The first step in social progress is the most fundamental but often the most difficult: making people understand the problem.
The issue of sexual assault on college campuses highlights this difficulty. A study conducted by the U.S. Department of Justice, showed that almost half of the women who experienced rape according to the study’s definition didn’t consider what happened to them to be rape. It’s clear that there is a lot of confusion among college students about sexual assault.
In an effort to remedy the situation, the U.S. Department of Education has mandated that universities provide sexual assault education and investigation of crimes. In response, the University of California launched a revamped sexual assault education program in July that students are required to complete within the first six weeks of school, but it’s unclear how effective these measures will be.
Earlier this month, UC President Janet Napolitano suggested a solution to the problem of sexual assault education in an article published in the Yale Law & Policy Review. She argues that universities are not well-equipped to handle the investigation and adjudication process in sexual assault cases, and that requiring universities to do so diverts funding away from things they can do well, such as sexual assault education and prevention.
The shift in responsibilities Napolitano is suggesting is important because it will help bring swifter justice to sexual assault crimes while allowing the University to up its game when it comes to sexual assault prevention. However, it’s worrying that in Napolitano’s article, there is no concrete description of what the UC would do with education and prevention given more resources. If Napolitano does not explicitly state what steps she would take to increase the UC’s education and prevention methods, there is no reason to take her suggestion seriously.
It’s unclear how beneficial the revamped sexual assault education program used by the UC will be since it has yet to go into effect. But from what information is available thus far, there seems to be a lot we could be doing better.
A report from the University of New Hampshire’s Prevention Innovations Research Center published in April outlined different preventative techniques for sexual assault and found that many of the most common methods were not very effective. Among these methods were take-at-home video tutorials like the one’s employed by the UC. The study found that interactive, discussion-based lessons were a far better way to educate students on sexual assault.
Translating this information into real life programs is easier said than done, but there are some clear options. One possible addition to the UC’s education program would be required discussion-based seminars on sexual assault. Additionally, UC campuses could work directly with student communities to build more personal sexual assault awareness campaigns.
If one thing is clear though, it’s that we need an immediate plan for what we would change, if given the chance.
While lowering the burden on universities to investigate crimes might seem worrying, we wouldn’t be losing much given that universities are vastly unprepared for this task as they are.
Schools like the UCs are terrible at investigating crimes because they do not have the expertise to do so, nor the proper authority. Law enforcement organizations like the UCPD specialize in conducting these kinds of investigations, and can use the aid of search warrants and subpoenas to get the information they need. The inadequate handling of sexual assault cases in the UCs have also led to law suits from victims who feel that their cases have not been given the attention they deserve.
Moreover, universities are spending a considerable amount of money trying to conduct investigations that don’t bring considerable consequences to criminals. This leaves comparatively little funding left for the important task of educating students on the issue and preventing crimes before they happen.
Meanwhile, the government has been spending resources investigating schools for not meeting its standards of enforcement, and threatening them with decreased funding (though it has yet to do so). The system is not working to anyone’s favor, especially sexual assault victims.
That’s why Napolitano’s plan to increase collaboration with law enforcement seems like a win-win. Enforcement power will increase, and funds can be allocated to education.
However, Napolitano has given no guarantee that less investigative responsibilities will translate into more prevention and education programs. It’s possible that she could simply use the reduced investigative burden as a way for the UC to lower its financial commitment to the issue of sexual assault.
If Napolitano were to release a detailed outline of how she expects to enhance the current educational resources for sexual assault, there would be a significantly better chance of her request being granted.
If the UC is a testament to anything, it’s that education is expensive. But the cost of unrelenting sexual crimes is one students shouldn’t have to bear, and right now there isn’t enough being done to ensure that they won’t have to.