Sex crimes experts say ASU’s sexual assault numbers, low in comparison to universities of similar size, could be linked to a lack of resources for alleged victims and a climate that makes reporting difficult for victims.
Sexual assault numbers can be an indicator not only of the crime rate in the area, but of a campus’ commitment to investigating sexual assault, said Peri Lambert, interim executive director of the Arizona Sexual Assault Network.
Under the Clery Act, federal law requires all universities to disclose crime statistics to the general public.
From 2006 to 2008, ASU, with a student population of 68,064, has had a total of 22 reported sexual assaults.
In that same time span, Ohio State University had 152 sexual assaults, despite having a student population seven percent smaller than ASU.
The University of Minnesota, with less than a two percent difference in student population, reported 50 sexual assaults between 2006 and 2008.
UA, with a little more than half the student body size of ASU, reported 11 sexual assaults in the same time frame.
The University of Florida, with a student population 25 percent smaller than ASU, reported eight sexual assaults between 2006 and 2008.
“There are a couple of things that could affect [an individual school’s] Clery report,” Lambert said. “One could be the atmosphere of the college, as far as students feeling like they’re supported by the University and campus police.”
Jay Spradling, assistant chief of ASU Police, said he is unsure of the reason for low reporting rates, and said ASU’s sexual assault tally seems low.
“We have no idea why there is seemingly less reporting of sexual assaults here than at other universities,” he said. “We, too, would assume that the crime occurs more often than it is being reported.”
Lambert said an atmosphere that is more supportive of sexual assault victims often means higher assault statistics, because students are more willing to come forward.
“If there’s a high report of Clerys on sexual assault then somebody might be apprehensive about sending their kids to that college,” she said. “On the other hand, it also tells a parent that the campus takes this seriously — that they believe the victims when they come forward and [administrators] openly report them on the Clery reports and investigate them thoroughly.”
Howard Robboy, an advisory board member for national nonprofit victim advocate group Security on Campus, Inc., agreed that higher sexual assault numbers at a university sometimes indicate a more open policy toward reporting sexual assault.
“The higher the numbers, the more responsible a campus is being,” Robboy said.
At most institutions, the university and campus police both provide outlets for sexual assault victims to file complaints. If the reported incident fits the legal definition of sexual assault, the police department pursues an investigation that could eventually lead to criminal charges.
Separate university investigations, usually conducted by student judicial affairs departments, can lead to administrative penalties, such as suspension or expulsion.
Although they represent two distinct complaint processes, Lambert said the way university administrations handle complaints can contribute to the climate on campus. Many students, she said, do not see a distinction between the two — if a complaint falls through in one, a victim may believe it will fall through in the other as well.
“They may sometimes believe that if they go through an administrative process, and say they’re not found responsible by the university the case, they may believe that ... the criminal case does not have any teeth to it,” Lambert said.
In 2008, former ASU student and Pi Beta Phi sorority member Anna Babler went through both channels — the police and the University’s Office of Student Rights and Responsibilities — after she was allegedly assaulted by former Sigma Chi fraternity members David Gallagher and Matthew Potter at a party.
Babler, who declined to comment to The State Press, told reporters at the Center for Public Integrity that she did not continue pursuing the complaint she filed because the Office of Student Rights and Responsibilities could not allow her to remain anonymous and did not explain exactly how the process of reporting a sexual assault worked — a process the report describes as “unsympathetic” and “intimidating.”
ASU’s process is not much different from other large universities.
One key similarity is how universities handle cases where the victim wants to remain anonymous; the cases generally go nowhere.
Representatives of UF, OSU and UA’s judicial affairs offices were in agreement that anonymous complainants are less likely to testify against the accused at hearings, and the need to protect the identity of the victim often hinders the investigation.
“It’s very challenging when you have an anonymous [complainant] because you can’t confirm any of the information,” said Andrea Goldblum, director of student judicial affairs at OSU.
Alcohol and drugs, both limiting factors in the reporting of sexual assaults, often plays a role in keeping alleged victims from coming forward.
Victims who were drinking or using drugs at the time of the assault may fear disciplinary action if they come forward with a complaint.
Police records state that Babler was drinking at the time of her alleged assault — her .107 BAC was well above the legal limit when she was interviewed by police the afternoon after the alleged assault.
According to documents obtained by The State Press, Babler told officials in February 2008 she was hesitant to enter into a University investigation because she was afraid it would result in sanctions against her sorority for underage drinking.
She and other sorority members admitted to drinking at the time of the alleged attack, and she said she didn’t want to be singled out by her sorority as the one who caused problems “like other girls who have made claims like this.”
Representatives of judicial affairs offices at UF, OSU and UA said they generally remedy this problem by allowing victims who were drinking to come forward without fear of university sanction.
“We might have a conversation with the student [about drinking]…but we will not pursue it,” UA dean of students Carol Thomson said.
ASU makes no such promises — whether the University imposes disciplinary action on an alleged victim who was drinking at the time of an assault depends on the circumstances, University spokeswoman Julie Newberg said.
“Possible next steps may include a [required] online class or it may simply be noted in a file,” Newberg said in an e-mail.
A Valley-based counselor who has worked with sexual assault victims for more than a decade also criticized ASU’s sexual assault policy. The counselor, who wished to remain anonymous because her organization has close ties to the University, said ASU does not take sexual assault reports seriously enough, creating a climate that keeps victims quiet and crime stats low.
“It’s too often treated as a ‘he said, she said’ situation, so the University numbers don’t reflect what’s going on on campus,” she said.
Through the years, she said, she has worked with many victims who were assaulted on campus, and one story she has heard multiple times is that the administration sometimes has the alleged victim and perpetrator in a sexual assault sit face-to-face and talk about the incident.
“We don’t do that with any other crimes, as far as I know. So why are we doing that with sexually-based crimes?” she said.
University Media Relations spokeswoman Sharon Keeler said that ASU’s sexual assault policy is clear and easy-to-find, and student safety is the University’s main concern.
“ASU’s No. 1 priority is to provide a safe and secure environment for our students to thrive academically,” she said.
(Anna Babler’s name has been withheld in previous articles on the Sigma Chi incident, but is being revealed now because her lawyer has indicated that she does not plan to file criminal charges. The defendants in the civil suit have been named in previous stories.)
Reach the reporters at quizon.patton@gmail.com
