This survey shows that intergroup intolerance and sexual harassment are regular features of student life at UMBC. Approximately 17% of the students reported
being victimized by ethnoviolence on campus during the academic year. More than 11% were targeted because of their race, nationality, ethnicity or religion. Blacks,
Hispanics and Asians were 3 to 4 times more likely to be victimized than were Whites. This incidence is comparable to that observed in the 1987 study.

Gender was the basis of prejudice-motivated incidents for approximately 7% of the students (mostly women) . Under 2% of the students indicated that sexual
orientation was a motive. In addition, 17% of the sample were sexual harassment victims, experiencing various kinds of unwanted sexual attention during the
academic year. Women were twice as likely to be the targets of sexual harassment than were men. Moreover, women living on campus seemed most vulnerable.

White students were more likely to be sexually harassed than harassed for reasons of ethnicity. In contrast, while Black, Asian, and Hispanic men were more likely
to be targeted because of race, ethnicity, or nationality, women in these ethnic groups were more likely to be sexually harassed.

The major expression of campus ethnoviolence is verbal aggression: name calling, insults, harassment, intimidation, phone calls and letters. The second most frequent
expression is depersonalization, that is, being ignored or made to feel invisible. A small number of students indicated that their property had been damaged and an
even smaller number said they had been physically intimidated or attacked.

Although most students who were victimized talked about the event with their families and friends, few of them reported it to campus officials. When we asked why
they had not reported the event, students gave two basic types of answers. The first type defined campus officials as being unconcerned or as being unable to do
anything. The second type, verging on denial, defined the incident as not being serious, as something that happens all the time, or as a private matter.

Approximately half of the students who experienced ethnoviolence or sexual harassment, indicated a post-traumatic response, typically reporting between two and
four symptoms of stress. The most frequent were thinking about the event over and over again, feeling angry, feeling nervous, and trying to not let people notice
them. While the traumatic responses showed small variations, there were differences by gender and by ethnicity which have implications for styles of victim assistance
and counseling.

While one out of four students were directly victimized by ethnoviolence or sexual harassment, another one out of four experienced group defamation on campus
during the academic year. That is, they saw or heard something that they felt was insulting to their own group. This occurred in the form of jokes, posters, graffiti,
articles or cartoons, or computer messages. Group defamation victims reported being saddened by the experience, felt angry, and thought repeatedly about the
incident. Another 15% of the students were witnesses to group defamation. That is, they saw or heard something that was insulting to another group. Eighty percent
of those who had experienced group defamation and 70% of those who had witnessed it said that they were bothered by the experience.

Altogether almost two-thirds of the students sampled were direct or indirect victims of sex harassment or a prejudice-motivated act on campus during the academic
year. Most of the victims reported strong reactions to the incidents. The remaining one-third of the students did not experience or witness such acts. They tended to
be students who spent the least amount of time on campus. These findings suggest that intergroup hostility and prejudice is a substantial undercurrent in the campus
atmosphere and that only by spending little time on campus can a student be isolated from it.

Our study of campus attitudes is also important to understanding the campus atmosphere. There is a high level of interracial contact outside of the classroom and
most students are willing to interact with other race students in the classroom and selected social situations. However, more than half of the sample said that race and
ethnic discrimination on campus was still a problem. Three-fourths of the Black students, and approximately half of the Asian, Jewish, and White students saw
discrimination as a problem.

While most students agree that UMBC is not a bias-free campus, there is a significant perceptual gap in their view of the world on graduation. When asked about the
life-chances of Black UMBC graduates in the larger society, the majority of Blacks said that these graduates would experience high levels of discrimination. In
contrast, the majority of all other students felt that Blacks would experience little if any discrimination.

Finally, we examined student attitudes toward separatism. Although almost two-thirds rejected a the idea of "separate-but-equal" societies, more than 20% said it
was "ok" and the rest said they weren't sure. This pattern of response was true of all student race/ethnic groups.

We believe that these attitudinal differences are the currents in the campus climate in which ethnoviolent incidents take place. Black students believe that they face
discrimination on and off campus and are angry that White students do not share their views. White students believe that Blacks face minimal discrimination in most
areas but they continue to complain about barriers that no longer exist. Both groups are in frequent, civil contact, but reject more social and intimate situations. At the
same time, a substantial number of students see nothing wrong with separate societies. These attitudes do not mean that large-scale conflict is about to erupt on
campus, but they do indicate that the levels of ethnoviolence that we have reported will likely continue.

UMBC is part of the larger society and the problems that we described on campus exist off campus as well, and probably to a greater degree. It is to UMBC's
credit that the campus leadership agreed to investigate itself. It is also to UMBC's credit that ethnoviolence was no worse in 1995 than it was in 1987. Intergroup
tensions in the larger society has certainly increased. There were also more tensions on the campus itself: Tuition went up, supporting student services were reduced,
financial aid went down, and good jobs are still hard to find. Somehow, UMBC was able to hold the line on racial and ethnic intolerance.

Recommendations

1. The UMBC community should acknowledge that a problem exists. There is an undercurrent of intolerance campus, and this has had a significant impact on
students. The Undergraduate Catalogue 1996--1998 states: "UMBC offers a stimulating intellectual environment which supports a diverse student body in
achieving personal and educational goals" (p. 7). The campus community must work to make sure that this statement is true for all students.

Many on campus may not have thought about ethnoviolence on campus before reading this report. One of us was discussing ethnoviolence in a predominantly White,
undergraduate race relations class and asked whether anyone had heard about any incidents. Students shrugged and looked at each other. When asked if they had
read the campus newspaper the previous week, several students recalled the front page story of a member of the softball team shouting a racial slur at an Asian
motorist on campus. Several other students then remembered anti-gay graffiti that was written in the walkway in front of the University Center. Other stories then
began to emerge. Hopefully, like these students, readers of this report have become more aware of the problem.

In discussing the preliminary results of this study and looking back to our experience with the 1987 study, we were struck by the number of people whose first
nervous question is: "How do we compare with other campuses?" As we have stated several times, UMBC has lower victimization rates than some other campuses
which have been studied, but the rates are still too high. We will tell this to anyone who asks, as we think all members of the campus community should. The
relatively low victimization rates does not mean that group relations on campus can not be improved, and admitting to that will not tarnish the image of UMBC.

Others object to our use of the term "violence" to describe verbal acts of intolerance. We understand that physical force is different from acts of verbal aggression.
However, we have shown that people are traumatized by name calling, personal insults, mail and phone harassment, and similar acts and we have chosen to call this
ethnoviolence. Ruth Sidel (1994), in her well-known book Battling Bias, takes a similar approach.

"I suggest that denigrating language--particularly hostile, demeaning language--that focuses on characteristics over which individuals have no choice is indeed a form
of assault. Racial epithets, ethnic slurs, antifemale abuse, and homophobic comments are intended to diminish, to dehumanize, to isolate, and to undermine the
confidence of the recipient." (P.238)

In the report, we carefully define ethnoviolence and we will do the same when talking with others. Debating terminology is a technique for downplaying the issues and
will not change the fact that UMBC still has an undercurrent of intolerance.

2. This report should be publicized and discussed throughout the campus community. We need to communicate the significance of these findings:
psychologically, socially, and politically. This report marks a teachable moment. Classroom discussions are quite appropriate. University-wide public forums
(teach-ins) will do much to signal campus concern and were quite successful following the 1987 report.

3. The campus community should review its procedures about reporting ethnoviolent incidents. One of our major findings was that few victims report the
event to campus authorities. One major reason for not reporting is the perception that the victimization is a private matter. Another is the belief that campus
authorities can not or would not do anything about it.

Our first step is to convince students that victimization is not a private matter. The way to accomplish this is to publicly discuss ethnoviolence and sexual harassment
and to make clear that it is socially and morally unacceptable on campus. This could be done at freshman orientation, in the dorms, and in student handbooks. The
UMBC Directory 1995-96, for example, talks about how to identify sexual harassment (pp.27-28), but it does not discuss ethnoviolence. Simply saying that
UMBC's programs "are consistent with pertinent federal and state laws and regulations on nondiscrimination" is insufficient.

Similarly, although the procedures for dealing with sexual harassment are outlined in some detail in the UMBC Directory 1995-96, there is nothing about what to do
if you are a victim of ethnoviolence. We doubt that students know what procedures are available to them.

4. Enhance curriculum and university projects that promote intergroup tolerance. UMBC has had a major in African American Studies and a minor in
Women's Studies for many years. However, few Whites enroll in African American Studies and few men enroll in Women's Studies. The overwhelming majority of
students graduate without having a course in either.

There should be some requirement that students, as part of their general education, take courses that deal with intergroup relations and multicultural issues. We
should have no illusions, however, that simply taking a course will fundamentally change student behavior. Accurate information and analysis are necessary but not
sufficient conditions for attitude change.

Special educational offerings need to be presented to those groups who are especially vulnerable, for example, the younger student living on campus, and to those
who might be influential role models such as student leaders. Orientation programs for first year and transfer students are valuable and efficient ways to reach many
people.

Finally, there is a clear need to teach students, as well as faculty and staff, how to recognize acts of ethnoviolence and sexual harassment and how to cope with them.

5. Act on the institutional mechanisms which inadvertently support ethnoviolence and sexual harassment. Prejudice-motivated behavior and sexual
harassment persist on campus, in part, because people perceive that the institution is not sufficiently concerned about this behavior. The under representation of
Black students on campus; the under representation of Black and female faculty and staff; the lack of diversity in course offerings outside of African American and
women's studies; the failure to provide adequate levels of due process or victim assistance and reconciliation--all of these, among others, signal to members of the
campus community that there is insufficient institutional concern with the issues of intergroup relations. Deficits in these areas need to be identified and corrected.
Accomplishments need to be identified and publicized.

6. Establish an ongoing audit of intergroup relations.

Many of the issues studied here need to be examined in greater depth. There ought to be regular, small-scale follow-up studies routinely conducted much as one
might audit the accounts of a financial procedure. Although this basically unfunded report took an excessive amount of time to complete, with appropriate funding
small scale surveys or in-depth interviews could be completed within a week offering timely feedback to the campus community.

In conclusion, we do not believe that a race war on campus is likely, nor do we believe that female, gay and lesbian students should fear for their lives while on
campus. We do believe that there is an undercurrent of intolerance on campus that should be addressed so that the level of ethnoviolence and sexual harassment can
be reduced. Implementing our six recommendations is a good way to begin.