Colleges and the military have a problem in common.
Reports of sexual assaults and inadequate responses have roiled campuses and the armed services alike during the past two years, pushing college presidents and military brass into an unwelcome spotlight. Congress, federal agencies, the White House, and victims of assault are calling not only for new, more-effective policies, but also for a broad change in institutional culture.
Both higher education and the military are backbones of society, with vital missions that include the development of young people. Now both face growing expectations that they heal a deeply rooted social ill. The call to chancellors and generals: Do better by the students and service members in your charge. Fix this problem.
The expectations bring many things: ample publicity, government interest, and a laserlike focus on process. What they don’t necessarily provide are answers.
For decades, activists have raised the issue and argued for better resources for victims. Every so often, a high-profile incident has sparked outrage and promises of change.
This time the attention is acute. In both worlds, survivors—as many identify themselves—are driving the discussion. They are optimistic that a combination of grass-roots advocacy, legislative action, and sustained media exposure will lead to meaningful progress.
Some of the movements’ most effective tools are personal stories of trauma. A Coast Guard seaman whose supervisor harassed her, struck her, and later raped her, sued after leaving the military; her story was told in an Oscar-nominated documentary in 2012. A student at an elite private college published an account of her rape by a classmate and of the ensuing disregard by administrators, galvanizing survivors on campuses across the country.
In the two settings, survivors make similar claims: being brushed off, discouraged from reporting incidents, or subjected to an investigative and disciplinary process that is ineffective, inconsistent, harsh. What both colleges and the military should do, activists say, is try harder to prevent sexual assault, and when it does happen, protect and support the victim, investigate fairly, and punish the perpetrator.
Advocates are waging campaigns to hold both institutions accountable. Their efforts are getting traction in Washington. The Department of Education, spurred by a series of complaints on individual campuses, is investigating more than three dozen colleges for alleged civil-rights violations in their responses to sexual violence. In the Senate, debate over how the military-justice system handles sexual assault went on for months before lawmakers—though stopping short of more-stringent reforms—unanimously passed a measure this month that would change that process. Meanwhile, President Obama has urged colleges and military bases to focus on this problem.
The response so far has been uneven. Colleges have bolstered programs to prevent and respond to rape, hired and trained more staff, and convened conferences on the issue. But administrators have also struggled to navigate an expanding web of federal regulations. And college presidents have stumbled publicly, inflaming student opinion with comments about whether rape is a problem they can—or should be expected to—solve.
Ending sexual assault is “probably not a realistic goal just given human nature, and that’s unfortunate,” said Sally K. Mason, president of the University of Iowa, in an interview with the campus newspaper last month. Students quickly protested, condemning her remarks as “victim blaming”; the Board of Regents chastised her and told her to take a zero-tolerance approach to sexual assault. Ms. Mason apologized and announced plans for more prevention programs and tougher punishments for perpetrators.
The Pentagon’s official position on sexual assault within the ranks is that it affects military readiness and won’t be tolerated. The Defense Department’s Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office, created in 2005, is responsible for expanding support for victims and increasing reporting and accountability. Reports, color-coded charts, strategic plans, and other documents refer to cultivating “an enduring culture of dignity and respect” and eliminating sexual assault within the military.
“Sexual assault is a crime that is incompatible with military service,” Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel wrote to military leaders last spring. “It is a stain on our honor.”
Campus by campus, colleges are reshaping their policies for responding to reports of sexual assault. At Dartmouth College, administrators have proposed training investigators to determine if an accused student is responsible. At the University of Connecticut, the president has required training to show students how to intervene when they see a classmate in harm’s way. Duke University has made expulsion the “preferred sanction” in cases of sexual assault. Hundreds of presidents, thousands of staff members—all trying to follow federal guidance and figure out what makes sense on their campuses.
In contrast, the military has two main advantages: centralized leadership and a real judicial system. With investigative services and a Judge Advocate General’s Corps, the armed forces are equipped to adjudicate criminal cases.
But making that system work for sexual assault has proved difficult. The Associated Press’s recent analysis of more than 1,000 reports of sex crimes involving U.S. military personnel over an eight-year period found “a pattern of random and inconsistent judgments,” in which commanders frequently ordered “nonjudicial punishments” like docked pay and letters of reprimand. Last month the Army disqualified nearly 600 soldiers for “positions of trust” after a review of their credentials and backgrounds found infractions including sexual assault and child abuse.
Colleges aren’t courts of law, although some advocates would push them in that direction. Whether or not an alleged victim decides to report an incident to the police—and many don’t, or prosecutors don’t proceed—institutions are obligated to respond under federal civil-rights law. Their internal disciplinary systems, however, are generally designed for academic infractions, not crimes like rape.
The demand to create what amounts to a criminal-justice system has put colleges in uncomfortable territory, says David Lisak, a clinical psychologist and forensic consultant who advises colleges and the military on their handling of sexual-assault cases. “Is it legitimate to expect an attorney familiar, maybe, with college judicial systems to conduct this kind of criminal investigation?” he says. “I sense a fair amount of resistance in higher education to this, and I understand why.”
But if colleges are required to investigate a rape case, he says, “then they have to do it well.”
As colleges try to handle cases fairly, alleged victims and perpetrators, too, have filed lawsuits against their institutions arguing that proceedings went wrong. Some experts see such suits, with the prospect of damages or settlements, as a force for change.
Civil lawsuits aren’t much of an option for service members. Courts typically dismiss cases brought by military personnel against their supervisors, on the grounds that the judiciary shouldn’t interfere with the military’s affairs. The Coast Guard veteran, whose perpetrator got a 30-day restriction to the base after she reported the incident, was the lead plaintiff in a 2011 civil suit brought by 28 service members and veterans against former Secretaries of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Robert Gates. While the allegations were “troubling,” the judge said, he ruled that he couldn’t intervene in a case of military discipline. The case was dismissed.
Both systems are under continued scrutiny. Federal officials are investigating complaints against colleges, and the military is absorbing the impact of two high-profile cases. The court-martial this month of an Army general charged with sexually assaulting a junior officer took a turn when the judge said prosecutors may have been influenced by political concerns; the general agreed to a plea deal avoiding the most serious charges. Last week, the judge reprimanded the general and ordered him to forfeit $20,000 in pay.
Politics also figured in the court-martial this month of a midshipman at the U.S. Naval Academy charged with sexually assaulting a classmate. According to the defendant’s lawyer, a civilian, comments from Maryland lawmakers and President Obama about sexual assault in the military influenced the academy superintendent’s decision to recommend a court-martial. The judge last week found the midshipman not guilty.
The spotlight has brought changes in both worlds. Under the newest defense-reauthorization law, service members will see a variety of changes meant to improve conditions for victims of sexual assault. Military lawyers will run the hearings to determine if there’s enough evidence for a court-martial, for instance, and commanders will no longer be able to overturn findings of guilt.
The federal Campus Sexual Violence Elimination Act took effect this month, requiring colleges to offer prevention programs and track incidents of stalking and of dating violence. Federal settlements with Yale University and the University of Montana have prompted new policies and more disclosure on those campuses and elsewhere. And dozens more investigations will very likely lead to other colleges’ having to change their ways.
College and military leaders alike have given the issue a high priority, declaring that the repercussions of sexual violence—undermining the educational experience and weakening the military’s effectiveness—interfere with their respective missions.
Leaders’ actions, and a willingness on the part of more victims to come forward, seem to indicate progress. In moments of impatience, however, some advocates reveal their skepticism.
“I see a lot of discussion, a lot of hearings and educational programs and presidential programs,” says Laura Dunn, a law student at the University of Maryland at Baltimore who is a leader in the campus movement. “Yet what has been done? What has legitimately changed?”
Policies to address sexual violence mean little, she says, unless they’re backed up by laws that have teeth—and unless society’s most prominent institutions are willing to send clear messages about acceptable behavior.
Can colleges and the military reduce the prevalence of sexual assaults? Fairly resolve those that do occur? So far, pressure alone hasn’t solved the problem. But changes are under way, with more to come.
