Higher education institutions by and large have failed to protect students in cases of sexual harassment (Lasson 2020). Despite several regulations and policies that have historically guided the institutional representatives, protection from sexual misconduct and/or sexual assault is still complicated by several factors (Lasson 2020, Wies 2015). While siloed organizations, bureaucratic rules, and hegemonic norms that question the validity of a case often time put the survivor at blame, both ambiguous policy and the failure of formal and informal network support are to be held responsible for the lack of reporting. As a result, victim-survivors who are functioning within the constraints of the institutional structures prefer to remain silent than disclosing assault. Disclosure, if it happens, is delayed (Dewan 2018). Even with the delay when disclosure happens, students often open up to informal sources of support rather than formal helpers (Demers et al. 2017). Title IX, though it stands as the guarding armor against sexual harassment within academic spaces, fails to provide protection to students, staff, and faculty because of underlying complexities, ultimately hindering proper justice.
While silence is a common response to sexual harassment for many victim-survivors, international students are particularly hesitant to come forward (Brubaker et al. 2017; Martin 2015; Chang et al. 2021). Coupled with immigration issues and international student identity, the bureaucratic structures and practices of the institutions conjointly influence the acceptance of sexual aggression (Papp & McCelland 2020) and reinforce normative silence as a standardized practice for international students. This paper problematizes international students’ experiences of reporting sexual harassment incidents regarding policy inadequacies and institutional betrayal. Additionally, it examines the institutional factors that not only create but also sustain a culture of silence in cases of sexual harassment in higher education. In the subsequent sections, I discuss how confusing definitions, inadequate policies, failure of support networks combined with a discriminatory institutional culture lead to the silence of international students in sexual harassment incidents.
Inadequate Sexual Misconduct Policies
Lack of Clear Definition
The US Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights enforced Title IX, which protects people from sex-based discrimination in education programs. Protection from sexual harassment, including sexual assault and other forms of sexual violence, is one type of sex discrimination protection afforded by Title IX. Under this policy, a federally funded entity or program is required to comply to protect its subjects from sex-based harassment (US Department of Education n.d.). However, the definition of sexual misconduct is not uniform across institutions (Bellis 2021; Bellis et al. 2018; Crocker 1983; Fitzgerald 1990). Additionally, the lack of a central description within institutions about what constitutes sexual misconduct, harassment, and/or sexual assault has given rise to confusion and hesitation among students to recognize and acknowledge incidents of harassment (Krivoshey et al. 2013).
This lack of clarity is leveraged by institutions to create ambiguity regarding sexual violence. Students conceptualize sexual assault in different ways. Thus, the absence of a clear and inclusive definition of a “reportable” sexual misconduct/harassment/ assault creates challenges to students’ identification of harmful sexual behavior. Colleges and universities in the US are far from providing a succinct and inclusive description of when and under which circumstances should students come forward with a complaint of sexual harassment (Krivoshey et al. 2013; Papp et al. 2023). For example, Title IX guidance and several other resources on the institutional website of a leading land grant university do not provide any definition of what sexual harassment is but merely state that “sexual harassment, sexual assault, dating violence, domestic violence, sexual exploitation, and stalking, as well as retaliation for reporting any of these acts … are not tolerated” (Title IX, The Pennsylvania State University). Similarly, another 4-year public land grant institution though provides more elaborate explanation of what constitutes sexual harassment, includes a clause about the severity of a case by stating that a reasonable person should perceive the incident “…to be so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it effectively denies a person equal access to participate in or to benefit from an institutional education program or activity.” Given the fact that severity may be perceived differently by different individuals, this additional specification might restrain students from reporting incidents that they consider trivial. Thus, the vagueness of the definitions as well as policies and procedures can cause systemic dissuasion from reporting, amplifying the culture of silence for the majority of the students.
Use of Legal Jargons Resulting in Increased Confusion
Institutional websites not only use multiple terms, but they also obfuscate public understanding by employing legal jargons in outlining their sexual assault policy. For example, institutions use phrases such as “criminal sexual abuse in the 1st degree”, “misdemeanor sexual abuse”, or “assault with intent to commit a sexual battery” (Papp et al. 2023). As for international students who have language barriers, these jargons might pose an additional layer of difficulty. Moreover, colleges and universities seek the guidance of the federal government when they define “sexual assault,” (Crocker 1983; Papp et al. 2023) thereby ignoring the unique situations and contexts institutional stakeholders may face in a higher education setting.
While these are challenges for all students, international students are dually disadvantaged, due to privacy norms of different cultures (Martin 2015). Depending on the culture in which they have been brought up, certain behaviors might be perceived overtly inappropriate while some might be ignored. For example, participants in Dey’s (2024) study have described how hugging and kissing are normalized in the US but not in their home countries. On the contrary, inappropriate touching might be ignored if it threatens familial prestige. Other cultural factors like avoiding shame and filial piety may inhibit them from being vocal about sexually harassing behaviors (Chang et al. 2021). Unclear policies combined with cultural norms of international students that prioritize privacy compound the silence around these incidents. Therefore, the usage of multiple terms can easily confuse international students. Specifically, sexual harassment safety messaging can play an important role in orienting them about coming forward. Policy explanations, descriptions of probable situations, and risk reduction tips may be dissociated from victim-centeredness, implying culpability on part of the victims for their victimization (Brock 2024), eventually causing international students to remain quiet about the incidents.
Institutional Betrayal & Reluctant Acquiescence
Failure of Formal Networks of Protection
Survivors place a great deal of trust on the institutional representatives as they risk disbelief, blame, and refusal of help when they disclose a sexually harassing behavior (Campbell 2006). As minoritized students’ experiences of institutional betrayal resulting from incidents of sexual harassment are significantly higher than students who are in the racial majority (Gómez, 2022, Smidt et al. 2019), for students who crossed national boundaries to obtain higher education in an unfamiliar environment, institutional betrayal can be heightened, resulting in an increased sense of isolation, absolute loss of trust in the institution, and the inability to complete educational degree. International students, who have limited social networks, no family support, and may suffer from a lack of sense of belonging, might be more prone to trauma when encountering institutional betrayal. Additionally, institutional betrayal, when it happens, not only compounds the silence around sexual harassment incidents for international students but also leads them to reluctant acquiescence – a non-reactive state which is a byproduct of the students’ emotional response to being censored by the authorities (Fernando & Prasad 2019). Though it can co-occur with sexual harassment and/or assault in a variety of ways, students are often let down when universities fail to provide a safe space by preventing these experiences. For example, because of policy complications, institutions allow perpetrators back to the campus without any safety checks, thereby ignoring the possibility of re-traumatization of the victim-survivor (Smith & Freyd 2014). Institutional betrayal can also be perceived if universities create a space where incidents of sexual harassment are more likely to be tolerated. For example, sexual harassment characterized by penetration, rape, and/or physical assault are considered as addressable forms of sexual harassment. Students are more likely to be feel betrayed by the authorities if verbal, non-physical, and implicit sexual harassment are ignored continually or are seldom addressed (Smith & Freyd 2013). For international individuals, institutional betrayal is consistent with the notion of minority stress in that it reifies xenophobic or discriminatory attitudes as they pertain to sexual harassment or assault (Chowdhury et al. 2023). While there’s no scholarly evidence for international students to date, institutions’ tying sexual harassment complaints to cultural factors may unintentionally suggest that the sexual violence occurred because the individual is international or that their experiences are less valid or in need of support because of their international identity.
Discriminatory Institutional Culture & Structures
Next, while international students are comparatively more likely to reach out for academic assistance, the literature reports a hesitation to seek help for personal wellbeing (Galligan 2016; Jang 2023; Lee et al. 2023; Xiong & Yang 2021). Additionally, students who had knowledge of and previous experiences with using psychological resources on campus have strong opinions about their interactions with the service staff and whether they felt supported or not (Smith et al 2024). Thus, their hesitation in securing resources related to sexual harassment can be justified. Under these circumstances, institutions which are gendered as well as culturally less competent pose another level of barrier for international students, thereby augmenting their silence around incidents of sexual harassment. Even though the institutions display mission statements that promise equitable treatment, in reality they prefer to make the DEI agenda invisible (Briscoe 2024) and vaguely engage in work that considers international students’ sexual harassment concerns. Further, the intricacies of the Title IX reporting procedure as well as investigation process deter the students augmenting their silence (Hutcheson & Lewington 2017). Hierarchical differences within departments, internal politics, faculty attitude, and departmental culture also contribute to the organizational silencing of female international students (Dey 2024). While cultural differences should not be cited as the reason for misperceptions of harassment, the impact of the same cannot be ignored in shaping an individual’s response to power imbalance. Thus, international students may prefer to be silent rather than challenging the status quo by reporting to the authorities.
In addition to the cultural factors that influence women students’ silence, silencing as an institutional response cannot be ignored. International women prefer to disclose an incident of harassment informally to their network before officially reporting them (Fethi et al. 2023). However, they are often not supported in the process. Silencing provides evidence of network actors who discourage victims/survivors or bystanders from voicing concerns or submitting complaints and allows the perpetrators to avoid consequences and continue their behavior (Pilinkaite Sotirovic et al. 2024). For instance, mentors play a significant role in influencing an international woman student’s perception about what is considered harassment or not. International students who perceived threats from perpetrators were discouraged by their departmental mentors to pursue the issue (Dey 2024). When their perceptions of harm were negated by domestic individuals who would be supposedly more knowledgeable about sexual harassment policies, international students preferred to remain silent (Dey 2024). Reluctant acquiescence is thus common among international women students as their choice to remain silent is influenced by a myriad of organizational actors.
Speaking into Silence: The Way Forward
Silencing of sexual harassment victim-survivors occurs through various mechanisms. First, ambiguous policy language confuses students, which causes them to question whether they have a right to come forward. Second, silence results when students are categorically discouraged through informal networks to seek formal help and/or make the issue public. Third, silencing is a result of unprotective policy in which the institution creates an environment where sexual harassment is more likely to occur, either by letting the perpetrator back or failing to provide protection to the survivor. Lastly, silencing happens when students formally report an issue but are either directly or indirectly turned down by the Title IX investigators, either citing the incident as non-reportable, dismissing the report because of cultural factors, and/or unintentionally making the process of reporting confusing for students (Dey 2024). However, the culture of silence needs to be challenged by speaking up about it.
Limited understanding of US policies and laws, lack of social support, and low English language proficiency put international students at a greater risk of being victims of the flawed policy and the existing practices of the institutions. Thus, there’s a need to shift the focus from cultural factors to institutional structures and identify the practices that perpetuate the silence. Clear, cohesive definition of sexual harassment can be the foundational step. Legitimizing complaints that are beyond definition as well as building a supportive environment for international students where they feel welcomed is crucial. Victim-centered language that empowers the victim-survivors can also prove to be beneficial for international students in combating any of the internalized stigma and/or informal barriers that they may have otherwise faced. On the other hand, institutions need to educate all stakeholders about zero tolerance policy as well as emphasize international students as valued members of the academic community, so that the latter’s concerns are not ignored under the disguise of xenophobia or cultural factors.
References
Bellis, Alexandra L. “Sexual Violence in the Context of Higher Education: The Current State of Research and Policy.” In Handbook of Interpersonal Violence and Abuse Across the Lifespan: A project of the National Partnership to End Interpersonal Violence Across the Lifespan (NPEIV), pp. 4061-4082. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2021.
Bellis, Alexandra L., Anne Marie Schipani-McLaughlin, Laura F. Salazar, Kevin M. Swartout, and Monica H. Swahn. “Sexual misconduct policies and administrator perceptions among 4-year colleges and universities in Georgia.” Journal of American college health 66, no. 7 (2018): 570-578.
Briscoe, Kaleb L. ““Failing to respond”: Black graduate students’ perceptions of a university president’s responses to racialized incidents.” Journal of Diversity in Higher Education 17, no. 2 (2024): 97.
Brock, Madeline. “Who’s to blame? A website content analysis of victimization prevention messaging at PWIs and HBCUs.” (2024).
Brubaker, Sarah Jane, Brittany Keegan, Xavier L. Guadalupe‐Diaz, and Bre’Auna Beasley. “Measuring and reporting campus sexual assault: Privilege and exclusion in what we know and what we do.” Sociology compass 11, no. 12 (2017): e12543.
Campbell, Rebecca. “Rape survivors’ experiences with the legal and medical systems: Do rape victim advocates make a difference?.” Violence against women 12, no. 1 (2006): 30-45.
Chang, Yunling, Sakina Ali, Ankita Sahu, Sidai Dong, Carly W. Thornhill, Polet Milian, and Linda G. Castillo. “Chinese international student sexual harassment on US college campuses.” Journal of International Students 11, no. 3 (2021): 742-748.
Chowdhury, N., D. Erman, M. M. H. Raihan, Z. Marshall, R. Datta, F. Aghajafari, J. Shankar, K. Sehgal, R. Rashid, and T. C. Turin. “Intersecting Effects of Sexism, Racism, and Xenophobia on Gender-Based Violence Against Visible Minority Women: An Evidence Synthesis.” (2023)
Crocker, Phyllis L. “An analysis of university definitions of sexual harassment.” Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 8, no. 4 (1983): 696-707.
Demers, Jennifer M., Alexa P. Roberts, Sidney Bennett, and Victoria L. Banyard. “Victim motivations for disclosing unwanted sexual experiences and partner abuse.” Affilia 32, no. 3 (2017): 327-343.
Dewan, Shaila. “Why women can take years to come forward with sexual assault allegations.” New York Times 18 (2018).
Dey, Semonti. “Asian International Students’ Barriers to Reporting Sexual Harassment Incidents.” Journal of International Students 14, no. 4 (2024): 902-918.
Fernando, Dulini, and Ajnesh Prasad. “Sex-based harassment and organizational silencing: How women are led to reluctant acquiescence in academia.” Human relations 72, no. 10 (2019): 1565-1594.
Fethi, Ihssane, Isabelle Daigneault, Manon Bergeron, Martine Hébert, and Francine Lavoie. “Campus Sexual Violence: A Comparison of International and Domestic Students.” Journal of International Students 13, no. 1 (2023): 1-21.
Fitzgerald, Louise F. “Sexual harassment: The definition and measurement of a construct.” Ivory power: Sexual harassment on campus 21, no. 22 (1990): 24-30.
Galligan, Patrick Kenneth. Male Chinese international students’ utilization of and barriers to mental health resources. The University of Iowa, 2016.
Gómez, Jennifer M. “Gender, campus sexual violence, cultural betrayal, institutional betrayal, and institutional support in US ethnic minority college students: A descriptive study.” Violence Against Women 28, no. 1 (2022): 93-106.
Hutcheson, Shannon, and Sarah Lewington. “Navigating the labyrinth: Policy barriers to international students’ reporting of sexual assault in Canada and the United States.” Education & Law Journal 27, no. 1 (2017): 81-XI.
Jang, Sou Hyun. ““I can wait until I return home”: healthcare utilization among Korean international students in the US.” Journal of American College Health 71, no. 6 (2023): 1804-1814.
Krivoshey, Mira S., Rachel Adkins, Rebecca Hayes, Julianna M. Nemeth, and Elizabeth G. Klein. “Sexual assault reporting procedures at Ohio colleges.” Journal of American College Health 61, no. 3 (2013): 142-147.
Lasson, Kenneth. “Title IX and the failure of due process.” Cardozo J. Equal Rts. & Soc. Just. 27 (2020): 35.
Lee, Christina Seowoo, Sumie Okazaki, and Katie Koo. “2 Suffering in Silence: Depression and Suicide Among International Students in the United States.” (2023) International Student Identities and Mental Well-Being.
Martin, Cristina. “Sexual violence training is not a one-size-fits-all approach: Culturally sensitive prevention programming for international students.” Journal of Campus Title IX Compliance and Best Practices 4 (2015).
Papp, Leanna J., and Sara I. McClelland. “Too common to count?“Mild” sexual assault and aggression among US college women.” The Journal of Sex Research 58, no. 4 (2021): 488-501.
Papp, Leanna J., Sandra R. Levitsky, Elizabeth A. Armstrong, and Kamaria B. Porter. “How many terms does it take to define sexual assault? Inconsistencies in US higher education sexual misconduct policies.” Violence against women (2023): 10778012231189477.
Pilinkaite Sotirovic, Vilana, Anke Lipinsky, Katarzyna Struzińska, and Beatriz Ranea-Triviño. “You can knock on the doors and windows of the university, but nobody will care: how universities benefit from network silence around gender-based violence.” Social Sciences 13, no. 4 (2024): 199.
Sev’er, Aysan. “Sexual harassment: Where we were, where we are and prospects for the new millennium introduction to the special issue.” Canadian Review of Sociology/Revue canadienne de sociologie 36, no. 4 (1999): 469-497.
Smidt, Alec M., Marina N. Rosenthal, Carly P. Smith, and Jennifer J. Freyd. “Out and in harm’s way: Sexual minority students’ psychological and physical health after institutional betrayal and sexual assault.” Journal of child sexual abuse 30, no. 1 (2021): 41-55.
Smith, Carly Parnitzke, and Jennifer J. Freyd. “Dangerous safe havens: Institutional betrayal exacerbates sexual trauma.” Journal of traumatic stress 26, no. 1 (2013): 119-124.
Smith, Carly Parnitzke, and Jennifer J. Freyd. “Institutional betrayal.” American Psychologist 69, no. 6 (2014): 575.
Smith, Lindsay, Pallie Swartz, and Yasemin Irvin-Erickson. “Navigating the grey area: International college students’ knowledge and perceptions of Title IX.” Journal of International Students 14, no. 4 (2024): 606-623.
Title IX, The Pennsylvania State University. Accessed October 7, 2024. https://universityethics.psu.edu/our-expertise/title-ix
Wies, Jennifer R. “Title IX and the state of campus sexual violence in the United States: Power, policy, and local bodies.” Human Organization 74, no. 3 (2015): 276-286.
Xiong, Yiying, and Lijing Yang. “Asian international students’ help-seeking intentions and behavior in American Postsecondary Institutions.” International Journal of Intercultural Relations 80 (2021): 170-185.
About the Scholar
Semonti Dey is a PhD candidate in the Higher Education program at The Pennsylvania State University. She holds a Master’s in Bengali Language & Literature from University of Calcutta and a second master’s in Higher Education Administration from University at Buffalo. Education has always been a source of empowerment for Semonti, and her own journey as an international student in the US served as a catalyst for her scholarly pursuits. In her research, Semonti aims to investigate institutional policies and practices that can enhance the support systems for international students as well as break barriers by placing student narratives at the center of her work.