Contextualizing the 1990 campus security act and campus sexual assault in intersectional and historical terms

Datos Bibliográficos

ID12936670
AutoresRebecca Graham (0000-0002-2616-6872, University of the District of Columbia, autor de correspondencia), Amanda Konradi (0000-0002-2283-4300, Loyola University Maryland)
Año2017
Volumen10
Número2
Páginas93-102
Fecha de publicación2017-10-19
Peer ReviewedSí
Open AccessSí
TipoARTICLE
RevistaJournal of Aggression Conflict and Peace Research (JOURNAL)
Identificadores de la revistaISSN: 1759-6599 • E-ISSN: 2042-8715
EditorialEmerald Publishing Limited (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1108/jacpr-05-2017-0284
OpenAlexW2765225255
IdiomaEN
Citas recibidas2
Referencias citadas16

Purpose Residential college campuses remain dangerous – especially for women students who face a persistent threat of sexual violence, despite passage of the 1990 Campus Security Act and its multiple amendments. Campuses have developed new programming, yet recent research confirms one in five women will experience some form of sexual assault before graduating. Research on campus crime legislation does not describe in detail the context in which it developed. The purpose of this paper is to draw attention to the effects of early rhetorical frames on the ineffective policy. Design/methodology/approach The authors discuss the rhetorical construction of “campus crime,” and related “criminals” and “victims,” through content analysis and a close interpretive reading of related newspaper articles. Findings The 1986 violent rape and murder of Jeanne Clery at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania became iconic in media descriptions of campus crime. Media drew attention to the racial and classed dimensions of the attack on Clery, but elided the misogyny central to all sexual assaults. This reinforced a stereotype that “insiders” on campuses, primarily white and middle class, were most vulnerable to “outsider” attacks by persons of color. Colleges and universities adopted rhetoric of “endangerment” and “unreason” and focused on what potential victims could do to protect themselves, ignoring the role of students in perpetrating crime. Research limitations/implications This analysis does not link rhetoric in newspapers to legislative discussion. Further analysis is necessary to confirm the impact of particular claims and to understand why some claims may have superseded others. Originality/value This analysis focuses critical attention on how campus crime policy is shaped by cultural frames

Context (archaeology · Criminology · Legislation · Media studies · Newspaper · Political science · Rhetoric · Rhetorical question · Sexual violence · Sociology · Gun Ownership and Violence Research · History · Law · Rhetoric and Communication Studies · Sexual Assault and Victimization Studies