Colleges tested on dealing with sexual assaults

College campuses can be unique hosts of both tradition and innovation. Some things never change, other refinements are introduced with each class of new students. As a Hearst Connecticut Media investigation reveals, sexual assaults on campuses are an evergreen challenge. In the last decade or so, there has been considerable progress on many campuses that once clutched to traditions of hiding the problem. But efforts to ensure a safe culture must never flag.

Statistics indicate a rise in reported cases of sexual assaults on campuses. The American Association of Universities recently released a survey of 33 colleges (including Yale University) that indicated 13 percent of students reported non-consensual sexual conduct during their time in college. Other polls suggest even more alarming figures.

Yale alone reported an increase in sexual misconduct complaints for the sixth semester in a row last spring.

A uptick in reported cases does not necessarily reflect more incidents; it can indicate success in spreading awareness and motivating more victims to come forward.

Connecticut has made progress. Four years ago, an affirmative consent law set stringent standards for sexual assault policies at schools, unique to just five states.

But too many colleges remain insular when it comes to best practices. The movement for safer campuses calls for the biggest names in academia to set an example for smaller colleges. Yet Yale and the University of Connecticut were united in opposing proposed new legislation.

“An Act Concerning Sexual Misconduct on College Campuses” (S.B. 19) calls for a sexual misconduct climate survey to be conducted at all colleges in the state. A task force would be created to shape the survey. Yale and UConn leaders are blanching at not having control.

Lily Svenson, director of Yale’s Office of Institutional Research, called for a road map rather than a task force, arguing that one size does not fit all when it comes to colleges.

The problem with road maps is that they can be ignored.

The schools also argue that a survey every two years would be too frequent, suggesting one every four years would get the job done.

An obvious problem with a four-year cycle is that a typical undergraduate would only participate once. Freshmen, who are recognized as most vulnerable to assaults, could not possibly inform a survey with the insight of an upperclassman.

Schools also disagree with the proposed breadth of amnesty that would be granted to someone reporting sexual misconduct while acknowledging prohibited use of alcohol or illegal drugs. Again, they prefer to maintain control.

Control is precisely what is stolen from sexual assault victims. And their needs must be prioritized before the bureaucratic and economic desires of college administrators. Victims can continue to suffer the consequences of a sexual assault for a lifetime, making those wretched moments a defining legacy of their college experience.

Shielding those students must take priority over endowments, athletics and development in college board meetings.

Colleges should have learned that lesson by now.

Shielding those students must take priority over endowments, athletics and development in college board meetings.