Rebecca Walsh:

Each year in the fall, the University of Utah releases its annual safety report, a detailed accounting of specific crimes reported on campus during the previous year. This data release at colleges and universities across the country started more than three decades ago. In 1990, the Student Right-to-Know and Campus Security Act was signed into law. Eight years later, it was renamed the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act after Clery, a 20-year-old student at Lehigh University who was raped and murdered in her dorm room in 1986.

Initially, the Clery Act simply required campus administrators to share information about crime-related statistics with students. But over time, the act has become interwoven with the Violence Against Women Act, Title IX, and equal opportunity initiatives meant to support female students while they are enrolled in college. Today, in addition to releasing an annual accounting of crimes on campus and detailing a wide range of support services, colleges and universities are required to issue so-called timely warnings to their campus communities when specific crimes are reported. These safety alerts have become controversial as school administrators struggle to meet the requirements of the law while providing neutral, useful information to their campus communities.

While well-intended and an essential source of campus safety information for students, their parents, and other higher education stakeholders, the Clery Act can seem like a blunt instrument, causing unintended consequences, re-traumatizing victims, reinforcing stereotypes about those who commit crimes and their victims, and generally being ignored by community members who find the alerts irrelevant. We're here today with Chris Linder, Special Advisor on Interpersonal Violence to University of Utah President Taylor Randall, former Director of the McCluskey Center for Violence Prevention, and a scholar in campus violence prevention. Professor Linder, thank you for joining us. We'd like to dig into the Clery Act: the good, the bad, and the unintended.

So first, a couple of questions about your latest research. Can you set the scene for us broadly? What effects have you seen the Clery Act have on college campuses here or around the country?

Chris Linder:

I think you named it well when you were doing your introduction, that the Clery Act is extremely well-intended. The intention is to keep students safe from harm, or at the very least to make students aware of where crime is happening on and around campus.

The Clery Act was passed in 1990, and so a lot has changed on college campuses since then, especially how we use technology to communicate. Some of the ways that the Clery Act is enacted is actually behind the times. I've talked with many people who work in law enforcement, and they say that the Clery Act actually slows down sometimes the timely warnings because at this point it's just good policing practice to let communities know when crime is happening.

With the Clery Act, they have to schedule a meeting, make sure they're meeting the requirements of the law, make sure all the people are on board with it. Whereas if they were just doing good police work, they might get the alerts out more quickly. The other piece around Annual Security Reports, which you talked about, is also important. What ends up happening is because there are so many regulations around which crimes to report and whether to report them depending on where they happened, the reports that we get are actually not a complete picture of crime on campus.

We also know that most students and parents aren't actually even reviewing those reports. While well-intended, it may not be having impact that was originally desired.

 

Rebecca Walsh:

Well, let's dig into some of the limitations of that. Your research team at the McCluskey Center actually studied a campus response to a timely warning about a sexual assault reported here at the University of Utah in October 2022.

Can you tell us about the study? Why did you decide to analyze that response to a single timely warning? What were you hoping to understand?

Chris Linder:

We didn't want to do just a single timely warning, but there was only one alert during that whole academic year. Our intention with the study was to understand a couple of things. One, if students were reading the alerts, if they were reading the alerts, what were they doing with the information? We also wanted to understand what was happening with the decision makers of people who decide to send out the alerts.

Then something that we could never find documented that has never been studied before, is how those kinds of alerts impact frontline staff, so the staff on campus that students go to immediately whenever something is going on with them. We really wanted to better understand how are people experiencing these alerts? What's the impact? What we found is a lot of confusion. Alerts go out. Students don't believe that they're as timely as they could be.

Then we also know from previous research, and our research just solidified this, that it's very re-traumatizing for people who have a history with any sort of violence in their lives, that even just getting an email that has a subject line with sexual assault in the subject line can be very upsetting and re-traumatizing for people. That was very true in our study.

We had a number of participants describe very clear ways that it impacted their ability to focus in class, or to feel comfortable on campus.

 

Rebecca Walsh:

What demographic differences did you identify?

Chris Linder:

We did a survey where we just asked students to respond, "Did you read the alert? How did you feel when you read the alert? Do you think it was relevant? Did it upset you?" All of those kinds of things. Then we did focus groups and interviews with students and staff.

In the survey part of the study, when we asked students, "Did you read it? How did it make you feel?" A few differences that we found are that women students were more likely to read it and more likely to feel like it was relevant to their experience. Women students also felt like the safety tips included in the emails were not helpful to them.

We didn't ask them this, but my belief, the reason why that might be the case is because as women, we've been socialized our whole lives to be cautious and to be careful. And so it really puts the responsibility on potential victims to be cautious rather than putting responsibility on people not to cause harm in the first place.

A lot of the tips and safety alerts really focus on stranger danger. They tell people never walk alone at night, to have somebody with them, to be on the phone. Most of the time sexual assault happens between two people who know each other. And so, tips focused on stranger danger aren't particularly helpful when we're thinking about ways to reduce our risk of sexual violence.

 

Rebecca Walsh:

This case ended up confirming some of the weaknesses in the Clery Act that other researchers have identified, basic lack of awareness of Annual Safety Report crime statistics. You've noted that just 6% of parents and 8% of students said the safety statistics influenced where they decided to go to college. The alert language sometimes reinforces racialization of crime, reinforcing stereotypes, victim blaming language, as well as the re-trauma and triggering and stranger danger.

Given these weaknesses that have been identified and that the community I believe is talking about, and has been talking about for years, what do you think is the next step in the research? How do we push this forward?

Chris Linder:

There are three federal laws that dictate how colleges and universities have to deal with sexual misconduct: the Clery Act, interpretation of Title IX and the Campus SAFE Act. At this point, sometimes those laws are even in conflict with each other. I went to a conference session last year dedicated to the conflicts between Title IX and Clery.

To me, what that tells us is that while these are very well-intended and people's intentions are definitely to improve campus safety, especially as it relates to sexual and relationship violence, what we've ended up with is so much policy that it overwhelms administrators, and the administrators end up focusing on complying with the policy at the expense of sometimes engaging in work that would actually address sexual violence.

Instead, they're afraid of getting in trouble or getting fined. That's a huge challenge with all of these laws, but the Clery Act definitely included in that.

 

Rebecca Walsh:

Do you feel like federal authorities, lawmakers, agency heads are aware of these issues and that the discussion is moving forward to a point where we might be able to talk about amendments or new laws, or are we still a ways away from that?

Chris Linder:

I think we're still a ways away from that. Definitely the people doing the work are very clear. I have presented multiple times with Clery compliance officers at conferences and they very much nod their heads and they're like, "Yes, thank you for naming this." I definitely think there's understanding at the level of people doing the work. I think at the federal level or at the policy level, it's much harder to start to have these conversations because there's so much happening at that level.

Also, we know there's a very long history of policy not actually being made based on research, of policy being made by people who are very well-intended and listening to their constituents, but a lot of policy gets made based on the loudest constituents and not necessarily the research behind it.

 

Rebecca Walsh:

Now, we want to talk about a phenomenon we've documented here at the University of Utah in our 2023 and 2024 Annual Safety Reports, which are repeated cases of exceptional sexual violence documented in a single relationship and reported retroactively in the Annual Safety Reports.

In the 2023 statistics, rape reports surged to 175 compared to 30 in 2022. A single survivor reported 150 rapes during the course of a relationship plagued by interpersonal violence. This year, we will report 146 total with 110 rapes reported again in a single relationship. Last year, we talked a lot about the importance of understanding unhealthy relationships, the meaning of consent and how to identify and prevent interpersonal violence, and here we are again.

So let's talk about it. How do you think about these surges in sexual assault numbers on our campus? The university's committed to hearing victims and validating their experiences. Do you think this is a case of increased awareness on our campus or is it something else?

Chris Linder:

It is probably a case of increased awareness. Historically, we have ebbed and flowed in seeing sexual violence as part of interpersonal violence. Sometimes we think of dating violence, or domestic violence, or interpersonal violence as one thing, and then we think of sexual assault as something completely different, but we know that in many abusive relationships, sexual violence is a part of the abuse that victims are experiencing.

I think there's an increased awareness that people realize that sexual assault is not just a stranger jumping out of the bushes. It's also something that's happening in relationships. I also think it is a good sign that students feel comfortable coming forward and saying, "I need help. This is happening to me. I need help." I always tell my friends who are parents, if a college or university is reporting zero Clery crimes around sexual violence or dating violence, don't send your kid there because that means students don't feel comfortable seeking out help on that campus because it's definitely happening on every campus in the country.

And so, when campuses have higher numbers, that actually means they're doing a good job making it okay for students to come forward to get help. In terms of the big jump and the reports of multiple instances of violence in one relationship, it is unique that we've had that two years in a row. I'll be interested to see if this continues to be a pattern. It's not unique in that it's happening. What's unique is that people are finally feeling comfortable coming forward and saying, "This is happening to me."

Clery reports are actually severely under-reported. A lot of people experience dating and sexual violence of many kinds on college campuses that are not counted in the Clery numbers because the only things that are counted in the Clery numbers are the ones where students actually go forward and report. And we know that sexual assault and domestic violence are two of the most under-reported crimes that there are. And so, the numbers are actually much higher than even what the reports are showing us.

 

Rebecca Walsh:

Is it possible that last year's 150 cases in one relationship may open the door for other victims to come forward and report additional cases as well?

Chris Linder:

That is a good question. That, I think, is one of the intentions, is once people start reporting, it makes it okay for other people to do so. It very well could happen. The cynic in me says it will not because nobody's reading the Annual Security Report. We just established that the research is showing that it's less than 10% of students are actually even looking at that report. So unless they're finding out about it a different way, which is possible, they're not seeking out and reading the Annual Security Report. They're listening to the conversation around that.

That said, I do think we are making big strides in higher education broadly and at the University of Utah where people are talking about this issue. And so, a lot of campuses are seeing increased reporting. Our campus climate study for the last six years has consistently shown students having an increased awareness of the resources available on campus. I think that's a good thing.

 

Rebecca Walsh:

Part of the effort we need to go into is figuring out the best way to communicate this with students in a way that's useful for them, either social media, here we are on a podcast, we're going to try to do some recorded messaging. We need to keep working on that.

Chris Linder:

I would argue that we need to do that all the time, not just when something happens, and not just when the Annual Security Report is coming out, which I think we have been doing a good job of. Many students are talking about this in classes.

When I was working at the McCluskey Center, we get invited to do workshops across campus year round. In fact, fall is our busiest time when students are coming back to campus. So I do think it's happening and it's important to just keep the message outside of only doing it during Sexual Assault Awareness Month, and around Clery time, and that sort of thing. We need to be consistent with our messaging year round.

 

Rebecca Walsh:

I worry a little that we might have skeptics who would claim this is just a case of copycatting, that our report from last year is leading to other victims retroactively recasting their relationship experiences. Or, is this a case of our reporting validating the lived experiences of these survivors? How would you answer to the skeptics who say you're giving people an excuse to recast a relationship that ended badly?

Chris Linder:

This is a common piece of feedback we get around this, is that people will often claim that reporting rates are overestimated, that rates and research studies are overestimated because people don't realize what happens to them until they look back and they have different language for it. That could be true, that people don't have the language for it when it's happening. Maybe they know if it's not right, it's not okay.

But because we've been telling people their whole lives that sexual assault is strangers jumping out of bushes, people minimize their experiences with sexual assault and relationships. And then sometimes it isn't until they're out of the relationship that they can identify, "Oh my gosh, that was happening to me and I didn't identify it when it was happening," but that doesn't change the level of harm.

 

Rebecca Walsh:

It sometimes feels like our message about consent and interpersonal violence isn't breaking through. Is this actually proof that those education efforts are working?

Chris Linder:

I am hopeful people are getting the messages and are getting more clear. We also just completed a different study where we talked with first year undergraduate students at two different colleges about where they learn about sex and relationships in college. We specifically wanted to understand about their sex education in high school, and how they're receiving the messages when they come to campus.

One of the things that we learned is that students can very clearly describe the technical and policy version of consent. They all use very similar language. Everybody has to be sober. It has to be a clear and definite yes. But then when we dig into it with them a little bit further, they acknowledge that that gets a little murky when you're in the moment, or when you're in a relationship with someone, that sometimes it doesn't feel as clear.

And so, there's this piece around they cognitively understand what consent is, and they're young adults figuring out how to be in relationship with each other. And so there are some issues there with either people not respecting other people's boundaries, or sometimes people not feeling comfortable setting their boundaries.

 

Rebecca Walsh:

Is there anything you think we could be doing better to educate our campus?

Chris Linder:

One of the things that continually comes up for me is figuring out how to engage and educate the people who are causing harm. I do believe that there are perpetrators out there who are very intentionally sexually assaulting people, knowingly causing harm to other people. Those folks are very hard to intervene with.

I also believe there are a number of people engaging in harmful behavior who don't understand that their behavior is harmful. They've been taught their whole lives that this is just what sex is. They see it on TV. Sometimes they even see it in their homes. It's how their parents engage with each other. It's how their friends are engaging with each other. And so, they don't actually understand that a timid yes might actually be a no. They're not very good at leaning in, and really tuning in and understanding what's going on with the person that they're with.

That's where I would like to spend some more time and energy. I think that college campuses for a very long time have very heavily focused on teaching people how not to be victimized, or things around red flags, like "These are the red flags in relationships," which are very much focused on teaching people how to avoid being victimized rather than what's a red flag not to do in a relationship, and why might you not want to do that? And teaching more skills around empathy and connection. We know that a lot of sexual assault happens because people are disconnected, and it's a way to get false connection.

And so if we created more opportunities for authentic connections between people, how might that influence people's relationships with each other? That's where I would like us to spend a little more time, in not villainizing. I don't even use the word perpetrator anymore. I use the term "people who cause harm" because there's nothing worse than being labeled as the worst thing you've ever done. If we say people who cause harm, we're acknowledging that causing harm can change. Whereas if we just say perpetrator, that's a straight-up label that doesn't sound like it's something that can ever be changed.

 

Rebecca Walsh:

Are you hopeful about the future of this? This generation, I think in particular, and the most recent generations, they talk about everything. Everything is possible to be talked about. Is that the hopeful song?

Chris Linder:

Yes. I am very hopeful. I learned so much from people who are undergraduate students now, and even my niece whose 16 years old, and even talking to her about this kind of stuff, it does feel very different. I'm very hopeful about the culture change. Honestly, I'm less hopeful about the policy change. I'm really worried about the state of how these policies are impacting the work on college campuses.

There are so many people who work on college campuses who want to do really good creative, innovative work in this area, and there are laws inhibiting them from doing that kind of work, either because we can't say certain words, or we have to do certain things. It's required that campuses do some sort of training for incoming students. The easiest way to do that is to put together an online training, which is what the vast majority of campuses in the US do.

Students flat out tell us, "I don't listen to that. I just click through it so I can register for my classes." And so, we're spending a lot of resources complying with laws when those resources could be spent with people who work here, and students, doing really creative, innovative stuff. I'm hopeful about the culture. I'm less hopeful about the policy.

 

Rebecca Walsh:

We're trying to move the discussion forward a little bit because we've had such unique situations happen here. We want to be part of the solution at the University of Utah. And so I think that's the goal, bringing people along with us. Are there any books you'd recommend to our audience?

Chris Linder:

Well, this is selfish, but I have two books on this topic.

Rebecca Walsh:

Great. What are they?

Chris Linder:

I mean, I wrote a book called “Sexual Violence on Campus: Power-Conscious Approaches to Awareness, Prevention, and Response.” It's in at the second edition at this point. I've been told by many people who work on college campuses that they like it because it's practical. It's got the research in it, but it doesn't read like a research book. It reads like a how to do this, an everyday work kind of book. That's one.

Then two colleagues and I also wrote a book called “Thinking Like an Abolitionist to End Sexual Violence in Higher Education,” and that really gets at the policy pieces. What we're advocating for in there is to rely less on policy. In my dream world, we actually wouldn't even have half the policy that we have around this because it's so conflicting and confusing. And so, we would focus more on the cultural changes than we would on the policy piece. That's largely what that book is about, is about how to address cultural pieces.

We spend a lot of time in there talking about why people cause harm, and how a lot of people who cause harm do so because they are hurting, they've had experiences with trauma. And so, if we create a culture where it's okay for people to heal, and if we provide the resources for people to heal from their own experiences with trauma, ultimately will end violence in any way.

 

Rebecca Walsh:

We'll include some information about those books at the end of this episode so you can find them yourselves.

Dr. Linder, thank you so much. This has been a great conversation. We appreciate your time.

Chris Linder:

Thank you. I always love talking about this, and I enjoy spending time with you.