Jump to content

Talk:Campus sexual assault: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Campus sexual assault/Archive 3) (bot
Line 155: Line 155:
# In the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campus_sexual_assault#2015_Campus_Climate_Surveys 2015 Campus Climate Survey section], add language with some of the multiple cites including the AAU study along the lines of, "The survey also reported that the majority of students whose responses were classified as sexual assault did not think their experience was "serious enough to report"."
# In the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campus_sexual_assault#2015_Campus_Climate_Surveys 2015 Campus Climate Survey section], add language with some of the multiple cites including the AAU study along the lines of, "The survey also reported that the majority of students whose responses were classified as sexual assault did not think their experience was "serious enough to report"."
# Do not address this finding in the '''2015 Campus Climate Survey''' section but instead create a separate discussion in the article and bring in criticisms/counterpoints to these kinds of finding about surveys in general, making points like, "First, a salient research issue is what students mean when they define incidents as not serious enough to report. For conservatives, the phrase "not serious" is taken in a strictly literal sense as meaning that the incidents were unimportant. For feminists, however, such a response may merely indicate a false consciousness expressed by women acculturated to see their victimization as somehow acceptable." (a partial quote from an academic source provided by Nblund).[[User:Mattnad|Mattnad]] ([[User talk:Mattnad|talk]]) 13:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
# Do not address this finding in the '''2015 Campus Climate Survey''' section but instead create a separate discussion in the article and bring in criticisms/counterpoints to these kinds of finding about surveys in general, making points like, "First, a salient research issue is what students mean when they define incidents as not serious enough to report. For conservatives, the phrase "not serious" is taken in a strictly literal sense as meaning that the incidents were unimportant. For feminists, however, such a response may merely indicate a false consciousness expressed by women acculturated to see their victimization as somehow acceptable." (a partial quote from an academic source provided by Nblund).[[User:Mattnad|Mattnad]] ([[User talk:Mattnad|talk]]) 13:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

*'''Comment'''Mattnad, this seems to mis-characterize my perspective. I did not say we should leave this statistic out. What I said was that we should mention it alongside the previous research on this topic. Importantly, we should explain how social scientists generally interpret that result, and explain that researchers doubt that this finding indicates that these are not serious sexual attacks. I would appreciate it if you would edit this down for brevity (maybe put the citations and other commentary in the section below) and clarify the wording of option #2 to more accurately reflect what I proposed. [[User:Nblund|Nblund]] ([[User talk:Nblund|talk]]) 00:42, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


===RfC comments===
===RfC comments===
* '''Approach #1''' is neutral, reflects both the study and multiple reliable sources that covered this particular survey. Approach #2 comes from academic sources that do not specifically discuss this survey, and are grounded in POV that's WP:Fringe. Not a single news source I could find on the AAU survey addressed this counterpoint and to create a separate discussion would be WP:Undue. I will add that Nblund's reasons for objecting to this detail as part of the AAU study is that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ACampus_sexual_assault&type=revision&diff=683548369&oldid=683537487 "I'm concerned that it makes the findings appear less impactful by misleading people"]. This concern was not considered material by professional news services covering the survey, or a plain reading of the survey itself. My take is Nblund would like to avoid reducing the perceived impact of the numbers by discounting or eliminating what survey respondents themselves stated.[[User:Mattnad|Mattnad]] ([[User talk:Mattnad|talk]]) 14:15, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
* '''Approach #1''' is neutral, reflects both the study and multiple reliable sources that covered this particular survey. Approach #2 comes from academic sources that do not specifically discuss this survey, and are grounded in POV that's WP:Fringe. Not a single news source I could find on the AAU survey addressed this counterpoint and to create a separate discussion would be WP:Undue. I will add that Nblund's reasons for objecting to this detail as part of the AAU study is that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ACampus_sexual_assault&type=revision&diff=683548369&oldid=683537487 "I'm concerned that it makes the findings appear less impactful by misleading people"]. This concern was not considered material by professional news services covering the survey, or a plain reading of the survey itself. My take is Nblund would like to avoid reducing the perceived impact of the numbers by discounting or eliminating what survey respondents themselves stated.[[User:Mattnad|Mattnad]] ([[User talk:Mattnad|talk]]) 14:15, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
*'''Approach #1''' I agree with Mattnad in his thorough analysis of the different approaches. [[User:Immortal Horrors or Everlasting Splendors|<span style="font-family:Segoe print; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"><span style="color:#CC4E5C">Immortal Horrors</span> or <span style="color:#008000">Everlasting Splendors</span></span>]] 21:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
*'''Approach #1''' I agree with Mattnad in his thorough analysis of the different approaches. [[User:Immortal Horrors or Everlasting Splendors|<span style="font-family:Segoe print; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"><span style="color:#CC4E5C">Immortal Horrors</span> or <span style="color:#008000">Everlasting Splendors</span></span>]] 21:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC)


'''Comment:''' For context, its important to note that this particular finding is not unique to this survey. This exact question has been asked on previous studies of sexual assaults, and the result is consistent with previous findings. Researchers generally attribute the response to [[Minimisation (psychology)|minimization]] on the part of victims, and note that victims of even very serious attacks sometimes decide it isn't worthwhile to report the attack to the police. (see: [http://cjb.sagepub.com/content/30/1/6.short Fisher, Daigle, Cullen & Turner 2003])
Some critics of these studies (such as Christina Hoff Sommers) have suggested that the "not serious enough to report" response indicates that the concerns about sexual assault on college campuses is overblown, but that view is not supported by the empirical evidence, and experts like Bonnie Fisher are generally skeptical of this interpretation (see the quote below)
{| class="wikitable collapsible collapsed"
! B.S. Fisher:
|-
|Recall the study of college students who found that robbery victims also did not report their victimization because it was “not serious enough” (Fisher & Cullen, 1999). It is doubtful that critics would conclude that robbery victims were a methodological artifact created by politically correct researchers. Second, we need to probe more deeply into what seriousness means to victims. It appears that it involves suffering an injury and the presence of a weapon. Acquaintance rapes do not typically involve these features. Third, the female students did not say that their victimization was not serious but not serious enough. This standard suggests that reporting a sexual victimization to the police involves a cost—a loss of privacy, potential embarrassment, having to “deal with” one’s parents, rejection by friends of the perpetrator one accuses, the necessity to perhaps leave the campus and drop out of college, and having to testify at a college disciplinary hearing or court case. In this context, the harm experienced—especially in the absence of visible physical injury—may not seem serious enough to pursue an assailant legally.
|}

Again, I'm not saying we should exclude this finding, I'm saying we should cite it alongside the previous findings and alongside previous research on the topic. If this particular detail is important enough to mention, why isn't it important enough to mention the views of experts on the topic? [[Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_newspaper|Wikipedia is not a newspaper]], or a random collection of events. The goal here is to inform people, and the notion that we should suppress obviously relevant, reliably sourced, information strikes me as fundamentally anathema to that project. [[User:Nblund|Nblund]] ([[User talk:Nblund|talk]]) 00:42, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 00:42, 8 October 2015

The New Campus Anti-Rape Movement

The "Student and organizational activism" section links to The New Campus Anti-Rape Movement, hereafter referred to as TNCARM. TNCARM is book-title-capitalized because it is a specific term used by Caroline Heldman, professor of politics at Occidental College. But the article isn't about Heldman's lectures. Instead it summarizes the contents of the campus sexual assault article, adds in a few well-referenced sentences about campus groups working together, and then completes its thesis with some original research and speculation. Then a criticism section, obligatory for this topic. In my opinion, if it isn't a straight-up example of a coatrack, then it is likely to become one in the future.

I bring this to you for three reasons. First, I am interested in hearing other points of view about the quality of the article from folks who may have more insight into campus activism. Second, if my assessment is correct, what is the correct venue for resolving the problems listed? Solutions I see are: deleting, merging, renaming, and/or rewriting the article so it stays on its topic (Heldman's published work).

Third, this serves as notice that unless anyone objects, I am going to move the well-referenced sentences about campus groups working together into this article's activism section and then turn TNCARM into a redirect. DPRoberts534 (talk) 03:41, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did a quick search on "The New Campus Anti-Rape Movement" in quotes on Google and found 741 results. It seems to be a real thing, but the problem I see with the article, is that the news sources cited by the writers don't support the existence of the "The New Campus Anti-Rape Movement" as a "thing". I think this article could be saved, and I think that the people who originally worked on it deserve some time to fix the problems. I'm not an expert on the subject, but I've done some style and wording improvements and fixed some errors. I think we should give the article some time to mature—or at the very least—run a formal AFD so people who are passionate about the subject can have a chance to argue their points and make improvements. Carl Henderson (talk) 05:10, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your cleanup work. I agree that it is a term that generates search results. All results that I saw were either links to Heldman and Dirks' lectures and publications, articles/blogs about those publications, or the Wikipedia article. So, that means notability is debatable, which is half of the problem. The other half is that the article does not even mention Heldman and Dirks, their book (previously titled TNCARM), or Heldman's lectures. DPRoberts534 (talk) 05:30, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think a merge is in order. I had the same thoughts a while ago, but then forgot about it. It's relevant only in the context of the broader topic and the current spin-off article is a stub, and has been for months. Mattnad (talk) 10:29, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I do think it might be a good idea to let the move discussion ripen for a little while and see if anyone else has any specific objections or if there is important additional material that could be added to the entry.
That said: while I see your point on the issue with TNCARM, if a merge occurs, it seems like it would be merged with the existing entry on the existing Anti-Rape Movement page rather than with this entry. By my reading, TNCARM is about the movement itself, whereas this article is primarily about the crime of sexual assault on college campuses. Hedlund seems to be arguing that the "New Campus Anti-Rape Movement" represents a new "wave" in a movement that dates back to the Civil War era -- akin to the idea of waves in the feminist movement. It makes sense to put all of that under the general heading of anti-rape activism. Nblund (talk) 14:07, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merging to Anti-Rape Movement seems better than merging it here. DPRoberts534 (talk) 17:09, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be a problem to post a notice about this discussion to the talk pages of the people who initially created/expanded the article, or to Wiki Project Feminism? Carl Henderson (talk) 19:53, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see an issue with that. The more the merrier. As I reviewed the article again, most of it is set-up (explaining the problem of sexual assault on campuses) and then criticisms. The real meat of the article is actually mostly examples of activism, some of which use source articles that make no mention of the "movement" per se. Right now, it seems more like a concept that a few people have heard about, but has not become a mainstream expression. So really it's more about increased activism around campus sexual assault, which makes more sense here IMHO.Mattnad (talk) 21:27, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that there are many reliable sources that have covered the resurgent campus anti-rape movement over the past few years.
@DPRoberts534: I object to redirecting the other article here — while the topic ought be mentioned in the campus sexual assault article, there is easily enough material to support a stand-alone article for the new movement. That article could use some work though. It should definitely include mention of Heldman (who places the new movement's beginning in 2013) and should perhaps be renamed to a generic title. The surge in anti-rape activity on campuses has been documented by many sources besides Heldman, and includes art/activism like the Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight) as well as 'yes means yes' affirmative consent campaigns. gobonobo + c 21:11, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Gobonobo: what do you think about Nblund's proposal to merge it with Anti-Rape Movement? DPRoberts534 (talk) 15:32, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The anti-rape movement article already has too much emphasis on US examples, so merging content there would exacerbate that particular problem. I think the crux of the issue is whether the modern campus anti-rape movement can be considered discretely as a valid spin-off article. There seems to be enough sourcing out there to turn it into a robust article. I don't think Heldman was to first to recognize the resurgence of anti-rape activism though and question whether the movement coalesced as late as 2013. So maybe a name change and slight adjustment in the scope of the article would be in order. There are other possibilities as well, such as creating an article for Campus anti-rape movement or forking the US content into a dedicated article. In any case, I think a decision to delete/redirect/merge should come from an AfD rather than an unrelated talk page so as to maximize community input. gobonobo + c 19:01, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on the new AfD (for TNCARM, not Campus sexual assault) discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The New Campus Anti-Rape Movement. DPRoberts534 (talk) 20:36, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Reverts

There have been some reverts to eliminate some of the nuance of the recent studies:

  • [1]: Well, here's the quote from the Washington Post that supports that, "Researchers acknowledged the possibility of an overstated victimization rate because there was evidence that hundreds of thousands of students who ignored the electronic questionnaire were less likely to have suffered an assault." I'd be interested in how what was written is not supported by the source. If it is not, then how? We can edit accordingly rather than eliminate it.
  • [2] This change was made because an editor didn't like the source, arguing it's editorial. So here's the same information from the study itself. On page 110, which itemized why someone did not report an incident, 58.6% indicated, "I did not think it was serious enough to report". It's not an editorial statement. It's right from the study. I can provide a citation for that and will if that will satisfy, but Wikipedia does not have a prohibition on article or editorials just because an editor doesn't like the source. What we require for is verifiability. Unless someone can say it's not verifiable, then it's POV to exclude.
  • [3] removes a concurrent 2015 survey. It was presented as a different survey, and if the editor had looked at the title of the section, it falls under that section nicely (2015 Campus Surveys. If he or she wants to qualify it with more information, that's fine, but anyone who does survey work knows that low sample rates can lead to reporting bias and that highlights the differences. Removing it because it's different is not supportable given the topic.Mattnad (talk) 18:21, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding point 1: I missed this. I self-reverted, but reworded a little to attribute the statement to researchers, and to avoid too closely paraphrasing the source.
  • Regarding 2: I agree that this is giving undue weight: this is a major academic study, the criticism being cited applies to every sexual assault survey discussed in this section. The consensus among researchers is that this really isn't a problem with the surveys: people often downplay even very serious sexual victimization because of guilt, fear, or embarrassment. The implication that this invalidates the surveys is just not supported by existing evidence.
  • Regarding 3: Perhaps I'm misreading this, but according to the link they cite in the article the 5% figure for Kentucky is the number of students, both male and female, who were raped in the current school year (see: link). This is actually higher than the comparable finding in the AAU surveys (3.2% vs 5%) and the CSA. Nblund (talk) 22:25, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for self reverting the first. On the second and third items, your reasoning is different from the other editor's (which suggests that his or her reasoning was reflexive), but let me address each:
On the Majority of respondents not thinking their assault was worth reporting, this is not a criticism at all. It's a detail from the survey that's not presented anywhere else in the article. We are often told that the majority of assaults go unreported (true), and include that as some indictment of the state of current affairs, but we never the reason, or at least not in a quantified way. This is actually good news in a sense, since we now have a quantified level that most sexual assaults in these surveys did rise to a level of seriousness for the respondents to report. It's not WP:Undue per the guidelines: It's neither a fringe source nor presented as an opinion: it's coming from the same survey that you have no issue including high level numbers. That it has not been detailed in some news reports (although it's covered in one newspaper and several other sites) is no more of a fringe idea than the many stats you have added in the lede that were never reported by secondary news sources and come from more obscure sources than this survey (and are not even explained at all in terms of what they are measuring and where).
On the third revert, this article is about Campus sexual assault - not Campus sexual assault of women only. If you want to add a breakdown of the Kentucky University stats, you can, but as presented made no suggestion that it wasn't the overall numbers. Unlike many surveys in these areas, Kentucky actually got a large sample which is also very notable and makes the results more reliable in comparison to the AAU. If you want to elaborate more on the details, fine, but eliminating a documented and topical survey from the article seems excessive. Mattnad (talk) 15:06, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A majority (58%) of women who gave a "not serious enough to report" response said that they were victims of forcible rapes. We're talking about violent sex crimes here, they're clearly serious from a criminal justice standpoint. Numerous academic articles have looked at the way victims of crimes minimize including serious violent crimes (examples: here and here). This is also true for victims of incest, domestic violence, and child victims of sexual assault. If we want to include some discussion of the subjective experiences of sexual assault by victims, we should do it using good quality material and we should make it clear that this "not serious" response isn't something unique to this particular study. It is UNDUE to have coverage of an important topic in the study of rape and sexual assault be limited to a single editorial from a right-leaning paper.
Regarding the Kentucky survey: Kentucky doesn't provide that breakdown. I'm not saying it should be excluded because it measures sexual assaults against men, I'm saying that it is misleading to present it as though it contradicts the findings of the AAU surveys. If we use an apples-to-apples comparison and look at the combined rate since the start of the school year for men and women experiencing rape, that is actually higher than the comparable rate reported in the AAU surveys, not lower (see table 3-11 on page 67 of the full report)Nblund (talk) 23:28, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On your first point, I'm not depending on an editorial (it's actually a news report). I'm looking at the study, as have you. On adding qualifiers, you'd be veering into original research citing sources that do not mention this study or come from it (and the study did not say it was forceable rape, you did). BTW, only 0.3% of college women and 0.2% of men reported coercive penetration since enter college according to table 3-14/15 on pages 73-74 which I think I'll add to the section. That written, let's see what you have in mind as a qualifier including the source. I'll add that when you look at other categories of assault like touching (nearly twice the reported rate vs. penetration), the "not serious enough" reason goes up to 75%. I bring that up because the 20% overall stat for women is presented in the article includes touching. On your second point, the section is not just the AAU study but recent campus surveys. So Kentucky presents another study at a college (with a better sample size at that). If you want to make it easier to compare, then you can add the combined Male/Female assault rates to the AAU study section (note that Table 3-11 you bring up is only sexual penetration from the AAU study, not Kentucky, and does not include touching).Mattnad (talk) 00:54, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The study does call it rape (see page VIII of the introduction) so does common sense. This is a stat that is included in the AAU report, but the conclusion you're drawing isn't something that comes from that report, it comes from an opinion piece. Its also not a conclusion supported by the existing consensus among experts in this field.
To be clear, I'm not suggesting this argument just needs caveats. This isn't a critique unique to this study, so it doesn't make sense to present it as though it is. Its a fairly well-researched phenomenon, the same question is presented in the NCWSV and the CSA, and the results are similar in both. This exact criticism has been cited previously by critics of this sort of sexual assault study, dating all the way back to Christina Hoff Sommers in the 70's. Researchers generally view it as a product of minimization. I'm open to including this discussion in the entry, but it shouldn't ignore the findings of experts in the field or obscure the reality of the debate.
The 5% stat from the Kentucky study also doesn't appear to include non-consensual touching: page 4 of the executive summary states that " UK Students (n=1,053; 4.9%) reported unwanted sexual experiences (vaginal, oral, or anal sex)..." -- it appears they're discussing penetration exclusively. I think the documentation here is kind of lacking, but, if anything, it appears to be higher than the comparable AAU estimate. Nblund (talk) 02:03, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not drawing any conclusions. I'm just for providing a detail from the report that puts the numbers in better context per the study and not some unrelated original research coatrack. So, based on your reading, does the AAU study not report that most respondents that were categorized as victims who did not report answered because they didn't think it was serious enough? I'm not understanding your objection to the source. Do you think that the AAU is lying? And yes, Kentucky used the same definitions of sexual assault as the DOJ and Harvard School of Public Health. If you want to add that (per the source) we can.Mattnad (talk) 02:34, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The statement that was removed was sourced to the Washington Examiner. Its almost a verbatim quote from that source, and the wording appears to imply that the researchers characterized things as sexual assault when they weren't. The consensus among researchers is that these are serious crimes that respondents downplay out of guilt or shame. If you want to include a statement about the reasons people choose not to report sexual assault to the police, that sounds fine, but it should be done in a way that accurately characterizes the views of experts in the field.
I cited previous research on this topic by BS Fisher, who is one of the most recognized experts in this field. I don't think you're going to get very far arguing that this study is coattrack while simultaneously claiming a story from a relatively obscure conservative paper warrants inclusion.
What, exactly, would you want to say with the inclusion of the info from Kentucky? The previous version seemed to imply that the findings contradicted the findings of the AAU study, but, if anything, the resulting estimate is higher, not lower. I'm not opposed to including it as long as it is accurately characterized -- but it kind of seems pointless. Nblund (talk) 02:54, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm talking about using the survey as the citation, not the Examiner. I think you don't like is that the majority of women didn't think their experience was that serious and you want to keep that out of the article, or try to suggest that all of them might in retrospect realize they were horribly assaulted via qualification. That's OR when attached to this particular survey since Fisher didn't review this particular work. For an example of how your approach could be used in a way you'd dislike, what if we followed every marcro assault rate report with research on false reporting, etc. There's research out there that tracks that, and if someone is biased enough as an editor, they could insist on it. But it would be POV, OR, and rightfully removed. If you want to include Fisher, we can bring in a comment about Fisher's findings where appropriate separately.
About Kentucky, I want to include their findings since they are topical. The original sentence is a good start, and we can qualify it based on differences in approach. And for the record, your concerns about differences in methodology and scope did not prevent you from adding this line, "Other research creates estimates ranging anywhere from 10%[1] to as many as 29%[7] of women having been victims of rape or attempted rape since starting college" to the prevalence section. Neither of those stats are qualified in the least. We have no idea what they are measuring (including definitions), when, where, or how. It would seem you have differing standards when it comes to detail in the article. It's a source of frustration for me here.Mattnad (talk) 11:12, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]


If you're not attributing it to another source, then its a novel synthesis: you're emphasizing an aspect of the study that is not emphasized by the authors themselves, in order to imply something that the authors would probably dispute.
I think I've been fairly clear that I'm not saying that we should keep this out of the article, I'm saying we should present as a common complaint among critics of these kinds of surveys that dates all the way back to the work by Koss ( example), Cathy Young made the same criticism of the NCWSV a year ago (here).
These sorts of responses are frequently cited by critics of these studies to suggest that the incidents being measure are relatively benign, but experts doubt that is the case. From the previously cited article by Fisher:

First, a salient research issue is what students mean when they define incidents as not serious enough to report. For conservatives, the phrase "not serious" is taken in a strictly literal sense as meaning that the incidents were unimportant. For feminists, however, such a response may merely indicate a false consciousness expressed by women acculturated to see their victimization as somehow acceptable. It may also reflect a rational assessment in which female victims decide that reporting coerced sexuality is not worth turning in fellow students when such an act may incur negative reactions from their peers and no real action from the criminal justice system. That is, the events may be appraised as lacking seriousness not according to an objective standard but relative to what reporting the incidents actually entails. In any case, before definitive interpretations can be ventured, detailed qualitative studies need to be undertaken of women’s cognitive understandings of sexual victimization incidents

Your example isn't really analogous: there really isn't research that tracks false reporting of rape in surveys, and researchers don't generally believe that these surveys contain a large number of false reports. If those materials existed, I would support presenting these criticisms in a separate section.
The original statement about the Kentucky surveys made an invalid comparison, I don't really think its a good starting point. It seems extraneous, but, if you want to include it, it should be compared to the analogous finding in the AAU report. 20:50, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Ah, now I see the source of your thoughts - so Fisher is presenting a feminist interpretation of these common findings and as I read it, it's an opinion rather than a simple NPOV presentation. You've made a big deal about article from the Washington Examiner, and are using that to disqualify what the study found. The same article provided the overall rates - shall we say those are opinions too and use that to disqualify the study findings? The study didn't emphasize the rates of coercive penetration either. Are those disqualified from the article? Shall we only include what news reports find? Then that would eliminate most of the article that refers to study and book details. You see where this can go.Mattnad (talk) 21:02, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fisher is pointing to reasons to doubt the claim that these were not serious events and calling for more study. Its a view from one of the most respected experts in the field, which happens to be shared by most other experts in the field, and one which has a substantial amount of empirical support. The overall rates appear to be sourced to an article in the Washington Post, not the Washington Examiner. Its not a problem to point out something in a book, but its pretty clear from your previous statements that you want to highlight this fact because you believe it indicates that these are not particularly serious sexual assaults. That's not a view that appears to be supported by the authors of the study, nor is it one generally supported by most experts in the field. Nblund (talk) 01:29, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fisher seems to be highlighting a fringe theory that's you'd like to attached to study. The passage you cite says "may" over every counter explanation. It's very tenuous vs. the simple, straight forward results from the study. Perhaps it's not fringe to you, but it's pretty out there for an encyclopedia. So on three points you shouldn't add this qualifier a) it's OR on your part - the Fisher passage is not related to this study by any reliable source, b) it's WP:Fringe. Perhaps it pains you that the study captured this, but your argument that the researchers didn't highlight this is nonsense. They asked the question and published the results.Mattnad (talk) 11:31, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Her work is already cited in the entry: she's the lead author of the National College Women Sexual Violence Study. She's written dozens of articles and has been cited thousands of times on the topic. How are you defining "fringe" exactly? What do you mean by "out there"? The notion that this is original research is absurd: previous research has asked literally this exact same question and received roughly the same result, and these findings have been addressed repeatedly in multiple published reports. Its not original synthesis to make a patently obvious connection.
You've made it clear that you want to report this finding in order to imply something that isn't supported by a reliable source. As I've said multiple times in the past: I'm not suggesting that we ignore or not report this, I'm saying we should discuss it in detail -- acknowledging that its been a source of criticism in the past. Aside from being based on a dubious interpretation of the rules, it seems to fundamentally go against the spirit of Wikipedia to mislead people about the scholarly consensus. Nblund (talk) 14:18, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The author may be mentioned often, but the paragraph as written represents other people's views and includes opinions of others (with no attribution). Furthermore, the statement as written is speculative, with every possible reason as "may".
As for what you think I'm trying to say, I'm doing my best to quote from the survey. So, does that stat (page 110), sourced from the survey, imply something that's not from the survey? Is the study not a reliable source? What exactly, without your own reinterpretation, does that published statistic say? I'd really like you to read it, and tell me exactly what it says. To me, it provides detail to the higher 1 in 5 stat from the perspective of the victims. So here's how I interpret it: according to the survey results, when asked the majority of respondents indicated they didn't think their experience was serious enough to report. Is that incorrect based on the survey? How?
I will add, quoting a recent articles from: the Washington Post, "the vast majorities of poll respondents who said they had not reported to campus authorities the events that the AAU classified as sexual assaults — 'the dominant reason was it was not considered serious enough,', Chicago Tribune, "More than half of those who didn't report a rape said they didn't think it was serious enough to report.", NJ.com "The most common reason cited by students for not reporting an incident was that they didn't consider it serious enough", CNN "More than 50 percent of the women who reported some of the most serious incidents, including forced penetration, didn’t report it because they didn’t think it was “serious enough,” according to the survey.", The Daily Toreodor "More than 50 percent of the victims of even the most serious incidents, such as forced penetration, said they did not report the event because they do not consider it “serious enough,” according to the survey.", Michigan Daily, "Of University students who experienced nonconsensual penetration involving physical force, 76.8 percent of them did not report the crime.", Campus Safety Magazine, "When students were asked why they did not report incidents of sexual assault and sexual misconduct, the most common reason was that it was not considered serious enough.", My Fox 8 "More than 50 percent of the women who reported some of the most serious incidents, including forced penetration, didn’t report it because they didn’t think it was “serious enough,” " These are all secondary news sources that found that it notable to comment on students not reporting. None of them qualified that stat the way you want to. Mattnad (talk) 14:35, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You previously quoted from an editorial criticizing the report. Some of the quotes you're providing now are substantially more nuanced. The quote from the CNN article, makes it pretty clear that these "not serious enough" responses happen even with fairly serious incidents -- including forcible rapes -- and includes a quote from an leader of an anti-rape group that notes that this may be the product of a "victim blaming mentality". I don't think the notion that this is a fringe view really even warrants much discussion. Fisher is laying out the arguments, its pretty clear where she stands. Here's a more direct quote where she discusses reasons to doubt your interpretation:

Recall the study of college students who found that robbery victims also did not report their victimization because it was “not serious enough” (Fisher & Cullen, 1999). It is doubtful that critics would conclude that robbery victims were a methodological artifact created by politically correct researchers. Second, we need to probe more deeply into what seriousness means to victims. It appears that it involves suffering an injury and the presence of a weapon. Acquaintance rapes do not typically involve these features. Third, the female students did not say that their victimization was not serious but not serious enough. This standard suggests that reporting a sexual victimization to the police involves a cost—a loss of privacy, potential embarrassment, having to “deal with” one’s parents, rejection by friends of the perpetrator one accuses, the necessity to perhaps leave the campus and drop out of college, and having to testify at a college disciplinary hearing or court case. In this context, the harm experienced—especially in the absence of visible physical injury—may not seem serious enough to pursue an assailant legally.

You earlier stated that this was "good news" and suggested that these weren't actually serious attacks, but that interpretation isn't supported by existing research. Its pretty clear from the citation you used (which you reproduced almost verbatim), and from your previous statements that you want to present this in order to suggest these are mild incidents. My interpretation isn't really important. The interpretation of relevant experts is that these responses don't necessarily mean that these incidents were any less criminal or less damaging for the victims. The statement you offered is not incorrect, its just misleading and lacking in important context. You say your goal is to provide more detail, but you seem to be arguing against including a whole lot of important information from reliable sources. Nblund (talk) 15:44, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Forceable Rape" is your interpretation - not necessarily that of the respondents. Furthermore the vast majority of the survey classified incidents didn't fall into that category. See how your own biases intrude on what should be a neutral presentation of the findings? Can you even concede that some lesser incidents like touching may also not be that significant to the respondents? I think my proposed language is neutral, conforms to what are in several reliable sources (nuanced or not) and doesn't fall prey to POV editorializing that you propose. As I already stated, not one of the sources commenting on the survey include your interpretation. Frankly, I think I've done enough to justify reinserting that sentence and will provide a few news reports as sources. If you disagree, take it up with the RSN.Mattnad (talk) 16:02, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Forcible rape is defined elsewhere in this article -- these respondents said that someone used physical force or the threat of force to sexually penetrate them. This is rape by any definition, and the majority of these victims said it was "not serious enough to report". Other sources, including academic ones and the popular sources you just cited, have noted this fact in their reporting that state, and one source even noted that it might be a product of "victim blaming". Multiple reliable academic sources have provided exactly that interpretation of this exact same survey question.
I think an RfC would make sense here -- the problem isn't really with the reliability of the sources, its with the neutrality of your proposed edit. You've turned down what seems like a perfectly reasonable compromise with essentially no justification, just summarily re-adding the information seems pretty tendentious. Nblund (talk) 18:10, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well on that we can disagree (neutrality and tendentiousness). What I've proposed is virtually the same as what many news sources have written. You've claimed that it was not notable or opion, but as demonstrated it's a very common point that reliable sources bring up. You've fixated on the original source as a means to suggest I have some POV motive, but have no answer to how it's violating neutrality when it's commonly presented and consistent with the survey as well. And where you and I also differ, is you want to add something that's not mentioned by any of the reliable sources in relation to this survey and is WP:Undue and arguably WP:OR and WP:Fringe.Mattnad (talk) 19:29, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's not really true: several of the sources point out that this "not serious" response was common even in the majority of rapes, and several of the news articles include a discussion of barriers of shame, self-blame and embarrassment posed by reporting -- they're still imperfect for an encyclopedia, but they hint at exactly the scholarly consensus I've pointed to here.
You're adamant that this particular fact must be included in response to this particular study, but you still haven't explained why we shouldn't mention that the same criticism has been applied to other research. Why not cite the previous statements from other critics of this type of research, and also cite the academic response? Your formulation gives the misleading impression that this is new, unusual, or unexplained, when, in fact, its a very unsurprising result that is consistent with previous work. Why do you think this is more informative than my proposal? Nblund (talk) 20:25, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The barriers to reporting for some doesn't negate the responses of others who didn't think it was serious enough to report. However, we can include that roughly 35% (if memory serves me) in the article if you like since it was brought up in a couple of reliable sources.
Now, you've said I'm trying to bring in a criticism with this stat of the non-reporting finding. It's not. That's your interpretation. I'm going to guess here, but I think you feel that way because it makes the 1 in 5 less impactful. To me, and many reliable sources, the non reporting reasons reflect how the men and women felt about the incident. The qualification you are proposing comes from a POV perspective. To whit, your sources explicitly mention the "feminist" reaction; per Fisher, "For feminists, however, such a response may merely indicate a false consciousness expressed by women acculturated to see their victimization as somehow acceptable. ..." If the news reports had brought this up in regard to this study, I'd say we can include it, with qualification on who's making the statement (as an opinion/theory). But none did, which to me suggests your proposal is just as POV as something that comes from a right wing think tank. But I'll stress again this particular detail you don't want is very common in non-partisan coverage of the survey.Mattnad (talk) 22:13, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're fundamentally misunderstanding what NPOV means: it doesn't prohibit us from mentioning the views of experts, even if those experts happen to be feminists. In fact, NPOV requires that we mention the relevant views in a dispute. And yes: I'm concerned that it makes the findings appear less impactful by misleading people. I'm not quite sure why you think this isn't a valid concern.
This is now the third or fourth time that I've said this: I'm not calling for excluding this detail. Quite the opposite: I've said we should discuss it in detail, and in relation to multiple studies. If you can't accept this compromise, or just want to continue arguing without acknowledging that its been offered, then I think its time we called for an RfC. Nblund (talk) 23:52, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New article in Huffington Post Blog noting the discrepancy between the claims made by the AAU researchers and the mainstream reporting on the study. DPRoberts534 (talk) 04:24, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Earp, Brian D. (29 September 2015). "1 in 4 Women: How the Latest Sexual Assault Statistics Were Turned into Click Bait by the 'New York Times'". The Huffington Post. Retrieved 29 September 2015.


RfC on recent AAU campus climate survey

There is a debate on how we should include a widely reported statistic relating to the percentage of victims, who when asked why they didn't report the incident, answered they didn't think it was "serious enough" per the study and news reports.

The section leads with a high level statistic for the rates of all types of sexual assault and misconduct, "The 2015 Association of American Universities (AAU) Campus Survey on Sexual Assault, one of the largest studies ever of college sexual violence, drew responses from 150,000 students at 27 schools, including most of the Ivy League. It found that more than 20 percent of female and 5 percent of male undergraduates said that they were victims of sexual assault and misconduct".

The AAU study, Table 6-1, page 110 contains the following:

Percentage reporting or not, with reason Penetration by Force Penetration by Incapacitation Sexual Touching by Force Sexual Touching by Incapacitation
Contacted at least one program in university list 25.5% 13.3% 7.0% 5.0%
Did not contact any programs reason: "I did not think it was serious enough to report" 58.6% 62.1% 74.1% 75.6%

Several news reports that covered the high level findings in AAU survey also included the following details from page 110. I have provided a few samples (with direct quotes provided):

Looking for input on two approaches discussed in this talk page to handle this:

  1. In the 2015 Campus Climate Survey section, add language with some of the multiple cites including the AAU study along the lines of, "The survey also reported that the majority of students whose responses were classified as sexual assault did not think their experience was "serious enough to report"."
  2. Do not address this finding in the 2015 Campus Climate Survey section but instead create a separate discussion in the article and bring in criticisms/counterpoints to these kinds of finding about surveys in general, making points like, "First, a salient research issue is what students mean when they define incidents as not serious enough to report. For conservatives, the phrase "not serious" is taken in a strictly literal sense as meaning that the incidents were unimportant. For feminists, however, such a response may merely indicate a false consciousness expressed by women acculturated to see their victimization as somehow acceptable." (a partial quote from an academic source provided by Nblund).Mattnad (talk) 13:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentMattnad, this seems to mis-characterize my perspective. I did not say we should leave this statistic out. What I said was that we should mention it alongside the previous research on this topic. Importantly, we should explain how social scientists generally interpret that result, and explain that researchers doubt that this finding indicates that these are not serious sexual attacks. I would appreciate it if you would edit this down for brevity (maybe put the citations and other commentary in the section below) and clarify the wording of option #2 to more accurately reflect what I proposed. Nblund (talk) 00:42, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RfC comments

  • Approach #1 is neutral, reflects both the study and multiple reliable sources that covered this particular survey. Approach #2 comes from academic sources that do not specifically discuss this survey, and are grounded in POV that's WP:Fringe. Not a single news source I could find on the AAU survey addressed this counterpoint and to create a separate discussion would be WP:Undue. I will add that Nblund's reasons for objecting to this detail as part of the AAU study is that "I'm concerned that it makes the findings appear less impactful by misleading people". This concern was not considered material by professional news services covering the survey, or a plain reading of the survey itself. My take is Nblund would like to avoid reducing the perceived impact of the numbers by discounting or eliminating what survey respondents themselves stated.Mattnad (talk) 14:15, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Approach #1 I agree with Mattnad in his thorough analysis of the different approaches. Immortal Horrors or Everlasting Splendors 21:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Comment: For context, its important to note that this particular finding is not unique to this survey. This exact question has been asked on previous studies of sexual assaults, and the result is consistent with previous findings. Researchers generally attribute the response to minimization on the part of victims, and note that victims of even very serious attacks sometimes decide it isn't worthwhile to report the attack to the police. (see: Fisher, Daigle, Cullen & Turner 2003) Some critics of these studies (such as Christina Hoff Sommers) have suggested that the "not serious enough to report" response indicates that the concerns about sexual assault on college campuses is overblown, but that view is not supported by the empirical evidence, and experts like Bonnie Fisher are generally skeptical of this interpretation (see the quote below)

Again, I'm not saying we should exclude this finding, I'm saying we should cite it alongside the previous findings and alongside previous research on the topic. If this particular detail is important enough to mention, why isn't it important enough to mention the views of experts on the topic? Wikipedia is not a newspaper, or a random collection of events. The goal here is to inform people, and the notion that we should suppress obviously relevant, reliably sourced, information strikes me as fundamentally anathema to that project. Nblund (talk) 00:42, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Campus_sexual_assault&oldid=684662177"