Accreditors & policymakers can protect students of color, promote institutional accountability, & enhance hatecrime reporting by encouraging colleges to improve their campus racial climates.
September 23, 2024 by Michael Grigsby 
In 2017, the racially motivated murder of Richard Collins III, Black student at the University of Maryland, and the discovery of swastika drawings at Stanford University highlighted a disturbing trend: Hate crimes on college campuses have been rising, particularly against students of color. An EdTrust analysis of hate crime statistics from 2015 to 2021 found that while hate crimes don’t solely target racial minority groups, a significant majority are motivated by the victim’s perceived or actual race or ethnicity.
Since then, things have only gotten worse. Recent FBI data shows reported hate crimes nearly doubled between 2018 and 2022, and hate crimes against LGBTQ+ students are surging in states that passed restrictive laws against LGBTQ+ student rights and education. We’ve also seen a rise in Islamophobia and antisemitism across college campuses in recent months.
It’s an alarming picture, but an incomplete one. Although laws require colleges and universities to report and publicize hate crime data annually, many institutions fail to accurately represent the prevalence of these crimes on their campuses, and the data is unreliable. The reasons for this are complex.
Insufficient trust in hate crime reporting systems among students of color, inadequate support structures, and fear of retaliation contribute to the widespread issue of underreporting of hate crimes on college campuses. With improved reporting mechanisms and more detailed information and data about the classification of hate crimes, institutions could better support victims of hate crimes. Institutions must do more. And institutional accreditors, which evaluate and ensure the quality and standards of higher education institutions and programs, must also play a crucial role.
In this blog, we highlight how institutional accreditors and policymakers can help protect students of color, promote institutional accountability, and enhance hate crime data reporting by encouraging universities to improve their campus racial climates. We also provide questions that readers should consider when evaluating hate crimes data. In an accompanying PDF, we’ll also examine Clery Act data and explore how hate crime statistics vary among postsecondary institutions by accreditor and identify which motivating variables and types of crimes are most prevalent in hate crime incidents. By pushing universities to improve reporting mechanisms and transparency, accreditors and policymakers can help ensure the safety of all students.
Originally named after Lehigh University student, Jeanne Clery, who was murdered in her dorm in 1986, the Clery Act was designed to make colleges more transparent about instances of crime and hold them accountable for the safety of students on campus. Since 1990, the Clery Act has required higher education institutions to track and report detailed data about crimes on campus, including hate crimes, which are defined as criminal offenses motivated by bias against the victim’s race, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, religion, gender, gender identity, and disability. Indicators of hate crimes include the offender and victim having differing identities, the use of hate speech, hate symbols, or the victim’s identity being marginalized during the incident; however, it can be hard to prove that a crime was motivated by bias or hatred.
Colleges must provide ways for students to report hate crimes, usually through online forms. Students can also report incidents to campus or local police, who then inform the university. Reported hate crime statistics are compiled into an Annual Security Report and shared with the campus community, accreditor, and the U.S. Department of Education via the Campus Safety and Security Survey; however, the data is self-reported, and the department does not verify it independently. This data is made publicly available on the Campus Safety and Security Statistics website and College Navigator.
A recent EdTrust report on campus racial climates found that students of color lack trust in hate crime reporting systems and believe on-campus support structures are inadequate. These factors, along with students’ lack of trust in institutional leadership and local law enforcement’s ability to handle reports properly and fear of retaliation for reporting likely contribute to the underreporting and inaccurate publication of the true number of hate crimes occurring on college campuses each year.
It’s evident from this analysis that a more thorough examination of national, accreditor-level, and state-level hate crime data for colleges and universities could yield a fuller understanding of hate crime patterns in different regions. But looking at numbers alone doesn’t tell the full story. We encourage readers to consider:
This issue of underreporting was on full display recently at Liberty University, which was investigated for systematically underreporting crime statistics, a clear violation of the Clery Act’s requirements. Liberty University markets itself as an extremely safe campus, but the U.S. Department of Education found that staff at the university discouraged students from filing crime reports and failed to retain basic documentation about crimes committed on campus.
It’s likely that Liberty University isn’t the only institution failing to disclose and/or investigate all crimes, including hate crimes. There is growing concern among experts that institutions may be undercounting campus crimes and/or discouraging students from filing reports. This could give prospective students a false perception that an institution is safer than it is and may also deter student crime victims from reporting incidents, out of a fear of retaliation or harassment from campus leadership or other students. In fact, data from the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) shows that between 40-50% of violent and non-violent hate crimes go unreported to police.
Anti-diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), anti-critical race theory (CRT), and anti-LGBTQ+ policy attacks may be exacerbating underreporting. Efforts to dismantle DEI initiatives can create a campus environment in which marginalized students feel even less supported and more vulnerable. This can further discourage them from reporting hate crimes. In 2023, EdTrust published an interactive map of anti-DEI efforts on college campuses across the U.S. that shows that attacks on DEI and under-represented student populations have been getting worse each year. In light of this, we encourage researchers to examine more recent data and trends to better understand their impact on student safety and hate crime reporting.
EdTrust also recently took a closer look at campus hate crime rates by state. From 2015 to 2021, New York and California reported the highest number of hate crimes, followed by Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Ohio, and Texas, according to data from the U.S. Department of Education’s Campus Safety and Security Data Tool. Adjusting for full-time student enrollment (FTE), we created a heat map of states with the most hate crime reports based on enrollment size.
Our heat map below shows significant variations in the incidence of hate crimes across different states, measured by hate crimes per 100,000 FTE. On average, each state had 7.38 hate crimes per 100,000 FTE.
Figure 1. Hate Crimes per 100,000 FTE by State
Source: Campus Safety and Security (CSS) data, 2015-2021
Vermont, whose institutions are primarily accredited by NECHE, had the highest rate of hate crimes per FTE at 25.32, followed by Washington D.C. (MSCHE) with a rate of 19.75, Rhode Island (NECHE) with a rate of 17.41, and New Hampshire (NECHE) with a rate of 17.34. In fact, all six of the states in which NECHE is the primary accreditor (VT, RI, NH, CT, MA, ME) rank in the top half for hate crimes per 100,000 FTE, with five of six ranking in the top 10. In contrast, all 10 states with SACSCOC as their primary accreditor (MS, VA, NC, KY, TN, AL, FL, GA, SC, LA) rank in the bottom half of hate crimes per 100,000 FTE. SACSCOC is also the primary accreditor for Mississippi, which has the lowest rate of hate crimes at 0.35 per 100,000 FTE. For more information, see Figure 6 here.
While there may not be an obvious correlation between states with significantly higher rates of reported hate crimes, one possible explanation is that students are less afraid to come forward and, thus, more likely to report crimes in states that have more protections, awareness, and accepting climates. Closer monitoring and collection of more and better data might also signal that hate crimes and campus climate are being taken seriously, which might lead more crime victims to come forward.
More investigation is needed to fully understand the impact of these crimes on student well-being, campus racial climate, and overall safety. By examining the experiences of under-represented students, higher education leaders and researchers can identify persistent patterns on campuses.
By addressing the issue of underreporting and enhancing campus safety measures, institutional leaders can improve the accuracy of hate crime data, better support victims, and create safer, more inclusive campuses.
The implementation of the Clery Act — and some colleges’ failure to comply with it — only underscores the continuing need to ensure that colleges collect and share accurate campus crime data and use it to better understand what is happening on their campuses. Fostering positive racial climates on college campuses, addressing systemic issues, and ensuring student success and well-being is a crucial part of that, a recent report by EdTrust suggests. That report sheds light on the experiences of Black and Latino students — many of whom said they feel unwelcome and unsafe on their campuses — and highlights how a pervasive lack of diversity and adequate support structures for students of color can undermine trust in hate crime reporting systems.
Here are some things college and university leaders can do:
Colleges and universities should use campus climate surveys to regularly evaluate student perceptions and address negative views held by peers and faculty toward students of color via educational initiatives aimed at reducing racial and ethnic biases. These educational initiatives should be inclusive, so all campus community members — students, faculty, and staff — can learn to recognize and challenge the stereotypes and misconceptions they hold about individuals who differ from them.
Institutions should ensure that students are clearly informed about federal requirements for reporting hate crimes, what constitutes a hate crime, and how to report one. This information should be clearly communicated to students throughout their time in college using multiple methods (e.g., emails, webinars, orientation sessions, flyers, etc.). Institutions should also ensure that students who report hate crimes will not face retaliation and will be supported throughout the process and have the option to remain anonymous, if desired. To achieve this, institutions may need to upgrade their data management systems and implement secure, user-friendly reporting platforms. Universities should regularly monitor and analyze this data to identify patterns, track the progress of reported incidents, and ensure that they are providing timely and appropriate responses, as well as regular hate crime statistics to the campus community.
Accrediting agencies are responsible for supervising the policies, functions, and practices of higher education institutions. These agencies help hold colleges and universities accountable, alongside the federal government and state regulators. Colleges and universities must be accredited by a federally recognized agency to be eligible for federal dollars, including financial aid.
Despite these existing oversight mechanisms, the absence of explicit accrediting requirements related to campus racial climate, hate crime prevention, inclusion, belonging, and resources for victims of hate crimes is concerning. This gap raises questions about how institutions and accrediting agencies utilize the data they collect beyond mere reporting. There is little guidance on integrating this data into actionable policies that address and mitigate hate crimes. Without robust policies and accountability measures, institutions may fail to create safe and inclusive environments on campus.
While current standards require institutions to provide annual hate crime statistics to accreditors and the federal government, no accrediting body includes language in their accreditation policies on monitoring campus racial climate or hate crime statistics. This glaring oversight highlights the failure of universities and accreditors to address the pervasive issue of campus hate crimes.
Here are some things accreditors can do:
Accreditors should collect their own data on hate crime incidents and track trends across the institutions they accredit, so they can provide detailed guidance and support to institutions on best practices for hate crime prevention and response. Accreditors should regularly review annual hate crime data and institutional reporting mechanisms to identify hotspots and assess the effectiveness of reporting systems. They should also require universities to publish regular reports on hate crime statistics and measures taken to address them. Accreditation standards should explicitly include the collection, reporting, and addressing of hate crime data as a crucial element of institutional compliance.
Accreditors can help ensure that institutions have a clear strategy for reducing crime on campus by incorporating specific accreditation requirements related to hate crime instances and reporting. Accreditors should meet with university leaders to discuss ongoing challenges and progress in addressing campus hate crimes and campus racial climate to help the universities they accredit remain on track and provide guidance when necessary. Accreditors should require institutions to implement proactive educational initiatives, comprehensive reporting protocols, and support systems to ensure that all students feel heard, safe, and respected on campus.
By actively engaging with institutions and maintaining a comprehensive data-driven approach, accreditors can help ensure that higher education institutions are not only compliant but also proactive in creating safe and inclusive campus environments.
State and federal policymakers can play a significant role in improving campus racial climate and cultivating safer college campuses. The Clery Act was designed to protect and inform students by requiring institutions to be transparent about violent crimes on campus. However, several changes are needed to better protect students, especially traditionally under-represented students, who are more likely to be victims of hate crimes. Individual institutions and institutional accreditors can also do more to help to reduce hate crimes on campus. Here are a few of our ideas:
Congress should update the Clery Act to require the disaggregation of hate crime data by race, ethnicity, and other factors. This will allow for a more accurate identification of at-risk groups and trends related to the underlying factors that drive hate crimes and the types of crimes being committed. Additionally, federal agencies can improve hate crime data management systems by not only gathering hate crime data but also making it readily available to relevant parties. With this information, universities can offer targeted support and protection to the most vulnerable student populations, fostering a safer and more inclusive educational environment.
States and federal policymakers should provide technical assistance and resources to institutions to improve data reporting and accuracy. This support can help institutions modernize their reporting platforms to facilitate real-time incident reporting. User-friendly interfaces and mobile applications can encourage students and staff to promptly report incidents, ensuring that data is collected efficiently and effectively. These systems should prioritize data security and privacy, ensuring that sensitive information is protected while remaining accessible to those who need it. Additionally, policymakers should facilitate training programs for campus personnel on best practices for data management and reporting, ensuring that all staff are equipped to handle reports accurately and sensitively.
Hate crime prevention on campus is an evolving challenge. While much of the responsibility for hate crime prevention rightfully falls on individual institutions that are directly involved in their students’ everyday lives, institutional accreditors and policymakers can play a more significant role in preventing these crimes, protecting students, improving hate crime policies, and holding institutions accountable for responding to hate crimes. Accreditors should work with institutions to regularly update and review their data management practices, reporting mechanisms, and preventive measures, ensuring they remain effective and responsive to the latest developments in hate crime reporting and prevention. Better data collection, outreach, and dissemination at the institutional and federal levels would allow institutional leaders and policymakers to make better data-informed decisions about how to support all students, especially students of color and other traditionally under-represented students and might go a long way toward keeping these students safe.
Michael Grigsby is a doctoral student at the University of Southern California Rossier School of Education and a former research and data intern at EdTrust.
November 11, 2024 by Ameshia Cross Racial aggression and hostile messages affect Black people’s mental health and stoke fear among the Black community.
October 01, 2024 by Durriya Ahmed To improve access and retention for students of color, there must be sustainable steps toward improving campus racial climates.
July 29, 2024 by Emmanuel Marshall DEI programs for students of color in college can be life-changing for underserved and/or overlooked populations.
