Abstract
Rape culture in higher education is a term used to describe an environment in which sexual violence is accepted or tolerated as part of campus life. Prior exploration of rape culture has largely focused on sexual violence among and against students, although limited work has examined perspectives of university employees. This qualitative study sought to further identify cultural norms and beliefs in college settings which college students and employees suggest increase or reduce the risk of sexual violence on campus. In addition, the current study expands prior work by including perspectives from multiple stakeholders in the campus community: students, faculty, and staff. Our analysis included four focus groups (total N = 35, including 17 students and 18 faculty and staff) from one university in the Northeastern United States. Each group had 2 facilitators, 8 to 10 participants, and lasted approximately 1 hr. Audio recordings of the focus groups were transcribed and analyzed through thematic analysis. Three main themes and several subthemes were identified: cultural risk factors for sexual violence (substance use, misogyny, dismissal/silence, institutional indifference), expanding accountability (bringing perpetrators to justice, holding individuals and institutions tasked with stopping sexual violence accountable, and holding peers liable for their behavior), and stigma reduction (activism and clear disclosure channels for community members). Findings have implications for future research and for prevention and response efforts around sexual violence on higher education campuses. This work highlights the role of all types of community members in shaping campus culture and specific strategies that may contribute to the demolition of rape culture.
The term and concept of “rape culture” was developed by feminist theorists in the 1970s and first characterized as a set of cultural beliefs supporting violence against women (Brownmiller, 1975; Crocker & Sibley, 2020). This was a departure from previous research on rape, which viewed rape as a purely criminal event and focused on classifying different types of rape and rapists while neglecting the experiences of victims, the pervasiveness of sexual violence, and the environments and norms that allowed violence to occur (Crocker & Sibley, 2020). With the spread of grassroots movements such as #MeToo, the term “rape culture” gained prominence and has become associated with cultures within higher education institutions. In 2009, Burnett and colleagues advanced a definition of rape culture that included focus on the context of higher education institutions, defining it as an environment in which sexual assault and date rape are accepted or tolerated as part of campus life (Burnett et al., 2009).
Unfortunately, as a microcosm of our larger culture, sexual violence is prevalent within higher education institutions, and women experience higher victimization rates than men (Canan et al., 2016; Daigle et al., 2008; Fisher et al., 2000). Recent U.S. surveys estimate that 25.9% of undergraduate college women and 6.8% of undergraduate college men experience sexual violence during their college tenure (Cantor et al., 2020). Victimization estimates of sexual and gender minority students may be greater than 40% (Trottier et al., 2021). Victimization rates in higher education institutions, as well as in the population at large, are underreported. Underreporting of sexual violence can be explained by multiple factors, including societal stigma, cultural norms that perpetuate victim-blaming (Canan et al., 2016; Johnson & Johnson, 2017), and low prosecution and conviction rates for sexual crimes (Stewart et al., 2023). Underreporting in higher education settings may be a symptom of rape culture proliferating within the community (Crocker & Sibley, 2020). Initiatives and programs designed to prevent sexual violence tend to be underfunded (Minow & Einolf, 2009).
Conceptualizing Rape Culture
Comprehensive theoretical models have been posited to identify and describe the underlying cultural norms and beliefs that make up rape culture, including traditional gender roles, sexism, adversarial sexual beliefs, hostility toward women, and acceptance of interpersonal violence (Johnson & Johnson, 2017). Traditional gender roles can be defined as responsibilities and behaviors expected of each gender based upon cultural norms, such as perceptions that men should be dominant, aggressive, strong, and sexually promiscuous while women must be subservient to men, passive, fragile, and sexually reserved or reluctant (Johnson & Johnson, 2017). Belief in traditional gender roles may also result in sexism (e.g., the stereotyping of or discrimination against individuals based on their sex) and discrimination (Guy, 2006). A core component of sexism is falsely believing that men are inherently superior to women, who are viewed as objects to be used for pleasure. This belief is one avenue used to rationalize sexual violence (Johnson & Johnson, 2017).
Examples of adversarial sexual beliefs include viewing women as manipulative and believing that they use their bodies and sex to achieve objectives in life, or that it is the right and duty of men to seek and receive sex (Johnson & Johnson, 2017). The latter example is also an avenue through which adversarial sexual beliefs may lead to the false belief of token resistance, wherein a woman’s rejection of sexual advances is seen as disingenuous. Adversarial sexual beliefs frame sexual interactions as a power struggle between a man—who is expected to persist—and a woman, who is expected to be reluctant (Canan et al., 2016). Such beliefs can erroneously rationalize or excuse sexual violence as part of sexual engagement (Emmers-Sommer, 2014). Lonsway and Fitzgerald (1994) posited that hostility toward women can be used to justify acts of violence toward them. Research with sexual offenders in the United States is consistent with this theory: finding that sexual offenders endorse hostile views toward women in comparison to nonsexual offenders and nonoffending men (Schippers & Smid, 2021). Finally, acceptance of violence, or the belief that violence could be and often is justified, contributes to a culture that facilitates sexual violence (Lonsway & Fitzgerald, 1994).
Rape Culture in Higher Education Settings
Prior work exploring aspects of rape culture in higher education settings has focused on specific risk factors for sexual violence in this context. Within college samples, the prevalence of hookup culture and acceptance of casual sexual encounters has been associated with acceptance of rape myths and normalization of sexual violence (Reling et al., 2017). Some have examined links between substance use and sexual violence perpetration; evidence suggests that alcohol is involved in most sexual violence incidents occurring on college campuses (Schwarz et al., 2016). Substance use is also associated with a greater likelihood of supporting rape myths (Hayes et al., 2016). Moreover, Greek life, particularly within American higher education, has been linked to a higher risk of sexual violence and adoption of beliefs and norms that comprise rape culture. Greek life may contribute to the continuation of rape culture by upholding class privilege and gender inequality. Male students in Greek life have higher endorsement of token resistance and rape myths (Canan et al., 2016; Jozkowski & Wiersma-Mosley, 2017). Consistent with these findings, a meta-analysis focused on factors associated with rape identified binge drinking (r = .21), alcohol consumption (r = .17), Greek life involvement (r = .11), and drug use (r = .16) as significant contributors to sexual victimization (Spencer et al., 2023).
While each of these facets of rape culture is complex, research exploring strategies to dismantle rape culture is underway. Evidence suggests that comprehensive and accessible services to support survivors, such as counseling, medical care, confidential reporting tools, and legal assistance, encourage disclosure and help-seeking (Mennicke et al., 2021; Orchowski & Gidycz, 2012). Educational programming has yielded mixed findings. Some research suggests that consent and sexual violence education programs significantly decrease rape myth acceptance (Banyard et al., 2007). Bystander intervention training programs have been developed and evaluated as an important tool to engage individuals, particularly in college and high school settings, as active bystanders who will recognize harmful situations and intervene when indicated. In a meta-analysis, bystander intervention programs had a positive effect on participants’ beliefs that they can intervene successfully, their actual intervention behavior, and self-perceived likelihood of intervening, although the effect size for intervening attenuated after the first 2 years of college (Kettrey & Marx, 2019). Another meta-analysis focused on sexual violence education intervention programs in highly masculine settings (e.g., fraternities and collegiate athletics teams) and found mixed results for reducing sexually coercive behaviors and the likelihood of sexual assault perpetration (Ruvalcaba et al., 2022). Other work has suggested campus sexual violence prevention strategies may reinforce victim-blaming ideologies and traditional gender norms by placing the onus of preventing violence on women (e.g., women should not walk across campus at night to avoid victimization; Bedera & Nordmeyer, 2015).
Another substantial challenge to dismantling rape culture in higher education is the presence and reach of stigma related to sexual violence. As described by Pescosolido and Martin (2015), the stigma process involves differences “translated into marked, devalued distinction. Through a culturally constituted process, the mark works to advantage or disadvantage others through social interactions with individuals, groups, organizations, and institutions.” Survivors of sexual violence experience stigma at multiple levels. There may be internalized stigma, where they wonder if they are at fault for the assault, and this may be a barrier to disclosure and help-seeking. There is interpersonal stigma, where survivors may experience dismissing, blaming, or controlling responses to disclosure of their sexual assault—which may have detrimental health impacts and preclude help or justice-seeking (Scoglio et al., 2022). At the community or societal level, survivors of sexual violence may be viewed as not credible, weak, or as putting themselves in objectively dangerous situations. Reducing stigma at multiple levels is essential to dismantling rape culture (Mennicke et al., 2021).
Addressing Knowledge Gaps
Most research on rape culture in higher education settings centers on students at these institutions (Bedera & Nordmeyer, 2015; Kettrey & Marx, 2019; Spencer et al., 2023). Fewer studies have examined the perspectives of faculty and staff and often still focus on the experiences of students (Hurtado, 2020; Newins et al., 2018). Faculty members are uniquely positioned to detect signs of victimization as they regularly interact with students, and students are more likely to disclose incidents of sexual violence to peers or trusted faculty than other formal helpers (Newins et al., 2018).
All community members (students, faculty, and staff) contribute to the shaping and maintenance of campus climate and culture, and their voices and perspectives should be considered in the dismantling of rape culture and the prevention of sexual violence. By analyzing qualitative data from multiple campus community stakeholders simultaneously, our current study examines the way one’s role in the campus community impacts views on sexual violence prevention, incidence, and response. We used the following guiding questions to explore cultural norms and beliefs in a college setting related to sexual violence: (1) How do cultural narratives in college settings differ based on a community member’s role? (2) From community members’ perspectives, which elements of university culture or norms might increase the likelihood of sexual violence incidence? (3) From community members’ perspectives, what elements of institutional culture or social norms might promote safety and prevent sexual violence? (4) How do identified cultural elements in this data align or misalign with previous work from university student perspectives?
Methods
Participants and Procedures
To better understand perceptions of rape culture within a single institutional setting, we conducted four focus groups (n = 35) at a 4-year, medium-sized, highly residential university in the Northeastern United States. Two groups were conducted with undergraduate students (n = 18) and two with faculty and staff (n = 17). Each group had 2 facilitators, 8 to 10 participants, and lasted approximately 1 hr. The groups were advertised via multiple mediums, including email, fliers, and informational announcements during student- and faculty-facing organizational meetings. Participants provided informed consent and focus groups were audio-recorded and transcribed. Participants received a $20 Amazon gift card as compensation. Although participants in this study represent only a subset of the full university community, we heard from individuals disproportionately impacted by violence: women (89%), those who identify as a sexual minority (44%), and BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, and People of Color) (56%) students. The mean age of participants was 40 years (employees) and 20 years (students). Demographic characteristics of the sample are summarized in Table 1. The project was approved and granted exempt status by the Institutional Review Board at the first author’s institution.
Summary of Demographic Characteristics Among Focus Group Participants.
Note. Missing four students age, year, racial identity, sexual orientation; two countries of origin; one faculty age.
Data Analysis
Following transcription of the focus groups, the first author determined saturation had been reached and all transcripts were analyzed for content and thematic significance through a process involving multiple phases (Saldaña, 2016). First, two co-authors (authors 1 and 3) developed a preliminary codebook (separate for employees and students) based on the questions asked in the focus group guide. Second, one coder (author 3) independently reviewed all transcripts using the identified axial codes and engaging in open coding iteratively to expand the code book. This coder analyzed student and employee transcripts separately. Third, a second coder (author 2) independently reviewed all transcripts using the further revised code book. This second coder similarly used a combination of axial and open coding strategies, analyzing student and employee transcripts separately. Because transcripts were reviewed by coders independently, next authors 1 and 2 convened to cross compare and ensure trustworthiness of the subthemes (Belotto, 2018). In these meetings, the co-authors examined overlap and distinctions in codes between the student and employee transcripts. Finally, identified parent themes and subthemes were further refined (Denzin et al., 2018) through an iterative process of reviewing identified quotes, synthesizing their meanings into thematic categories, and ensuring interrater agreement between the analytic team. All qualitative analyses were completed using NVivo 14 (QSRI, 2023).
Results
In our qualitative analysis, we identified three main themes and six subthemes: cultural risk factors for sexual violence (substance use, misogyny, dismissal or silence, institutional indifference), expanding accountability, and stigma reduction (activism, disclosure supports). We detail the findings of each main theme and subtheme below. Themes and subthemes are also summarized in Table 2, including an illustrative quote for each subtheme separately from student and employee perspectives.
Summary of Themes, Subthemes, and Illustrative Quotes.
Cultural Risk Factors
Substance Use
Employees observed that sexual violence among students often involves consensual or non-consensual use of substances and that students may confide in staff about negative sexual experiences or harassment that occurred while using substances. Staff reported that these experiences do not meet the criteria for them to take action or mandate a report, and thus are “nothing we can do something about.” Faculty and staff also agreed that there is a gap between bystander intervention training and intervening when individuals around you are not (for students and for themselves as faculty). Staff expressed frustration with positionality in conducting training for students, feeling as though students may not listen to them because of who they are (a woman, a person of color, or a person in a position of authority).
From the student perspective, substance use was viewed as a tolerated excuse for men to behave badly or take advantage of peers. Students agreed that sexual violence typically originates in party settings and that the party environment facilitates these crimes in multiple ways. For example, parties occurring in dorm rooms are crowded, facilitating opportunities for students to grope other students, and as one student commented, “dorm parties, there’s a lot of people in there and no space, that’s. . . them being drunk and the fact that there’s no space is the biggest excuse they use.” In contrast, fraternity-hosted parties may take place in larger, more diffuse spaces, with opportunities to lose track of friends, as expressed by another student: I’ve witnessed at frat parties kind of the opposite, it being in a house and it being so big, it’s so easy to just lose your friend. They go behind a corner, they go upstairs, it’s so easy to just get carried away in that manner. Again, I think someone said the alcohol is an excuse. That’s a huge part of it.
Multiple students discussed the use of substances as a tool, or a justification to fall back on for groping fellow students, for example: The boys, when they get a little intoxicated, I think it’s kind of an excuse for them to act the way they want to act. And then they could just say the next day, oh I was so blasted, I don’t even remember.
Misogyny
Misogyny, expressed in the culture of the university, was also described as a risk factor. Employees discussed experiencing sexism in multiple settings. There was discussion of younger female faculty members experiencing sexist comments from students in the classroom and in anonymous student course evaluations, without a means of recourse to address such statements in the moment or afterwards. One employee, echoed by others, observed gendered treatment of faculty and staff that “doesn’t necessarily get classified as sexual violence but certainly contribute to the culture that perpetuates sexual violence.” It was broadly felt that sexist remarks and actions contribute to a culture that may allow violence to occur and keep survivors silent. Employees expressed that if they were a victim of sexual violence, they would not feel as though they could report it or get help at the university, and wondered how those feelings filter down to students. One employee spoke to this issue at the institutional level, saying, “we don’t have a culture of addressing sexism, which then leads to these greater issues. . .and creates pervasive [messages of] ‘this is allowable’.”
Students also discussed experiencing or witnessing misogyny in multiple contexts: in the classroom, at mandatory university events like new student orientation, or in messaging around campus. In the classroom, one female-identified student felt relegated to secretarial roles if working with a group of men. She explained thus: They like to really try to put me in my woman’s place I guess. . . If I’m in a group project with all boys and I’m just the only girl, they don’t let me do anything. They kind of just do all the work for themselves. And I know that’s not really sexual violence, but it’s just little microaggressions like that that can lead into something bigger, thinking that you can do whatever you want and touch whoever you want.
Another student discussed seeing messaging in peers’ clothing that she felt contributed to a culture where sexual violence was permissible, such as “a frat guy wearing a shirt that said, ‘No protection, no problem’ [including his fraternity letters], very toxic masculinity. . .those phrases, that’s just putting it into the world [that] this is okay.”
Dismissal or Silence
Students and employees repeatedly discussed a dichotomy between knowing sexual violence was an issue at the university, but also understanding that it was not talked about openly. This culture of silence around sexual violence was layered with perceptions that people who had been victimized were afraid to report, felt like they would not be believed (by peers or institutions), and that perpetrators would be protected over victims. There was also a sense that that sexual touching without consent may not “count” as sexual violence, that sexual violence is overtly severe (e.g., rape). For example, one student explained as follows: I have heard some frat stories, a lot of frat stories actually- there was a party or something, and they cornered someone, and just. . . Or the person was too drunk, something like that, and they never spoke of it again. They just laugh it off.
Rumors shaped students’ understanding of sexual violence occurrence and response. Students paid attention to cases of sexual violence that were reported at the school, or more generally in public media involving other schools. They felt the handling of such cases reinforced an understanding that universities as an institution did not necessarily have their back when it came to sexual violence: If something does happen, usually somebody’s able to pay it off or it goes under the rug or it didn’t actually happen because he’s a perfect white cis male. No. . . he’s protected by the school. And some of the school’s values don’t necessarily align with present day, very- don’t believe survivors- and stuff like that. And you can kind of tell in some of the responses that students have had to sexual assault.
The student quoted here conflates criminal proceedings (a trial) with internal title IX proceedings (a hearing), demonstrating potential knowledge gaps about what specifically happens after a formal report to the university.
Stigma within certain communities, for example the POC (people of color) community also appeared to have an impact on the level of discussion of sexual violence and perceived resource allocation: I feel like it is prevalent in all communities, but Greek life for sure gets more attention brought to it because it is such a big group of people and it’s been around for years. But in [our] POC community, it’s not really talked about when you experience sexual violence.
Here, sororities and fraternities are viewed as talking about the issue more openly, because it is well known that these are high-risk communities. However, other communities may dismiss the subject entirely or have a subculture of silence around it. An employee discussed an interaction with a student where the female student encountered dismissive and blaming responses from friends after disclosing experiencing sexual violence: her female identifying friends had [a] response of dismissing what her feelings were and sharing that maybe happened or oh, you maybe you did consent and that kind of thing. . . I wonder what could be done about that. . .education in that area, what it really means to support a survivor or support a friend.
Some organizational policies within the school were viewed by employees as dismissive or silencing. Specifically, they said the definition of sexual violence was purposefully inconsistent, which relates to statements above by students about what experiences “count” as sexual violence. One employee commented that sexual assault definitions might vary across groups and that definitions could be shifted to allow certain behaviors to slide, “I think there is a permission structure there, where people are making their own rules and it reinforces itself.” The idea that the definition of sexual violence could be modified to not hold perpetrators accountable speaks to a related theme of institutional indifference, discussed in depth below. Institutional indifference, within this study, is defined as a general sense that the institution does not prioritize safety from sexual violence and may not protect individuals before or after an assault.
Institutional Indifference
Employees of the university discussed loss of trust (for themselves and students) in the response of existing institutional structures (e.g., campus police, human resources) to cases of sexual violence. Participants conveyed that trust must be rebuilt for these institutional structures to improve. Faculty and staff expressed beliefs that students do not feel comfortable reaching out to existing resources, but if prevention of sexual violence was perceived as important to the university, and stigma around victimization were reduced, then students would engage with existing resources. One survivor of sexual harassment discussed their experience making a formal report, “my experience was that nobody was going to help me, and it was really upsetting.” There was agreement that perceived messages of institutional indifference, specifically not investing in public prevention efforts, contributed to a cultural problem. Employees expressed the wish that the university shine a light on the cultural elements that may facilitate sexual violence on campus and to continuously invest in resources until (a) community members feel safe and (b) sexual violence incidence is decreasing. As one faculty member indicated, “we have to prioritize what is important, and if the university isn’t saying it’s important, how are people supposed to know that?”
Faculty and staff also noted that the way sexual violence incidence is measured is problematic and perpetuates the idea that sexual violence is only a crime if someone reports it to university police. Employees expressed a desire for data collection on campus to lead to broader conversations—such as discussion events about results of existing climate surveys. Taking this a step further, faculty and staff discussed a critical need for tools to feel comfortable engaging with students on these topics, and a belief that with that comfort and rapport, students would be more likely to disclose when sexual violence occurred. However, without such tools, even if a student felt comfortable disclosing, the faculty or staff member might be at a loss about how to guide them through their options. For example, one employee discussed a student confiding in them: “I was happy that they could confide in me and that they had someplace to tell. But then at that point I had nothing to give them except say, call campus police. . .which they didn’t want to do.” Some employees also mentioned confusion about which employees were mandated to make a report if a student confided in them and frustration that even if one made a formal report on behalf of a student report, there was no follow-up for them to know what happened next. Staff also expressed demoralization with existing training and power structures, viewing some faculty as deeming this a problem beneath them. In fact, some viewed reactionary committees as lip service to the issue rather than promoting tangible change: I think at best, at times, it’s complacency and at worst it’s like, “If we don’t say anything, then, we can keep pretending there’s no problem, here”. . .Honestly, I feel like sometimes, it was like we’re going to bury things, make things really hard or make things so confusing, that it’s like, then, “I’m just going to give up.”
The sense that the institution was indifferent to sexual violence made employees feel disempowered. From their perspectives, prioritizing sexual violence prevention and a culture of accountability included ideas like better representation of women across departments and in leadership roles, more supportive and transparent power structures and reporting processes, explicit support from male leadership, and the means to act on knowledge of crimes committed. One employee stated thus: [we need] male leaders to say these are the values we need to espouse on our campus. I think in every level of our organization we need to have men and people responsible for men kind of leading vocally with these values.
Students mentioned training around sexual violence topics at new student orientation but felt that this was not an effective venue to discuss such topics. One participant summarized this concern, stating “it’s a thousand people sitting in the arena together being talked at. That’s not going to click with anyone.” Some students discussed the messages they perceived from the university in terms of its response to reports of sexual violence. One noted, “It’s like the words are ‘support survivors’ but the actions don’t align.” More specifically, students found the Title IX office to be mysterious. They did not have a clear understanding of the scope and purpose of the office and how it could potentially support students. The outcomes for survivors who went through a formal process at the university were seen as sending messages to perpetrators that they could continue to perpetrate sexual violence without consequence, and as one student lamented, constituted: a reason why frats and men think they can do it is because they’re not seeing the people who are accused be held accountable. So they’re like, oh well this guy can do it, clearly I can do it and the university won’t do anything about it.
These comments indicated a feeling of resignation in the way students discussed institutional responses to sexual violence; they were disappointed but felt the institution did not care about the problem. One student brought up university police, expressing distrust in a university organization tasked with responding to student emergencies and ensuring campus safety, saying “I feel like [the university police] doesn’t really do much. . .Sorry [university police], but there was a time. . .We called them three times. They did not show up once.” This perception was also fueled by rumor. For example, if two female students called the university police for an escort and they never came, this became a story students told each other: university police will not protect you. Some students even invoked popular culture references to express the ways they wished university institutional actors would respond to sexual violence. A student mentioned the Law and Order: Special Victims Unit character, Olivia Benson—who, on the television show is a steadfast and fierce advocate for survivors within law enforcement—and said of the school’s response, “I need Olivia Benson. I need her to be here. I need her to do this.”
Expanding Accountability
Accountability has traditionally been understood in terms of legally finding a perpetrator culpable for a crime of sexual violence and assigning a penalty. As previously discussed, this traditional outcome of justice following sexual violence is rare (Daigle et al., 2008; Stewart et al., 2023). In our sample, participants moved beyond ideas of traditional accountability and expanded the concept to include prevention and holding peers socially liable for their behavior. Institutions holding perpetrators accountable. University staff and faculty discussed frustration with a lack of traditional accountability: having a perpetrator of sexual violence in the campus community be held accountable by the institution. One employee said: we have heard students come forward, female students predominantly. . .it seems like we can’t get that to a place where we can have it reportable and something we can manage with accountability, but it’s a persistent and consistent concern.
Employees felt that if perpetrators are held accountable by the institution, it should be publicized to potentially have a deterrent effect within the university community. As one participant stated, “if students, faculty, staff know that this has happened and the perpetrator has been held accountable, then it might make people think twice about certain behaviors.” However, federal provisions to protect students (e.g., Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act) make such publication efforts infeasible. Employees also discussed a sense that some community members (e.g., student athletes, tenured male faculty) were in a protected group, and regardless of their behavior they would be protected from consequences. They expressed that this knowledge eroded faith in traditional accountability. This idea generalized to cultural norms of holding community members accountable in multiple contexts, not just for crimes but also sexist comments or actions, as illustrated by one staff member: It doesn’t matter, if that one person has a consequence, or doesn’t have a consequence, if we’re not looking at the larger culture and saying “What you say in a classroom, or what you allow certain students, and not other students, is problematic and needs to change.”
For students, stories shared peer-to-peer were a common and trusted source of information, shaping their knowledge and perception of university sexual violence resources and outcomes. One student explained: [I heard] a rumor of someone who tried to go through the whole process. They reported it, they brought it up to the police, then they went to trial and found the perpetrator not guilty. And then, this is a rumor, I don’t know if it’s true. The girl [survivor] got expelled, the guy [perpetrator] only had to write a paper, and [the university] just carried on as usual.
The institutional knowledge that students had about the process of reporting and seeking justice following sexual violence was that it was long, arduous and would not result in justice for the survivor. One student said: I didn’t end up going through the university’s process, but my friend did. Hospital reports, witnesses, everything. And still he was not held accountable for anything, which is very frustrating because it’s so much and then nothing. If you look at it from my perspective, it’s like he’s walking free. I saw him while I was walking here!
Students expressed that even when incidents were reported to the university, these reports did not result in protective action. Sometimes actions were taken to protect the student community, but these were not publicized and did not permeate the narrative among students at the school. For example, multiple students discussed a rumor about a residential assistant (RA) who transferred to the school after he raped students at his prior school and that because of his role as RA, he now had access to every student’s dorm room. In fact, a university-wide change had been made to reduce RA key access in response to student requests, but students in our focus groups were unaware of this change.
Accountability in Prevention
Participants also spoke of accountability for prevention of sexual violence. Employees discussed the importance of education and training for all community members and shared their sense that such training was not always taken seriously or given priority. One specifically noted lack of follow-through for required training: The sexual harassment training, there was no follow-up! As in, someone who would be in a position to be like, “Hey, who hasn’t done [the training]? Let’s check.” Silence from upper administration in that area. So we roll these things out, and we just know one [point] person, and there’s no accountability.
As employees perceived some community groups as being protected from consequences, students brought forth a perception that some community groups were better resourced and experienced less stigma related to sexual violence. Students discussed fraternities and sororities as not just high-risk groups, but groups that also benefitted from specialized training and prevention events. One student survivor said: I know that Greek life, because it’s known that it happens so much, they have a lot more support, and a lot of the movements that they support and a lot of their members, and they have designated chairs for things like this, which is something that we don’t have.
Holding Each Other Accountable
While students shared employee concerns about accountability at the institutional level, many students felt that they hold each other accountable and look out for each other on campus. The rumors that shape the cultural narrative may instill fears about experiencing sexual violence but also instill a sense of supportive community who will step in, rather than be silent if something occurs. Some students explained they were warned by peers to avoid certain contexts where violence might occur, one student noted “I was told to avoid all the frats just because. . . things go down there and they just get shoved under the rug,” while another explained how peers protected them in party contexts: When I first came here, something I appreciated about it was I realized the students had each other’s backs. I think it was the first couple weeks and I was like these people I literally just met, I was at a party- some guy was being too handsy and they all grouped together and were like “get off” and I noticed that there were students helping each other.
Stigma Reduction Through Activism and Disclosure Supports
Activism
Participants discussed activism as an effective tool for stigma reduction, one that could increase reports and create incremental positive change. Students discussed survivor speaker events as being both well-attended and impactful. Students thought these events could offer opportunities to introduce resources and pathways to community members, who might be more likely to remember them in a time of need if paired with a memorable event. Employees expressed the belief that students want opportunities to speak about sexual violence and learn about healthy relationships, but lamented that existing offerings were often relegated to large, lecture-style trainings (e.g., new student orientation). Employees also acknowledged that events and programming existed but were not widespread or given priority. One employee said, “somebody comes up with a program, we never, actually, check whether that program is going to work, and we just deploy it and there’s never any feedback.”
Disclosure Supports
Whether it was to help students feel comfortable disclosing or feeling safe to disclose as employees, faculty and staff agreed that barriers to disclosure needed to be removed to increase disclosure and reduce stigma around victimization. Disclosure was viewed by employees as both a theoretical opportunity and often a dead end. There was confusion among employees about where to go, who to tell, and how to respond effectively to a student disclosure of sexual violence victimization. As one employee noted, “Students confide in me and I’m glad, but I don’t feel I have good options to offer them.” Employees emphasized the importance of trust in them and their offices for students to feel comfortable disclosing their experiences: “[the] student can believe you are here for me. You’re not here to facilitate a process, you’re here to just listen. And I think that’s the environment that helps students feel the safest.” For themselves, faculty and staff discussed feeling that they could not make a formal report related to experiencing sexual violence because (a) justice would not be attainable or (b) justice would not be worth the additional pain of the investigational processes at the university. They also brought up the need to support employees who are hearing disclosures, such as the employee who wondered: How do we develop support for staff, folks, faculty, whoever is supporting students who are sharing these disclosures? Especially if you are someone who is also a survivor because it comes with the work, but it’s also hard to navigate.
Some students said if they experienced sexual violence, they would tell a friend who knew them well and could therefore offer support, while others preferred telling a health center provider who “won’t judge me because they don’t know me” for whom supporting students is part of their role. One student brought up an experience involving a friend who decided not to come forward with his sexual violence experience for fear of the societal stigma attached to men experiencing sexual violence, saying “I personally know someone, a male on campus, who experienced sexual violence and it was very hard for him to come forward with that because of the way people react to men experiencing sexual violence.” There was confusion about which employees on campus were mandated reporters or could keep a student’s story confidential. Students had excellent ideas for ways that barriers to disclosure could be removed. In alignment with employee perceptions, students expressed the need to have trust in institutional actors and wanted those actors to have more knowledge and training on how to connect with students. Some students discussed trusting and supportive relationships with their RA, “building relationships with your RA and teaching RAs how to build that relationship. There are some RAs I don’t really like because they don’t give the effort to try to get to know me or anything.” One student also discussed the developmental transitions that occur in college environments and the importance of intersectional support, noting: A lot of folks are still finding their identities here, so making sure students have the resources. . .making sure that investment is also there and the educational part of it, because college can be a transformative time for a lot of folks. . .so understanding that situation of college and the special parts that can be, but also the hard parts that can be.
Students also wanted more transparency and discussion about disclosure channels for sexual violence victimization and prevention efforts. One student stated: It just helps to raise awareness around the resources that we do have, and if people can build a connection with them, then if anything were to happen or if they were to hear about anything, they’d feel comfortable already discussing that with a faculty or staff member that’s built a relationship with them.
In addition to increasing visibility of resources, students wanted those resources to involve follow-up and ongoing support, rather than a single meeting or follow-up only when an investigation had concluded months later. Students liked the idea of having peer counselors or survivor volunteers to help students who had been victimized navigate a reporting process or assist in connection to services. One student suggested: maybe having people that have been sexually assaulted in the past but are comfortable speaking to someone who has been. . .sexually assaulted and talk to someone that understands their situation. . .having someone that understands what you’re going through would make you feel more comfortable.
Discussion
We investigated aspects of campus culture and community norms which evidence suggests may increase the likelihood of sexual violence by creating a culture where it is permissible or allowable. We also examined aspects of the culture which might guard against sexual violence or increase community-level accountability. Although students, faculty, and staff each brought distinct perspectives, many participants agreed on risk factors for sexual violence within university culture, and stigma-reducing factors that might mitigate these risks. Consistent with prior literature, substance use and misogyny were identified as risk factors in our sample (Hayes et al., 2016; Johnson & Johnson, 2017). Our analysis also expands the literature on risk factors comprising rape culture to delve into perceptions of institutional indifference and dismissive or silencing aspects of campus culture. We were heartened to hear repeatedly from participants the ways that traditional conceptualizations of accountability could be expanded and rape culture incrementally dissolved. Participants said that in addition to holding perpetrators accountable, institutions, leaders, and employees are accountable for the prevention of sexual violence. In taking on this accountability burden, institutional messages of indifference which create barriers to disclosure may be reduced and stigma lessened. Simultaneously, students found informal ways to hold each other accountable which could permeate the cultural narrative within a university setting, often fueled by word-of-mouth stories. Our participants discussed the roles of activism and disclosure-encouraging settings in reducing stigma and preventing violence. These subthemes have also been highlighted in prior literature focusing on justice and healing following sexual violence (Scoglio, Marine, & Molnar, 2021; Scoglio et al., 2022).
Our findings have implications for transformational work in college communities. First, policies to prevent and respond to sexual violence must be publicized by institutional leaders (especially men) to send clear institutional messages that preventing sexual violence and responding to it in ways that center accountability for the perpetrator and healing for the victim is a priority. Policy changes and community discussions around gender equity and sexual violence should be conducted with students, who largely shape the cultural narrative of the institution through stories shared with each other. Increasing accountability for prevention of sexual violence through repeated educational, training, and activism offerings will work to reduce stigma related to speaking about sexual violence and increase disclosure and help-seeking. Taken together, our data suggest that these strategies may mitigate the incidence of sexual violence and incrementally dismantle rape culture in college settings.
The strengths of our study include incorporating multiple perspectives within the college campus community and investigating nuanced overlap between different groups qualitatively. This was done in ways which amplify diverse student voices and focus on health promotive strategies. Our study also has limitations, namely that our sample is from a single college campus and findings must be replicated in multiple college settings and samples. It is possible there are regional or institutional effects that we were not able to explore or account for in the current study. Additionally, although sexual minorities were represented in our sample, issues specific to sexual orientation did not come up in the data. Future exploration of rape culture for groups who are specifically vulnerable to violence, such as sexual minorities and gender diverse individuals, is needed.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the research participants for sharing their perspectives and experiences. The authors would also like to thank Dr. Ryan Bouldin for supporting this work and Jessica Teperow for supporting data collection.
Data Availability
Qualitative data from this study are not publicly available to ensure participant confidentiality.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the Faculty Affairs Committee of Bentley University. L. R. was supported by the Bentley Jean and Dan Valente Center for Arts and Sciences undergraduate research assistantship program.
Ethical Approval and Informed Consent
This study was approved and granted exempt status by the Institutional Review Board at Bentley University. All participants provided verbal informed consent.
