed when Ohio National Guard troops opened fire on them with live ammunition during a protest. During the 1970s, the violence, vice, and victimization that characterized the 1960s continued. Descriptions of college life at the time characterized the typical campus as overcrowded,

The Encyclopedia of Criminology and Criminal Justice, First Edition. Edited by Jay S. Albanese. © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2014 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. DOI: 10.1002/9781118517383.wbeccj236

2

Campus Crime

where relaxed sexual norms, routine violence, competition for grades, and high levels of cheating and anxiety created an environment ripe for victimization (Lamont 1979). Throughout the 1980s and 1990s and into the next decade, stories appearing in print and electronic sources suggested the “dark side” of the ivory tower had become an ongoing threat to the health and safety of millions of college students and negatively influenced public perceptions of college and university life. Routine reports of murder and interpersonal violence that appeared in major media outlets suggested that college and university campuses were experiencing extremely high levels of crime. As media moved into a 24-hour cycle of news coverage, outlets – especially television – faced the challenge of having to find eye-catching stories to fill the time. As more campus crime stories were reported, mass media helped create the impression that unprecedented levels of danger confronted most college students, despite the fact that victimization of college-aged students steadily declined from 1995 through 2002, the latest year for which national data are available (Baum and Klaus 2005). In turn, these stories inspired and continue to inspire grass-roots activists, such as Security On Campus, Inc., to lobby elected officials and campus administrators alike to take appropriate steps to address the menace (Sloan and Fisher 2011). Many criminogenic dynamics are found on the stereotypical college campus (Fisher and Sloan 2007). For example, there is a physical dimension to campus crime that involves its dispersion in space. Many college campuses are park-like settings with few physical barriers to dissuade people from entering. The geographic space that comprises them is commonly segmented with some areas reserved almost exclusively for student residences, others reserved for instruction and/or research, and still others designated for leisure and entertainment purposes. These areas also contain attractive targets – valuable property that is readily on display and accessible or people who may possess high-value belongings – which attract prospective offenders, especially since students routinely fail to engage in crime prevention activities such as locking their residences or not leaving property unguarded in common areas. Research repeatedly shows that specific types

of crime are more likely to occur in certain campus buildings than in others (Robinson and Roh 2007). Campus dormitories, for example, are more likely to be the locations of sexual assault and theft, while parking lots/decks are places where breaking into vehicles or stealing them is more common. College campuses located in rural areas that are more sprawling and have large green spaces experience much different patterns of crime than do campuses located in core urban areas. Thus, the physical design features of a campus matter, as these features create opportunities for victimization by helping attract prospective offenders who are intent on committing certain types of crime. There is also a temporal dimension to campus crime (Robinson and Roh 2007). College students follow routines at roughly similar times of day. On weekdays, they come and go to class at roughly the same time each day. They attend on-campus functions, such as social or athletic events, at specific times during the evening or on weekends. They spend time studying at the library at certain times each day. These routines not only create opportunities for victimization but also help researchers understand why campus crime is not randomly distributed in time. Instead, it tends to cluster around certain times of day and days of the week. Evenings during the football or basketball season, when large numbers of students, alumni, and visitors gather for events such as pep-rallies or tailgating parties, tend to experience higher levels of violent crime than other times during the week. Weekends, especially at schools with large residential populations, generally tend to be “hotter” than weekdays. Finally, some times of day are “hotter” than others and those times also cluster around specific locations like a dormitory or student center. Students’ routines also include lifestyle components: the material goods they possess such as iPods, iPads, smartphones, Xboxes, and expensive computers; whether they routinely socialize with others – either in their residence or away from it – or spend time alone; the extent they consume alcohol or illegal drugs; and whether they belong to a fraternity or sorority. Much research confirms that students whose lifestyles include high levels of partying on campus at night and those who regularly consume recreational drugs face much greater risks for violent

Campus Crime victimization. Additionally, students who live in all-male or coed residence halls, spend more money on nonesential items, and are members of a fraternity/sorority have increased risk for theft victimization (Fisher et al. 1998; Mustaine and Tewksbury 2007). Alcohol consumption also plays a role in campus crime. Notably, a large percentage of on-campus suicides, rapes/sexual assaults, and physical assaults are linked with alcohol and/or drug use (Baum and Klaus 2005; Dowdall 2009; Fisher, Daigle, and Cullen 2010). Over the past 25 years, how campus administrators address campus crime has changed, due partly to two major developments. The first involved federal legislation, originally titled the Student Right-to-Know and Campus Security Act of 1990 (20 USC 1093) and later renamed the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act (hereafter, Clery), while the second involved state courts ruling that postsecondary institutions could be held liable for victimizations occurring on (or near) college campuses. In both instances, change came to the postsecondary landscape as administrators were confronted with legal mandates for responding to campus crime. Clery was the first piece of federal legislation that specifically addressed campus crime and was spearheaded by the lobbying efforts of Security On Campus, Inc., a grass-roots organization founded by the parents of Jeanne Anne Clery who was raped and murdered in her dorm room at Lehigh University in 1986. Clery and its subsequent amendments focus on three key areas: (i) security, (ii) crime statistics, and (iii) timely information. The rationale behind the legislation was that it would “open the books” on campus crime and serve as a type of “consumer protection” legislation where parents and prospective students could review the information and use it to help them decide which school to attend (Carter and Bath 2007). Clery requires that, by October 1 each year, colleges and universities publish an annual security report and make it available to current students and employees. The report must contain three years’ worth of campus crime statistics; include a statement of security policies relating to sexual assault; describe the legal authority of the campus police; and provide instructions for how victims can report a crime. The crime-reporting

3

requirement of Clery mandates that institutions disclose crimes occurring on campus, on public areas adjacent to or running through the campus, and at non-campus facilities including fraternities and sororities and remote classrooms. The statistics are gathered from campus police or security, local police, and other campus officials who are not exempt from reporting requirements, and include counts of homicide, sex offenses, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, motor vehicle theft, and arson. Schools are also required to report liquor or drug law violations or illegal weapons possessions that resulted in arrest or referral for disciplinary proceedings. The statistics must also indicate the location of reported crimes and whether any of the reported offenses were “hate crimes.” Clery further requires that schools provide “timely warnings” to the campus community and make a campus crime log available for public inspection. The timely warning requirement is typically a message transmitted via electronic means – e-mail, text, or automated phone call – and is triggered when the school considers a crime that has occurred to pose an ongoing threat to students and employees. The crime log is supposed to include all crime incidents reported to campus police or security – not just those included in the security report – and information on crime type, date, time, and location, as well as disposition (if known). The log must be available during normal business hours. Finally, on April 4, 2011, the US Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights issued a “Dear Colleague” letter to all federally funded postsecondary schools mandating changes in the way schools address matters of sexual harassment and sexual violence occurring on campus. Grounded in Title IX of the Higher Education Amendments of 1972 which forbids discrimination on the basis of sex, the letter told schools that, moving forward, the appropriate standard of evidence used in campus disciplinary proceedings arising from allegations of sexual assault or sexual harassment would be “beyond a preponderance of evidence” (US Department of Education 2011). Clery is not without its critics (e.g., Fisher et al. 2002; Gregory and Janosik 2007; Katel 2010). For example, two offenses – larceny/theft and stalking – are absent from the crime statistics. This is a major shortcoming since research shows a

4

Campus Crime

substantial portion of college students experience one or both of these crimes while attending college (Fisher et al. 1998, 2010). Also, bear in mind the Clery statistics represent only crimes reported to and recorded by campus officials. Research shows, for example, that Clery statistics undercount the true volume of rape because the vast majority of on-campus rapes are never reported to campus officials (Fisher et al. 2010). Contributing to victims’ reluctance to report is the fact most campus rapes involve people known to one another and the mistaken belief by some victims that friends (or acquaintances) cannot rape them (Fisher et al. 2010). The second development occurred when student victims (and/or their families) began successfully suing colleges and universities in state courts for damages arising from victimizations occurring on (or near) college campuses. In their lawsuits, which sometimes sought millions of dollars in compensatory and punitive damages, victims claimed postsecondary institutions had a legal duty to protect them from criminal victimization occurring on (or near) campus. In some instances, victims successfully argued that postsecondary institutions’ legal duty arose from a “unique” or “intrinsically special” relationship between the school and the student. Other victims argued that colleges and universities had a duty to protect students from victimization on the basis of “foreseeability.” That is, victims claimed, if similar victimizations had recently occurred on (or near) campus, their victimization was foreseeable and therefore the institution should have taken steps to prevent it. Finally, a third group argued that schools were negligent by failing to address known risks to students’ safety, such as exterior doors in dormitories routinely being propped open or defective security systems operating in classroom buildings, that allowed victimizations to occur (Burling 2003). Due to legislative mandates and court decisions, campus administrators find themselves in a world far different from the one they inhabited barely a decade ago. They must now be much more proactive about campus crime or risk costly fines and other sanctions for noncompliance with Clery, or face civil judgments against them. To help schools make their campuses safer, Congress has allocated monies to the federal Office of Violence Against Women to fund annual grants

to establish rape/sexual assault education and prevention programs designed to work in collaboration with campus- and community-based victim advocacy organizations. Some schools have expanded the scope and nature of their campuswide security arrangements and incorporated more technology into them like closed-circuit television (CCTV). Other schools have expanded the availability of on-campus “taxi services” during evening hours to shuttle students, faculty members, staff, or visitors around campus free of charge. Schools also have installed “blue light” emergency phones which, when activated, connect the caller directly to campus police or security. Some campus police agencies have received national-level accreditation, while campus security professionals increasingly seek certification from professional associations such as the American Society of Industrial Security. Some institutions have adopted design and building standards to help reduce opportunities for victimization occurring inside buildings, in green spaces, or in parking lots or decks. Many prevention efforts undertaken by colleges and universities aim to reduce opportunities for sexual violence against women. These educational programs usually are offered during freshman orientation and include presentations about a variety of topics including defining rape and explaining risk factors associated with it, and challenging sex-role stereotypes and prevailing rape myths and behaviors that support sexual violence towards women. They may even include bystander intervention training, where students learn how to identify high-risk situations and effectively intervene to thwart rape. Early evaluations indicate that these programs show promise in enhancing student bystander behaviors in risky situations (Lonsway et al. 2009). As the new millennium unfolds, college and university campuses will continue to be places where vice, victimization, and violence occur. The growing numbers of students enrolling in colleges and universities provide would-be offenders, mostly fellow students, ample opportunities to perpetrate campus crime. Campus officials and student advocacy groups continue to be challenged in their attempts to respond to the realities of campus crime and address the steadfast interest in campus crime expressed by Congress, the

Campus Crime courts, federal agencies, and current and prospective students and their parents.

SEE ALSO: Dueling; Routine Activities and Crime; Sex Crimes; Victimization Patterns; Victimization, Theories of. References Baum, K., & Klaus, P. (2005) Violent Victimization of College Students, 1995–2002. NCJ Publication No. 206836. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Burling, P. (2003) Crime on Campus: Analyzing and Managing the Increasing Risk of Institutional Liability, 2nd edn. Washington, DC: National Association of College and University Attorneys. Carter, S. D., & Bath, C. (2007) The evolution and components of the Jeanne Clery Act: Implications for higher education. In B. S. Fisher & J. J. Sloan (eds.), Campus Crime: Legal, Social, and Policy Perspectives, 2nd edn. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas, pp. 27–44. Dowdall, G. (2009) College Drinking: Reframing a Social Problem. Westport, CT: Praeger. Fisher, B. S., Diagle, L. E., & Cullen, F. T. (2010) Unsafe in the Ivory Tower: The Sexual Victimization of College Women. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Fisher, B. S., Hartman, J. L., Cullen, F. T., & Turner, M. G. (2002) Making campuses safer for students: The Clery Act as a symbolic legal reform. Stetson Law Review 32, 61–89. Fisher, B. S., & Sloan, J. J. (eds.) (2007) Campus Crime: Legal, Social and Policy Perspectives, 2nd edn. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas. Fisher, B. S., Sloan, J. J., Cullen, F. T., & Liu, C. (1998) Crime in the ivory tower: the level and sources of college student victimization. Criminology 36, 671–710. Gregory, D., & Janosik, S. M. (2007) Research on the Clery Act and its impact on higher education administrative practice. In B. S. Fisher & J. J. Sloan (eds.), Campus Crime: Legal, Social and Policy Perspectives, 2nd edn. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas, pp. 45–64.

5

Katel, P. (2010) Crime on campus: Are colleges doing enough to keep students safe? Congressional Quarterly 21, 97–120. Lamont, L. (1979) Campus Shock. New York: E. P. Dutton. Lonsway, K. A., Banyard, V. L., Berkowitz, A. D., et al (2009) Rape Prevention and Risk Reduction: Review of the Research Literature for Practitioners. National Resource Center on Violence Against Women. http://www.vawnet.org/Assoc_Files_VAWnet/AR_ RapePrevention.pdf, accessed April 22, 2013. Mustaine, E., & Tewksbury, R. (2007) The routine activities and criminal victimization of students: Lifestyle and related factors. In B. S. Fisher & J. J. Sloan (eds.), Campus Crime: Legal, Social and Policy Perspectives, 2nd edn. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas, pp. 147–166. Robinson, M., & Roh, S. (2007) Crime on campus: Spatial aspects of campus crime at a regional comprehensive university. In B. S. Fisher & J. J. Sloan (eds.), Campus Crime: Legal, Social and Policy Perspectives, 2nd edn. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas, pp. 231–258. Sloan, J. J., & Fisher, B. S. (2011) The Dark Side of the Ivory Tower: Campus Crime as a Social Problem. New York: Cambridge University Press. US Department of Education (2011) Dear Colleague: Letter from Office of the Assistant Secretary. http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/ colleague-201104.pdf, accessed April 22, 2013.

Further Readings Clery Center for Security On Campus, Inc. http:// securityoncampus.org/, accessed April 22, 2013. Kandimalla, Y. (2011) The Chronicle of Higher Education. September 28, 2011. http://dukechronicle. com/article/annual-clery-report-shows-decreasecampus-crime, accessed April 22, 2013. Sampson, R. (2003) Acquaintance Rape of College Students. Problem Oriented Guides for Police, Guide # 17. Washington, DC: Office of Community Oriented Policing Services.