How Many Terms Does It Take to Define Sexual Assault? Inconsistencies in U.S. Higher Education Sexual Misconduct Policies

Abstract

Campus sexual misconduct policies (SMPs) outline prohibited conduct. We sought to document the range of terms used to refer to forms of nonconsensual sexual contact in SMPs and to analyze the content of definitions provided for the term “sexual assault.” We coded the 2016-2017 SMPs from a sample of 381 U.S. schools. We identified 125 unique terms and documented both a terminological and conceptual morass around sexual assault. Policy language may have implications for students’ and administrators’ evaluation of experiences and reports of sexual assault.

Keywords

campus sexual assault sexual misconduct policies higher education,colleges,universities,definitions of sexual assault

Introduction

Sexual assault is an umbrella term referring to nonconsensual sexual behavior ranging from touching to rape. Sexual assault of college women is an urgent issue given its impact on mental health (Carey et al., 2018), physical health (Smith et al., 2017), college academic performance and attrition (Baker et al., 2016; Mengo & Black, 2016), long-term health costs (Peterson et al., 2017), and employment (Loya, 2015). Approximately 20% of women and 4–7% of men experience sexual assault as undergraduates (Edwards et al., 2015; Fedina et al., 2018; Krebs et al., 2007; Muehlenhard et al., 2017). Despite high rates of assault on campus, few victim/survivors¹ report to the police or through other formal services (e.g., campus authorities, health services; Sabina & Ho, 2014). Victim/survivors may not report if the experience did not align with what they learned constitutes sexual assault. Griffin et al. (2022) analyzed tweets hashtagged with #WhyIDidntReport, including “I was taught rape was a violent attack from a stranger” (p. NP14728), “I was told that you can’t be assaulted by a boyfriend” (p. NP14729), and “I didn’t think it was bad enough to call assault b/c there wasn’t actual penetration” (p. NP14730).² Accurate and comprehensive definitions of sexual assault may help victim/survivors leave the “twilight zone,” in which they cannot categorize a violating experience (DeKeseredy & Schwartz, 2011).

Students often know little about how to engage in or evaluate ethical sexual behavior upon entering college (Hirsch & Khan, 2020), and college women are especially unlikely to label an experience of rape as such in comparison to noncollege women (Wilson & Miller, 2016). Critically, research shows that some college women learn an experience was sexual assault through educational sources, such as articles about assault (Harned, 2005). Schools are required by the U.S. Clery Act to distribute sexual misconduct policies (SMPs) (Karjane et al., 2002), and these could be students’ first exposure to formal sexual assault information. It is therefore imperative that schools provide students with clear and comprehensive information.

SMPs typically define prohibited conduct—such as sexual assault, stalking, and intimate partner violence—and describe how reports are adjudicated. They provide valuable insight into campus norms and values around sexual assault, gender, and sexuality. For example, a sexual misconduct policy at a private religious school that prohibits premarital sex will communicate a very different set of priorities, values, and norms than will a policy from a state flagship university. Inaccurate, inconsistent, and contradictory definitions can introduce misinformation and myths about sexual assault into the campus community. Schools whose SMPs define “sexual assault” as necessarily involving penetration—conflating sexual assault with rape—could teach students that nonconsensual touching is not real sexual assault. This narrow view could be adopted and used by students to evaluate, interpret, and judge their own and others’ experiences. Furthermore, incomplete, vague, or ambiguous definitions of sexual assault can communicate that sexual violations are normative, expected, or permissible in some situations (Papp & McClelland, 2021).

To our knowledge, there have not been any large-scale national studies documenting the range of and (in)consistency in terminology used in higher education sexual misconduct policies. We conducted a content analysis of SMPs from 381 schools across the United States to answer three questions: First, how many terms are schools using to define sexual assault? Second, do schools generally converge on shared definitions for the term “sexual assault”? Third, are schools providing conflicting definitions for “sexual assault” within a single policy?

Literature Review

Sexual assault is a multifaceted problem in the United States: it is variously viewed as a personal violation, a public health problem, a civil rights violation, a student conduct issue, a moral failing, a sin, and often a crime. Sexual assault definitions are situated within a complicated historical, political, and legal landscape. We describe advocacy and legislative efforts to define sexual assault and regulate campus sexual misconduct policies, and then we outline what we know (and still do not know) about school-provided sexual assault information.

The Politics of Defining Sexual Assault in the United States

Defining sexual assault has long been a political project in the United States, with important implications for women's sovereignty and citizenship (Freedman, 2013). Rape laws imported to the United States by English colonists established rape as the theft of a man's property (e.g., daughter). As a result, it was not a crime for a husband to rape his wife, nor was it for an enslaver to rape an enslaved person (Collins, 2004; Freedman, 2013). Early rape laws also placed undue burden on women to prove they were raped, for example, by requiring a corroborating witness (Freedman, 2013). Black women were early advocates of sexual justice in the nineteenth-century United States (Feimster, 2015; McGuire, 2004; Rosen, 2009), and, in the 1960s, a feminist antirape movement rose to prominence that further influenced public and legal consciousness and conceptualizations of sexual assault. Many members of this movement³ advocated for broader rape statutes and succeeded, resulting in widespread reform of state rape laws throughout the 1970s and 1980s (Berger et al., 1988). During this time, feminists used the term “sexual assault” to draw parallels between rape and physical assault and to communicate that rape is intrinsically nonconsensual. The change was not only in name. Adopting new language also enabled the moral condemnation and criminalization of sexual harms beyond penile-vaginal rape, sometimes including nonconsensual touching (Berger et al., 1988).

New conceptualizations of sexual violence traveled through U.S. institutions. The American Law Institute's (ALI) 1980 Revised Commentaries on the Model Penal Code reflected changing cultural views on sexual violence through references to feminist reform efforts and states’ expansion of sexual assault laws. Early campus sexual assault researchers faced intense backlash from critics in the 1980s and early 1990s, who disputed researchers’ efforts to broadly define and operationalize sexual assault (Rutherford, 2017). These debates informed the federal Violence Against Women Act; when it was reported to the Senate in 1993, the draft characterized sexual assault as a broad term “including, but not limited to, rape” (p. 120). The section that contained that language was, however, struck from the bill before it became law. Today, scholars, federal agencies, and nonprofit organizations use “sexual assault” as a broad term to refer to a range of nonconsensual sexual activity (Canan & Levand, 2019; Office for Civil Rights, 2018; Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network, n.d.), but what counts as sexual assault is still politically and culturally contentious in the United States.

U.S. Federal and State Expectations for Schools’ Policies

Title IX, a U.S. civil rights law passed in 1972, prohibits sex discrimination in educational programs that receive financial assistance from the federal government. In 1981, the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights, the federal office responsible for enforcing Title IX, recognized sexual harassment as a form of sex discrimination (Reynolds, 2019). Without policies stating that sexual assault was a violation of the student code of conduct, schools had few options to address campus sexual violence. Adams and Abarbanel August (1988) called for U.S. universities to revise their policies so that they explicitly defined and prohibited various forms of sexual assault. The Student Right-To-Know and Campus Security Act (commonly known as the Jeanne Clery Act) of 1990 shared these goals and stated that “there is a clear need to encourage the development of policies and procedures to address sexual assaults” on campus (section 202). The Act required Title IX-eligible institutions to, in part, create and distribute policies on campus crime, including forcible and nonforcible sex offenses as defined by the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program (Karjane et al., 2002).

In 1998, Congress mandated research on institutions’ handling of campus sexual assault, including the existence and publication of definitions for sexual assault (Karjane et al., 2002). Karjane et al.’s (2002) content analysis of definitions revealed that while 45% of the policies (N = 591) prohibited at least one specific act (e.g., penile-vaginal rape), 33% used a single, generic term in their SMPs (e.g., sexual offense, sexual assault), and most policies did not define the generic term. Karjane et al. (2005) recommended that SMPs include clear definitions of all types of sexual assault; they emphasized that the Clery Act instructed institutions to use the FBI UCR Program's terms and definitions related to sex offenses but also recognized that institutions may use their own or their state's language.

The Obama administration sought to address campus sexual violence in its now-rescinded “Dear Colleague Letter” that reminded colleges and universities receiving federal funding of their legal responsibility to respond “promptly and equitably” to sexual violence (Ali, 2011). The administration later released additional, now-rescinded guidance to schools regarding their Title IX responsibilities (Lhamon, 2014). During this time, the White House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault (2014a) produced a set of guidelines for universities’ SMPs. The Task Force included instruction to clearly define prohibited conduct and recommended including the terms “sexual assault,” “nonconsensual sexual contact,” and “nonconsensual sexual intercourse.” For “sexual assault,” the Task Force (2014b) provided a sample definition: “‘Sexual assault’ is actual or attempted sexual contact with another person without that person's consent” (p. 3). The Task Force's (2014b) proposed policy language also included examples of “sexual assault” ranging from any “intentional sexual contact” without consent to rape. The other relevant terms suggested by the Task Force (2014a) were not included in their sample language document.

State legislation regarding campus sexual assault increased in 2015–2017 following these efforts by the Obama administration (Johnson & Zhang, 2020). Johnson and Zhang (2020) found that bills addressing campus sexual assault were introduced in 45 states and passed in 39 states between 2007 and 2017. One of the primary purposes of the legislation was to increase sexual assault awareness, in part by improving institutional policies and websites. Schools, seeking to be compliant, may incorporate state criminal statutes into SMPs. State laws are a weak foundation upon which to define sexual assault in a campus context, as they pay little mind to the complexities of college students’ sexual cultures or the context of their assaults (DeMatteo et al., 2015; Hirsch & Khan, 2020). For example, drug or alcohol use commonly precedes campus sexual assault (e.g., Lorenz & Ullman, 2016), but many state laws do not address the temporary incapacitation that can be induced by drug or alcohol use. Furthermore, DeMatteo et al. (2015) found that state laws rarely defined sexual consent, or did so poorly, which can place school policies at odds with state laws if conflicting definitions are provided within the same policy.

Research on U.S. Schools’ Sexual Assault Information

Prior research into U.S. college and university definitions of sexual misconduct suggest that terms related to sexual assault are inconsistently used and defined. Krivoshey et al. (2013) found that among Ohio school policies, the inclusion of terms and definitions differed across schools and that students’ experiences of assault may not have been reflected in schools’ definitions. Schwartz et al. (2015) determined that among 28 New Jersey college websites, 86% defined at least one form and 61% defined multiple forms of sexual assault. Less than a quarter of schools, however, cited a source for their definition. This finding suggests that, rather than drawing on expert sources, some schools may be creating their own definitions. Lund and Thomas (2015) reviewed the sexual assault information provided on a random sample of 102 U.S. universities’ websites and found that 68% of the definitions of sexual assault explicitly stated that sexual assault includes a range of acts other than rape. A broad definition of “sexual assault” thus seemed to be most common—but not wholly accepted—among schools. Together, these studies documented the presence of terminological and conceptual inconsistencies but left open questions regarding the specific terms used in policies, the number of terms schools use to define nonconsensual sexual contact, and the extent to which formal policies provided conflicting information about sexual assault.

Current Study

Given the absence of consistent, widely adopted terminology and definitions, we sought to document the range of terms that schools are using to refer to sexual assault between unrelated adults who are intellectually able to consent to sex. Further, given the contention over what counts as sexual assault, we examined definitions of the term “sexual assault.” We documented variation in definitions between and within schools. Variation between schools can contribute to general misunderstandings of sexual violence, and variation within schools can contribute to students’ difficulty interpreting what forms of sexual conduct are unethical, prohibited, and reportable at their own school.

Method

Selection of U.S. Colleges and Universities

We drew a sample of 381 schools using the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) maintained by the U.S. National Center for Educational Statistics. IPEDS collects data from the more than 7,000 public and private colleges and universities that participate in federal student financial aid programs. We developed the sample using the following criteria: bachelor's degree granting, public and private not-for-profit, 4 years and above, and undergraduate enrollments of 900 students or more. From this list, we selected two overlapping samples: a simple random sample of 268 schools and a certainty sample of 114 schools. There were 31 schools that were in both samples. The certainty sample included all Ivy League institutions and every state's flagship public research university and schools in the Big 10, Big 12, NESCAC, and Peach Belt athletic conferences. We also included the most selective historically black colleges and universities (HBCUs), women's colleges, and Christian colleges. See Table 1 for sample characteristics.

Table 1.

Sample Characteristics.

Institutional characteristics	n	%
Geographic region
Northeast	107	28.1
Midwest	105	27.6
South	123	32.3
West	46	12.1
Sector
Public	184	48.3
Private nonprofit	197	51.7
Selectivity
Ivy League	8	2.1
Highly selective	38	10.0
Other elite	23	6.0
Less selective private	145	38.1
Less selective public	145	38.1
Nonselective	22	5.8
Peer groupings
Women's college	12	3.2
Historically black college or university	22	5.8
Religiously affiliated	98	25.7
State flagship	50	13.1
Ivy League	8	2.1
Sampling
Certainty sample	114	30.0
Probability sample	267	70.0

Procedure

Two members of the research team, the lead author and a trained research assistant, coded sexual assault terminology defined in sexual misconduct policies following manifest content analysis (Potter & Levine-Donnerstein, 1999). We coded one policy per institution. We prioritized SMPs or similar standalone policy that specifically addressed sexual misconduct (e.g., Title IX Sex Discrimination Policy, Sexual Assault Policy). If a standalone SMP or related policy was not available, a student code of conduct or similar broad policy document was coded. Using a Qualtrics form, coders reported (1) the defined terms associated with sexual assault, (2) the policy used to identify terms, and, if provided, (3) the full definition for the term “sexual assault.” Each unique term a coder encountered was added to the Qualtrics form as a new code. We captured the full text for definitions of “sexual assault” so that we could analyze how the term was used between and within institutions.

Terms were coded only if they defined nonconsensual sexual contact among unrelated adults with the intellectual ability to consent. As a result, we did not code for terms such as “incest,” “statutory rape,” and most “second degree” offenses.⁴ Because we were interested in terms that specifically defined sexual assault, we did not code for terms such as “sexual exploitation” (e.g., nonconsensual image sharing), “stalking,” or “sexual harassment.” Although sexual assault is considered a form of sexual harassment in the United States, we excluded the term “sexual harassment” because policy definitions did not define examples of harassment. Coding for “sexual harassment” would therefore not have provided insight into schools’ definitions for nonconsensual sexual contact. Other terms, such as “gender-based violence” and “unwelcome sexual conduct,” also referenced sexual assault as an undefined example. These terms were likewise not included in our analysis.

If an institution used multiple terms for the same definition, we coded all terms. For example, if a definition was provided for “nonconsensual sexual intercourse (rape),” we coded the policy as defining the terms “nonconsensual sexual intercourse” and “rape.” If an institution did not define any terms specific to nonconsensual sexual contact, we coded that policy as having zero definitions, rather than excluding it from analysis, to illustrate the full range of approaches schools take to defining (or not defining) sexual assault in their policies.

The lead author trained the undergraduate research assistant. As an imagined audience member for these definitions, she was an invaluable part of our team and provided feedback on her subjective interpretation of the data (e.g., “The legal definitions were quite wordy and more difficult to understand than the university definitions.”). The research assistant was first assigned a random subset of 37 policies and asked to identify terms associated with sexual assault without using the Qualtrics survey. The lead author and research assistant then discussed any missed terms or terms that were coded but irrelevant. They both then coded 61 policies using the Qualtrics form to establish agreement at the institutional level (i.e., coded terms matched for a single school). Graham et al. (2012) suggested that 75% agreement and above is acceptable; the predetermined cutoff for agreement in the current study was 80%. Once they reached agreement, they independently coded the remainder of the policies. The lead author then reviewed all coded policies.

The lead author coded the definitions for “sexual assault.” Given the complex history of the term “sexual assault” and disagreement regarding what behaviors it encompasses, we anticipated the term might be used to refer only to some acts, such as rape. Each definition of “sexual assault” was thus coded as either “narrow,” meaning it was exclusive to penetrative sexual assault, or “broad,” meaning it was inclusive of nonpenetrative acts such as nonconsensual touching. Policies that provided multiple definitions of “sexual assault” were examined for conflict between broad and narrow descriptions.

Findings

One well-defined term (e.g., sexual assault) can sufficiently communicate prohibited behavior associated with nonconsensual sexual contact. We identified, however, a wide range of terms used to define forms of nonconsensual sexual touching in campus policies and determined that many schools developed their own terminology. We also found that although most schools that used “sexual assault” defined it broadly, there were still inter- and intra-institutional conflicts over the term.

Number of Terms

A total of 125 unique terms that exclusively defined forms of sexual assault were captured during data collection. Despite a high number of terms in circulation, most schools defined few in their SMPs. The number of terms defined in each policy ranged from 0 (n = 27, 7.1%) to 17 terms (n = 1, 0.3%) with a median and mode of two terms (n = 103, 27.0%). See Table 2 for a complete list of terms and the Appendix for an example of a school's terms and definitions associated with sexual assault.

Table 2.

Defined Terms Related to Sexual Assault and Their Prevalence.

Most common terms related to sexual assault	Number of schools that used term (%)
Sexual assault	267 (75.4%)
Nonconsensual sexual contact	132 (37.3%)
Rape	113 (31.9%)
Nonconsensual sexual intercourse	100 (28.2%)
Sexual violence	61 (17.2%)
Fondling	40 (11.3%)
Sexual misconduct	27 (7.7%)
Sexual battery	25 (7.1%)
Sexual abuse	14 (4.0%)
Sex offenses	13 (3.7%)
Acquaintance rape	12 (3.4%)
Nonconsensual sexual penetration	10 (2.8%)
Less common terms related to sexual assault
Terms used by six schools (1.7%) First (1st)-degree sexual assault Forced sexual intercourse Second (2nd)-degree sexual assault Sexual assault with an object Terms used by five schools (1.4%) Attempted rape Forcible touching Sexual assault I Sexual assault II Terms used by four schools (1.1%) Criminal sexual act Date rape Forcible fondling Forcible rape Forcible sodomy Fourth (4th)-degree sexual assault Sex offenses—forcible Sexual abuse in the first (1st) degree Sexual assault: contact Sexually oriented criminal offense Sodomy Third (3rd)-degree sexual assault Terms used by three schools (0.8%) Aggravated sexual assault: penetration Criminal sexual conduct in the first (1st) degree Criminal sexual conduct in the second (2nd) degree	Criminal sexual conduct in the third (3rd) degree First (1st)-degree rape First (1st)-degree sexual abuse First (1st)-degree sodomy Forced sexual contact Rape in the first (1st) degree Rape in the third (3rd) degree Sexual abuse in the second (2nd) degree Sexual abuse in the third (3rd) degree Sexual assault: penetration Sexual torture Sexual touching Terms used by two schools (0.6%) Aggravated rape Aggravated sexual battery Criminal deviate conduct Criminal sexual contact Forced sexual assault Forcible sex offenses Nonconsensual physical contact of a sexual nature Nonconsensual sexual activity Nonconsensual sexual assault Nonconsensual sexual touching Sexual penetration
Least common terms related to sexual assault (n = 1, 0.3%)
Actual penetration Aggravated criminal sexual assault Aggravated criminal sexual abuse Aggravated sexual abuse Aggravated sexual abuse in the first (1st) degree Aggravated sexual abuse in the second (2nd) degree Aggravated sexual abuse in the third (3rd) degree Aggravated sexual abuse in the fourth (4th) degree Aggravated sexual assault in the first (1st) degree Aggravated spousal rape Assault with intent to commit a sexual battery Attempted penetration Criminal sexual abuse Criminal sexual act in the first (1st) degree Criminal sexual act in the third (3rd) degree Criminal sexual assault Criminal sexual conduct Criminal sexual penetration Disrobing Forced sexual activity Forcible acts of sexual penetration Forcible sexual abuse Gang rape Gross sexual imposition Inappropriate sexual contact Incapacitated sex Indecent assault and battery Level 1 sexual assault Level 2 sexual assault Misdemeanor sexual abuse Nonconsensual intentional sexual contact Nonconsensual intercourse Nonconsensual oral sex	Nonconsensual personal contact Nonconsensual sexual abuse Object rape Offensive touching Persistent sexual abuse Second (2nd)-degree sexual abuse Sex assault Sex offense crimes Sexual abuse in the fourth (4th) degree Sexual assault (category I) Sexual assault (category II) Sexual assault in the first (1st) degree Sexual assault in the second (2nd) degree Sexual assault in the third (3rd) degree Sexual assault in the third (3rd) degree with a firearm Sexual assault in the fourth (4th) degree Sexual assault: intercourse Sexual battery by an authority figure Sexual contact without consent Sexual imposition Sexual misconduct I Sexual misconduct II Sexual offenses Sexual penetration without consent Spousal rape Spousal sexual battery Unconsented contact Unwanted sexual contact Unwanted sexual penetration Unwelcome conduct Unwelcome sexual activity Unwelcome sexual touching

Note. Percentages were determined out of 354, the total number of schools for whom we identified a relevant policy.

Among the 354 schools that provided definitions in their SMPs, schools most commonly defined “sexual assault” (n = 267, 75.4%), followed by “nonconsensual sexual contact” (n = 132, 37.3%), “rape” (n = 113, 31.9%), and “nonconsensual sexual intercourse” (n = 100, 28.2%). The number of schools using the remaining terms dropped after “nonconsensual sexual intercourse.” The next most common term, “sexual violence,” was defined by 17.2% of schools (n = 61), followed by “fondling” (n = 40, 11.3%), “sexual misconduct” (n = 27, 7.7%), “sexual battery” (n = 25, 7.1%), “sexual abuse” (n = 14, 4.0%), “sex offenses” (n = 13, 3.7%), “acquaintance rape” (n = 12, 3.4%), and “nonconsensual sexual penetration” (n = 10, 2.8%). Approximately half of the 125 terms identified (n = 65, 52%) were used by only one school each, meaning that nearly one in five schools in our sample defined a term that was unique to their policy. We present a word cloud⁵ representing term usage in Figure 1 to visually illustrate the variation in sexual assault terminology.

Figure 1.

Visual representation of term prevalence.

The proliferation of unique and infrequently used terms appeared to be driven in part by schools’ inclusion of terminology similar to that used in criminal statutes. These terms were typically defined in degrees (e.g., “sexual assault in the third degree with a firearm”) or included language such as “aggravated” or “misdemeanor” (e.g., “aggravated criminal sexual assault”). At least 30% of coded terms incorporated this criminal-legal language, despite the fact that universities have no authority to determine whether reported behavior violated the law. Less common terms (e.g., “sexual penetration without consent”) did not describe distinctive behaviors otherwise unaddressed by more common terms (e.g., “rape,” “nonconsensual sexual intercourse”). It was not clear why schools chose to create their own terms where more common language was available nor why they chose to include criminal language in their policies.

Definitions for “Sexual Assault”

“Sexual assault” was the term most commonly defined in universities’ SMPs with 267 schools (75.4%) providing at least one definition of “sexual assault.” Many schools relied on the FBI's UCR Program's language and federal laws and regulations⁶ to define the term. This finding indicated that schools look to the federal government for guidance in creating policy definitions and indicated the importance of specific, consistent federal guidance.

We coded definitions of “sexual assault” as either broad or narrow. Broad definitions were those that were inclusive of nonpenetrative acts (e.g., nonconsensual touching). The vast majority of schools using the term (n = 235, 88%) defined it broadly. For example, the University of Washington-Seattle (2016) defined “sexual assault” as “sexual contact with another person without, or that exceeds, that person's consent” (Sexual Assault section, para. 1). Narrow definitions were those that were exclusive to some acts but not others. Narrow definitions that characterized “sexual assault” as rape were used by 22 schools (8.2%). The University of Idaho (2014), for example, defined “sexual assault” as “the unwilling or nonconsensual penetration of any bodily opening of another person with any object or body part” (Proscribed Conduct section, para. 45). One school's (0.37%) narrow definition framed “sexual assault” as only nonpenetrative sexual contact; in other words, it excluded rape.

Some schools (n = 30, 11.2% of those that defined “sexual assault”) provided multiple definitions for “sexual assault” within the coded policy. Policies that included multiple definitions often provided school, state, and/or federal interpretations of “sexual assault.” Conflicting definitions were provided by nine schools. Conflicts occurred when schools included two or more definitions of “sexual assault” that presented the term as broad (i.e., inclusive of nonpenetrative acts) and narrow (i.e., exclusive to sexual penetration) within a single policy. Broad federal definitions, narrow state definitions, and broad and narrow school-specific definitions contributed to conflicting information. For example, relying heavily on U.S. federal guidelines, Messiah College (2016) first defined “sexual assault” as the following:

An offense that meets the definition of rape, fondling, incest, or statutory rape as used in the FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) program.⁷ Per the National Incident-Based Reporting System User Manual from the FBI UCR Program, a sex offense is “any sexual act directed against another person, without the consent of the victim, including instances where the victim if [sic] incapable of giving consent.” (p. 18)

Messiah College (2016) immediately went on to define sexual assault as rape based on Pennsylvania state law:

The state of PA defines sexual assault as follows: Rape – Penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim. (p. 19)

This pairing of these definitions, one from a federal agency and the second from the Pennsylvania state legal code for rape, presents “sexual assault” as an umbrella term and as a term synonymous with rape.

Discussion

The current study sought to examine the variety and consistency of sexual assault definitions in higher education sexual misconduct policies. We coded 381 SMPs from a nationally representative sample of schools in the United States. We were guided by three research questions: First, what is the range of terms schools use to define sexual assault? Second, do schools converge on generally shared definitions for the term “sexual assault”? Third, are schools providing conflicting definitions about “sexual assault” within a single policy?

We found that U.S. schools used at least 125 unique terms to define what behavior constitutes sexual assault. Many of the terms used criminal language (e.g., “aggravated” acts), and more than half of the terms were defined once, meaning they were each coded from a single, different policy. “Sexual assault” was the most commonly defined term, and most schools broadly defined “sexual assault” to be inclusive of behavior from nonconsensual sexual touching to rape. Among schools that defined “sexual assault” more than once in their SMPs, approximately one-third provided conflicting definitions (e.g., a broad federal definition and a narrow state definition). Conflicting guidance can pose challenges to students’ interpretation of policies and university efforts to adjudicate sexual misconduct.

It is crucial that college students have access to comprehensive sexual assault information given the prevalence of less “severe” forms of assault and aggression in students’ lives (Papp & McClelland, 2021). Though narrow definitions were the minority, their inclusion in 23 policies was concerning. We already know that students conceptualize sexual assault in different ways (Baldwin-White & Bazemore, 2020) and that lack of shared definitions for terms like sexual harassment, sexual assault, and rape creates challenges to young women's identification of harmful sexual behavior (Deming et al., 2013). Policies that teach community members narrow definitions of sexual assault may contribute to and perpetuate students’ confusion about their own and others’ experiences of sexual violence.

There is not an obvious “sweet spot” for the number of terms schools should use to define sexual assault, but a number of terms too low or high can become a barrier to students searching for information about sexual assault. First, schools that did not include any definitions placed the burden on students to determine what constitutes sexual assault at their institution. Second, policies with many defined terms tended to be lengthy, difficult to interpret (e.g., use of legal language), and difficult to navigate (e.g., definitions found in different sections of the policy). Policies are required by the Clery Act to be distributed to members of the campus community (Karjane et al., 2002) and should thus be clear and informative. Recent research indicated, however, that the average Title IX policy is more difficult to read than the Harvard Law Review (Albrecht et al., 2022). Policies may be incoming students’ first exposure to what behaviors comprise sexual assault in their new community. Even if students can locate specific information in the policy, they may have difficulty understanding what it means (Albrecht et al., 2022).

Policy Implications

Schools’ sexual misconduct policies outline prohibited behavior and provide a framework for adjudication. The coders in this study found the inclusion of state laws to be confusing and unhelpful. Including state criminal code can also misrepresent the purpose of school policies and adjudication procedures; universities are not responsible for ascertaining whether the reported behavior was a crime, nor are university adjudication processes a substitute for criminal processes. State statutes should, where possible, be eliminated from campus policies, especially given that state laws may be inapplicable to most campus sexual assaults (e.g., when victim/survivors are voluntarily incapacitated; DeMatteo et al., 2015). If institutions include state statutes because they are seeking to act in compliance with the law, we recommend that they clearly identify which definitions are relevant to institutional reporting and adjudication. For example, Transylvania University (2016) helpfully separated institutional definitions, located in the main body of its policy, from state criminal codes, found in the policy appendix. The criminal definitions began with a statement that the “state law definitions are for informational purposes only. For purposes of the University's Sexual Misconduct Policy, the University will follow its own definitions as set out in that policy” (p. 25). This strategy may be useful for schools that are compelled or want to include legal definitions.

Schools often drew from federal legal codes to define the term “sexual assault,” but this decision still conflated criminal and campus adjudicative processes. Campus policy language does not need to employ legal language, federal or state, to be clear and effective. Federal guidance and resources regarding sexual misconduct policies, such as those provided by the White House Task Force (2014a), may be just as effective. The terms recommended by the Task Force—“sexual assault,” “nonconsensual sexual contact,” and “nonconsensual sexual intercourse”—were among the most prominent terms and were defined by 75.4%, 37.3%, and 28.2% of schools, respectively. We recommend that future guidance for SMPs provide definitions for all recommended terminology to increase the likelihood of adoption.

Increased consistency in sexual assault terminology and conceptualization does not require state or federal legal intervention. Higher education administration and staff can work within their professional organizations to influence SMP development beyond their own schools. Scholars, too, can develop research and advocacy groups focused on sexual misconduct policies. One such example is The 1752 Group in the United Kingdom, comprised of faculty who have conducted research on and developed guidelines for addressing student complaints of sexual misconduct by staff (Bull et al., 2021; The 1752 Group & McAllister Olivarius, 2020).

Limitations and Future Directions

A primary limitation of this study is that SMPs were sourced during the 2016–2017 academic year and some policies predated 2016. Trump-era changes in Title IX rules required many schools to rewrite their SMPs by 2020, although these changes primarily sought to address adjudication (Fenwick, 2018) rather than challenging what counts as sexual assault.⁸ Changes in policy definitions resulting from Trump- and Biden-era Title IX rules are nevertheless possible and ought to be examined in future research. Because our data were sourced from SMPs, we were unable to explain how schools arrived at the definitions in the policies. The process by which schools develop their sexual misconduct policies and the sources from which they draw terminology warrant additional attention. Furthermore, litigation resulting from school adjudication processes could contribute to the heterogeneity documented in this study, and this issue deserves the attention of researchers interested in how schools act to comply with laws and court decisions. Finally, we sourced policies from just 381 schools, suggesting that our findings are an underestimation of policy heterogeneity. We encourage research that continues to document the range of sexual assault terms in use by higher education institutions.

Conclusion

Despite the seriousness of sexual assault, we have yet to come to a shared understanding of what it is. Decentralized sexual assault policy—from the federal to state governments to institutions—prevents people from developing shared terminology and meaning around sexual assault as well as receiving equal protection from it. Ultimately, institutional authority positions schools as reliable sources of information on sexual assault. Students may view their universities’ sexual misconduct policy as including complete, accurate information and, as a result, internalize the schools’ perspective on sexual assault. Without exposure to different information and a willingness to reconceptualize sexual assault, narrow ideas about sexual assault can persist after college. Clear, broad descriptions of sexual assault are needed to ensure equitable access to education under Title IX and to educate all students on responsible sexual conduct.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Olivia Drlik for her support and assistance with this research and Miriam Gleckman-Krut, Sara McClelland, and Kaaren Williamsen for their feedback on earlier drafts of this manuscript.

Appendix

Example Policy Excerpt from Ohio State University

Appendix Reference

Ohio State University. (2016) Sexual misconduct. https://web.archive.org/web/20161215203734/https://hr.osu.edu/public/documents/policy/policy115.pdf

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the Carnegie Corporation of New York and National Science Foundation (grant number 1727491).

ORCID iD

Leanna J. Papp

Notes

Author Biographies

Leanna J. Papp, PhD, is an Assistant Professor of Population Health Sciences and member of the Violence Against Women Faculty Research Cluster at the University of Central Florida. Her research focuses on attitudes about and perceptions of sexual violence.

Sandra R. Levitsky, PhD, is an Arthur F. Thurnau Professor and Associate Professor of Sociology at the University of Michigan. Her research focuses on gender, American social policy, political mobilization, and the relationship between law and social change.

Elizabeth A. Armstrong, PhD, is the Sherry B. Ortner Collegiate Professor of Sociology at the University of Michigan. Her research focuses on gender, class, and race inequalities in higher education. She studies the ways in which American universities both produce and respond to sexual violence.

Kamaria B. Porter, PhD, is an Assistant Professor of Education Policy Studies at the Pennsylvania State University. Her research examines gender and racial inequities in higher education, particularly university response to sexual assault, graduate education, and faculty experiences.

References

Adams

Abarbanel August

(1988). Sexual assault on campus: What colleges can do. Rape Treatment Center at the Santa Monica Hospital Medical Center.

Ake

Arnold

(2018). A brief history of anti-violence against women movements in the United States. In Renzetti

C. M.

Edleson

J. L.

Bergen

R. K.

(Eds.), Sourcebook on violence against women (3rd ed., pp. 3–35). Sage.

Albrecht

Nielsen

L. B.

Wuorinen

(2022). Misunderstanding law: Undergraduates’ analysis of campus Title IX policies. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. Advanced online publication. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737221113576

Ali

(2011, April 4). Dear colleague letter. U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/dear_colleague_sexual_violence.pdf

Ameral

Palm Reed

K. M.

Hines

D. A.

(2020). An analysis of help-seeking patterns among college student victims of sexual assault, dating violence, and stalking. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 35(23–24), 5311–5335. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260517721169

Baker

M. R.

Frazier

P. A.

Greer

Paulsen

J. A.

Howard

Meredith

L. N.

Anders

S. L.

Shallcross

S. L.

(2016). Sexual victimization history predicts academic performance in college women. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 63(6), 685–692. https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000146

Baldwin-White

Bazemore

(2020). The gray area of defining sexual assault: An exploratory study of college students’ perceptions. Social Work, 65(3), 257–265. https://doi.org/10.1093/sw/swaa017

Berger

R. J.

Searles

Neuman

W. L.

(1988). The dimensions of rape reform legislation. Law & Society Review, 22(2), 329–358. https://doi.org/10.2307/3053439

Bull

Calvert-Lee

Page

(2021). Discrimination in the complaints process: Introducing the sector guidance to address staff sexual misconduct in UK higher education. Perspectives: Policy and Practice in Higher Education, 25(2), 72–77. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603108.2020.1823512

10.

Canan

S. N.

Levand

M. A.

(2019). A feminist perspective on sexual assault. In O’Donohue

W. T.

Schewe

P. A.

(Eds.), Handbook of sexual assault and sexual assault prevention (pp. 3–16). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23645-8_1.

11.

Carey

K. B.

Norris

A. L.

Durney

S. E.

Shepardson

R. L.

Carey

M. P.

(2018). Mental health consequences of sexual assault among first-year college women. Journal of American College Health, 66(6), 480–486. https://doi.org/10.1080/07448481.2018.1431915

12.

Collins

P. H.

(2004). Black sexual politics: African Americans, gender, and the new racism. Routledge.

13.

Davis

(2000). The color of violence against women. Colorlines, 3(3), 132–137.

14.

DeKeseredy

W. S.

Schwartz

M. D.

(2011). Theoretical and definitional issues in violence against women. In Renzetti

C. M.

Edleson

J. L.

Bergen

R. K.

(Eds.), Sourcebook on violence against women (2nd ed., pp. 3–22). Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452224916.n1.

15.

DeMatteo

Galloway

Arnold

Patel

(2015). Sexual assault on college campuses: A 50-state survey of criminal sexual assault statutes and their relevance to campus sexual assault. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 21(3), 227–238. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000055

16.

Deming

M. E.

Covan

E. K.

Swan

S. C.

Billings

D. L.

(2013). Exploring rape myths, gendered norms, group processing, and the social context of rape among college women: A qualitative analysis. Violence Against Women, 19(4), 465–485. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801213487044

17.

Edwards

K. M.

Sylaska

K. M.

Barry

J. E.

Moynihan

M. M.

Barnyard

V. L.

Cohn

E. S.

Walsh

W. A.

Ward

S. K.

(2015). Physical dating violence, sexual violence, and unwanted pursuit victimization: A comparison of incidence rates among sexual-minority and heterosexual college students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 30(4), 580–600. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260514535260

18.

Fedina

Holmes

J. L.

Backes

B. L.

(2018). Campus sexual assault: A systematic review of prevalence research from 2000 to 2015. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 19(1), 76–93. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838016631129

19.

Feimster

C. N.

(2015). “What if I am a woman”: Black women’s campaigns for sexual justice and citizenship. In Downs

G. P.

Masur

(Eds.), The world the civil war made (pp. 249–268). University of North Carolina Press.

20.

Fenwick

(2018). Why social workers should care about changes to Title IX under Trump. Social Work, 63(3), 269–271. https://doi.org/10.1093/sw/swy021

21.

Freedman

E. B.

(2013). Redefining rape: Sexual violence in the era of suffrage and segregation. Harvard University Press.

22.

Graham

Milanowski

Miller

(2012). Measuring and promoting inter-rater agreement of teacher and principal performance ratings. Center for Education Reform, U.S. Department of Education. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED532068.pdf

23.

Griffin

V. W.

Wentz

Meinert

(2022). Explaining the why in #WhyIDidntReport: An examination of common barriers to formal disclosure of sexual assault in college students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 37(15-16), NP14716–NP14745. https://doi.org/10.1177/08862605211016343

24.

Harned

M. S.

(2005). Understanding women’s labeling of unwanted sexual experiences with dating partners: A qualitative analysis. Violence Against Women, 11(3), 374–413. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801204272240

25.

Hirsch

J. S.

Khan

(2020). Sexual citizens: A landmark study of sex, power, and assault on campus. W.W. Norton & Company.

26.

Holland

K. J.

Cortina

L. M.

(2017). “It happens to girls all the time”: Examining sexual assault survivors’ reasons for not using campus supports. American Journal of Community Psychology, 59(1-2), 50–64. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajcp.12126

27.

Johnson

D. R.

Zhang

(2020). Examining the role of gender in educational policy formation: The case of campus sexual assault legislation, 2007–2017. Harvard Educational Review, 90(4), 617–643. https://doi.org/10.17763/1943-5045-90.4.617

28.

Karjane

H. M.

Fisher

B. S.

Cullen

F. T.

(2002). Campus sexual assault: How America’s institutions of higher education respond (Doc. No. 196676). Education Development Center. https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/196676.pdf

29.

Karjane

H. M.

Fisher

B. S.

Cullen

F. T.

(2005). Sexual assault on campus: What college and universities are doing about it. National Institute of Justice. https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/205521.pdf

30.

Khan

S. R.

Hirsch

J. S.

Wambold

Mellins

C. A.

(2018). “I didn’t want to be ‘that girl’”: The social risks of labeling, telling, and reporting sexual assault. Sociological Science, 5, 432–460. https://doi.org/10.15195/v5.a19

31.

Krebs

C. P.

Lindquist

C. H.

Warner

T. D.

Fisher

B. S.

Martin

S. L.

(2007). The Campus Sexual Assault (CSA) Study (NCJ Doc. No. 221153). National Institute of Justice. www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/221153.pdf

32.

Krivoshey

M. S.

Adkins

Hayes

Nemeth

J. N.

Klein

E. G.

(2013). Sexual assault reporting procedures at Ohio colleges. Journal of American College Health, 61(3), 142–147. https://doi.org/10.1080/07448481.2013.769260

33.

Lhamon

C. E.

(2014, April 29). Questions and answers on Title IX and sexual violence. U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights. https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/qa-201404-title-ix.pdf

34.

Lorenz

Ullman

S. E.

(2016). Alcohol and sexual assault victimization: Research findings and future directions. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 31, 82–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2016.08.001

35.

Loya

R. M.

(2015). Rape as an economic crime: The impact of sexual violence on survivors’ employment and economic well-being. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 30(16), 2793–2813. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260514554291

36.

Lund

E. M.

Thomas

K. B.

(2015). Necessary but not sufficient: Sexual assault information on college and university websites. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 39(4), 530–538. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684315598286

37.

McGuire

D. L.

(2004). “It was like all of US had been raped”: Sexual violence, community mobilization, and the African American freedom struggle. Journal of American History, 91(3), 906–931. https://doi.org/10.2307/3662860

38.

Mengo

Black

B. M.

(2016). Violence victimization on a college campus: Impact on GPA and school dropout. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 18(2), 234–248. https://doi.org/10.1177/1521025115584750

39.

Messiah College. (2016). Messiah College Title IX, sexual misconduct and violence policy . https://web.archive.org/web/20160629125018/http://www.messiah.edu/download/downloads/id/1248/Title_IX_policy.pdf

40.

Muehlenhard

C. L.

Peterson

Z. D.

Humphreys

T. P.

Jozkowski

K. N.

(2017). Evaluating the one-in-five statistic: Women’s risk of sexual assault while in college. Journal of Sex Research, 54(4–5), 549–576. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2017.1295014

41.

Office for Civil Rights. (2018). Nondiscrimination on the basis of sex in education programs or activities receiving federal financial assistance. Department of Education. https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/titleix-regs-unofficial.pdf

42.

Papp

L. J.

McClelland

S. I.

(2021). Too common to count? “Mild” sexual assault and aggression among U.S. college women. Journal of Sex Research, 58(4), 488–501. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2020.1778620

43.

Peterson

DeGue

Florence

Lokey

C. N.

(2017). Lifetime economic burden of rape among U.S. adults. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 52(6), 691–701. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2016.11.014

44.

Potter

W. J.

Levine-Donnerstein

(1999). Rethinking validity and reliability in content analysis. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 27(3), 258–284. https://doi.org/10.1080/00909889909365539

45.

Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network. (n.d.). Sexual assault . https://www.rainn.org/articles/sexual-assault

46.

Reynolds

(2019). The mobilization of Title IX across U.S. colleges and universities, 1994–2014. Social Problems, 66, 245–273. https://doi.org/10.1093/socpro/spy005

47.

Richie

(2012). Arrested justice: Black women, violence, and America’s prison nation. NYU Press.

48.

Rosen

(2009). Terror in the heart of freedom: Citizenship, sexual violence, and the meaning of race in the postemancipation south. University of North Carolina Press.

49.

Rutherford

(2017). Surveying rape: Feminist social science and the ontological politics of sexual assault. History of the Human Sciences, 30(4), 100–123. https://doi.org/10.1177/0952695117722715

50.

Sabina

L. Y.

(2014). Campus and college victim responses to sexual assault and dating violence: Disclosure, service utilization, and service provision. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 15(3), 201–226. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838014521322

51.

Schwartz

McMahon

Broadnax

(2015). A review of sexual assault information on college web sites. Health & Social Work, 40(4), 275–282. https://doi.org/10.1093/hsw/hlv064

52.

Smith

S. G.

Chen

Basile

K. C.

Gilbert

L. K.

Merrick

M. T.

Patel

Walling

Jain

(2017). The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): 2010–2012 state report. National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/nisvs-statereportbook.pdf

53.

Student Right-To-Know and Campus Security Act, Publ. L. No. 101-542, 104 Stat. 2381. (1990). https://www.congress.gov/101/statute/STATUTE-104/STATUTE-104-Pg2381.pdf

54.

The 1752 Group, & McAllister Olivarius. (2020). Sector guidance to address staff sexual misconduct in UK higher education: Recommendations for reporting, investigation and decision-making procedures relating to student complaints of staff sexual misconduct . https://1752group.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/5ed32-the-1752-group-and-mcallister-olivarius-sector-guidance-to-address-staff-sexual-misconduct-in-uk-he.pdf

55.

The American Law Institute. (1980). Model penal code and commentaries (official draft and revised comments). The American Law Institute.

56.

To combat violence and crimes against women on the streets and in homes (Violence Against Women Act), S. 11, Report No. 103-138, 103rd Cong. (1993). https://www.congress.gov/103/bills/s11/BILLS-103s11rs.pdf .

57.

Transylvania University. (2016). Transylvania University sexual misconduct policy . https://web.archive.org/web/20170706142723/https://www.transy.edu/sites/default/files/TitleIXPolicy2017.pdf

58.

University of Idaho. (2014). Student code of conduct . https://web.archive.org/web/20160320033454/http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/fsh/2300.html

59.

University of Washington. (2016). Student code of conduct for the University of Washington: Prohibited conduct . https://web.archive.org/web/20160920214511/https://www.washington.edu/admin/rules/policies/WAC/478-120-024.html

60.

White House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault. (2014a). Checklist for campus sexual misconduct policies. Department of Justice. https://www.justice.gov/archives/ovw/page/file/910271/download

61.

White House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault. (2014b). Sample language and definitions of prohibited conduct for a school’s sexual misconduct policy. Department of Justice. https://www.justice.gov/archives/ovw/page/file/910276/download

62.

Wilson

L. C.

Miller

K. E.

(2016). Meta-analysis of the prevalence of unacknowledged rape. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 17(2), 149–159. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838015576391