Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-27gpq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-28T12:20:59.259Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter Seven - The Legacy of Claimsmakers

Institutionalizing the Dark Side of the Ivory Tower

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2012

John J. Sloan III
Affiliation:
University of Alabama, Birmingham
Bonnie S. Fisher
Affiliation:
University of Cincinnati
Get access

Summary

We want to briefly discuss a central presumption of the Clery Act – that students have a right to know about crime on campuses because [institutions of higher education] are potentially dangerous places. To a degree, it is difficult to argue against students having more knowledge about the safety risks of the [schools] that they are attending or may choose to attend. However, using the law to address social problems…is not cost free. It is burdensome on the [schools] to have to implement an unfunded mandate that requires them to collect crime statistics…and to publish and distribute annual security reports. In this regard, it seems reasonable to place the Clery Act in an appropriate social context about whether college and university campuses are, in fact, sufficiently dangerous places to warrant legislatively mandated oversight.

The social construction of campus crime as a new American social problem began during the late 1980s and into the 1990s with claims made by four groups: Security On Campus, Inc. (SOC); campus feminists; student crime victims and their families; and public health researchers. Collectively, their claims created a damning picture of the “new reality” of the dark side of the ivory tower. Each group claimed ownership of a particular aspect of the campus crime problem and legitimatized ownership of that component. With the help of electronic and print media, each group spread its message to the public about the problem it had identified. Eventually, each group had its claims institutionalized, and through individual and collective efforts, the legislative and judicial branches of government established new mandates and rulings designed to attack the problems of violence, vice, and victimization on college campuses. Administrators at postsecondary institutions responded, in turn, by implementing new campus-based policies or programs aimed at complying with the mandates.

Claims about crime occurring on American college and university campuses and the spread of these claims occurred despite historical evidence showing that violence, vice, and victimization had existed on American college and university campuses for nearly 300 years. Yet, within two decades, four activist groups had convinced not only the parents of college-age children but the American public as well that campus crime was a “new and dangerous threat” to the health, safety, and well-being of millions of American college-age students. As the public demanded action, state legislatures and then Congress became involved and created new policy mandates concerning how higher education would respond to the “new” problem of campus crime.

Type
Chapter
Information
The Dark Side of the Ivory Tower
Campus Crime as a Social Problem
, pp. 181 - 200
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Fisher, Bonnie S.Hartman, JenniferCullen, Francis T.Turner, MichaelMaking Campuses Safer for Students: The as Symbolic Legal ReformStetson Law Review 31 2002 79Google Scholar
Hamrick, Florence A.Evans, Nancy J.Schur, John H.Foundations of Student Affairs Practice: How Philosophy, Theory, and Research Strengthen Educational OutcomesSan FranciscoJossey-Bass 2002Google Scholar
Fisher, Bonnie S.Sloan, John J.Campus Crime: Legal, Social, and Policy PerspectivesSpringfield, ILCharles C. Thomas 1995
Best, JoelRandom Violence: How We Talk about New Crimes and New VictimsBerkeleyUniversity of California Press 1999Google Scholar
Baum, KatrinaKlaus, PatsyViolent Victimization of College Students, 1995–2002Washington, DCU.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs 2005Google Scholar
Lynch, James P.Addington, Lynne A.Understanding Crime Statistics: Revisiting the Divergence of the NCVS and UCRCambridgeCambridge University Press 2007Google Scholar
Fisher, Bonnie S.Sloan, John J.Campus Crime: Legal, Social, and Policy PerspectivesSpringfield, ILCharles C. Thomas 2007Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×