Why Campus Sexual Assault Goes Unreported

Many students have experienced sexual assault, either personally or vicariously—through the shared experience of a friend or family member. Those of us who have selected juries in sex crimes cases for decades can attest to the frequency with which such revelations surface during jury selection, sometimes for the very first time.

When sexual violations involve a known perpetrator, the likelihood of reporting is already low, especially if it occurred within a dating context. Some unique social dynamics on a college campus decrease the likelihood of reporting even further, according to research.

Source: Ina Hall/Pixabay

Victim Reluctance

There are many reasons sexual assault victims are reluctant to report. They span from personal to social, including the desire to avoid revealing behavior that made them vulnerable in the first place, which often includes exercising poor judgment, engaging in risky behavior, or underage drinking. Specifically, within a university setting, everyone wants to avoid becoming the subject of “campus buzz” or creating “drama” within their social circles—which often include the perpetrator, who may be a roommate, classmate, or teammate.

How do these concerns impact a victim’s willingness to report campus victimization in the first place? Research has some answers.

Methods of Mandatory Reporting

One of the many ways colleges and universities seek to protect students is through mandatory reporting (MR) requirements. Kristen M. Budd and Shelby Frye (2023) examined public perceptions of campus sexual assault in connection with three types of mandatory reporting.[i]

Budd and Frye state that most colleges and universities have adopted universal MR, defining all employees as responsible to report incidents of campus sexual assault—sometimes even against the wishes of the victim. They define selective MR as requiring reporting by employees who are in positions of leadership or have significant responsibilities over the well-being of students, and student-directed MR as an approach where non-“responsible” employees are required to share with victim-survivors how they can report, provide information on support services, and ask victims if they would like assistance connecting.

Which method is best? Apparently, it depends on who you ask.

Reporting Sexual Assault: Preferences and Public Perception

Using a survey of the general public, Budd and Frye examined public perceptions of the three types of MR policies they identified. Over half of respondents supported universal MR, followed by student-directed. They found that when members of the public factored in the negative consequences of MR on victim-survivors, however, some favored student-directed instead of universal. This is a distinction with a difference.

Unintended Consequences

Budd and Frye recognize that despite the benefits of enhancing campus safety and increasing institutional accountability and transparency, some MR policies may have adverse impact on victims. Unintended consequences may include decreased willingness to disclose victimization, limited autonomy, and re-traumatization. With respect to autonomy, Budd and Frye note that MR policies which remove victim choice may further reduce the perceived level of control—which is linked with maladaptive coping styles and other negative outcomes, such as post-traumatic stress disorder.

Campus Comfort: Supporting Survivors

Becoming familiar with the reasons for victim reluctance is the first step to addressing the issue. The goal is to find the sweet spot within which campus administrators, counselors, and law enforcement can assist survivors in a fashion that improves willingness to report without any fear of repercussions. As we seek to uncover sexual assault and protect students, we continue to refine policies and procedures designed to build both transparency and trust.