Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy, 195, 2-16

“Good People with Good Intentions”: Deconstructing
A Post-Secondary Institution’s Sexual Violence
Policy Construction
Irene Shankar & D. Scharie Tavcer
Mount Royal University
Abstract

This exploratory study investigates the expertise of committee members tasked with constructing sexual
violence policies within a post-secondary institution (PSI) and the constraints under which they complete this work. Our findings indicate that allocated committees prioritize institutional risk management,
normalize confusion, and most members have little or no understanding of the intersectionality of violence. These findings contextualize PSI’s failure to address structural violence. Our recommendations
urge PSIs to include subject experts, consult with existing service providers, and integrate research on
the intersectionality of sexualized violence within their policy and program construction.
Keywords: gendered violence, sexual assault, sexual violence policy, post-secondary institutions

Introduction

In 2017, a student group analyzed a dozen post-secondary institutions1 (PSIs) across Ontario and assigned their sexual assault policies a C- grade; indicating a high level of dissatisfaction (Salvino et al.,
2017). Another study found a substantial undercounting of sexual assaults by PSIs, but an increase in
reporting by 44% during the audit period, indicating that policymakers and administrators underestimate the actual severity and needs of their students while presenting a low-risk public face (Yung,
2015). Thus, it is not surprising that many Canadian post-secondary institutions (PSIs), such as the University of Manitoba, Brandon University, Brock University, Dalhousie University, University of British
Columbia, University of Toronto, and York University have made news for their (mis)handling of sexual
violence cases (Anderson, 2016; Browne, 2014; Dehaas, 2014; Drouin, 2018; Laychuk, 2016; Munguia,
2015; Rotstein, 2014; Sawa & Ward, 2015, 2016; Senn et al., 2014; Shen, 2017; Valenti, 2014; Xing, 2017).
Canadian PSIs public failures implore us to investigate how institutional policies on sexualized violence are constructed and to question who is tasked to create such policies. (Daigle et al., 2009; Xing,
2017). There is scant information about committees tasked with creating institutional policies, their understanding of sexualized violence, and how their employment position within the PSI affects the policy
creation process. Adopting a Canadian university as our case study, we investigated who gets tasked
with creating sexual violence policy, what considerations they make in these policy deliberations, and
the structural constraints under which they complete such work. Our findings illuminate the barriers in
place for constructing meaningful policies on campuses.
Canadian and American statistics indicate that approximately 20-25% of college women have experienced sexual assault during their lifetime, and 1 in 5 have experienced sexual assault during their
post-secondary education (Benoit et al., 2015; Cantalupo, 2011; Conry & Canter, 2017; Fisher et al.,
2000; Holland & Cortina, 2017; Karjane et al., 2002; Krebs et al., 2007; Tjaden & Thoeness, 2000;
¹ In this paper, post-secondary institutions (PSIs) refer to any undergraduate or graduate degree granting institution of
higher education.

2

CJEAP, 195
United States Department of Justice, 2005). More than 90% of PSI students do not report their assault to
school authorities (Fisher et al., 2000; Krebs et al., 2007, 2016). This lack of reporting is consistent with
Canadian statistics that indicate only 1 in 10 assaults is reported to police (Brennan & Taylor-Butts, 2008;
Statistics Canada, 2017). Similarly, in the United States, rape is the most under-reported crime (Butler et
al., 2019; Department of Justice, 2017; RAINN, 2020).
The under-reporting of sexual violence within PSIs is due to myriad factors. For many PSI students,
sexual assaults happen within the first eight weeks of school, which some authors have termed the ‘red
zone’ (Flack et al., 2008; Kimble et al., 2008). As new students, they may be unaware of the on-campus
services and the reporting processes (Krebs et al., 2016; Senn et al., 2014). Others may fear repercussions
from the assailant or peers, victim-blaming, or maybe apprehensive about their loss of confidentiality
(Fisher et al., 2000).
While anyone can be subjected to sexual violence, in Canada, and at PSIs, we see higher rates of
sexual violence towards those who identify as women (Sinozich & Langton, 2014). Approximately 1 in 3
Canadian women has experienced sexual violence (Benoit et al., 2015), compared to 1 in 7 men (Conroy
& Canter, 2017). Violence against those situated within multiple intersections of oppression is even more
pronounced. In Canada, Indigenous women, women with disabilities, senior women, and young girls
are more likely to be victims of sexual assault (Benoit et al., 2015) than their counterparts. In the United
States, almost half (49.5%) of multiracial women and over 45% of Indigenous women were subjected
to some form of sexual violence in their lifetime (Smith et al., 2017). Overall, women with precarious
citizenship status, women experiencing homelessness, women with disabilities, racialized women, and
women sex workers, as well as non-binary and transgender persons have a two to three times higher rate
of sexual violence than their counterparts (Benoit et al., 2015; Cantor et al., 2015; Griner et al., 2017; Hoxmeier et al., 2018; Martin-Storey et al., 2018; Smith et al., 2017). The intersectionality of class, gender,
race, citizenship, sexuality, and disability collude to increase the likelihood of victimization, which may
influence a person’s decision to report the assault to authorities and how they are received by authorities
and society (Martin-Storey et al., 2018). Elevated risk for those who embody intersectional identities can
make post-secondary campuses precarious environments.
Due to institutional discrepancies in recording incidences of sexual violence, Canadian PSIs are
unable to provide accurate prevalence rates. Canada’s lack of federal legislation directed at PSIs may be
one of the many reasons that most Canadian PSIs do not gather and/or disclose statistics on sexual violence (Sawa & Ward, 2015). However, some provinces have developed action plans and legislation that
mandates reporting. Ontario’s Sexual Violence and Sexual Harassment Action Plan Act (2016) requires
all Ontario PSIs to have a stand-alone policy on sexual violence and that statistics are to be collected.
Other provinces have similar legislation, which at least provides an acknowledgment of the importance
of stand-alone policies and protocols.
But how sexual violence is understood within PSIs continues to present barriers for a meaningful
victim-centered response. For instance, Dr. Sara Ahmed (2015), who left her tenured position at the
Goldsmiths University of London because of their unwillingness to deal with structural and systemic
causes of sexual harassment and assault, has critiqued PSIs for their narrow understanding of sexual violence. PSIs conceptualize sexual violence around the body of the harasser/perpetrator of violence. Thus,
their solution is to expel that individual from the campus but leave the institutional culture, policies, and
practices that facilitate such violence intact and unaddressed (Ahmed, 2015). An iteration of such an individualized response was evident in the University of British Columbia’s response to sexual violence by
increasing lighting and security measures (Tamburri & Samson, 2014 as cited in Magnussen & Shankar,
2019). PSIs with mandatory reporting take control away from survivors and are centered on protecting
the university (Perkins & Warner, 2017). With such individualized reactions, it is not surprising that PSIs
such as the University of Toronto, with zero suspensions, expulsions, or disciplinary measures in 2014-15
despite 137 complaints of sexual violence, are more effective at sanctioning plagiarisers than perpetrators
of sexual violence (Desai, 2016 as cited in Magnussen & Shankar, 2019). The creation and adherence to
such individualized practices speak to PSIs’ prioritization of risk-mitigation and self-protection.
The materiality of PSIs’ history is highly visible in these public institutional failings. As explained
by Ahmed (2012) and Puwar (2004), spaces are constituted by the needs, values, and interests of its
original occupants. In other words, since PSIs were created for privileged white men, it is not surprising
3

Shankar & Tavcer
that the policies and practices continue to protect the institutional leaders, which have remained disproportionately privileged white men (Henry et al., 2017). While we understand this theoretically, we need
to investigate how these institutional priorities get realized within committees tasked to do meaningful
and responsive work on campus. Specifically, this study examined who gets tasked to create institutional policies and their understanding of sexual violence.  

Methodology

In this qualitative study, we used a Western Canadian undergraduate university as our case study to
investigate how individuals get selected for policy creation, their understanding of sexual violence, and
the parameters within which they do their work. We investigated how those in charge of making policies and administering services understand their roles, the larger issue of sexual violence, and the PSI’s
responsibility towards its students. We asked what forms of information are considered in creating and
administering policies and services, what obstacles policymakers and service providers encounter, and
how they negotiate such barriers.
Qualitative methodology permits researchers to analyze participants’ understanding of specific issues or experiences (Denzin & Lincoln, 2003; Hesse-Biber & Leavy, 2004). Specifically, the qualitative methodology’s open-ended and inductive framework allowed us to examine the contradictions and
nuances that inform the policymakers’ and service providers’ understandings and responses to sexual
violence. Furthermore, we selected a university as our case study because this method allows for an
intensive study of a given issue at one point in time (Adler & Clark, 2017). Case studies often focus on
a specific issue or topic, such as policy creation and sexual violence. Through this method, researchers
study the background, current status, interactions, and outcomes of the issue under examination (Dantzker & Hunter, 2012). Accordingly, our case study design allowed for an in-depth exploration of both the
case in question (policy creation and who creates policy) and the overall issue (sexual violence). Ethics
approval was obtained from this institution’s Human Research Ethics Committee before data collection.

Data Collection and Analysis

The data for this study were collected in the Fall of 2016 and Winter of 2017. The hour-long semi-structured interviews were conducted by three different faculty researchers, who asked about the participants’
overall background, training and expertise, experiences working within the field of sexual violence, and
their experiences in providing services or implementing policies about sexual violence at a Canadian
university. The semi-structured interview guide prioritized a collaborative conversation interview (Davies & Francis, 2011). Due to the iterative nature of semi-structured interviews, the researchers met
regularly to revise the semi-structured interview guide to investigate the emerging themes and issues
identified by the participants. The data collection and analysis occurred concurrently.
We interviewed members of the sexual violence policy committee and other service providers on
campus. In total, 16 people were interviewed for this study. This study’s participants were program
administrators, policy constructors, directors, managers, and service providers throughout the campus
whose portfolio or directive centred on sexual violence, human rights, student affairs, and legal. Our recruitment of participants involved an email invitation that identified our study’s purpose and objectives,
and a consent form.
In cleaned transcripts and data dissemination, we have utilized numbers instead of pseudonyms to
avoid matching the name to someone who may move into these positions since there are frequent staff
changes. The semi-structured interview transcripts were analyzed through N-Vivo software which allowed for a systematic line by line procedure to analyze and synthesize the qualitative data. The analysis
allowed us to identify theoretical patterns and construction of conceptual categories (Charmaz, 2004;
Strauss & Corbin, 1998). This was followed by an intersectional analysis of the emerging themes, which
we reflected upon regularly to identify any biases and oversights. The researchers met and discussed
periodically emerging themes to ensure inter-rater reliability. Inter-rater reliability is the extent to which
two or more raters (researchers) agree with what is generated from the data (Kreutzer et al., 2011).
The qualitative data were coded with careful attention to how various informal and formal gendered, racialized, heteronormative, and ableist understandings of sexualized violence frame policymakers’ position. Moreover, this framework was used to examine how the participants’ location (both physi4

CJEAP, 195
cally and in terms of disciplinary ownership) within the institution allowed or constrained their ability to
enact meaningful changes. The intersectional framework allowed us to identify three significant findings
centered around participants’ discussions on intentions, confusion, and complexity.

Researcher Positionality

Our research question, overall framework, and analysis were informed by Intersectionality theory. Intersectionality theory emphasizes the impact of multiple and intersecting grounds of identity (such as
citizenship status, disability, sexuality, class, race, gender, and oppression) on increased violence rates
against marginalized people. Therefore, we began with a clear recognition of the gendered and racialized
aspect of sexual violence (Benoit et al., 2015; Cantor et al., 2015; Smith et al., 2017). Moreover, we understand that sexual violence is under-reported (Brennan & Taylor-Butts, 2008; Fisher et al., 2000; Krebs et
al., 2016; Statistics Canada, 2017) and that Queer, disabled, Indigenous, Black, and racialized students
are disproportionately disenfranchised when they seek support or are involved in a formal complaint
process (Martin-Storey et al., 2018).
As a theoretical framework, intersectionality was utilized by Kimberle Crenshaw (1989) in her study
of the gendered and racialized workplace discrimination faced by Black women. She went on to use
this framework in her research on intimate partner violence and sexual violence, where she urged for a
structural, political, and representational intersectional analysis of violence (Crenshaw, 1991). Amongst
the broad application of an intersectionality framework, there are concerns about its oversimplification
and reductive quantification through checkboxes and as buzz words in policies and services that result
in a superficial impression of inclusiveness (Bilge, 2020; Nash, 2008; Tomlinson, 2013a, 2013b). Such
superficial utilization of intersectionality precludes a structural understanding of how students situated
within intersections of oppression are excluded from institutional policies and services.
In our interviews and analysis, we paid attention to the committee member’s understanding of and
attempts to address the intersectionality of violence within their work. As explained by Crenshaw (1991),
often the most immediate act of violence experienced by racialized and marginalized persons “… interacts with pre-existing vulnerabilities to create yet another dimension of disempowerment” (p. 1249). For
instance, PSIs need to consider the disproportionate effect of economic discrimination, housing barriers,
politically sanctioned violence, homophobia, transphobia, and ongoing colonialism experienced by Indigenous and people of colour. Thus, the design and implementation of sexual violence policies and services require careful consideration of how structural barriers (such as transphobia, funding constraints,
precarious citizenship status) may hinder students’ ability to report sexual violence or access existing
services.

Study Limitations

This exploratory study examines PSI policy construction using a single undergraduate university as a
case study. As such, it cannot be generalized to other PSIs. Within Canada, PSIs have diverse institutional cultures that facilitates different understandings/approaches to addressing sexual violence, are
mandated by different sets of provincial legislations, and have different funding provisions. Thus, the
findings from this institution may not apply to other PSIs. We should note that qualitative research does
not aim to provide generalizable data. Instead, the focus of such research is to examine an issue closely
to reveal emerging themes. The themes discussed here are consistent with other studies, as indicated in
the finding and discussion section.

Findings

This study examined the expertise and understandings of people tasked to create sexual violence policies
on campus and the constraints within which they completed this work. The effectiveness of the resulting
policies and services is contingent upon the expertise and membership of such committees. Thus, it is
essential to examine the people and the committees who complete this work, as well as their mandates
and understanding. Using an undergraduate university as our case study, we interviewed people tasked
with creating a sexual violence policy at this campus to understand who gets assigned to such committees
and what expertise they bring to the table.
5

Shankar & Tavcer

“Good People with Good Intentions”

At this PSI, administrators from different departments were tasked by the senior administrators (such
as officials from the provost office) with constructing the university’s sexual violence policy and protocol. The committee included academic administrators and staff from health services, the human rights
office, legal services, the office of student conduct, and security services. Faculty and researchers of
sexualized violence or community experts were not invited or included on the committee. Several faculty experts who repeatedly asked to be included in the committee were rebuffed, which is consistent
with Perkins & Warner’s (2017) findings of relevant stakeholders being omitted from the policy-making
process. The committee represented themselves and was described by others as uniquely qualified due
to their understanding of policy, law, and institutional risk.
It is a brand-new process with A [name removed] and B [name removed], and I have ultimate faith in their expertise, their compassion, their intention, so these are all good people
who have strong intentions, who have really strong knowledge around the system. (Participant 2485)
...I think the committee is good for being able to understand the needs of the victim, and so
that is, you know, that is positive. (Participant 842B)
Participants described their committee as composed of people with “good intentions” and who are
uniquely qualified because of some level of “goodness,” along with their expertise on law and knowledge
of the university and its legal system. These qualities were invoked as essential characteristics.
That is complex because you get a group of individuals with good skill sets around the table,
but they don’t have the information necessary to make the judgment ...(Participant 842B)
While some participants (such as participant 842B) recognized the shortcoming of such exclusionary
practices, others (such as participant A572) completely dismissed the possibility of including students in
the policymaking process.
We have people at universities who are specifically trained in this area, who are often lawyers, who understand the burden of evidence that has to be brought forward, and what people who are engaging in this process have to bring to the table and what they have to do. The
idea of a twenty-year-old involved in the establishment of the policy when it is a criminal
matter, I think is just frank amateurism. (Participant A572)
As seen above, expertise and training in sexualized and gendered violence was not mentioned as an
essential or desirable selection criterion for committee membership. There was an absence of training
for the committee on the intersectionality of violence, the gendered nature of sexualized violence, or the
structural causes of societal violence against marginalized bodies (such as colonialism, racial inequality,
gendered oppression, discrimination, homophobia, and transphobia). Perhaps the lack of their inclusion
is related to the committee’s overt (sole) interest to construct policies that mitigate legal risk to the institution.

Mitigating Institutional Risk

Sexual violence is often presented and understood as constituting a risk to the PSI, thereby rendering
the risk of sexual violence to individual students, staff, and faculty invisible (Iverson, 2015; Potter et al.,
2000). Similarly, in our study, we saw an urgency to create an institutional policy capable of mitigating
any litigation risk and one that will protect institutional reputation. This was presented as the main reason for including legal experts on the committee.
I think because it has been sent to the [group’s name removed] as a top risk, you know if
you are not investing in something that is a big risk for the university… (Participant 3Y5X)
6

CJEAP, 195
At some level, I imagine what will end up happening is that the person on the other side of the
accusation will hire a lawyer who will rip the institution and me to shreds because they will
find a whole bunch of holes. That is why it is really important to have someone who knows
what they are doing. (Participant A572)
The desire to protect the university remained a lingering narrative within the interviews. It was
discussed outright as requiring an immediate attention, while at other times, the risk to the institution
was presented as the underlying reason behind certain decisions. For instance, this participant was asked
about institutional data on sexualized violence and why such data has not been disseminated?
There are so many different reasons and needs around what and how data is collected. One
of the things I think has been a consideration is if we are going to be collecting things, let’s
make sure we are on the same page as other post-secondaries in the province and across
Canada, so at least when these numbers are reported publicly, they all mean the same thing.
This school over there might include sexual harassment and stalking in their numbers, [in]
this one it might just be things that are considered sexual assault; this one might include
disclosures and formal reports, and this one doesn’t, so what are we talking about here, and
why are we collecting, like what are we doing with this information? Is it useful? Is it about
informing future practice, or is it, you know, count for the sake of counting? So…. I think
there is lots more discussion around that piece of it. (Participant 3Y5X)
Participant 3Y5X appears to be more concerned about the potential for detrimental comparison rather than how such institutional data can address the needs of those affected by sexual violence. Indeed,
public disclosure of such statistics can impact a PSI’s reputation and dissuade potential students. But the
lack of available data also allows PSIs to feign ignorance and invoke deniability (Shankar, 2017). Instead
of a data-fuelled and evidence-based policy creation process, PSI policy development appears to be centred upon the “good intentions” of those involved. In this case study, committee members were genuinely
committed to creating sound institutional policy, and they brought tremendous legal and institutional
knowledge to the table. However, they also lacked any intersectional and structural understandings of
violence. This deficit could have been remedied by the inclusion of faculty, researchers, and student experts.

“We Don’t Know What We Don’t Know:” Confusion Abounds

We interviewed people who were tasked with constructing a stand-alone policy on sexual violence at
their PSI. It was disconcerting that this group was confused about institutional data on sexual violence,
existing protocols, and on-campus services for victims of sexual violence at their university.
We don’t know what we don’t know and that is the scary thing for me as a [person’s title],
hearing stats of one in three students are experiencing sexual violence and we are just not
seeing it, or I am just not hearing about it and that is...that is the part that I am passionate
- that brings my passion out - to help educate students on just what can be done and what
supports are here. (Participant 723W)
Interviewer: So, and in that time, you have only seen three cases?
Only three. Which doesn’t mesh at all with the survey results, obviously, but it does mesh with
society…. so, we met with counselling two weeks ago and talked about numbers and again,
the numbers are nowhere close to each other, right? (Participant A572)
Without access to centralized campus statistics, some respondents were understandably confused
about prevalence rates. Their confusion also extended to response and reporting protocols and the availability of on-campus services.
7

Shankar & Tavcer
[Speaking about services for victims of sexualized violence] ...Beyond counselling, I don’t
know of any, honestly, I don’t know if there is an area that specializes in this or...I don’t
know. Maybe, I would know if I had an assault and they had disclosed it to me, but I don’t
have any knowledge of that personally. (Participant CEF9)
But even that, for me, has been an eye-opener in ... that I actually ... Counselling [person’s
name] office, but beyond that, I don’t really have a good, you know, what to do next or, you
know, if I, as [administrator] need to move people how do I deal with that? We don’t have a
lot of protocols kind of worked out to make the afters as easy as possible. (Participant D678)
As seen above, participants were unclear on prevalence, where to send victims, and the protocol for
information sharing, collaboration, and support. This institution was in the process of creating its first
stand-alone sexual violence policy; thus, some of the confusion is warranted. Participants were sympathetic to the process of policy development but expressed concerns about what this prevailing confusion
means for those seeking assistance for sexual violence in the meantime.
Dealing with reporting, and by that, I mean if the institution becomes aware of an alleged
event and the alleged victim does not want to report that - what are the institution’s obligations to proceed with an investigation? I feel there is no clarity around, and when we
go to Legal Services, we get a million different ways of approaching that … inconsistent.
(Participant 842B)
So, since there is no policy and there is no protocol, I think the response is pretty terrible,
to be completely honest with you! Yeah, I ... there seems to be a lack of consistency, I think,
again, because it seems to be all up in the air. (Participant CDZ4)
To reiterate, these participants were particularly concerned about what the lack of consistency means
for the victim. Without clear protocols, the suitability and quality of services hinge upon the knowledge,
ability, and goodwill of the service seeker’s first point of contact. Some service providers may be more
willing or able to connect the service seeker to appropriate on-campus resources than others. This prevailing confusion is further compromised by the siloing prevalent on campus.

“Lots of siloing”: Working in Isolation
I know, like, we had some disclosures here, and not this year but that doesn’t mean they
haven’t happened; they just haven’t felt that they need to talk to us about it, I guess. (Participant CEF9)
There is confusion regarding prevalence rates of sexual violence, and part of the confusion stems
from the lack of information sharing due to concerns of student privacy and confidentiality being compromised by such disclosures. However, there are ways to share information without compromising
confidentiality, such as a centralized system that holds anonymized data. As seen in the quote above, service providers find themselves reliant upon other departments for information. The lack of information
sharing can compromise these service providers’ ability to adequately plan for, respond to, and assist
victims of sexual violence.
Yeah. There was lots of pushback initially, like lots of pushback, but the more we talked, the
more things … there was lots of … there was lots of siloing at first, ‘Now you guys are crossing into our world,’ and we kind of just stayed firm on the fact of, No, this isn’t your world.
These are the needs of these people... (Participant BA72)
So, we have to consult with people [lists different groups] and then go to that process. So,
it is not that there are so many obstacles in our way as trying to get people together to have
8

CJEAP, 195
some of the conversations … it is just making sure everyone is okay with what is suggested
in the procedure … (Participant 3Y5X)
Part of the lack of information sharing is due to confusion regarding jurisdiction, as different departments are tasked with roles that are not clearly defined or communicated. For instance, if a student
wants to change course sections (because their attacker is in the same class), this will require approval
from several different departments and individuals (such as the registrar, the chair of the department, the
instructor, as well as supporting documentation from counselling). Thus, the situation requires intervention from several different departments with very different mandates, which can take time to accomplish
and which is not victim centered.
We would be happy to support any initiative that we could work on as long as the funding
was there to support; anything on top of what we already do, it is overwhelming what we do.
(Participant 2485)
The other obstacle to collaborating is lack of time. Service providers are under budget constraints,
leaving them with fewer resources and insufficient staff to meet the needs of the ever-increasing student
population. With accumulating cuts to PSIs, siloing and lack of collaboration will only increase. Unfortunately, the effects of these budget cuts will be felt by those most in need of services and timely assistance.

“There is a Lot of Complexity There”: Complexity as a Barrier

Participants consistently invoked the notion of “complexity” as a barrier to developing meaningful and
responsive policies on sexual violence. In other words, the prevailing institutional confusion is because
sexual violence is a complex issue that requires thoughtful action and response. The complexity can be
overwhelming and may lead to service providers feeling unprepared or ill-equipped. Service providers
want comprehensive measures to assist victims and are frustrated with inadequate programs and services.
There is a lot of complexity there. I feel like the institution kind of flies by the seat of its pants
for each case; each case is different, and we are fairly unprepared to deal with those cases
every time it comes up, which is very ludicrous, isn’t it? (Participant 842B)
Interestingly, the intersectionality of violence was presented as one of the main causes of this complexity.
The other piece and this is something that everyone across the country is struggling with and
has identified as an issue but hasn’t come up with how to address it, and it is something I will
be looking for with this C [name removed] is addressing intersections of identities related to
sexual violence. So that will be a big thing. How do we support different populations in the
way they need to be supported around this topic because not everyone has the same cultural
and societal norm. (Participant 3Y5X)
In the quote above, the intersectionality of violence is presented as an overly complex matter that
“everyone across the country is struggling with.” This rhetoric: (a) normalizes institutional confusion
and lack of intersectional analysis within policy deliberations as a matter that “everyone” is challenged
by; (b) subtly presents the different “populations” and “identities” as being the source of confusion,
and (c) places people of “different populations” and “identities” as others who need to be served by the
resulting policy as opposed to those who can also inform and shape the policy. There are significant
consequences to such rhetoric: (a) it attributes institutional inaction (or lack of sufficient action) on sexual
violence to the ‘complexity’ of intersectional identities; and (b) it exempts policymakers from addressing
the needs of those bodies situated within these ‘complex’ intersectional positionalities.
In the absence of intersectional policies and services, rhetoric-infused public messages, which are
9

Shankar & Tavcer
incapable of addressing the structural basis of sexualized violence, become instituted.
It is sort of a photo op by a ‘we believe you’ thing ... we seem to fixate on the flavor of the
month ... (Participant A572)
... But I think just - sexual assault right now is very topical, and sometimes topical things fall
off the radar when other things present themselves, but it would be really great if that was - if
it continued to be a conversation that we have every year … (Participant D678)
Furthermore, these rhetoric-infused public messages are designed to project an image of a responsive institution (that is “doing” something about sexualized violence). Unfortunately, the public image of
“doing” something is prioritized over the actual development of meaningful policies and protocols that
address violence and its causes and consequences (Ahmed, 2012).   

Discussion and Conclusion

Our findings indicate that those tasked to complete this work are genuinely invested in doing the right
thing and creating sound policies and services. However, the task force is usually composed of administrators that lack adequate training on sexual violence. Their position and training centres on risk management. The absence of sexual violence experts on policymaking committees is a disconcerting finding from this study. While most PSIs have faculty with expertise and students who want to participate in
policy creation, they are seldom invited to the table or deemed qualified to participate in processes that
involve institutional reputation and liability (Shankar, 2017).

Prioritization of Administrators and Risk Mitigators on Committees

A committee’s understanding of sexual violence informs resulting policies, protocols, and services. In
other words, an institution’s response to sexual violence is contingent on how the policymakers understand that violence. It follows that the inclusion of legal and institutional expertise, as well as the exclusion of faculty, staff, and students who have expertise in sexualized violence, will shape the resulting
policies and services.
While policymakers are good people with good intentions, their lack of training and expertise on
sexualized violence makes them ill-equipped to construct meaningful policies. Moreover, their work is
constrained by the larger institution that is often preoccupied with image maintenance and risk management. PSI administrator roles are to strengthen the institution’s reputation, mitigate risk, and protect
it from litigation (D’Enbeau, 2019; Moylan, 2017; Moylan & Javorka, 2018). Consequently, the creation
and implementation of institutional centred policies (such as the University of Brandon’s non-disclosure
agreements) are not surprising. Perhaps, as indicated in our case study, such protocols are due to the
composition of committees that are administrator-dominated, include untrained members, omit subject
experts, and are constructed around the needs of the university and not a victim or student-centred. This
is demonstrated in this PSI’s hesitance to release statistics on sexual violence. PSIs’ dissemination of
sexual violence rates involving their students, with a clear explanation of which acts of violence are included or excluded in such figures, may lead to a shift from the current fear-based protectionist mentality
(which contributes to the prevailing silence surrounding sexual violence) towards an inclusive and advocacy-based culture (Shankar, 2017). However, the prioritization of PSI’s reputation and risk mitigation
overrides such discussions.
Unfortunately, what we see in PSI policy development is the “normative enshrinement of certain
definitions of violence” (Jiwani, 2006, p. 6), whereby risk management is prioritized. For example,
the University of British Columbia spent $750,000 on lighting and landscaping to create safer walking
routes (Dhillon, 2018), and “pledged an additional $250,000 for education and awareness-building programs, to explore CCTV options, or the development of communication tools” (Dhillon, 2018, para. 11).
Such actions are in line with most PSI policies that represent sexualized violence as an act committed by
a stranger and which do nothing to address its structural causes, myths, stigma, and shame surrounding
sexualized violence experienced by men and women. This narrow understanding also leads to policies
that fail to address violence enacted by people in power (such as faculty and staff onto students), and
10

CJEAP, 195
people who are known to each other (such as dating partners or classmates).

Collaboration and Research

A meaningful response to sexualized violence requires collaborative action from all PSI departments,
bodies, and service providers. However, in the current neoliberal era of austerity and precarious funding
of PSIs, participants are afraid to share information and resources. Some departments want to collaborate on policymaking, but they find themselves constrained by funding. The collaboration is further
hampered by an underlying fear that the sharing of resources will result in their work being taken over by
other departments, making their positions or the departments redundant. Thus, those tasked to complete
PSI policy work find themselves working in silos within a culture of fear. The precarious government
funding consistent and continuing budget cuts makes them unable to collaborate with the other departments within their campus to create a meaningful and responsive set of policies that will address the
differing needs of people seeking assistance. PSIs need sustained and secure funding to provide a safe
learning space for students and a safe working environment for their staff and faculty.
PSIs also need to invite experts to the table, consult with existing community service providers, and
integrate the abundance of research on the intersectionality of sexualized violence. The continued exclusion of experts is a lingering reminder that PSIs are constituted for privileged bodies and, as such, sexual
violence experts and researchers continue to be seen as ‘space invaders’ or ‘others’ whose expertise is
dismissed (Puwar, 2004). However, without these experts at the table, PSIs will continue to be unsafe
spaces for those who do not adhere to the somatic norm and who are situated within the margins of intersectionality.

Absence of Intersectionality of Violence Understandings and Expertise

Without adequate training and collaboration with other members, committee members find themselves
unable to address the complexity of sexual violence fully. The intersectionality of violence is presented
as an overly confusing issue that institutions cannot fully address. This leaves those affected by sexual
violence without adequate policies and protection. For instance, in this study, the participants recognized the importance of an intersectionality framework in addressing sexual violence but did not feel
equipped to create policies that address the higher incidence of violence against marginalized groups.
This is concerning because these are the same groups of people most at risk: Indigenous women; people
with precarious citizenship status; those encountering homelessness; people with disabilities; racialized
or transgender people; and sex workers are more likely to experience sexual violence (Benoit et al., 2015;
Smith et al., 2017).
While the issues surrounding sexual violence are undoubtedly complex, there is extensive research
on the subject. As pointed out by Shankar (2017), PSIs house decades of research and hire faculty and
researcher experts on gendered and sexual violence. Yet, committees remain overwhelmed by the complexity of the issue. This prevailing confusion can be decreased through access to readily available
scholarship on the issue and with meaningful inclusion of faculty and researchers in the policy creation
work. To reiterate, this normalization of complexity and the absence of an intersectional understanding of
violence within such committees are unwarranted because PSIs have libraries filled with research about
the intersectional nature of sexualized violence and have faculty and researchers who can be consulted
or included in the policy development process. The persistent normalization of complexity and absence
of inclusion speaks to how “marginalized bodies are continually silenced and rendered invisible …”
(Monture, 2010, p. 23) within PSIs, whereby positional privilege is centred, and all others are ‘othered’
as being too complex to be considered. The discourse of complexity is part of cyclical reasoning that
does not have an out. This rhetoric of complexity is conveniently invoked time and again to justify the
prevailing confusion about sexual violence policy and protocol creation. Thus, it is not surprising that the
resulting policies and services are superficial and are not victim-centered. These may generate publicity
for the PSI, but they do not meaningfully address the intersections of sexualized violence
In conclusion, with the continued absence of experts on these committees, those assigned to
create such policies are often employees hired to protect the risk and reputation of PSIs. Consequently,
the resulting policies and services are not victim-centered and do not address the intersectionality of violence. In consideration of these findings, it is frustrating but not surprising that PSI policies are failing
11

Shankar & Tavcer
to address the needs of our diverse student population, which leads to racialized (and non-racialized)
students remaining distrustful of institutional policies and practices (Kingkade, 2015). Committees need
to include the expert faculty, staff, and students at the PSI to create robust, inclusive, and responsive
policies.

References

Ahmed, S. (2012). On being included: Racism and diversity in institutional life. Duke University
Press.
Ahmed, S. (2015, December 3). Sexual harassment. Feminist Killjoys. https://feministkilljoys.
com/2015/12/03/sexual-harassment/
Anderson, N. (2016, June 7). These colleges have the most reports of rape. The Washington Post.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/gradepoint/wp/2016/06/07/these-colleges-havethe-most-reports-of-rape/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.041a366be4b7
Benoit, C., Shumka, L., Phillips, R., Kennedy, M. C., & Belle-Isle, L. (2015). Sexual violence
against women in Canada. Status of Women Canada. https://cfc-swc.gc.ca/svawc-vcsfc/
index-en.html
Bilge, S. (2020). The fungibility of intersectionality: An Afropessimist reading. Ethnic and
Racial Studies, 43(13), 2298-2326. https://doi.org/10.1080/01419870.2020.1740289
Brennan, S., & Taylor-Butts, A. (2008). Sexual assault in Canada in 2004 and 2007. Canadian
Centre for Justice Statistics. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca
/n1/en/pub/85f0033m/85f0033m2008019-eng.pdf?st=DYu6EIT0
Browne, R. (2014, October 30). Why don’t Canadian universities want to talk about sexual
assault? Maclean’s. http://www.macleans.ca/education/unirankings
/why-dont-canadian-universities-want-to-talk-about-sexual-assault/
Butler, L. C., Heejin, L., & Fisher, B. S. (2019). Less safe in the ivory tower: Campus sexual
assault policy in the Trump administration. Victims & Offenders, 14(8), 979-996. https://
doi.org/1080/15564886.2019.1671289
Cantalupo, N. C. (2011). Burying our heads in the sand: Lack of knowledge, knowledge
avoidance, and the persistent problem of campus peer sexual violence. Loyola University
Chicago Law Journal, 43(1), 205-266. http://lawecommons.luc.edu/luclj/vol43/iss1/6  
Cantor, D., Fisher, B., Chibnall, S., & Townsend, R., Lee, H., Bruce, C., & Thomas, G. (2015).
The AAU campus climate survey on sexual assault and sexual misconduct. Westat. https://
www.aau.edu/sites/default/files/%40%20Files/Climate%20Survey/AAU_Campus_Climate_Survey_12_14_15.pdf
Charmaz, K. (2004). Grounded theory. In S. N. Hesse-Biber & P. Leavy (Eds.), Approaches to
qualitative research: A reader in theory and practice (pp. 496-522). Oxford University
Press.
Conry, S., & Canter, A. (2017). Self-reported sexual assault in Canada, 2014. Statistics Canada.
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/85-002-x/2017001/article/14842-eng.htm
Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A black feminist critique
of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory, and antiracist politics. University of
Chicago Legal Forum, 1, 139-167. http://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/uclf/vol1989/iss1/8
Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241-1299. https://doi.
org/10.2307/1229039
D’Enbeau, S. (2019). Communicating policy-practice orientations: The case of sexual violence
response among college students. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 47(4),
420-438. https://doi.org/10.1080/00909882.2019.1654123  
Daigle, L. E., Fisher, B. S., & Stewart, M. (2009). The effectiveness of sexual victimization
prevention among college students: A summary of “what works.” Victims and Offenders,
4(4), 398-404. https://doi.org/10.1080/15564880903227529

12

CJEAP, 195
Dantzker, M. L., & Hunter, R. D. (2012). Research methods for criminology and criminal justice
(3rd ed.). Jones & Bartlett Learning Books.
Davies, P., & Francis, P. (2011). Doing research. In P. Davies, P. Francis, & V. Jupp (Eds.), Doing
criminological research (2nd ed., pp. 99-107). Sage Publications.
Dehaas, J. (2014, August 7). How to stop sex assault on campus: A University of Windsor
program aims to spot trouble before sexual assault happens. Maclean’s https://www.macleans.ca/education/uniandcollege/how-to-stop-sex-assault-on-campus/
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2003). The discipline and practice of qualitative research.
In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials
(pp. 1-46). Sage Publications.
Dhillon, S. (2018, May 12). UBC invests $750,000 on campus safety improvements. The Globe
and Mail. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia
/safety-at-point-grey-campus-enhanced-for-fall-semester-ubc-says/article20041212/
Drouin, A. (2018, March 25). Université de Sherbrooke: One-third of students and employees who
are victims of sexual violence. Le Journal de Montréal. https://www.journaldemontreal.
com/2018/09/25/universite-de-sherbrooke-le-tiers-des-etudiants-victimes-de-violence-sexuelle
Fisher, B., Cullen, F., & Turner, M. (2000). The sexual victimization of college women. U.S.
Bureau of Justice Statistics. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/182369.pdf
Fisher, B., Cullen, F., & Turner, M. (2002). Being pursued: Stalking victimization in a
national study of college women. Criminology & Public Policy, 1(2), 257-308. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1745-9133.2002.tb00091.x
Flack, W. F. J., Caron, M. L., Leinen, S. J., Breitenbach, K. G., Barber, A. M., Brown, E. N.,
Gilbert, C. T., Harchack, T. F., Hendricks, M. M., Rector, C. E., Schatten, H. T., & Stein, H.
C. (2008). “The Red Zone”: Temporal risk for unwanted sex among college students.
Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 23(9), 1177-1196. https://doirg/10.1177/0886260508314308
Griner, S. B., Vamos, C. A., Thompson, E. L., Logan, R., Vázquez-Otero, C., & Daley, E. M.
(2017). The intersection of gender identity and violence: Victimization experienced by
transgender college students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 35(23-24), 5704-5725.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260517723743
Henry, F., Dua, E., James, C. E., Kobayashi, A., Li, P., Ramos, H., & Smith, M. S. (2017).
The equity myth: Racialization and Indigeneity at Canadian universities. UBC Press.
Hesse-Biber, S. N., & Leavy, P. (2004). Distinguishing qualitative research. In S. N. Hesse-Biber
& P. Leavy (Eds.), Approaches to qualitative research: A reader in theory and practice (pp.
1-16). Oxford University Press.
Holland, K. J., & Cortina, L. M. (2017). “It happens to girls all the time”: Examining sexual
assault survivors’ reasons for not using campus supports. American Journal of Community
Psychology, 59(1-2), 50-64. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajcp.12126
Hoxmeier, J. C., & Madlem, M. (2018). Discrimination and interpersonal violence: Reported
experiences of trans* undergraduate students. Violence and Gender, 5(1), 12-18. https://doi.
org/10.1089/vio.2017.0003
Iverson, S. V. (2015). A policy discourse analysis of sexual assault policies in higher education.
In S. C. Wooten & R. W Mitchell (Eds.), The crisis of campus sexual violence: Critical
perspectives on prevention and response (pp. 15-32). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
Jiwani, Y. (2006). Discourses of denial: Mediations of race, gender, and violence. UBC Press.
Karjane, H. K., Fisher, B. S., & Cullen, F. T. (2002). Campus sexual assault: How America’s
institutions of higher education respond. Education Development Center. https://www.
ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/196676.pdf
Kimble, M., Neacsiu, A. D., Flack, W. F. J., & Horner, J. (2008). Risk of unwanted sex for college
women: Evidence for a red zone. Journal of American College Health, 57(3), 331-332.
https://doi.org/10.3200/JACH.57.3.331-338  

13

Shankar & Tavcer
Kingkade, T. (2015, March 12). Brown students don’t trust the school to fix sexual assault
policies. The Huffington Post. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/12
/brown-sexual-assault-protest_n_6859486.htm?ir=Women&ncid
=fcbklnkushpmg00000046
Krebs, C., Lindquist, C., Warner, T., Fisher, B., & Martin, S. (2007). The campus sexual assault
(CSA) study: Final report. National Criminal Justice Reference Service. http://www.ncjrs.
gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/221153.pdf
Krebs, C., Lindquist, C., Berzofsky, M., Shook-Sa, B. E., Peterson, K., Planty, M.G., … & Stroop,
J. (2016). Campus Climate Survey Validation Study Final Technical Report. U.S. Bureau of
Justice Statistics. http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=5540
Lange, R. T. (2011). Inter-rater reliability. In J. S. Kreutzer, J. DeLuca, & B. Caplan (Eds.),
Encyclopedia of Clinical Neuropsychology. Springer. https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007%2F978-0-387-79948-3_1203
Laychuk, R. (2016, April 5). Brandon University sexual assault victims forced to sign contract
that keeps them silent. CBC News. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada
/manitoba/brandon-university-behavioural-contract-1.3520568
Magnussen, J., & Shankar, I. (2019). Where is it? Examining post-secondary students’
accessibility to policies and resources on sexual violence. Canadian Journal of Higher
Education, 49(2), 90-108.
Mamas, C., Kaimi, I., & Michail, G. (2017). Friendships and group work dynamics in higher
education: Applying a critical case study design. SAGE Research Methods Cases.
Martin-Storey, A., Paquette, G., Bergeron, M., Dion, J., Daigneault, I., Hébert, M., & Ricci, S.
(2018). Sexual violence on campus: Differences across gender and sexual minority status.
Journal of Adolescent Health, 62(6), 701-707. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2017.12.013
Monture, P. (2010). Race, gender, and the university: Strategies for survival. In S. Razack, M.
Smith, & S. Thobani (Eds.), States of race: Critical race feminism for the 21st century (pp.
23-35). Between the Lines.
Mosley, M. P., Serna, K., Tasfia, N., Camacho-Rivera, M., & Frye, V. (2020). Evaluating the
presentation of the construct of ‘race’ in medical education using an inter-rater reliability
methodology. SAGE Research Methods Cases: Medicine and Health. https://dx-doi-org.
libproxy.mtroyal.ca/10.4135/9781529712742
Moylan, C. A. (2017). “I fear I’m a checkbox”: College and university victim advocates’
perspectives of campus rape reforms. Violence Against Women, 23(9), 1122–1139. https://
doi.org/10.1177/1077801216655623
Moylan, C. A., & Javorka, M. (2018). Widening the lens: An ecological review of campus sexual assault. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse 21(1), 179-192. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1524838018756121
Munguia, H. (2015, March 13). College presidents appear to be delusional about sexual assault on
their campuses. FiveThirtyEight. http://fivethirtyeight.com
/datalab/college-presidents-appear-to-be-delusional-about-sexual-assault-on-their-campuses/
Nash, J. C. (2008). Re-thinking intersectionality. Feminist Review, 89, 1-15. www.jstor.org/stable/40663957
Perkins, W., & Warner, J. (2017). Sexual violence response and prevention: Studies of campus
policies and practices. Journal of School Violence, 16(3), 237-242. https://doi.org/10.1080/15
388220.2017.1318569
Potter, R. H., Krider, J. E., & McMahon, P. M. (2000). Examining elements of campus sexual
violence policies: Is deterrence or health promotion favored? Violence against Women,
6(12), 1345-1362. https://doi.org/10.1177/10778010022183686
Puwar, N. (2004). Space invaders: Race, gender, and bodies out of place. Berg Publishers.
RAINN. (2020). The criminal justice system: Statistics. The Crime Victimization Survey, 20102016. U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics. https://www.rainn.org
/statistics/criminal-justice-system
14

CJEAP, 195
Rotstein, S. (2014, August 29). Are Canadian universities doing enough to prevent sexual assault
on campus? The Huffington Post. http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/samara-rotstein/sexual-assault-oncampus_b_5737596.html
Salvino, C., Gilchrist, K., & Cooligan-Pang, J. (2017). ‘Our turn: A national action plan to end
campus sexual violence.’ Student’s Society of McGill University. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5bc4e7bcf4755a6e42b00495/t/5f107ac2b2f3cd2f9b6fe449/1594915540325/
our_turn_action_plan_en_2020-05-26.pdf
Sawa, T., & Ward, L. (2015, February 9). Sex assault reporting on Canadian campuses worryingly
low, say experts. CBC News. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/sex-assault-reporting-on-canadian-campuses-worryingly-low-say-experts-1.2948321
Sawa, T., & Ward, L. (2016, March 11). Brock University tells student to keep quiet about sexual
harassment finding. CBC News. http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/brock-university-sexual-harrassment-1.3485814
Senn, C. Y., Eliasziw, M., Barata, P. C., Thurston, W. E., Newby-Clark, I. R., Radtke, L., ... &
SARE Study Team (2014). Sexual violence in the lives of first-year university women in
Canada: No improvements in the 21st century. BMC Women’s Health, 14, 135-143. https://
doi.org/10.1186/s12905-014-0135-4
Shankar, I. (2017, July 28). #MoreThanHashtags: Universities should take concrete actions to end
campus sexual violence. Conditionally Accepted. Inside Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/advice/2017/07/28/universities-should-take-concrete-actions-stop-sexual-assault-essay
Shen, A. (2017, August 4). Universities across Canada implement sexual violence policies.
University Affairs. https://www.universityaffairs.ca/news/news-article/universities-across-canada-implement-sexual-violence-policies/
Sinozich, S., & Langton, L. (2014). Rape and sexual victimization among college-aged females,
1995-2013. U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics. https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/rsavcaf9513.pdf
Smith, S. G., Chen, J., Basile, K. C., Gilbert, L. K., Merrick, M. T., Patel, N., Walling, M., & Jain,
A. (2017). The national intimate partner and sexual violence survey: 2010-2012. The
National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/NISVS-StateReportBook.pdf
Statistics Canada. (2017). Self-reported sexual assault, by sex of victim, Canada, 1999, 2004,
2009 and 2014. Juristat. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub
/85-002-x/2017001/article/14842/tbl/tbl01-eng.htm
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for
developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Sage.
Tjaden, P., & Thoenees, N. (2000). Prevalence, incidence, and consequences of violence against
women: Findings from the national violence against women survey. U.S Department of
Justice. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/183781.pdf
Tomlinson, S. (2013a). Social justice and lower attainers in global knowledge economy. Social
Inclusion, 1(2), 102-112. https://doi.org10.12924/si2013.01020102
Tomlinson, B. (2013b). Colonizing intersectionality: Replicating racial hierarchies in feminist
arguments. Social Identities, 19(2), 254-272. https:/doi.org/10.1080/13504630.2013.789613
United States Department of Justice. (2005). Sexual assault on campus: What colleges and
universities are doing about it. U.S Department of Justice National Institute of Justice.
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/205521.pdf
Valenti, J. (2014, August 21). We have more than just a campus rape problem. There is invisible
rape all over. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com
/commentisfree/2014/aug/21/campus-rape-problem-sexual-assault
Xing, L. (2017, October 11). University sex assault policies average C- in analysis by nationwide
student group. CBC News. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto
/our-turn-movement-unites-survivors-of-Sexual-assault-through-student-unions-1.4348709
15

Shankar & Tavcer
Yung, C. R. (2015). Concealing campus sexual assault: An empirical examination. Psychology,
Public Policy, and Law, 21(1), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000037

16