Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
    • Reason TV
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • Just Asking Questions
    • Free Media
    • The Reason Interview
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • The Soho Forum Debates
    • Just Asking Questions
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Donate Crypto
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Print Subscription
    • Subscriber Support

Login Form

Create new account
Forgot password
Reason logo

Reason's Annual Webathon is underway! Donate today to see your name here.

Reason is supported by:
DrummerCFO

Donate

Culture

'Remarks About Physical Appearance' Considered 'Sexual Violence' in Rutgers Student Survey

New study on campus sexual assault suffers same problems that plague so much research on this issue.

Elizabeth Nolan Brown | 9.2.2015 2:22 PM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL Add Reason to Google
Media Contact & Reprint Requests
Large image on homepages | Rutgers University/Facebook
(Rutgers University/Facebook)

Rutgers University/Facebook

A new survey of Rutgers University students reinforces the idea that one in four college women will be victims of sexual assault… but only if you don't look at the study too closely. Zoom in and you'll find the same problems that plague so much research about sex crimes on college campuses, from defining violence to include rude comments to failing to differentiate between an unwanted kiss and forcible rape. 

The Rutgers survey—conducted by the school's Center on Violence Against Women and Children at the request of the White House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault and the Department of Justice—was carried out last academic year at the state school's New Brunswick campus, attended by about 42,000 students. Around 10,800 students completed the online survey; the majority were undergraduates (80 percent) and women (64 percent). 

Rutgers used definitions of sexual violence and sexual assault based on material from the White House task force. "'Sexual assault' and 'sexual violence' refer to a range of behaviors that are unwanted by the recipient," notes a school summary of survey findings, "and include remarks about physical appearance, persistent sexual advances that are undesired by the recipient, threats of force to get someone to engage in sexual behavior, as well as unwanted touching and unwanted oral, anal, or vaginal penetration or attempted penetration."

Survey respondents were presented with that definition, then asked whether they had experienced sexual violence prior to starting school at Rutgers. Nineteen percent of all respondents and 24 percent of undergraduate women said they had. 

Students were then asked six questions about different types of "unwanted sexual contact." Overall, 13 percent of students, including 20 percent of undergraduate women, experienced some sort of unwanted sexual contact since starting school at Rutgers. Students were not asked to limit responses to incidents that occurred on or near campus or with another student.

Follow-up questions with respondents who had experienced unwanted sexual contact found the perpetrator was a student in 35 percent of the cases, a non-student in 18 percent, and of unknown academic status in eight percent; 39 percent did not answer the question. Forty-three percent described the perpetrator as a non-stranger and 18 percent as a stranger. In non-stranger cases, 40 percent categorized the perpetrator as a "casual acquaintance or hookup," 34 percent as a friend, 5 percent as a current romantic partner, and 13 percent as an ex-romantic partner. Forty-one percent said they had told someone about the most-serious incident, while 22 percent did not and 37 percent didn't answer. 

Only five percent of all student said they had been victims of unwanted sexual contact obtained "using physical force." For undergraduate women, this was at eight percent. Three percent of all students, including five percent of undergraduate women, said someone had used coercion or threats of physical force to perpetrate unwanted sexual contact. Four percent of all students, including six percent of undergraduate women, said they had been victims of unwanted sexual contact when they were "unable to provide consent or stop what was happening because (they) were passed out, drugged, drunk, incapacitated, or asleep." Throughout these questions, the type of unwanted sexual contact was not specified. 

So what have we really learned here? That one in four female undergrads experienced something between rape and catcalls before coming to Rutgers; one in five female Rutgers undergrads experienced something between forced vaginal penetration and unwanted kissing at the hands of another student-or-not-student, somewhere in the universe, since starting college; three percent of students were perhaps physically threatened, perhaps mildly pressured into sexual activity; and four percent of students have been subject to something between forced oral, vaginal, or anal penetration and an unwanted caress while they were either asleep, totally passed out, or had had a few beers. 

"Based on this experience, researchers from VAWC prepared a final report with recommendations to the White House Task force," the school states. In conjunction with releasing the survey, Rutgers announced the launch of a new campaign, "The Revolution Starts Here: End Sexual Violence Now."

Fundamental vagueness isn't the only fatal flaw of surveys like the one Rutgers conducted. As NPR points out, their opt-in nature—less than 30 percent of Rutgers-New Brunswick students took the survey—may skew participants towards those with personal experience with sexual assault. 

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

NEXT: Scott Walker's Pandering, Cringe-Worthy Presidential Campaign

Elizabeth Nolan Brown is a senior editor at Reason.

CultureRapeSex CrimesSexMoral PanicCampus Free Speech
Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL Add Reason to Google
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Show Comments (234)

Webathon 2025: Dec. 2 - Dec. 9 Thanks to 889 donors, we've reached $562,028 of our $400,000 $600,000 goal!

Reason Webathon 2023

All Donations NOW Being Matched! Donate Now

Latest

The Government Wants To Punish Orgasmic Meditation Defendants for Crimes They Weren't Charged With

Elizabeth Nolan Brown | 12.8.2025 12:11 PM

Hegseth Mulls Releasing a Video That Illustrates the Brutality of Trump's Murderous Anti-Drug Strategy

Jacob Sullum | 12.8.2025 10:00 AM

Final 40 Hours of Reason's Annual Fundraising Webathon Gets One Last $25,000 Matching Grant!

Matt Welch | 12.8.2025 9:45 AM

Boat Strike Inquiry

Liz Wolfe | 12.8.2025 9:30 AM

What Is Syria Like 1 Year After Its Revolution?

Matthew Petti | 12.8.2025 8:00 AM

Recommended

  • About
  • Browse Topics
  • Events
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Shop
  • Amazon
Reason Facebook@reason on XReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeApple PodcastsReason on FlipboardReason RSS Add Reason to Google

© 2025 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

r

HELP EXPAND REASON’S JOURNALISM

Reason is an independent, audience-supported media organization. Your investment helps us reach millions of people every month.

Yes, I’ll invest in Reason’s growth! No thanks
r

I WANT TO FUND FREE MINDS AND FREE MARKETS

Every dollar I give helps to fund more journalists, more videos, and more amazing stories that celebrate liberty.

Yes! I want to put my money where your mouth is! Not interested
r

SUPPORT HONEST JOURNALISM

So much of the media tries telling you what to think. Support journalism that helps you to think for yourself.

I’ll donate to Reason right now! No thanks
r

PUSH BACK

Push back against misleading media lies and bad ideas. Support Reason’s journalism today.

My donation today will help Reason push back! Not today
r

HELP KEEP MEDIA FREE & FEARLESS

Back journalism committed to transparency, independence, and intellectual honesty.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
r

STAND FOR FREE MINDS

Support journalism that challenges central planning, big government overreach, and creeping socialism.

Yes, I’ll support Reason today! No thanks
r

PUSH BACK AGAINST SOCIALIST IDEAS

Support journalism that exposes bad economics, failed policies, and threats to open markets.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
r

FIGHT BAD IDEAS WITH FACTS

Back independent media that examines the real-world consequences of socialist policies.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
r

BAD ECONOMIC IDEAS ARE EVERYWHERE. LET’S FIGHT BACK.

Support journalism that challenges government overreach with rational analysis and clear reasoning.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
r

JOIN THE FIGHT FOR FREEDOM

Support journalism that challenges centralized power and defends individual liberty.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
r

BACK JOURNALISM THAT PUSHES BACK AGAINST SOCIALISM

Your support helps expose the real-world costs of socialist policy proposals—and highlight better alternatives.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
r

STAND FOR FREEDOM

Your donation supports the journalism that questions big-government promises and exposes failed ideas.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
r

FIGHT BACK AGAINST BAD ECONOMICS.

Donate today to fuel reporting that exposes the real costs of heavy-handed government.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks