Crime on College Campuses in the U.S

Crime on college campuses in the U.S. has garnered significant attention since the 1980s, primarily due to high-profile violent incidents, such as the Virginia Tech shooting in 2006. Despite statistics indicating that campuses are generally safer than surrounding communities, perceptions of danger persist, fueled by reports of theft, assault, and sexual violence. As students transition to college life, they often face increased autonomy and responsibility, leading to vulnerability in environments designed for openness and accessibility. The Clery Act, enacted in 1990, mandates that institutions disclose campus crime statistics to enhance transparency and inform prospective students about safety issues; however, compliance remains inconsistent among colleges. Various security measures, including emergency response plans and campus notification systems, have been implemented to address safety concerns, yet critics question the effectiveness of these strategies. The conversation around campus safety also includes debates on the potential impact of allowing concealed firearms on campuses, with differing opinions on whether this could deter or exacerbate crime. Ultimately, as colleges strive to create a safe educational environment, they face ongoing challenges in balancing student freedom with security needs.

Published in: 2021

By: Scott Zimmer, JD

Subject Terms

Crime on College Campuses in the U.S.

Abstract

Since the 1980s, the subject of crimes committed on college campuses in the United States has demanded increasing attention in the media and the public consciousness. While statistics show that in reality college and university campuses are considerably safer than the communities that surround them, there has been a steadily growing perception that the opposite is true (Patton & Gregory, 2014). This is due in part to several large scale, extremely violent attacks such as the Virginia Tech shooting in 2006, in which a single person armed with several firearms took the lives of thirty two people. The issue of college campus crime also encompasses many other types of criminal conduct such as theft, assault, and rape.

Overview

Colleges and universities bear a responsibility for providing a safe living and learning environment for their students, but at the same time they are not sufficiently resourced (Whissemore, 2015) or empowered to provide the same degree of supervision as an actual parent. Most college students are in fact legally adults, and the role of the college is considerably different from that of a high school, with students exercising agency on their own behalf in areas such as housing, finances, and recreation. Colleges provide services ranging from policing to counseling and develop policies to deter unsafe or illegal behavior, but the relative freedom of the campus environment and the tendency toward risky behavior among young adults creates a disconnect that tends to increase society’s anxiety about campus crimes. Additionally, violent episodes, such as riots and shootings receive a large amount of attention despite their infrequency (Weiss, 2013).

In Loco Parentis

Until the mid-twentieth century, the legal doctrine of in loco parentis, a Latin phrase meaning "in place of the parent," allowed universities to control many aspects of student life. In the 1960s, adult students challenged the authority of universities to curb their constitutional rights, and many traditional controls were relaxed or abolished. Universities continue to be held responsible for the safety and welfare of students as far as they are able. Policies, for example, must address deterrence of certain kinds of hazing, under-aged drinking, and sexual harassment and assault, as well as discipline of students violating school rules or the law.

Much of the concern raised by crimes committed on college campuses has to do with the fact that, for many students, college is the first time in their lives when they have lived away from their parents’ supervision. Students are expected to suddenly take on a much larger amount of responsibility, and must learn to function with less oversight. This makes college a time of great vulnerability and of great liberty—college students often have the bodies of adults but the hormones and self-regulatory behaviors of adolescents. Sexual assaults have sometimes been seen as a consequence of the so-called "frat boy culture" prevailing at some institutions, where the college years are treated as a time of constant partying, drinking, and sexual exploration (Strickland, 2013).

Large-Scale Violence

Several factors make college and university campuses vulnerable to incidences of violence. Campuses are usually designed to be welcoming and open spaces in order to create an atmosphere of relaxation, peacefulness, and contemplation. Unfortunately, this means that persons bent on violent acts can travel between different parts of a campus with ease, because there are few fences, gates, or other secured areas.

Colleges can also have somewhat dense populations at certain times of the day and year (e.g., when classes are in session, during final exam periods), potentially making them attractive to attackers wishing to kill or injure large numbers of people (Bataille & Cordova, 2014). Buildings are often unlocked, often late into the evening, to accommodate faculty and students who need to reach their classrooms or offices.

In keeping with the tranquil image that college campuses aspire to, there are often few if any law enforcement personnel to be seen. Some institutions employ their own security personnel or campus police to protect public safety, while others may have a number of regular police officers from the surrounding community assigned specifically to the campus (Katel & Congressional Quarterly, 2011). In some cases, observers have felt that the division of presence and responsibility between campus security staff and regular police officers has contributed to confusion and delay in the response to incidents, pointing to the need for responders to coordinate communications and tactics. It is not uncommon for university security departments to conduct training exercises in cooperation with local police departments, in order to avoid this sort of complication.

Further Insights

Colleges and universities have implemented a variety of measures in an effort to address the issue of campus crime and in particular the possibility of large-scale shootings. One such effort, the provision of information about violent incidents on campus to prospective students and the campus community, is actually required by law.

The Clery Act

In 1986 at Lehigh University, a student named Jeanne Clery was raped and then murdered in her university residence hall. This tragic incident led to the passage of the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act in 1990, also known as the Clery Act. The Clery Act imposes a reporting requirement on any college or university whose students receive federal financial assistance, mandating that these institutions collect data about the number and type of violent crimes that occur on campus each year (Sloan & Fisher, 2010). The Act further specifies that the colleges and universities must make this information available to their campus community and to prospective students.

The goal of the Act is to make sure that people at the institution or considering enrolling there have as much information as possible so that they can make an informed decision about whether or not they feel the campus is a safe place to be. Unfortunately, fewer than half of all colleges and universities subject to the Clery Act fully comply with its requirements, and an even smaller percentage of two-year colleges comply, despite the possibility of sizable fines or even suspension of an institution’s financial aid eligibility (Garner, 2015).

Security Technologies

Some institutions have sought to address the problem of campus crime through the use of security technology. This can involve the use of notification systems, which require members of the campus community to register their contact information in a special database. In the event of an attack or some other emergency, the campus administration can use this contact information to quickly send an alert to everyone who has registered, warning them that an incident is ongoing and advising them to take cover, or "shelter in place," rather than continuing to go about their normal activities, which might make them more vulnerable.

Other types of security measures involve access control, meaning that they restrict who can enter certain areas and at what times (Dowdall, 2013). This can be as simple as the installation of locks and doors, or it can involve the use of identification cards or badges that must be used to enter buildings, sections of buildings, or individual rooms. While this does restrict movement for students, it is designed to help to contain outbreaks of violence by making it more difficult for offenders to travel throughout the campus.

Secure facilities that limit access by campus residents to university buildings, especially residence halls, contribute to an atmosphere some have described as a "police state." This effect is even more pronounced at institutions that choose to use monitoring technology such as video cameras, motion detectors, and other types of sensors. Such monitoring technology is often criticized for creating an unwelcome atmosphere and for being ineffective at preventing attacks because even though many cameras can be installed, it is not possible for them all to be watched on an ongoing basis. They are mainly useful for catching perpetrators after the fact, rather than in the act (Fox & Burstein, 2010).

Viewpoints

Many have criticized the real efficacy of common security measures, as well as of the Clery Act. Critics charge that there is little evidence students actually use the information that colleges and universities amass and disseminate. The hope is that students considering which college to attend will carefully weigh the campus crime statistics available for each institution and make an informed decision about where to go. From the perspective of a prospective student, however, other factors may weigh more heavily in their decision, and the reported crime numbers may appear to indicate only a small risk. Further, concerns have been raised about the consistency and reliability of the information being collected by colleges. Collecting the data can be a very time-consuming and expensive proposition, so in many cases colleges will try to save time and money by gathering only minimal details (Fisher & Sloan, 2013).

College administrators also find quite a bit of room for interpretation in the instructions for data collection produced by the U.S. government. When adding up statistics, college staff must categorize crimes according to sometimes ambiguous definitions created by the federal government. The inevitable result is that different colleges categorize what is essentially identical conduct in radically different ways, and in the aggregate this reduces the quality of the information being collected. Further, the only crimes that colleges are supposed to report are those that take place within the campus boundaries. Crimes occurring outside this boundary are excluded from the collection, despite its potential relevance to the safety of students, who will likely spend time in the neighborhood around campus. Ironically, at the same time that information like this is omitted, other information is gathered at a level of detail that some critics find excessive. For example, college staff are required to collect information about a foreign country’s crime rates for students who will study abroad, even though this is of limited relevance in describing the approximate safety of a college campus in the United States (Fisher & Lab, 2010).

The inadequacy of the Clery Act from the time it was implemented has indicated that crime on college campuses is too big an issue to be resolved by a single piece of legislation. Public safety officers at institutions of higher education all over the United States have begun to advocate on their own behalf in an effort to convince their administrations of the importance of adequately funding campus safety departments. They seek to not only monitor campus crime but also begin to take proactive steps to change their campus culture to one less likely to tolerate criminal behavior.

These efforts come at a time when the Department of Education has been taking a closer look at institutions that it feels are not fully complying with crime data requirements (Hobbs, 2012). In 2014, the Department released a list of more than fifty institutions being investigated for possible violations of reporting requirements for campus sexual assaults, in part as a means of pressuring these schools to improve their efforts. As colleges try to find ways to make campus crime reporting more meaningful and effective, they must also follow federal requirements to avoid being designated as willfully out of compliance. Failure can result in monetary sanctions as well as a decline in the institution’s public profile, which could eventually manifest as declining enrollment numbers. College officials hope that by partnering with the students they serve, they can both assuage the fears of students and their families about crime, and also make a real and lasting impact on the culture of the institution that will result in a greater level of safety for all.

The increase in mass shootings in the second decade of the twentieth century included a number of incidents on or near college campuses. Organizations such as the National Rifle Association and Students for Concealed Carry suggest that allowing college and university staff, faculty, and students with concealed-carry permits to come to school armed could reduce the incidence of campus crime. Most college administrators, including many in gun-friendly states such as Texas, argue that it could have precisely the opposite effect. Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Mississippi, Oregon, Texas, Utah, and Wisconsin allow concealed firearms on college campuses.

Terms & Concepts

Campus Notification System: A campus notification system, sometimes called a mass notification system, is a communication broadcast system designed to quickly send voice and/or text messages to all registered users during an emergency situation. Many colleges and universities have implemented campus notification systems as a way of alerting their members to ongoing attacks. All members of the community must register with the campus notification system by giving their phone number, email address, or both, for the system to work as intended.

Clery Act: The full name of this law is the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act, which was enacted in 1990. The Clery Act requires that colleges and universities receiving federal financial aid must collect and keep statistics on campus crimes. The Act is named for a student who was raped and murdered in her college residence hall.

Concealed Carry Permit: A concealed carry permit is issued by a state to allow the recipient to carry a weapon on or near his or her person, in a non-obvious fashion. Different states have their own rules about who may obtain a concealed carry permit and what types of weapons may be carried. Some suggest that allowing college and university staff, faculty, and students to carry concealed weapons could reduce the incidence of campus crime, while others argue that it would have precisely the opposite effect.

Emergency Response Plan: An emergency response plan is a set of steps to be followed by a college or university in the event of an attack. Because there have been many mass shootings on college campuses, most colleges and universities now have emergency response plans in place. These plans include provisions for notifying the campus community about an ongoing attack, as well as procedures to be followed once the attack has ended.

In Loco Parentis: A Latin phrase meaning, "in the place of a parent." The phrase is also a legal doctrine describing situations in which a person or an organization assumes the role and some of the responsibilities of a parent. Colleges and universities are often said to function in loco parentis toward the students they educate, particularly those under the age of twenty-one.

Shelter in Place: A shelter in place order is issued during an attack on a college campus or similar venue. It is a notification sent to all members of the community, advising them that a potentially dangerous incident is ongoing and that they should remain where they are, attempt to secure themselves by locking doors, and take shelter by staying away from windows. The purpose of a shelter in place order is to reduce the number of potential victims a shooter on campus may encounter.

Bibliography

Bataille, G. M., & Cordova, D. I. (2014). Managing the unthinkable: Crisis preparation and response for campus leaders. Sterling, VA: Stylus.

Dowdall, G. W. (2013). College drinking: Reframing a social problem/changing the culture. Sterling, VA: Stylus.

Fisher, B., & Lab, S. P. (2010). Encyclopedia of victimology and crime prevention. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Fisher, B., & Sloan, J. J. (2013). Campus crime: Legal, social, and policy perspectives. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.

Fox, J. A., & Burstein, H. (2010). Violence and security on campus: From preschool through college. Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger.

Gardner, L. (2015). 25 years later, has Clery made campuses safer?. Chronicle of Higher Education, 61(26), A22. Retrieved January 3, 2016, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=101458434&site=ehost-live

Hobbs, K. (2012). Get wise about college safety. Woodland Park, CO: Hobbs Publications.

Katel, P., & Congressional Quarterly. (2011). Crime on campus: Are colleges doing enough to keep students safe?. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly.

Patton, R. C., & Gregory, D. E. (2014). Perceptions of safety by on-campus location, rurality, and type of security/police force: The case of the community college. Journal of College Student Development, 55(5), 451–460. Retrieved January 3, 2016, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=97399738&site=ehost-live

Sloan, J. J., & Fisher, B. (2010). The dark side of the ivory tower: Campus crime as a social problem. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Strickland, L. F. (2013). Violent behavior: Select analyses of targeted acts, domestic terrorists and prevention pathways. New York, NY: Nova Science Publishers.

Weiss, K. G. (2013). Party school: Crime, campus, and community. Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press.

Whissemore, T. (2015). Clery Act changes the landscape of campus safety. Community College Journal, 56(3), 4–5. Retrieved January 3, 2016, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=111524350&site=ehost-live