A preview of this full-text is provided by American Psychological Association.
Content available from Psychology Public Policy and Law
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
Sexual Assault on College Campuses: A 50-State Survey of Criminal
Sexual Assault Statutes and Their Relevance to Campus Sexual Assault
David DeMatteo, Meghann Galloway, Shelby Arnold, and Unnati Patel
Drexel University
A recent series of highly publicized campus sexual assaults and the questionable responses by the
academic institutions where they occurred has led some policymakers and academic administrators to call
for legislative and institutional change. For such changes to be effective, academic administrators and
legislators need solutions that effectively protect victims, punish perpetrators, and encourage institutional
compliance with relevant legislation. Furthermore, there has been significant debate about how much the
criminal justice system can and should be involved when sexual assaults occur on college campuses. To
address these questions, there needs to be a more thorough understanding of existing state sexual assault
laws and their capacity to handle sexual assaults that occur on college campuses. This project identified
and systematically examined all U.S. state statutes relating to sexual assault to evaluate to what extent
these laws are appropriate and accessible for victims of campus sexual assault. Results revealed that all
50 states have at least 1 criminal statute addressing sexual assault, with a total of 432 statutory
subsections being identified for inclusion. Across statutes, key concepts relating to consent and inca-
pacity were often ill defined or undefined, and many of the statutes appear to be poorly suited to handling
campus sexual assaults. These findings have implications for the adjudication of campus sexual assaults,
and such results can potentially be used to amend existing legislation and inform future legislation.
Keywords: sexual assault, college, statutory survey, Clery Act, Title IX
A recent series of highly publicized sexual assaults on college
campuses involving questionable responses by academic institu-
tions has resulted in calls for change from several groups. Several
college students who have been sexually victimized, and the par-
ents of these students, have expressed outrage at the response of
some academic institutions to the occurrence of sexual assaults on
campus, which has prompted some university administrators to
initiate policy change and seek guidance from lawmakers on how
to reduce incidences of sexual assault and better handle the inci-
dents that occur (McCaskill, 2014). In turn, legislators at the state
and federal levels have begun to pay closer attention to sexual
assault on college campuses, with some efforts directed at under-
standing the scope of the problem and other efforts directed at
reducing incidents of campus sexual assault by strengthening
existing legislation and enacting stronger laws. For example, Cal-
ifornia’s recent measure “yes means yes,” which was passed
unanimously by the California Senate in 2014, requires individuals
engaging in sexual activity to affirmatively consent (Chappell,
2014). President Obama’s It’s on Us campaign aims to raise
awareness of the prevalence of sexual assault on college campuses
(Somanader, 2014).
Although all efforts to address campus sexual assault should be
applauded, it is important that administrative and legislative re-
sponses be based on reliable data and appropriately tailored to the
problem being addressed. For example, for academic institutional
policies and state or federal legislation to be effective in reducing
campus sexual assault, academic administrators and legislators
need solutions that effectively promote and facilitate the reporting
of campus sexual assaults, protect victims of campus sexual assault
from unintended collateral consequences, protect alleged perpetra-
tors from unjust dispositions, swiftly and appropriately punish
perpetrators of campus sexual assault, and encourage institutional
compliance with self-imposed policies and relevant state and fed-
eral legislation. Although this charge appears to be relatively
straightforward, recent data from a large national survey of aca-
demic institutions indicate that many academic institutions are
failing to comply with best practices and relevant laws in terms of
how they adjudicate and report incidents of campus sexual assault
(McCaskill, 2014).
There are also several unanswered questions relating to campus
sexual assault. For example, prevalence rates of campus sexual
assaults vary widely based on the methodology used to gather the
data, how the data are compiled, and the way the data are reported
(Yung, 2015). There has also been significant debate regarding
how much the criminal justice system can and should be involved
when sexual assaults occur on college campuses. A key question is
whether such incidents should be handled administratively by the
university, or whether all incidents of sexual assault should be
processed through the criminal justice system. Finally, the scope of
existing state legislation that has relevance to campus sexual
assaults has not been examined, so it is unclear whether existing
state statutes relating to sexual assault provide sufficient protection
for victims and perpetrators when such assaults occur on college
campuses.
David DeMatteo and Meghann Galloway, Department of Psychology
and Thomas R. Kline School of Law, Drexel University; Shelby Arnold
and Unnati Patel, Department of Psychology, Drexel University.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to David De-
Matteo, Department of Psychology, Drexel University, 3141 Chestnut Street,
Stratton Suite 119, Philadelphia, PA 19104. E-mail: david.dematteo@
drexel.edu
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Psychology, Public Policy, and Law © 2015 American Psychological Association
2015, Vol. 21, No. 3, 227–238 1076-8971/15/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/law0000055
227