Kristen N Jozkowski & Jacquelyn D Wiersma‐Mosley. Family Relations. Volume 66, Issue 1, February 2017.
Approximately one in five women experiences sexual assault while in college (e.g., Fisher, Cullen, & Turner, 2000; Krebs, Lindquist, Warner, Fisher, & Martin, 2007). Research indicates that sexual victimization occurs at increased rates during fraternity parties (Grossbard, Geisner, Neighbors, Kilmer, & Larimer, 2007; McMahon, 2010) and after fraternity-sponsored functions in fraternity houses (Mohler-Kou, Dowdall, Koss, & Wechsler, 2004; Murnen & Kohlman, 2007). Minow and Einolf (2009) found that more than one-third of rapes reported on college campuses took place in a fraternity house. As compared to men who are not in fraternities, men who are in fraternities are also more likely to engage in sexually aggressive behaviors (Loh, Gidycz, Lobo, & Luthra, 2005; Murnen & Kohlman, 2007) and to endorse rape-supportive beliefs and attitudes (Boeringer, 1999; Boeringer, Shehan, & Akers, 1991; Canan, Jozkowski, & Crawford, 2016; Humphreys & Kahn, 2000). These findings suggest that fraternity subculture may be conducive to sexual violence against women and that specific venues such as parties and events hosted by fraternities represent spaces of high risk for the perpetration of sexual assault. We argue that fraternity culture, marked by “hooking up, sexual competition among brothers, and collective disrespect for women[,] make[s] fraternity rape a virtual inevitability” (Boyle, 2015, p. 386). In this article we focus on primarily White fraternities, which substantially outnumber historically Black fraternities in the United States. Notably, too, the available research documenting sexual violence within the Greek subculture in the United States tends to focus on primarily White fraternities. Most important, though, our discussion centers on axes of power on college campuses. Although we do not explore race as an axis of power in this article, racial hierarchy and power structures do exist. Thus, we have situated our focus on those with the most power on campus, which includes those in the racial majority—White men.
Using a framework of socialist feminism, we argue that institutional and sociocultural factors related to gender and class inequalities on college campuses are problematic and that they directly and indirectly contribute to the occurrence of sexual assault as well as an overall tolerance of a rape-supportive culture (Ray, 2013). We also argue that gender- and class-based discrimination and oppression occur in the university system generally but are magnified in Greek subculture (inclusive of fraternities and sororities). Such discrimination and oppression perpetuate both sexual assault and sexual assault supportive attitudes and beliefs.
Socialist feminism argues that women experience both gender and economic oppression as a result of living in a patriarchal society (Ehrenreich, 1976). Like other forms of feminism, socialist feminism aims to achieve equal rights for women with respect to political, economic, cultural, personal, and social spheres. However, socialist feminism focuses more specifically on the economic oppression of women, which exists as a function of gender-based oppression (Ehrenreich, 1976). Women’s economic dependency on men and the unequal balance of wealth between men and women substantially contributes to women being subordinate to men. We argue that economic parity across genders will bring economic liberation to women and that social, cultural, and political justice and equality will then be achievable.
We have situated our discussion around the role of Greek life at colleges and universities in the United States because primarily White Greek organizations, and the institutional systems with which they are affiliated, possess and perpetuate structural and cultural power on campus. Although in general both fraternities and sororities typically draw their membership from students of a higher socioeconomic status (Armstrong & Hamilton, 2013; DeSantis, 2007), the inherent gender inequity within the Greek system leads to male dominance and control over the university party culture (important currency in the college social scene), which in turn contributes to the occurrence and institutional acceptance of sexual assault (e.g., Armstrong, Hamilton, & Sweeney, 2006). The heterosexist culture perpetuated in the Greek system is also based on complementary gender expectations (see Tolman, 2006). As such, we demonstrate how gender- and class-based oppression underlie the social structure on college campuses and contribute to sexual assault; we discuss the fraternity subculture and emphasize how sorority subculture and even women who are unaffiliated with Greek life provide complementary support.
Partying, including alcohol consumption, is a dominant form of socialization among college students and is recognized as such by individuals who do and do not participate in partying (Armstrong et al., 2006). Using a socialist feminist lens, we discuss how social class dynamics result in elite men maintaining control over this predominate form of socializing (i.e., parties) at universities (e.g., Armstrong & Hamilton, 2013; Armstrong et al., 2006; DeSantis, 2007). Additionally, because universities allow for rules and considerations for Greek organizations that are not afforded to other student organizations, lines sometimes blur between Greeks and campus administration as authority figures (Armstrong & Hamilton, 2013); we therefore also discuss how universities implicitly support this form of male dominance and control. Finally, we provide recommendations for future policies and procedures regarding class and gender inequities designed to reduce sexual assault.
Patterns of Power and Control on Campus
Control of resources on college campuses is based on social class, power, and status. According to Piff, Stancato, Côté, Mendoza-Denton, and Keltner (2012), social class is defined as “an individual’s rank vis-à-vis others in society in terms of wealth, occupational prestige, and education” (p. 4086); individuals in the upper social class have an “elevated societal rank” (p. 4086). Underlying social hierarchical ranking are individuals’ power and status within society. According to Magee and Galinsky (2008), power is asymmetric control over resources in social relationships, whereas status includes feelings of respect and admiration from others within the society or social group. Individuals in a higher social class tend to have more power and greater status in a society. This may be a function of their access to “abundant resources” and “prestige” (Piff et al., 2012, p. 4086), which in turn perpetuates their societal rank, power, and social status. These factors are cyclical—abundant resources and prestige contribute to having higher social status and more power, which in turn creates opportunities to acquire more resources and perpetuate prestige.
Such a hierarchy can be observed on American university campuses with respect to how Greek life (i.e., membership in fraternities for men and sororities for women) functions in the context of the campus community. That is, those who are involved in Greek life generally have a higher social status on campus and as a result have more power and prestige (e.g., Armstrong & Hamilton, 2013; Chang, 2014). Socialist feminism argues that the unequal distribution of resources reinforces men’s positions of power and authority. Although sorority women are often more affluent (similar to fraternity men) than women who are unaffiliated with a sorority, on campus, sorority women do not possess the same level of power as fraternity men because they lack essential resources (Armstrong et al., 2006; Armstrong & Hamilton, 2013).
To articulate this point, let us first unpack important factors of contemporary Greek life. First, more than 725,000 college students are members of social Greek-letter organizations. At some universities, Greek participation reaches as high as 80% of the student population, although participation rates vary across campuses. Even on campuses in which a minority of students are involved in Greek life (15%–30%), Greek life may feel more present than it really is. This is because Greeks can have houses on or near campus that host parties, Greeks participate in pledging practices that sometimes require students to arrive on campus before the semester begins, and Greek rituals and practices (e.g., the pledging process, Greek sing, Greek formals) are noticeable, or even spectacles, on campus (e.g., women chanting outside sorority houses during rush week; large groups of individuals wearing rush T-shirts). Princeton University is one of the few universities that tracks demographic data on its own Greek system (see Princeton University Reports, 2011). According to those data, White and higher-income students are much more likely to join fraternities and sororities; although 41%–48% of the student body identifies as White and more than 60% graduated from private high schools, 95% of students involved in Greek life at Princeton are from the wealthiest quarter of Americans (see Chang, 2014).
The Costs of Going Greek
Greek life functions as an exclusive social group. Those who join Greek organizations must be able to pay their way in the organization in addition to other college-related expenses. Students pledging fraternities and sororities are expected to pay chapter dues, which can range from hundreds to over a thousand dollars, as well as new-member fees and social activity fees. Additionally, students are responsible for costs associated with room and board, which are often inflated in comparison to residence halls or nearby off-campus housing (DiGangi, 2015). These financial expectations stratify the student body such that only those in a higher socioeconomic status are well positioned to gain access to these social groups. Socialist feminism argues that the stratification of a system by social class (e.g., only the wealthy can access Greek life) and then by gender (e.g., fraternities and sororities) perpetuates women’s subordinate position in that system.
Although there is not a formal elimination process for those who are not as affluent, it becomes apparent to those pledging a Greek organization as well as to the membership gatekeepers whether a candidate will be capable of the financial expectations (see Armstrong & Hamilton, 2013). Having greater wealth certainly does not cause someone to commit sexual assault. However, “economic affluence fosters assumptions of privilege and a belief that those with privilege stand above (or outside) formal authority” (Martin, 2016, p. 34); fraternities stand both above and outside of formal authority, which increases their members’ propensity toward sexual violence.
The Power of the Party
In addition to disproportionately comprising wealthier students, fraternities are positioned to dominate the social scene via their ability to host parties, which contributes to the campus social scene. Through having access to houses on, adjacent to, or near campus, fraternities provide a venue for socializing and partying, particularly for students who are under the legal age to consume alcohol. This is particularly relevant to college students because college is considered a time for experimentation, which often includes partying, alcohol consumption, and engagement in sexual behavior (Kuperberg & Padgett, 2015). However, many university policies prohibit students from consuming alcohol on campus, leading them to seek out alternative venues for partying. Because student residence halls are not options for partying or other types of social and recreational activities, students, particularly those under the legal alcohol consumption age, may end up in unfamiliar spaces such as fraternity houses (Armstrong & Hamilton, 2013).
Fraternity parties are predominantly maledominated spaces, as men live in the houses that serve as the venue for the party and are therefore the party hosts (e.g., Armstrong et al., 2006; DeSantis, 2007). It is important to note the gender inequity evident in the Greek system that perpetuates this party scene. In general, sororities are prohibited from hosting mixed-gender parties with alcohol, thereby essentially ensuring that Greek-related recreational parties or socials occur in fraternity houses (Armstrong & Hamilton, 2013; Armstrong et al., 2006; DeSantis, 2007; Kimmel, 2008). Thus, these policies provide men in fraternities with a disproportionate amount of power with regard to partying. Further compounding this issue is an expectation for sororities to pair and socialize with fraternities (DeSantis, 2007). Indeed, one of the reasons both fraternities and sororities strive to acquire and maintain a favorable reputation on campus is to be paired with a desirable counterpart (DeSantis, 2007). As such, women in sororities are essentially expected to party with men in fraternities at fraternity houses. During these events, women are expected to look appealing and to act kind, engaging, and fun (e.g., DeSantis, 2007).
Controlling the Party
Because men in fraternities have the means to host parties, they also dictate and control important aspects of the party, such as themes, music, transportation, admission, and access to alcohol. As guests of fraternity parties, women “cede control of turf, transportation, and liquor” (Armstrong et al., 2006, p. 490) and are expected to be (or at least appear) “grateful for men’s hospitality,” which includes being nice and appeasing to the male hosts (p. 490). The notion that women are expected to be kind, grateful, and nice in ways that men are generally not expected to behave has been described by others as a general gender distinction (Martin, 2003; Phillips, 2000; Tolman, 2002). However, this dynamic seems magnified in the college culture, particularly in relation to partying at fraternity houses. Additionally, the themes men select for parties may be sexist or discriminatory in nature (see Armstrong et al., 2006).
Other ways that fraternities control the party scene include policing the entrance to their parties and allowing in only those whom they want in (e.g., first-year women) and restricting access to those whom they do not want (e.g., unaffiliated men; Armstrong et al., 2006). Such practices make it easier for fraternity men to “target” women (Flack et al., 2008; Kimble, Neacsiu, Flack, & Horner, 2008).
Another example of fraternities’ control over the party scene includes sexist behavior in which women are used as “bait” for recruiting new members and as “servers of brothers needs and as sexual prey” (Martin & Hummer, 1989, p. 221). In his multiple-year study of Greek life, DeSantis (2007) found that both men in fraternities and women in sororities discussed social situations in which the women orchestrated specific events and activities to serve and perform for men. Specifically, he found that “at virtually every institution of higher education in the United States, fraternities sponsor activities, usually under the guise of a fundraiser, aimed at getting women to perform for them” (DeSantis, 2007, p. 69). Examples he provided include beauty pageants, talent shows, cheerleading competitions, and dance contests. Some of these activities are inherently sexist in nature, and having woman perform and men judge further contributes to the gender discrepancy celebrated in Greek life.
It is important to note that women in sororities are not passive participants in these events; many actively agree to sexually exploit themselves at the behest of men (DeSantis, 2007). This is a complicated set of circumstances, however. If a sorority were to refuse participation in such events (e.g., where its members serve or perform for men under the auspices of a fund-raiser), they run the risk of fraternities reacting negatively—for example, not wanting to pair with them for socials. This could negatively affect the sorority’s reputation and decrease its members’ social status on campus.
According to DeSantis (2007), women seem well aware of the subordinate position these activities place them in, although they do not appear to register the effects or impact: “Sadly, these women have learned that there is no substitute for inviting sexuality” and therefore “women end up playing the age-old flirtation game to receive the positive attention from men that they so covet” (p. 71). With men in the position of power with regard to partying, in order for women (sorority and unaffiliated) to participate in this dominate form of socialization they have little choice but to respond by ascribing to their complementary gender role as submissive and subservient; this is especially true for women in sororities. Because of their subordinate role in Greek life, women in sororities end up walking a “cognitive tightrope” (Norris, Nurius, & Dimeff, 1996), as they need to mitigate potentially risky party situations by diligently protecting themselves, often without even fully conceptualizing the guard they maintain (see Armstrong et al., 2006; DeSantis, 2007). Because of this, women in sororities may tolerate sexually aggressive or violent behavior perpetrated by men in fraternities. Indeed, women in sororities are four times more likely to experience sexual assault than women who are not affiliated, even when controlling for alcohol consumption and attending fraternity parities with alcohol (Minow & Einolf, 2009).
Sorority culture generally expects women to be complicit and not affected by such violent or aggressive behavior from men in fraternities. In fact, during focus groups with women in sororities, DeSantis (2007) reported that many women disclosed experiences of sexual assault, rape, attempted rape, and/or situations in which “men will not take no for an answer” (p. 99). He remarked that the women seemed to feel “unarticulated anger” (p. 102) in response to the frequent sexual violence, harassment, and coercion they reported experiencing from fraternity men. This anger was not directed at the men, however, but more often at themselves. “Clearly, they [the women] are pissed as hell that they are left to carry the burden of rape while their rapists get to walk around like Mr. Popular. But why aren’t they articulating that anger? Why are they still talking to their assailants ‘like nothing happened’?” (p. 102). In other words, why are the women not angry at the men? Subsequently, DeSantis deduced that women are constrained by their traditional gender roles; simply put, they are not allowed to get angry: “Cultural expectations of appropriate female behavior leave women no option but to feel sadness and guilt, however undeserved. Nice girls don’t get angry. Anger is for men” (p. 102). This behavior is, in turn, kept in check by women’s fellow sorority sisters. That is, if a particular woman in a sorority were to get angry, allege that she had been sexually assaulted by a man in a fraternity (particularly a fraternity that the sorority pairs with), or “shame herself” in some other way (e.g., by admitting she had consumed alcohol and passed out, at which time a man in a fraternity raped her), she runs the risk of being socially ostracized and reprimanded by her sorority sisters (DeSantis, 2007). Indeed, sororities have peer-run judicial boards (or J-boards) to keep women’s behaviors in line (DeSantis, 2007). So even among the women who dissent, there is still the expectation to tow the “party line” by rationalizing that “frat boys are jerks” and “boys will be boys.” As a result, some women in sororities discourage their sisters from reporting sexual assault because of the potential repercussions for their house within the larger Greek community.
The same mentality is likely applied to situations like rape-supportive signage (e.g., “Freshmen Daughter Drop Off”), chants (e.g., “No Means Yes; Yes Means Anal”), and party themes (e.g., golf pros and tennis hos) in which women in sororities often fail to speak out against and sometimes passively (or actively) participate in. Again, because fraternities control the party scene, an essential social currency among Greeks, women in sororities are often forced into a place where they have little choice but to play along in order to avoid being socially ostracized. Although this may be shifting, as women have been gaining a stronger voice to speak out against such acts of sexism, historical practices, beliefs, and traditions are so deeply ingrained in Greek life and culture that some women may not even realize why it is problematic, and those who do may want to avoid “rocking the boat.” These factors create a dynamic in the Greek microcosm of universities in which powerful individuals join Greek organizations, and in turn, power is maintained and even increased through membership in Greek organizations. This is especially true and relevant for fraternities as compared to sororities, given the gender inequity that women face more generally in American culture, as well as through the rules and practices put in place by national and local sorority chapters.
The Greek System and Rape Culture
The male-dominated party atmosphere associated with the Greek system contributes to occurrences of sexual assault as well as a rape-supportive culture. We synthesize peer-reviewed literature to describe elements of contemporary American culture that serve to perpetuate gender and class privilege on college campuses. We then deconstruct the patterns of power and control in the Greek system, housed within the larger university system, and articulate how they contribute to the occurrence and facilitation of sexual assault.
Underlying Male Dominance
Despite an upward shift in the ratio of female to male students graduating from universities in the United States, upper-level university administration (e.g., presidents, deans) remains largely male dominated, with a disproportionate number of men serving in such positions of power (Cook, 2012; Huang, 2015; White, McDade, Yamagata, & Morahan, 2012). The gender discrepancy in high-ranking positions at universities certainly does not cause sexual violence against women; however, it does establish a backdrop of institutional sexism and a context of patriarchal control at the administration level, which complements the sexism and patriarchal control that occurs at the student level in the party culture. The underlying male dominance of both administration and party culture likely affect other factors that contribute to gender-based inequality on campus.
Although it is not causal, underlying male dominance is associated with sexual violence. Johnson (2014) found that counties in the United States in which women gain sociopolitical power also experience higher rates of sexual violence and fewer arrests of perpetrators. In patriarchal societies, women increasingly pose a threat to men as their power increases. In response, men use “formal and informal methods of social control (including the act of rape and the neglect of rape cases) to counter the growing threat posed by women” (Johnson, 2014, p. 1123). At the university level, one could argue that as women gain more power on campuses (via an increased number of female undergraduate and graduate students, the emergence of women and feminist-centric groups), they threaten men’s position. Because men, and men in fraternities in particular, currently maintain positions of power, they may fear losing some power to women. According to Johnson (2014), men react to this perceived loss of power by exercising their dominance through rape or rape-supportive actions.
Johnson’s (2014) arguments are consistent with the feminist conceptualization of rape as men exerting power over women in patriarchal societies to maintain gender imbalances. Consider that “No Means Yes; Yes Means Anal” was a pledge chant by a Yale University fraternity in 2010 and was posted on signs created by different fraternities at Texas Tech University and Louisiana State University in 2014. These statements demonstrate threatening behavior conducive of a rape-supportive culture (Franklin, 2008) and speak to perhaps some men’s attempts to threaten and control women in ways that resonate with Johnson’s (2014) arguments.
We appreciate that this is a complex and largely theoretical argument. Indeed, we do not intend to argue that men who sexually assault women on college campuses consciously do so to maintain their positions of power and authority. Instead, we argue that this dynamic (i.e., underlying male dominance facilitated by a male-controlled party culture) acts as a backdrop to gender and class inequality that then perpetuates a rape-supportive system via male-dominated spaces like fraternities, and this is reinforced via the male peer support model (MPSM; Schwartz & DeKeseredy, 1997). The MPSM, built on social learning theory (Bandura, 1969), suggests that in all-male peer groups, social support that men provide to one another helps them mitigate anxiety-inducing situations, especially those involving women. However, this system can (and does) become problematic, according to Schwartz and DeKeseredy (1997), when men endorse adverse beliefs about women as a mechanism to reduce this anxiety. The types of support, in turn, result in “confidence and encouragement that dealing with women in abusive ways is socially appropriate” (Franklin, Bouffard, & Pratt, 2012, p. 1459).
Attitudes, Beliefs, and Behaviors of Fraternity Members
Nowhere is the brotherhood of men more powerful and intense, the bonding more intimate, or the culture of protection more evident than among fraternity members (Kimmel, 2008). Compared to men who are not in fraternities, men who are in fraternities endorse more traditional attitudes toward women (Murnen & Kohlman, 2007), have stronger beliefs of male dominance (Murnen, Wright, & Kaluzny, 2003), are more likely to be sexually coercive (Foubert, Newberry, & Tatum, 2007; Murnen & Kohlman, 2007), are more likely to use alcohol in an attempt to have sex with women (Boeringer et al., 1991), are more likely to be involved in gang rapes on college campuses (e.g., more than half of all gang rapes on college campuses are committed by fraternity men; O’Sullivan, 1991), are more likely to ascribe to rape myths (i.e., false beliefs about rape that tend to legitimize rape; Bannon, Brosi, & Foubert, 2013; Canan et al., 2016), and are more likely to endorse rape-supportive attitudes (Bleecker & Murnen, 2005; Boeringer, 1999). According to Bannon et al. (2013), “acceptance of rape myths leads to the creation of a male-dominated ideology where female victims are often blamed for sexual assaults” (p. 75). Spaces that lack egalitarian views of men and women lead to male-dominated ideology, the development of a “rape-prone society” (Bannon et al., 2013), and the mentality that women are at fault for their own rape and that male aggression should be celebrated (Sanday, 1996).
Bleecker and Murnen (2005) found that the presence of objectifying images was statistically associated with men’s endorsement of rape myths. Compared to men who are unaffiliated with fraternities, fraternity men are more likely to possess objectifying images of women and sexist cultural artifacts (e.g., life-size inflatable dolls; DeKeseredy & Schwartz, 1998) and use degrading sexual language to refer to women’s bodies (Bleecker & Murnen, 2005; Murnen, 2000). Additionally, individuals who were the object of extreme degradation were viewed as less likable, unintelligent, and legitimate targets of sexual assault (Murnen, 2000).
Although it is certainly problematic and concerning that men endorse such beliefs and participate in degrading activities, these ideals likely are reinforced though groupthink (Janis, 1972) and are passed on from older members to new pledges. Boswell and Spade (1996) concluded that fraternity men consider themselves brothers and women as outsiders, and DeSantis (2007) found that equal treatment of women is highly discouraged. DeSantis highlighted several examples in which hypermasculinity, acts of violence, and degradation and objectification of women are used to bond brothers. Schwartz and DeKeseredy (1997) argued that peer-group members in homogeneous groups, such as fraternities, learn to degrade and objectify women by viewing them as sexual conquests and by attempting to coerce women into sex in order to bolster their own reputation. According to Kimmel (2008, p. 219): “The Guy Code insists that men get as much sex as they can … Getting drunk, and getting her drunk, is seen as foreplay—whatever happens after that has already been declared consensual.” A well-articulated example of this can be seen in the “Gullet Report,” a mechanism for tracking the number of women with whom men in a University of Southern California fraternity allegedly engaged in sexual activity. An e-mail, allegedly written by a member of that fraternity, described the purpose of the “Gullet Report”: to “strengthen brotherhood and help pin-point sorostitutes more inclined to putout … Note, I will refer to females as ‘targets.’ They aren’t actual people like us men[,] … giving them a certain name or distinction is pointless” (Jozkowski, 2015b).
Given some of the offensive behaviors engaged in by fraternity men, one might wonder whether fraternities create and perpetuate opportunities for such behavior, or whether men with a propensity toward such attitudes and behaviors are more inclined to join fraternities. Although not a direct answer to that query, a study found that men who join fraternities were no different from those who did not join in terms of propensity to have committed sexual assault, but 8.0% of those who joined had committed at least one act of sexual assault by the end of their first academic year in college, compared to 2.5% of those who had not joined (Foubert et al., 2007). Thus, there is something about fraternity culture that either attracts men who are more prone to committing sexual assault when circumstances allow them to or that cultivates this mentality in men, or both. This is not surprising given that men who participate in all-male peer groups, like fraternities, sometimes endorse groupthink behaviors and beliefs that legitimize sexual assault. As previously mentioned, Schwartz and DeKeseredy (1997) identified this as the male peer support model, which contributes to fraternity men endorsing rape-supportive attitudes that lead to rape as well as supporting the attitudinal and behavioral climate (e.g., secrecy, loyalty, hiding rape) that contributes to underreporting and victim blaming. Because men in fraternities endorse rape-supportive attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors, and certain men strongly associate and identify with fraternities, such attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors are seen as socially appropriate and further reinforced when they are rewarded. On the basis of social learning theory (Bandura, 1969), if a fraternity member engages in behavior that degrades women, and is praised for it by his fellow members, especially by those in positions of authority or leadership in the fraternity, the peer group has reinforced such behavior as good, and it is likely the case that men in the fraternity will continue to engage in it. Similarly, if such acts are not punished or go unchecked by campus administration, men learn that they can get away with this behavior. At Louisiana State University, for example, the dean of students stated that the display of “no means yes; yes means anal” signage was not in violation of the student code of conduct, although he did admit that the behavior was wrong and unacceptable. We argue that such rape-supportive behaviors do violate Title IX because they create a threatening environment that impedes education. Presenting such images in an all-male group might bond the members of the group through this problematic set of shared values and encourage a view of women that perpetuates sexual assault. The university’s inaction further perpetuates this by leaving the problematic behavior unchecked (Kimmel, 2008).
Reinforcing the Male Peer Support Model
Fraternities create a space conducive of rape via their privilege on campus, and the entire cycle is kept in check because of the expectations among college students to party. Partying in and of itself is not inherently problematic. However, it can be when one group has disproportionate power of and control over this dominant aspect of social life on campus. As such, fraternity culture is allowed to be maintained because it offers a venue for partying, which is an important resource on campus.
Unfortunately, the endorsement of party culture and the desire of college students to party also infringes on people’s ability to acknowledge the problems associated with the fraternity-dominated party culture, particularly as it relates to sexual assault. As Armstrong et al. (2006) noted, “Finding fault with the party scene potentially threatens meaningful identities and lifestyles” (p. 492). If college students, and in particular women, acknowledge that rape could be an outcome of the party scene, then there is a loss of identity. Instead, “the most common way that students—both women and men—account for the harm that befalls women in the party scene is by blaming the victim. By attributing bad experiences to women’s mistakes, students avoid criticizing the party scene or men’s behavior within it” (p. 493). In general, if people criticize the party scene because of the inherent gender discrimination or because it contributes to occurrences of sexual assault, they will alienate themselves from the visible, active social life on campus. If rape occurs as a result of the victim’s behaviors, there is nothing flawed with the party system. This leads not only to endorsement of victim blaming by party attenders and fraternity men but also potentially to self-blame by women who experience sexual assault, all of which discourages women from reporting.
According to the male peer support model, deviant behavior can be explained by peer groups that reinforce such behaviors. If fraternities reinforce coercive tactics by establishing that men’s reputations are based on the number of women from whom they acquire sex (DeSantis, 2007), as well as other degrading and sexist acts, it is no surprise that they would in turn try to shift blame to women for experiences of sexual assault. For example, Seccuro (2011) wrote about her account of experiencing sexual assault in the 1980s at the University of Virginia. In her account she described how adult men who were fraternity alumni, some of whom likely personally witnessed the rape or aftermath of the rape, continued to maintain a code of secrecy 22 years after she was sexually assaulted by multiple men after likely being drugged at a fraternity party. In her account, a fraternity member, who eventually came forward, indicated that the morning after the gang rape occurred in 1983, the fraternity held a meeting to discuss mechanisms to mitigate potential repercussions and engage legal assistance. Not only does silence among men in fraternities perpetuate sexual assault occurrences; it also protects them from responsibility. Intense pressure to remain silent ensures that there will be no whistle-blowers or witnesses (Kimmel, 2008). This dynamic provides a cushion of support for those who already feel a sense of entitlement (Jozkowski, 2016; Kimmel, 2008; Krakauer, 2015). These dynamics create a culture conducive to rape.
Support from the Outside
Finally, it is important to acknowledge how factors outside the university, such as wealthy donor alumni and politicians, influence implementation of university rules and policies to privilege men and dismiss victims. As Cornell’s official website states, although only 2% of America’s population is involved in fraternities, 80% of Fortune 500 executives, 76% of U.S. senators and congressmen, 85% of Supreme Court justices, and all but two presidents since 1825 have been in fraternities (Chang, 2014). Thus, when the majority of those with financial and political power are Greek affiliated, it stands to reason there will be an impact on how universities respond. Although the Interfraternity Council (IFC) does not publish statistics on Greeks, we do know that fraternity and sorority alumni represent the “largest sector of lifetime donors to colleges, four times more than non-Greeks, and thus have a firm grip on university politics” (see Chang, 2014).
We can see this power extend into the political realm. Recently, Representative Pete Sessions (Texas), a Pi Kappa Alpha alum, authored legislation (Safe Campus Act) to enhance protections for students accused of sexual assault, and to block colleges from investigating rape claims if the alleged victim did not report it to police (Kingkade, 2015). With those in some of the highest positions of power being disproportionately Greek affiliated, universities may have little motivation to regulate Greek life, thus supporting rape culture.
Moving Forward: Addressing Fraternity-induced Sexual Violence
Universities contribute to pro-rape spaces via gender and class inequity, which perpetuates unequal distributions of resources, power, and social status. Sexual assault is a likely outcome of the “synergistic intersection” of myriad factors stemming from these inequities. Armstrong et al. (2006) summarize:
The concentration of homogenous students with expectations of partying fosters the development of sexualized peer cultures organized around status. Residential arrangements intensify students’ desires to party in male-controlled fraternities. Cultural expectations that partygoers drink heavily and trust party-mates becomes problematic when combined with expectations that women be nice and defer to men. (p. 484)
Something important and necessary is missing from this synergistic interaction of factors to enact change: feminism. We argue that integrating a feminist-oriented praxis built on increasing sexual assault and sexual consent research and education, shifting problematic campus culture, and altering and removing oppressive systems and infrastructure can help change rape culture and reduce rape.
Holding Universities Accountable
First, universities need to more thoroughly comply with current regulations designed to accurately report occurrences of sexual assault. The Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act (Clery Act) requires universities to publicly report sexual assault statistics; however, only 37% of universities report in a manner that complies with the act (Karjane, Fisher, & Cullen, 2002; Yung, 2015). Given that underreporting of sexual assault to university officials is commonplace, additional research should be conducted to examine sexual assault on campuses. There should be consistent sexual assault policies across campuses and states that address, at a minimum, issues of reporting incidents of sexual assault, consent and rape definitions, privacy issues, confidentiality, and punishment. The White House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault (2014) recommended that universities conduct “campus climate” surveys so that universities better understand the specific climate of their individual campus with respect to sexual assault and safety. We advocate that university administrators partner with academic researchers, specifically feminist researchers who study gender and sexual violence, to better understand the climate on their campus. Researchers could add to the existing databases of data on campus climate (e.g., Administrator Researcher Campus Climate Consortium, or ARC3; Association of American Universities; Higher Education Data Sharing Consortium) to track the number of cases of sexual assault experienced at all universities, the outcome of those cases, the punishment (if any), appeals to potential decisions (on the part of the accused or alleged victim), and the demographic characteristics of the students involved (e.g., Greek affiliation, specific Greek organization). These data could be used to better understand how schools, the Greek system at the university, and specific Greek houses can best address sexual violence and rape-supportive attitudes and beliefs. Tailored and evidence-based sexual assault prevention programming could then be developed for individual campuses and for specific Greek organizations.
In addition to complying with the Clery Act, there are certain rules universities should abide by when dealing with Title IX issues. It is difficult to determine whether universities abide by these rules, and little is known about how universities operate logistically in this context, as the processes tend to vary by campus. In terms of student conduct boards and appeal panels, no aggregate record exists of who hears sexual assault cases and meets with victims and perpetrators. If student conduct boards or appellate bodies are homogeneous, privileged-based biases may interfere with their decisions. Instead, we advocate for diversity within these boards and panels. The level of knowledge and understanding that people serving on these boards and panels have with respect to campus sexual violence is also unclear. In any case, mandatory training sessions for those handling cases should be implemented, especially given that 30% of universities do not train hearing panel members (DeMatteo, Galloway, Arnold, & Patel, 2015). Specifically, trainings should focus on dispelling common rape myths, elucidating common victim behavior (e.g., not initially characterizing nonconsensual or forced sex as rape), and highlighting gender imbalances and privilege that can contribute to sexual violence. Equipping board members and panels with this information would help to reduce bias among panelists. Academic institutions should also provide trauma-informed training to personnel who receive and adjudicate reports of sexual assault so they are better equipped to speak with victims of sexual violence (DeMatteo et al., 2015). Additionally faculty and staff should be compensated for the time they invest in these efforts.
Equity in Title IX
Armstrong et al. (2006) argued that education should be accompanied by reinforced changes in the social organization of student life and sociocultural dynamics that influence students (Canan et al., 2016; Donat & White, 2000; Jozkowski, 2015a). In that vein, universities need to address how privilege operates in their campus culture. With respect to the Title IX process, the Clery Act requires that universities provide fair and equal justice in cases of sexual misconduct. However, only 3% of universities report providing victims with legal support, such as access to legal services, a lawyer, or even a law student clinic (e.g., Karjane et al., 2002; McMahon, 2008). If the economic resources of some students (i.e., women) limit their ability to act on legal options (e.g., hiring a lawyer), then one problem has been traded for another (see Konradi, 2016). With this, men in fraternities are structurally positioned to be able to fight the system. In addition to fraternity men’s power and social status on campus facilitating their role in sexual assault, the issue of wealthier men being able to hire attorneys to assist in the adjudication process further helps certain men circumvent the system after being accused. To level these power dynamics, free legal support should be made available for victims of sexual assault as well as the accused.
Empowerment and Education
Cultural shifts are necessary to combat the institutionalized gender inequity and privilege on campus that we have discussed. Universities need to promote women into visible administrative positions. Women need to be seen as authority figures and to be included in university policy decision processes. In addition to helping balance the visible landscape of power and control on campus, this will also provide opportunities for women’s perspectives to be included in important campus decisions.
Universities can also empower women and men through comprehensive sex education, although it is equally important—if not more—for this education to begin before students even arrive on campus. It is imperative that programming focus on educating students about the patriarchal notions of men and women’s sexual desires, needs, and perceptions of “normal” heterosexual beliefs (Gavey, 2005). Putting women’s positive sexual desires at the center of education tells women that their sexuality is valuable and worth pursuing (Senn, Gee, & Thake, 2011), which helps combat victim blaming. If women and men are taught that there is value in women’s sexuality, derogatory terms like slut and whore may dissipate from our vocabulary.
Although our focus has been specifically on male-dominated fraternities, it should be noted that most men, in fact, the majority of men, do not sexually assault women (Lisak & Miller, 2002; Strang, Peterson, Hill, & Heiman, 2013), but many men also do nothing to stop it (Kimmel, 2008). As Kimmel (2008) described in Guyland, men who do not commit but who witness or are aware of sexual assault are not innocent, because perpetrators could not assault women without the silence of other men. Thus, Kimmel suggested that campuses need to empower these silent men to disable perpetrators and to educate men about ethics, courage, and compassion as bystanders
Remove Structures of Power
Another recommendation some have made (e.g., Armstrong et al., 2006; Canan et al., 2016) is to dismantle structures that reinforce rape on college campuses, such as the existence of fraternities. However, this seems unlikely given the enormous amount of power Greek organizations wield, as described previously. For now, universities need to regulate Greek organizations— especially fraternities—more closely because they are allowed too much freedom; no other student groups on campus are afforded such freedoms (Armstrong & Hamilton, 2013). Universities should limit the control that fraternities have with respect to partying by pushing the national organizations that regulate sororities to permit sororities to host social parties. We also recommend that the organizations charged with cooperative initiatives across fraternities and sororities (e.g., the North-American Interfraternity and National Panhellenic Conference) change their regulations to allow for sororities to host mixed-gender parties with alcohol. Universities house Greek organizations, and therefore they should exercise more authority. Egalitarian party regulations would allow women to have access and control over their own resources, and women would no longer be subjugated to only the maledominated party culture.
Additionally, holding fraternities accountable for their actions can also help shift the culture. Sanctioning fraternity men by taking away scholarships or housing privileges, expulsion, and even more extreme measures such as banning fraternities from college campuses altogether could be impetus for change (Martin, 2016). As Jozkowski (2015b) argued, entire fraternities need to be held accountable for such changes to really take hold. Arguments that “one or two bad apples” are to blame should not be tolerated. Administrators on campus have the power to reduce sexual assault by removing problem houses, particularly given that research indicates that a majority of on-campus rapes occur in Greek houses (between 32% and 47%; Minow & Einolf, 2009).
Conclusions
In practice, not much happens to men (Greek or unaffiliated) who are found responsible for sexual misconduct according to Title IX. They may be expelled from the university (at worst), but they can enroll at another university. For example, a male student was accused of raping another student at one university, so he transferred to another university and 11 months later was accused of raping yet another student (Daly, 2014). Another male student was found guilty of raping a woman at the university they both attended, but only served a three-month sentence (Cleary, 2016). Men in these cases are sometimes perceived as victims, as public opinion is influenced by men’s privilege on college campuses (Jozkowski, 2016). Such rhetoric suggests that getting accused of perpetrating sexual assault is more traumatizing than being a victim of sexual violence. This is a troubling juxtaposition, as rape can be highly traumatizing; according to Kilpatrick, Best, Veronen, Villeponteaux, and Amick-McMullan (1986), rape is more stressful and has more persistent effects over time than experiencing war, torture, or robbery. When parents, teachers, administrators, and city officials make the decision to look away, to dismiss sexual assault as “poor judgment,” or “something that got out of hand,” then the community becomes a bubble that protects “their guys.” Educating about the severity of sexual assault for victims is thus clearly warranted.
We have attempted to deconstruct the connections between socioeconomic status, manifested via Greek life, power, and privilege on campus, and its interactional influence on sexual assault. Unfortunately, this problem is complex, rooted deeply in campus norms, and perpetuated within a power structure that is built on preserving the system and those in power. It seems that for universities to change their policies and practices, there has to be some watershed moment to serve as an impetus for changing the system. Where to attend college is one of the most critical decisions that many young Americans make. With the recent national recognition of sexual violence and political mobilization toward prevention, perhaps we are approaching that moment. If students start selecting their university not by the best sports team or the most beautiful location, but by the way sexual violence and victims of sexual assault are treated on campus and the resources available to victims (see Glass, 2013), then perhaps universities will be forced to shift their culture, their climate, their policies, and their response.