Running head: CAMPUS SEXUAL ASSAULT RESEARCH IN THE 1990S: A

REVIEW
1

Campus Sexual Assault Research in the 1990s: A Review

Nolan Theodore
University at Buffalo

CAMPUS SEXUAL ASSAULT RESEARCH IN THE 1990S: A REVIEW

Campus Sexual Assault Research in the 1990s: A Review

It comes as no surprises when reports of sexual assault on
college campuses in the United States appear in the news. Erdely (2014)
details the story of Jackie: a former University of Virginia student that
reportedly was gang raped by seven male students at a fraternity party.
Svokos (2014) describes the Carry That Weight protest, in which a group of
college student activists carried mattresses around their respective campus
in solidarity with Emma Sulkowicz: a Columbia University student and
survivor of sexual assault who has vowed to carry a mattress around campus
as long as her alleged rapist attends the same University as her without
administrative action. These incidents of campus sexual assaults receive
intense national media attention. Sexual assault has been a reoccurring issue
on college campuses, with research on the subject dating as far back as the
1950s (Kamentz, 2014; Kirkpatrick & Kanin, 1957). Though relatively young,
the body of research that explores campus sexual assault is quite large,
particularly in the 1990s. Research prior to the 1990s estimated prevalence
rates of campus sexual assault against women at about a 27.5% incidence
rate, positing that approximately one in four college women had been
sexually assaulted at colleges and universities in the United States (Koss,
Gidycz, & Wisniewski, 1987). Presently, estimates of sexual assault against
women do not greatly differ from nearly 30 years ago (Krebs, Lindquist,
Warner, Fisher, & Martin, 2007). With research dating so far back, why is
campus sexual assault still such a prominent issue in the United States? Are

CAMPUS SEXUAL ASSAULT RESEARCH IN THE 1990S: A REVIEW

the prevention methods devised as a result of the research faulty? Do laws

and policies that address sexual violence weak or misguided? These are the
questions that require answers to fully understand how sexual assault
prevention should take form in the future.
In order to contemplate how to reduce campus sexual assault in the
future, it will be beneficial to learn what research and prevention strategies
have been undertaken in the past. Revisiting past perceptions, researches
focuses, prevention strategies, and laws and policies will be important when
interpreting how past initiatives in investigating and preventing campus
sexual assault shaped present efforts. For the purposes of this paper, I will
focus primarily on campus sexual assault work that was conducted
approximately during the 1990s. This will include a review of the definitive
literature on sexual assault on college campuses during the 1990s and the
foci of campus sexual assault research. Thus, the objective of this paper will
to uncover any connections the persistence of sexual assault on college
campuses has to the literature and research of the 1990s.
Definitive Literature of the 1990s
Overall, literature published during the 1990s that addressed sexual
violence on college campuses was diverse. For example, Bohmer & Parrot
(1993) was unique in discussing sexual assault on college campuses in terms
of how institutions have responded in the past and examine previous legal
cases involving sexual assault on college campuses in order to provide

CAMPUS SEXUAL ASSAULT RESEARCH IN THE 1990S: A REVIEW

recommendations as to how institutions should respond. Sanday (1990)

provides an authoritative and unnerving account of how fraternity members
commit

heinous

crimes

of

sexual

violence.

Drawing on fields of sociology, psychology, and first-hand narratives of both

victims and perpetrators, Sanday (1990) explains rituals, ideologies, etc. that
fraternities engage in that place college women at risk of sexual violence.
Schwartz & DeKeseredy (1997) expands on Sandays work by breaking down
the bonds college men as a social group create, integrating concepts of rapesupportive cultures and male peer support theory to explain how sexual
assault

is

perpetrated.

While

much

published

literature

focused

on

confirming sexual assault at college campuses, Roiphe (1994) diverted from

this trend, attracting much media attention (Seeman, 1994).
Roiphe (1994) can and has been described in many ways. Roiphe
(1994) essentially claims that combatting sexual violence on college
campuses poised as an imaginary issue by Roiphe (1994) diminishes the
power of feminism by submerging the ideology and movement in a discourse
of victimization and weakness. Roiphe (1994) has been discussed in many
ways that conflict against one another. For example, The Economist (1994),
interprets Roiphe (1994) as having made the F-word more acceptable
again (p. 95). The Economist (1994) applauds Roiphes (1994) opposition to
the victim feminism which allegedly reduces the impact of former feminist
achievements in exchange for combatting an exaggerated claim of rape on
college campuses. The Economist (1994) asserts that ultimately the anti-

CAMPUS SEXUAL ASSAULT RESEARCH IN THE 1990S: A REVIEW

sexual assault movement transforms college women into hysterical prudes

(p. 95), a claim overflowing with implications and in need of much greater
analysis than the scope of this paper provides. Seeman (1994) situates
Roiphe as victimized after the publication of Roiphe (1994), and rightly so:
the author received violent threats in the mail and personalized scrutiny for
her claims. Seeman (1994) casts an angelic light on Roiphe (1994), stating
that the author is a true feminist martyr after exposing the feminist
movements intolerance, hypocrisy, and self-righteousness. While these
interpretations of Roiphe (1994) support what the book stands for, others
have critiqued Roiphe (2014) as detracting from the reality of what is
occurring at college campuses.
Schwartz & Leggett (1999) devotes itself to dismantling the arguments
poised in Roiphe (2014). Schwartz & Leggett (1999) reminds readers that
Roiphe was a graduate student of English literature and that much of Roiphe
(1994) is rooted solely in Roiphes experience as a female undergraduate
student at Harvard University. It is curious that Roiphe (1994) would receive
so much attention and offered so much credibility without solidifying in
research, especially when the author is by no means a scholar in psychology,
sociology, or any other field of study that is remotely related to the study of
sexual violence. For instance, Roiphe (1994) insists that intoxicated women
who were intoxicated at the time of their sexual assault blame themselves
for the crime and assume responsibility for what occurred. Schwartz &
Leggett (1999) tested this claim by first posing the following hypothesis:

CAMPUS SEXUAL ASSAULT RESEARCH IN THE 1990S: A REVIEW

The women raped because of alcohol or drugs blame themselves for the
event more than do the women raped by physical force (p.260). Schwartz &
Leggett (1999) tested the aforementioned hypothesis by surveying 388
female college seniors about their experiences with sexual violence using
questionnaires. Of the 388 women, 65 reported themselves as victims of
sexual violence (Schwartz and Leggett, 1999). The hypothesis was rejected,
disproving the Roiphes (1994) unsubstantiated claim.
Abrams (1994) places the controversy surrounding Roiphe (1994) into
perspective by questioning whether Roiphe (1994) is, to some extent, a
contribution to feminist scholarship. Pursued further, a critical lens placed on
Roiphe (1994) and its relationship with feminism will yield quite interesting
results. Yes, Roiphe (1994) attacked the current thread of feminism due to
the implications of its discourse, perceived as weak and victimizing.
However, Roiphe (1994) could also be interpreted as a feminist author
advocating for women to resist limiting themselves to sex roles that render
the female sex as submissive by centering their movement in victimization.
It can be argued that this is the intended message of Roiphe (1994), one that
many who recognize the epidemic of campus sexual assault on college
campuses are likely to embrace. Beyond the scope of this paper is evaluating
if Roiphe (1994) is correct in asserting that female college students
positioned and operated anti-sexual assault resistance on a foundation of
victimization in the 1990s. It can, however, be said that discrediting female
college students as regretful liars without using peer-reviewed, academically-

CAMPUS SEXUAL ASSAULT RESEARCH IN THE 1990S: A REVIEW

sound sources, research, or overall proof is not characteristic of palatable

literature. Roiphe (1994) did not take the time to thoroughly examine
academic research that supported the existence of an epidemic of campus
sexual assault, translating any message contained within the literature as
sheer bias. The authors intent, to empower college women in transcending
sex roles set by society, does not sit comfortably with an attack on college
womens ability to speak out against the sexual violence.
Overall, despite multiple revolutionary contributions to the body of
research that explored campus sexual assault, Roiphe (1994) consumed
much attention from both sources in the media and, more importantly, in
academia. Did Roiphe (1994) squander energy that could have been better
utilized to investigate sexual assault on college campuses further by
prompting responses from sexual assault researchers? Likely not, as Roiphe
(1994) pushed sexual assault researchers to validate their work in response
to the books unsubstantiated claims. Next, I will review the research foci
pertaining to sexual assault on college campuses during the 1990s, a topic
that Roiphe (1994) could have greatly benefited from (though, albeit, a
portion of the research occurred succeeding the books publication).
Research Foci
Alcohol. The study of campus sexual assault in the 1990s involved
researching how alcohol and sexual assault interrelate. For example, Ullman,
Karabostos, & Koss (1999) acknowledged that when college students,

CAMPUS SEXUAL ASSAULT RESEARCH IN THE 1990S: A REVIEW

particularly women, drink alcohol, the risk of sexual assault and physical
assault increase. Whats more, Ullman et al. (1999) theorized that alcohol
use may play a part in lowering inhibitions of perpetrators, leading to
increased aggression and propensity to commit violent acts. Reversely,
Ullman et al.(1999) hypothesized that alcohol use by a victim could be
correlated with less forceful victim resistance and, consequently, increased
rape completion (p. 604). Ullman et al. (1999) distinguished victims of
sexual assault from non-victims by using a questionnaire, including questions
that examined (1) victim alcohol abuse propensity (2) sexual victimization
severity (3) an index of sexual assault experience and (4) social situation
surround their experience of victimization. The study (Ullman et al., 1999)
made many discoveries that contributed to the body of work tackling campus
sexual assault at the time, such as concluding that preassault alcohol use by
both offenders and victims was directly associated with increasingly severe
sexual assault of the victims.
More importantly, many initial hypotheses by the authors of the study
(Ullman et al., 1999) were unfounded. Ullman et al. (1999) did not support
the hypothesis that preassault alcohol use by a victim that portrayed
typically less resistance led to greater victimization severity. Furthermore,
the study (Ullman et al., 1999) did not find alcohol to interact synergistically
with assault characteristics or victim and offender behaviors to predict
increased sexual victimization severity (p. 619). Again, Ullman et al., (1999)
most certainly made important strides in campus sexual assault research,

CAMPUS SEXUAL ASSAULT RESEARCH IN THE 1990S: A REVIEW

but in essence could only state that somehow alcohol use was related to
greater sexual victimization severity.
A previous study did, however, support the findings of Ullman et al.
(1999) that concluded that alcohol use and campus sexual assault ae
interrelated. Nicholson et al. (1998) performed a more basic study, inquiring
both male and female students at a single campus on subjects like unwanted
sexual activity, rape, and the involvement of alcohol in said experiences.
Nicholson et al. (1998) reported that 35.6% of female respondents
experienced unwanted sexual activity, approximately five time higher than
male respondents (7.5%). The study (Nicholson et al., 1998) also discovered
that 4.8% of respondents claimed they had been previous offenders in regard
to unwanted sexual activity, with more than three-fourths of reported
perpetrators stating alcohol was involved in their perpetration. Nicholson et
al. (1998) could not demonstrate alcohol consumption as causal to sexual
assault, though the study indicated at least some sort of relationship
between the two. Recognized within the study (Nicholson et al. 1998) is the
reality that when alcohol consumption is involved, victims of sexual assault
are less likely to report the experience due to the circumstances.
Those who would oppose initiatives in the 1990s to frame alcohol as a
tool of coercion, such as Roiphe, are given credibility when victims of sexual
assault do not report, insinuating that these victims are not victims at all,
but rather women that regretted their sexual encounters (Roiphe, 1994).
Additionally, the nature of the research is not conducive for establishing any

CAMPUS SEXUAL ASSAULT RESEARCH IN THE 1990S: A REVIEW

10

sort of relationship between alcohol use and campus sexual assault beyond
simply proving that a connection exists. Thus, while alcohol use and its
connection to campus sexual assault was an important aspect of study in the
1990s, the body of research related to this field of study left much room for
interpretation.
Fraternities. Schwartz & DeKeseredy (1997) established campus
sexual assault is very much related to cultures of masculinity in conjunction
with groups of male peers. On the average American college campus, there
is no better place to look for groups of concentrated masculine energies than
the associations of homogenously gendered peers known as fraternities.
Schwartz & DeKeseredy (1997) was by no means the first contribution to a
body of research that investigated the intersection between fraternities and
campus sexual assault. Martin & Hummer (1989) truly deconstructed the
fraternity as a social group in and of itself, evaluating the goals of these
groups, what qualities they value when choosing new pledges, etc., all in an
effort to conceptualize how fraternities create a sociocultural context
(p.459) that is abusive for women. The findings of the study were invaluable
to researchers working to understand campus sexual assault. For example,
Martin & Hummer (1989) exposed just how vital constructs of masculinity
were in creating the social image of and comradery within fraternities, with a
heavy emphasis on big guys who are willing to drink alcohol and hold
their liquor (p. 460) that superseded other qualities like academic
excellence, leadership, and community service. Martin & Hummer (1989)

CAMPUS SEXUAL ASSAULT RESEARCH IN THE 1990S: A REVIEW

11

also revealed the practices of brotherhood within fraternities, relying on

loyalty, group protection, and secrecy (p. 463) to establish a true sense of
dedication

to

the

group.

Martin

&

Hummer

(1989)

overwhelmingly

demonstrated the use of alcohol to facilitate sex. One fraternity man stated:
We provide [Little Sisters] with hunch punch and things get wild. We get
them drunk and most of the guys end up with one (Martin & Hummer, 1989,
p. 465). In fact, one former fraternity member quite generous in outright
revealing that:
The entire idea behind this [parties] is sex. Both men and women come
to the party wearing little or nothing. There are pornographic pinups on
the walls and usually porno movies playing on the TV. The music
carries sexual overtonesThey just get schnockered [drunk] and, in
most cases, they also get laid. (Martin & Hummer, 1989, p. 469)
These perspectives are supported greatly by Sanday (1990), which includes
multiple stories of fraternities constructing environments and conditions that
facilitate the sexual victimization of women. Ultimately, Martin & Hummer
(1989) described a social group that creates the conditions and environment
for pre-meditated sexual coercion: an organization founded upon a
supremacist masculinity that views dehumanizes women into goals and
sexual prey (p. 468), in which members are rewarded with brotherhood for
maintaining secrecy and loyalty.

CAMPUS SEXUAL ASSAULT RESEARCH IN THE 1990S: A REVIEW

As

early

as

1990,

educated

and

insightful

12

perspectives

into

approaching the concept of campus sexual assault and fraternities emerge.

In a letter to the editor for The New York Times, OSullivan (1990) dismantles
a previously published articles coverage of sexual assault, particularly the
articles focus. OSullivan (1990) suggests the author to focus attention away
from unanswerable questions (para. 2) like whether rates of sexual assault
are increasing on campuses or simply the reports are, but instead to look at
the situations in which assaults occur for the social contexts that promote
them than to speculate about which changes on campus or in society may be
responsible (para. 3). Both Martin & Hummer (1999) and OSullivan (1990)
make a point to emphasize the sociocultural contexts and relationships that
fraternities create, never directly attacking the concept of an association of
men connected by a bond but, rather, what the consistency of the bond is.
However,

fraternities

become

easy

targets

for

sexual

assault

researchers to blame: after examining male peer support in its natural

habitat with its concentration of men in a self-selected social group, the
rationality of believing that members of fraternities are more misogynistic,
more frequent alcohol consumers, etc. is sound. How terrifying would it be,
then, if fraternities were simply spaces in which male perspectives towards
women, alcohol, and sexual assault merely reverberated off of each other; if
instead the essence of fraternities was actually distributed throughout the
college male populace? Schwartz & Nogrady (1996) hypothesized that
fraternity men are more likely than non-fraternity men to believe rape myths

CAMPUS SEXUAL ASSAULT RESEARCH IN THE 1990S: A REVIEW

13

and that fraternity membership could explain in some manner why men
employ sexual coercion and display sexually coercive behavior. This study
(Schwartz & Nogrady, 1996) used questionnaires at a midwestern state
university to test their hypotheses which were, in fact, rejected. Schwartz &
Nogrady (1996) could not make a significant connection of fraternity
membership leading to sexual coercion, nor that fraternity members are
more likely to believe in rape myths. Schwartz & Nogrady (1996) conclude
that it is plausible to believe the sexual victimization of women is not unique
to fraternities, but are inherent within other male peer support groups as
well.
Martin & Hummer (1989) described the story of a young female
student who was found unconscious with a lethal blood-alcohol concentration
in the hallway of a fraternity house, marked with scratches, branded with a
fraternity symbol, with evidence of having been gang raped by four fraternity
men. This story influenced their study of fraternities and their connections to
sexual assault, and rightly so: the social conditions and environment that
fraternities create due to their goals and foundation is, to say the very least,
alarming

for

female

college

students.

Research

revealed

that

the

objectification of women is not unique to fraternity members, but that the

sexual victimization of women perpetrated by fraternity members often
included alcohol (Sanday, 1996; Sanday, 1990).
Summary. In conclusion, it cannot be disputed that sexual assault
researchers were not fervently analyzing the factors and environment in

CAMPUS SEXUAL ASSAULT RESEARCH IN THE 1990S: A REVIEW

14

which sexual assault on college campuses takes place during the 1990s.
Alcohol consumption was a defined area of interest as it was strongly
correlated as a factor of sexual assault on college campuses. However, direct
linkages were difficult to come by. The same struggle was found within
bodies of research that investigated fraternities and their relation to sexual
assault: some general suspicions were confirmed, while others were not. Of
course, important strides in understanding sexual assault were made in both
areas

despite

the

mostly

general

conclusions

researchers

made.

summarization of each category also reveals another vulnerability of campus

sexual assault research: the reliance on self-reporting. By nature of sexual
assault research, it is not an area of scientific interest that can be observed.
Sexual assault researchers must largely resort to methods that utilize selfreporting, such as questionnaires, in order to gather data (Schwartz &
Nogrady, 1996; Schwartz & Leggett, 1999; Ullman et al., 1999). This leaves
sexual assault research susceptible to critiques stating that there could be
reporting bias in respondents. However, due to the nature of the work, it
would seem the best method to corroborate data would be to include men
and women as respondents when applicable. However, past research has
shown that even when done properly, men are less likely to indicate they
have used sexual coercion, resulting in a higher rate of sexual assault
against women a lower rate of revealed perpetrators of sexual coercion
(Koss, Gidycz, & Wisniewski, 1987). After evaluating the struggles and
successes of campus sexual assault research in the 1990s, analyzing

CAMPUS SEXUAL ASSAULT RESEARCH IN THE 1990S: A REVIEW

15

prevention strategies during this era will determine how well said research
was applied.
Prevention Strategies
Briskin & Gary (1986) represents one sample of sexual assault
prevention in this case, a peer-led, awareness-raising workshop for college
students that was in progress prior to the 1990s. The workshop was
designed to first confront rape myths and provide substantiated facts,
utilizing a customized quiz that program participants would complete (Briskin
& Gary, 1986). Briskin & Gary (1986) found great value in the quiz, as it
required students take a stance on the pervasive rape myths within college
student culture by reviewing a list of statements about sexual assault and
marking the statement with either an M for myth or F for fact.
Completion of the quiz was then followed by a larger group discussion of the
quiz, where it would seem the true value of the quiz comes forth, as it
facilitate the discussion of the taboo topic of rape on college campuses
(Briskin & Gary, 1986). It would seem that the workshop was relatively bare,
as the discussion subsequent to the quiz would take up the remainder of the
allotted time (Briskin & Gary, 1986). Furthermore, the workshop failed to
implement any evaluation process to analyze the effects of the program,
positive or negative (Briskin & Gary, 1986). While the workshop did originate
from a perceived need for programming that addressed the aftercare of
sexual assault survivors and sexual assault prevention, the workshop left
much to be desired. However, peer-education as a method in preventing

CAMPUS SEXUAL ASSAULT RESEARCH IN THE 1990S: A REVIEW

16

sexual assault prevention would not at all be an abandoned strategy

(Foubert & Marriott, 1997).
It has been determined that research surrounding sexual assault
research on college campuses is accompanied by certain challenges.
Meilman & Haygood-Jackson (1996) interpreted the mission of preventing
sexual assault on college campuses as requiring an increase of reporting
sexual assault on college campuses. In this study, Meilman & HaygoodJackson (1996) conducted a two-year observation of a mid-sized university
that began with the creation of a sexual assault task force that performed
the following duties throughout the course of the two-year period: developed
prevention programming, implemented disciplinary policies and procedures,
recommended protocols for student follow-ups in the case of a sexual assault
as it pertained to each university department, and established a system to
record reports of sexual assault. At the end of the two-year period, Meilman
& Haygood-Jackson (1996) reported the university had received reports of
approximately 65 cases of sexual assault. Meilman & Haygood-Jackson
(1996) did not attribute this high number of reports as greater or lesser than
the amount of sexual assault that occurs at other universities, instead
suggesting that the efforts of the sexual assault task force lowered the
threshold for reporting and increased data capture. Meilman & HaygoodJackson (1996) displayed, at the very least, that the establishment of a
centralized committee to focus on sexual assault efforts on campus could be
of value to other colleges and universities. It would appear that this model of

CAMPUS SEXUAL ASSAULT RESEARCH IN THE 1990S: A REVIEW

17

sexual assault prevention was adapted by other universities, as seen in

Vickio, Hoffman, & Yarris (1999) which uses Bowling Green State Universitys
Coalition Against Sexual Offense to recommend universities and colleges
should combat sexual assault on their respective campuses.
However, not all prevention strategies are created equal. Day (1995)
cross-examined two higher education institutions located in urban settings
All Saints University and City Engineering School (names withdrawn for
research purposes in terms of each institutions strategies for preventing
sexual assault on their campuses. Day (1995) found that neither institutions
attempted to alter the conditions that create opportunities for sexual assault
on their campuses to exist, choosing to instead focus their energies on
providing individualistic strategies to their students. These strategies
focused on controlling student behavior as opposed to changing campus
culture, environment, or perspectives. At most, what can be concluded about
sexual assault prevention strategies on colleges campuses in the 1990s is
that there were numerous ways in which universities and colleges responded
to sexual assault on colleges campuses.
Conclusion
In 1992, the Campus Security Act, a federal law that mandates
colleges and universities that participates in federal student financial aid
programs must report information relating to crime on and adjacent to their
campuses, was amended to include the Campus Sexual Assault Victims Bill

CAMPUS SEXUAL ASSAULT RESEARCH IN THE 1990S: A REVIEW

18

of Rights (Security On Campus, Inc., n.d.). This amendment guaranteed

victims of sexual assault on colleges campuses a set of basic rights (Gehring,
1996). The Campus Sexual Assault Victims Bill of Rights mandated
institutions must notify survivors of: (1) the option of notify law enforcement
of the event (2) the counseling services available to them and (3) options for
changing academic and living situations. Additionally, the Campus Sexual
Assault Victims Bill of Rights states higher education institutions must also
recommend to students the procedures that they should follow when
reporting a sexual assault, yet has no mentions of employee protocol
(Gehring, 1996). The Campus Sexual Assault Victims Bill of Rights not only
provides rights to alleged survivors, but also to alleged perpetrators. The
amendment states that if an institution allows one party (either accused or
accuser) to have legal counsel present at a hearing, the institution must
provide the same option to the opposite party (Gehring, 1996). Moreover,
both parties must be notified of any outcomes of a hearing in the case of a
sexual offense (Gehring, 1996).
This federal bill clearly illustrates that sexual assault on college
campuses was, at the very least, recognized and responded to on a national
scale. Alas, the claims made by Roiphe (1994) may have been considered
relevant but not, in its entirety, valid. However, this sensationalistic piece of
literature caused a stir in both the media and in academic circles. Research
in the 1990s that investigated sexual assault on college campuses made
important strides that, often only confirmed general suspicions. Still, even

CAMPUS SEXUAL ASSAULT RESEARCH IN THE 1990S: A REVIEW

19

general suspicions surrounding sexual assault on college campuses were

proven as unfounded, perhaps providing leverage for naysayers of a sexual
assault epidemic to attack, even if these false suspicions led to a greater of
understanding surrounding campus sexual assault.
The overall nature of sexual assault research on college campuses
lends itself to critique. Sexual assault, in and of itself, is a crime that takes
place in the shadows. This led researchers to employ research methods that
often must rely on the self-reporting of survivors. Sexual assault researchers
in the 1990s also relied on their own observations and analysis, vulnerable
to criticism on the basis of subjectivity. The discrediting of this research may
have resulted from these vulnerabilities, yet researchers continued to pursue
the eradication of sexual assault on college campuses by gathering data to
the best of their ability. Ultimately, the research of sexual assault on college
campuses in the 1990s was, for the most part, sound and groundbreaking.
The persistence of sexual violence on college campuses cannot be attributed
to any failings on the part of research conducted during the 1990s. Further
research linking the persistence of sexual assault on college campuses to
other factors must be pursued.

References
A Kamentz. (2014, November 30). The history of campus sexual assault [Web
log post]. Retrieved from http://www.npr.org.

CAMPUS SEXUAL ASSAULT RESEARCH IN THE 1990S: A REVIEW

20

Abrams, K. (1999) Songs of innocence and experience: dominance feminism

in the university [Review of the book The morning after, by K. Roiphe].
The Yale Law Journal, 103(6), 1533-1560. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable797093
*Bohmer, C. & Parrot, A. (1993). Sexual assault on campus: The problem and
the solution. New York, NY: Lexington.
*Briskin, K.C.& Gary, J.M. (1986). Sexual assault programming for college
students. Journal of Counseling and Development, 65(4), 207-208. doi:
10.1002/j.1556-6676.1986.tb01319.x
Security On Campus, Inc. (n.d.).Campus sexual assault victims bill of rights.
Retrieved from http://securityoncampus.org
*Day, K. (1995). Assault prevention as social control: women and sexual
assault prevention on urban college campuses. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 15(4), 261-281.
doi:10.1006/jevp.1995.0024
Erdely, S.R. (2014, November). A rape on campus: A brutal assault and
struggle for justice at UVA. Rolling Stone. Retrieved from
http://rollingstone.com
*Foubert, J.D. & Marriott, K. A. (1997). Effects of a sexual assault peer
education program on mens belief in rape myths. Sex Roles, 36(3-4),

CAMPUS SEXUAL ASSAULT RESEARCH IN THE 1990S: A REVIEW

21

259-278. Retrieved from http://

http://search.proquest.com.gate.lib.buffalo.edu
Gehring, D.D. (1996). Campus crime, college policy, and federal laws and
regulations. New Directions for Higher Education, 17, 17-28.
*Kirkpatrick, C. & Kanin, E. (1957). Male sex aggression on a university
campus. American Sociological Review, 22(1), 52-58. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org.gate.lib.edu
Krebs, C.P., Lindquist, C.H., Warner, T.D., Fisher, B.S., & Martin, S.L. (2007)
The Campus Sexual Assault (CSA) Study. Retrieved from
http://www.ncjrs.gov
*Koss, M.P., Gidycz, C., & Wisniewski, N. (1987). The scope of rape: Incidence
and prevalence of sexual aggression and victimization in a national
sample of higher education students. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 55(2), 162-170. Retrieved from http://
eds.b.ebscohost.com
*Martin, P.Y. & Hummer, R.A (Eds.). (1989). Fraternities and rape on campus
[Special issue]. Gender and Society, 3(4), 457-473. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable.189763
*Meilman, P.W. & Haygood-Jackson, D. (1996). Data on sexual assault from
the first 2 years of a comprehensive campus prevention program.

CAMPUS SEXUAL ASSAULT RESEARCH IN THE 1990S: A REVIEW

22

Journal Of American College Health, 44(4), 157-165. Retrieved from

http://search.ebscohost.com.gate.lib.buffalo.edu/
The morning after [Review of the book The morning after, by Roiphe, K.]. The
Economist, 330(7847), 95. Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com
*Nicholson, M.E et al. (1998). Alcohol related violence and unwanted sexual
activity on the college campus. American Journal of Health Studies,
14(1), 1-10. Retrieved from
http://eds.a.ebscohost.com.gate.lib.buffalo.edu
*OSullivan. (1990, December). Campus rape is usually fraternity-related
[Letter to the editor]. The New York Times, A26.
*Roiphe, K. (1994). The morning after. Boston, MA: Little, Brown.
*Sanday, P.R. (1990). Fraternity gang rape: Sex, brotherhood, and privilege
on campus. New York, NY: New York University Press.
*Sanday, P.R. (1996). Rape-prone versus rape-free campus cultures. Violence
Against Women, 2(2), 191-208. doi: 10.1177/1077801296002002006
*Schwartz, M.D. & DeKeseredy, W.S. (1997). Sexual assault on the college
campus: The role of male peer support. Thousand Oaks, California:
SAGE Publications, Inc.
*Schwartz, M.D. & Leggett, M.S. (1999). Bad dates or emotional trauma?: the
aftermath of campus sexual assault. Violence Against Women, 5(3),
251-271. doi: 10.1177/10778019922181211

CAMPUS SEXUAL ASSAULT RESEARCH IN THE 1990S: A REVIEW

23

*Schwartz, M.D. & Nogrady, C.A. (1996). Fraternity membership, rape myths,
and sexual aggression on a college campus. Violence Against Women,
2(2), 148-162. doi: 10.1177/1077801296002002003
Seeman, J. (1995). After the morning after: an interview with Katie Roiphe,
author of controversial best seller. Retrieved from
http://www.backlash.com
Svokos, A. (2014, October). Students bring out mattresses in huge carry that
weight protest against sexual assault. The Huffington Post. Retrieved
from http://huffingtonpost.com
*Ullman, S.E., Karabatsos, G., and Koss, M.P. (1999). Alcohol and sexual
assault in a national sample of college women. Journal of Interpersonal
Violence, 14(6), 603-625. doi: 10.1177/088626099014006003
*Vickio, C.J., Hoffman, B.A. & Yarris, E. (1999). Combating sexual offenses on
the college campus: keys to success. Journal of American College
Health, 47(6), n.p. Retrieved from
http://eds.a.ebscohost.com.gate.lib.edu

CAMPUS SEXUAL ASSAULT RESEARCH IN THE 1990S: A REVIEW

24