CHE article: Rape Procedures

[Ruralguy]

OK, I stand corrected. I have no reason to particularly argue for the numbers of sexual assaults being higher or lower on campus (than anywhere else) , so I'll just take these reported numbers at face value unless I see otherwise. I realize why some might have an interest in reporting higher numbers, especially if they believe them to be true, but in any case, it makes sense to take campus sexual assault seriously and address it appropriately.

[ergative]

Though it would be good to have more precise number, we can be pretty sure that the number of sexual assaults of any kind are higher than the number reported to any authority (police, TIX office, DoS Office, etc.). I have no doubt that a significant number of women, and some men, have experienced assault, broadly defined (and probably not as low as we might hope for narrowly defined rape). I can't speak to the accuracy of any particular quoted number.

Aaah, but the DoJ report Marshwiggle linked to is a survey. Thus, it catches, and is intended to catch, crimes reported to the police and those not reported to the police. It's a good set of numbers for crime, not something else.

Anyway, if things were only half as serious as the 1-in-5 number, women would not go to college.

Regardless of how bad the numbers are, if they're higher outside of college than in college (as DoJ numbers suggest), then why would women stay away?

[marshwiggle]

Though it would be good to have more precise number, we can be pretty sure that the number of sexual assaults of any kind are higher than the number reported to any authority (police, TIX office, DoS Office, etc.). I have no doubt that a significant number of women, and some men, have experienced assault, broadly defined (and probably not as low as we might hope for narrowly defined rape). I can't speak to the accuracy of any particular quoted number.

Aaah, but the DoJ report Marshwiggle linked to is a survey. Thus, it catches, and is intended to catch, crimes reported to the police and those not reported to the police. It's a good set of numbers for crime, not something else.

Anyway, if things were only half as serious as the 1-in-5 number, women would not go to college.

Regardless of how bad the numbers are, if they're higher outside of college than in college (as DoJ numbers suggest), then why would women stay away?

I think the point is that IF the "1 in 5" was remotely realistic, there would be so many stories that no sane woman would ever go. The fact that that there are more women than men attending indicates that women don't, in fact, hear anything reflecting that sort of situation.

[dismalist]

Though it would be good to have more precise number, we can be pretty sure that the number of sexual assaults of any kind are higher than the number reported to any authority (police, TIX office, DoS Office, etc.). I have no doubt that a significant number of women, and some men, have experienced assault, broadly defined (and probably not as low as we might hope for narrowly defined rape). I can't speak to the accuracy of any particular quoted number.

Aaah, but the DoJ report Marshwiggle linked to is a survey. Thus, it catches, and is intended to catch, crimes reported to the police and those not reported to the police. It's a good set of numbers for crime, not something else.

Anyway, if things were only half as serious as the 1-in-5 number, women would not go to college.

Regardless of how bad the numbers are, if they're higher outside of college than in college (as DoJ numbers suggest), then why would women stay away?

I think the point is that IF the "1 in 5" was remotely realistic, there would be so many stories that no sane woman would ever go. The fact that that there are more women than men attending indicates that women don't, in fact, hear anything reflecting that sort of situation.

Yeah, absolutely. We need to understand data quality. Observed movements of people helps us understand that. [Voting by the feet.]

The DoJ survey (NCVS) numbers are small and high quality. Rape rates outside college are indeed higher than inside college. Women flock to college. This is consistent with the reported numbers.

If, on the other hand, with the 1-in-5 women raped in college, a big number of terrible quality, one would have to have more than 1-in-5 women raped outside of college to see women flocking to college. The numbers required for out of college rapes to make that happen are not credible.

[Ruralguy]

I think there is some circular reasoning here. Though there might be valid reasons for suspecting that the 20% number is too high, you can't reject the suspect number just because you think women wouldn't go to college if the number were that high. Maybe they would, maybe they would not. Its reasonable to hypothesize that they would do so less if the numbers were so high. But that needs to be investigated. Then again, we shouldn't keep repeating bad data if nobody can show where the data really comes from. Anyway, I understand the frustration over mishandling statistics.

[dismalist]

I think there is some circular reasoning here. Though there might be valid reasons for suspecting that the 20% number is too high, you can't reject the suspect number just because you think women wouldn't go to college if the number were that high. Maybe they would, maybe they would not. Its reasonable to hypothesize that they would do so less if the numbers were so high. But that needs to be investigated. Then again, we shouldn't keep repeating bad data if nobody can show where the data really comes from. Anyway, I understand the frustration over mishandling statistics.

Nothing circular. Just an assumption that most people avoid danger.

[marshwiggle]

I think there is some circular reasoning here. Though there might be valid reasons for suspecting that the 20% number is too high, you can't reject the suspect number just because you think women wouldn't go to college if the number were that high. Maybe they would, maybe they would not. Its reasonable to hypothesize that they would do so less if the numbers were so high. But that needs to be investigated. Then again, we shouldn't keep repeating bad data if nobody can show where the data really comes from. Anyway, I understand the frustration over mishandling statistics.

The 20% number is an example of trying to shock people with statistics by broadening the usage of terminology. By similar logic, it could be argued that McDonald's "murders" thousands of people every year. They make products which they know contribute to certain health problems, and lots of people die each year from those health problems. The headline might shock people, but as soon as they read what it means, they roll their eyes and move on, because there's nothing to see here. Saying 1 in 5 women have some sort of unpleasant experience related to sex, (which may include just obnoxious comments), may not be too surprising, but most of those experiences wouldn't be close to what most people would count as some sort of sexual assault. Peoples' gut feelings about the frequency of actual sexual assault is probably much closer to the DOJ figure, and that's why women aren't afraid to go to college.

So it's possibly less about mishandling "statistics" as it is playing fast and loose with definitions and terminology. (If a woman had an experience that she herself would not have identified as a sexual assault then it is irresponsible for someone to report it as such just to boost the numbers.)

[smallcleanrat]

I really dislike articles that throw around numbers from studies which use such a broad definition for the problem they want to highlight that it's practically useless to give any impression of the scope and severity of the problem.

Saying 1 in 5 women have experienced rape OR sexual assault just leaves so many unanswered questions as to which acts are included in the term "sexual assault." It's my understanding that this term covers things like harassment, groping, sending unsolicited nude pics or flashing someone, etc...

I mean, I would still hope a lot of people see value in discouraging these behaviors in an academic or professional setting, but it's not at all helpful in defining the problem or indicating likely solutions.

It reminds me of that statistic saying something like 1 in 6 people will experience mental illness at some point in their lives, with the definition of "mental illness" covering everything from the completely debilitating (requiring lifelong institutionalization) to the mild, short-lived, and manageable without medical intervention.

[smallcleanrat]

So it's possibly less about mishandling "statistics" as it is playing fast and loose with definitions and terminology. (If a woman had an experience that she herself would not have identified as a sexual assault then it is irresponsible for someone to report it as such just to boost the numbers.)

I agree with you about the irresponsible reporting, but disagree with your implication that if someone claims not to have been raped there is no reason at all to say anything to the contrary (I'm including an earlier post you made about 'choosing not to label something as rape).

I knew someone who was molested for years by a family member. She said if someone had asked her if she had ever been sexually abused, she would have said no up until she was in her late 30s. That was when she learned that sexual abuse encompasses more than just rape. She said it was a huge relief to hear other people say that what had been done to her was wrong. She'd been told so many times that it was "no big deal" and that she wasn't being hurt (meaning no physical injury = no problem).

It's also not uncommon for people to freeze in fear or to feel emotionally numb afterwards, running on autopilot through their normal activities. This can lead to comments like "if it was really rape, why didn't you scream for help?" Or "if it was really rape, why  didn't you fight back?" Or "if it was really rape there's no way you would have just gone back to work the next day as if nothing had happened."

[Parasaurolophus]

I expect the disjunctive bundling comes because many jurisdictions don't have 'rape' as a crime distinct from sexual assault in its various degrees. That makes it hard to keep track of numbers across jurisdictions.

[dismalist]

I expect the disjunctive bundling comes because many jurisdictions don't have 'rape' as a crime distinct from sexual assault in its various degrees. That makes it hard to keep track of numbers across jurisdictions.

Well, no. The DoJ report Marshwiggle linked to is survey material explicitly designed to account for these problems. And they come up with tenths of percents of the population for victims of rape, attempted rape, sexual assault, and threat of the above.

[mamselle]

Of interest as well is the detour to statistics when a serious, sensitive, unimaginably horrible crime is discussed.

Hey, if we can make it all clinical and objective-sounding, maybe we can ignore the fact that it just, plain, shouldn't happen AT ALL!

To anyone.

M.

[Ruralguy]

Yes, I feel and have observed that the differing statistics often just give people permission to be cynical regarding the matter at hand. This is one of the reasons I have participated in the Title IX process.  I'm no hero. Just a grownup dealing with a serious grownup problem.

[marshwiggle]

So it's possibly less about mishandling "statistics" as it is playing fast and loose with definitions and terminology. (If a woman had an experience that she herself would not have identified as a sexual assault then it is irresponsible for someone to report it as such just to boost the numbers.)

I agree with you about the irresponsible reporting, but disagree with your implication that if someone claims not to have been raped there is no reason at all to say anything to the contrary (I'm including an earlier post you made about 'choosing not to label something as rape).

You actually explained it better than I did here:

I really dislike articles that throw around numbers from studies which use such a broad definition for the problem they want to highlight that it's practically useless to give any impression of the scope and severity of the problem.

Saying 1 in 5 women have experienced rape OR sexual assault just leaves so many unanswered questions as to which acts are included in the term "sexual assault." It's my understanding that this term covers things like harassment, groping, sending unsolicited nude pics or flashing someone, etc...

That's what I was trying to get at.

I mean, I would still hope a lot of people see value in discouraging these behaviors in an academic or professional setting, but it's not at all helpful in defining the problem or indicating likely solutions.

It reminds me of that statistic saying something like 1 in 6 people will experience mental illness at some point in their lives, with the definition of "mental illness" covering everything from the completely debilitating (requiring lifelong institutionalization) to the mild, short-lived, and manageable without medical intervention.

This explains the problem many people have with comments like this:

Hey, if we can make it all clinical and objective-sounding, maybe we can ignore the fact that it just, plain, shouldn't happen AT ALL!

Sigh.

This kind of absolutist statement makes any progress unsatisfactory, which ultimately makes all kinds of people who wish to make things better give up because the absolutists will never give credit for improvements.
Consider drunk driving; in the 60's, it was actually a source of humour in TV shows to show a drunk weaving all over the road. As deaths due to drunk driving got more publicity, the public perception changed, and it eventually stopped being a source of humour. Laws got tougher and sentences got harsher.

However...

It STILL happens. It WILL happen until all of the vehicles on the road are autonomous. Why? Because there will always be SOME people who do any given bad thing. There will ALWAYS be domestic abuse. There will ALWAYS be child pornography. And so on. But like drunk driving, these things can become less common over time with concerted effort. But the all-or-nothing ideologues cause the supportive moderates to DISengage because nuanced, rational dialogue is impossible.

[Ruralguy]

Certainly we should always be seeking to define a problem well. So I definitely agree that good statistics are better than bad ones. But I also strongly believe that people use this as an excuse to disengage. As much as it annoys me when people "both sides" every issue, I do also wish some activists would also be more careful using certain numbers that might not be accurate. That just feeds the cynicism.

On a related note, I am fairly sure that TIX *does not* call  unwanted sexting, revenge porn, etc. "assault." Those would definitely fall under "sexual misconduct" and are covered by Title IX Sexual Misconduct policy, which covers everything from stalking, groping (which can be assault), sexting, sexual assault . But I do believe the 1 in 5 number a bit more *if* it is including all victims of sexual misconduct.  One thing I do know----many of the assault cases involve these other forms of misconduct as well.