Relatively little is known about the perpetrators of ethnoviolent acts on campus. (See Ehrlich, 1995, for a summary.) Accordingly, we asked the students if they had
participated in any acts of ethnoviolence or sexual harassment. (These were detailed in questions 93 to 101. See Appendix A.) Of the 785 students responding, 28
said yes to having perpetrated at least one act . They accounted for approximately 3.6% of the students sampled. There were 16 who indicated that they had done
so once and 12 who reported that they had done so more than once. Because of the small number of cases and the large number of students who left this question
unanswered, the reader should take these observations on perpetrators as suggestive. In the second section of this chapter, "victim observations," the data are more
conclusive.

All of the student perpetrators were full-time students and all but one was a regular daytime student. In class standing, the differences among classes were too small
to warrant any definitive statement. By age, however, it did appear that the younger students (those under 20 years of age) were the most likely perpetrators.
Further, these younger students were most likely to be dorm residents. Women were highly under represented among the perpetrators: male students were three
times more likely than women to report their involvement in prejudice-motivated behavior. Self-identified conservative and right-wing students were over
represented. The largest category of perpetrators identified themselves as politically middle of the road, which is also true of the student body as a whole.

The ethnic background of the perpetrators is also worthy of note because it is congruent with the ethnic background of UMBC students. Three out five perpetrators
were White; one-fifth were African American, and the remaining fifth divided between Asian Americans and Hispanics. This is consistent with recent research
showing increased intergroup diversity in group conflict (see Pincus and Ehrlich, 1994, parts 1 and 2).

The Perpetrator as Victim

These perpetrators disproportionately reported being assaulted. While 17% of the total sample said they had been the victim of an ethnoviolent incident, half of the
perpetrators claimed such victimization. Moreover, the perpetrators were far more likely to report multiple victimizations, with 19% reporting three or more incidents
as contrasted with 3% of the other students sampled. The pattern was the same for sexual harassment.

The student perpetrators who had been victimized were more likely than all victims to indicate being called names or to receiving insulting phone calls or letters. They
were also more likely to indicate that people ignored them. They were twice as likely to say that both students and teachers had treated them badly in class because
of their background.

Only two of the perpetrators indicated that they had made a formal report to a campus authority, and this is consistent with the generally high levels of nonreporting
by other students. The student perpetrators, however, were less likely than other victims to claim that their victimization had a major effect on them. Nevertheless,
they were more apt than other victims to report that they felt angry about what happened to them (60% vs 37%) and considerably more likely to have revenge
fantasies ( 60% vs 23%).

The perpetrators also seemed to have a hypersensitivity to acts of group defamation. They perceived more acts of defamation than did other students both toward
their own group and toward other groups as well. They were more liable than others to perceive the presence on campus of insulting jokes, leaflets or posters,
graffiti, articles, cartoons, and bulletin board messages. They were also more likely to be angered by their perceptions and to perseverate on them than were other
students.

On the issues of sexual harassment, the perpetrators also perceived a more violent campus. More than other students, the perpetrators indicated that they had
personally witnessed sexual remarks, unwanted pressures for sexual activity, and even sexual assaults on campus.

Perceptions and Attitudes

With regard to perceptions of discrimination, the perpetrators were significantly more inclined to view campus discrimination as a problem (75% vs 49%). This
seems consistent with their own reports of victimization. However, with regard to their perception of employment, housing, and legal discrimination, as well as their
overall view of the state of group relations in the country, there were no significant differences between perpetrators and the other students.

There were marked differences between the two groups with regard to their other attitudinal responses. On all four indicators of social distance, the perpetrators
were considerably less comfortable than others. They were three times more likely than their peers to report being uncomfortable in intergroup situations. We can
see the sociopolitical implications of their social distance in their answer to our question, "Do you think it is okay to have a country where the races are basically
separate from one another, as long as all groups have equal opportunity?" Almost half of the perpetrator group said "yes," and this was twice the rate of their peers.

Victim Observations of Perpetrators

Another way to gain insight into the characteristics of people who perpetrate ethnoviolent acts is to query their victims. We did so here in a very limited way. We
asked all students who had bee victimized three questions: Did they observe the number of persons who assaulted them, did they recognize any of them, and were
they able to determine whether they were students or someone else? Their responses are presented in Table 7.1.

This table depicts the perpetrators as predominately students, known to the victim, and acting alone. Nonetheless, almost 40% of the assailants acted in groups and a
substantial percentage were unkown to their victims. The status of the perpetrators is especially noteworthy in that one out of six were identified as faculty or staff.

In Table 7.2, we are able to determine that multiple perpetrators are far more common in anti-gay incidents, and single perpetrators in gender and sexual harassment
incidents. Sexual harassment victims were also more likely than ethnoviolence victims to know their perpetrators. Other differences seem much smaller, although
there is a suggestion that faculty are more involved in incidents involving gender. Gender victimization and sexual harassment, overall, seems more likely to occur in
situations where the victim and victimizer are known to each other. Finally, it appears that perpetrators from off-campus are not very common.

The observations of victims seem fairly reliable and are in substantial agreement with both the earlier UMBC study and with the findings from other campus studies.
The self-report data from the perpetrators is limited. Obviously, we have the beginnings of a sketch, but more study is required.


Table 7.1. Victim observations of victimizers.
Number of perpetrators
N
%
One
120
54.3
Two
32
14.5
Three or more
49
22.2
Unknown
20
9.0
Total reporting
221
100.0
Recognition of perpetrators
Knew them
118
55.9
Were strangers
60
28.4
Some known, some strangers
17
8.1
Not sure
16
7.6
Total reporting
221
100.0
Status of perpetrators
Students
126
60.9
Faculty
24
11.6
Staff
10
4.8
From off campus
20
9.7
Don't know
27
13.0
Total reporting
207
100.0

Table 7.2 Number, Recognition, and Status of Perpetrators by Type of Victimization
Type of Victimization (percentage reporting)
Ethnicity
Gender
Sexual Orientation
Sexual Harasssment
Number of perpetrators
One
48.1
53.1
27.3
55.9
Two
16.0
10.2
9.1
14.0
Three or more
27.2
28.6
45.5
23.5
Unknown
8.6
8.2
18.2
6.6
Recognition of perpetrators
Knew them
48.1
56.0
45.5
65.9
Were strangers
39.5
26.0
18.2
21.7
Some known, some strangers
9.9
8.0
27.3
3.6
Not sure
2.5
10.0
9.1
8.7
Status of perpetrators
Students
51.9
53.1
45.5
65.8
Faculty
14.8
18.4
9.1
8.0
Staff
11.1
2.0
0
0.7
From off campus
12.3
10.2
9.1
11.6
Don't know
9.9
16.3
36.4
10.9