Video Transcript:

Voiceover:

Thank you for watching Paper to practice evidence-based advocacy made simple. In this video, we will examine college campus sexual culture and college students’ understanding of the topic. We hope this video will leave you with a better understanding of the attitudes surrounding campus sexual culture, and how universities can improve their campuses to be safer for everyone. Campus sexual violence is an issue that is still prevalent in many campuses today. Research shows that in the US around 26.4% of women and 6.8% of men have experienced sexual assault in their time at an institute of higher education (IHE). This issue is still not widely recognized or known and is typically not handled properly, especially within IHEs. In this video, associate professor of sociology, Sarah Prior will discuss her research on campus sexual violence as well as her new campus sexual culture lab in order to provide a better understanding on the issue and how it is viewed by universities and its students. But first, let’s define campus sexual culture.

Campus sexual culture is the attitudes and normality associated with issues such as consent and sexual violence on college or university campuses. This normalized violence has been termed “everyday sexual terrorism” to describe sexual or intimate partner violence as acts of terror that are systematic problems within IHEs, not just individual occurrences. The idea that sexual violence is an individual problem and not institutional is prevalent in many IHEs today where there is more importance placed on the image and protection of the university than the survivors themselves. These values further the outlook that sexual violence is an isolated individual problem that is the fault of the survivor, not the institution as a whole. This and everyday sexual terrorism skew universities and students’ views on campus sexual violence altering their perceptions on what should and shouldn’t happen.

Dr. Sarah Prior:

Campus sexual culture is not like what it looks like in the movies or in major media. So first of all, not everyone is sexually active on campus. Even though if we look at media and tv, we’d think that everybody is. Consent is also often lacking in the representations that we see in media. In reality, students might not actually know what consent looks like. They might not know how to talk about or think about consent. Alcohol consumption and sexual activity are not and should not be codependent, even though we often see them as codependent in media. And one important thing is that it’s not just a cisgender heterosexual issue, like what we see in media and how often the research talks about it. Instead, it affects minoritized populations as well as the LGBTQIA+ community. Students might also be more likely to blame themselves for sexual violence, especially if it’s experienced while they were drinking or partying. And students also might blame others for their own victimization, particularly if drinking was involved. There’s also a lot of social stigma and peer pressure and the societal expectations that we see about consent and about campus sexual culture is often rooted in deeply problematic sexual double standards, particularly around gender and sexual stereotypes.

Voiceover:

While the media depicts the college experience in a certain light, it is important for students to understand that this is not always the case. Whether it is due to these perceptions, peer pressure, or trying to fit into the norm, it is imperative for students to know that having unwanted sex is never necessary and what many individuals view as normal campus sexual culture is oftentimes incorrect or misleading. Individuals and universities have an obligation to ensure their communities are aware of the true nature of campus sexual violence and debunk the myths surrounding campus sexual culture.

Dr. Sarah Prior:

MSU was one of the first universities in the country to create a campus-based rape crisis center in the 1980s, and also was one of the first campus-based domestic violence shelter programs in 1994. The university, however, has historically struggled to create a comprehensive approach to things like relationship violence and sexual misconduct. MSU also has been known as an environment that does not encourage sexual violence reporting.

Voiceover:

Dr. Sarah Prior’s book, “Campus Sexual Violence: A State of Institutionalized Sexual Terrorism,” examines campus sexual violence and the role that institutions play in its normalization. Prior’s book gives many examples of different campuses, cultures one such example being MSU’s own case. In 2016, MSU’s sports doctor, Larry Nassar, was charged with decades of sexual abuse on and off campus, ultimately being sentenced with 40 to 175 years in prison. 156 women read statements against Nassar with many reporting to have been ignored when reporting the abuse to MSU officials. During this case, many MSU officials were accused of covering up the abuse that occurred with the former MSU president and gymnastics coach accused of lying to authorities regarding the case. The former interim president, along with the former athletic director were also accused of covering up the abuse and protecting Nassar by trying to silence survivors. This case sparked outrage and shock from the MSU community calling for the need of a cultural change on MSU’s campus.

Dr. Sarah Prior:

So after this incident, MSU made a lot of efforts to change the sexual campus culture. Things like expanding the prevention, outreach and education program from one staff member to a large staff of 17. While MSU has made large advancements in terms of responding to campus sexual violence on campus, they’re currently in what we call a state of institutional repair where they are both trying to create an environment that is safer, but also there are still problems that remain on campus. Institutional betrayal is a term that was coined by Jennifer Fried and her colleagues, and it focuses on the ways in which institutions actively engage in harmful activities either through their direct action or through their inaction. And so we see institutional betrayal in many different institutions and circumstances, but we definitely see it on campuses and in higher education, particularly around things like institutions prioritizing their brand or not believing survivors.

We also often see that we institutions that betray devalue reports of sexual violence and don’t make campuses as safe as they could be. The flip side to institutional betrayal is institutional courage and creating courageous institutions. Courageous institutions are ones that create spaces and environments where survivors are believed, where we spend money and resources on creating those safe environments and where we vocally and publicly discuss and talk about how we create institutions that are courageous rather than institutions that betray. Institutional betrayal is far more common on campuses today than institutional repair or institutional courage. Institutes of higher education could more effectively prevent sexual violence on campus by acknowledging institutional responsibility, by creating effective supporting mechanisms that both reinforce the importance of reporting and thorough investigations of allegations.

Voiceover:

What happened at MSU is only one example of how harmful values of IHEs arise, but this mindset is not limited to MSU. Many institutes of higher education today are in states of institutional betrayal and repair, focusing on the image of the university and not their survivors. This outlook is unfortunately common culture through many IHEs and has been prevalent on many campuses in the past. Because of the way many IHEs are structured, this everyday terrorism is normalized, but it should not be accepted. The Nassar case called for a change of MSU’s culture showing that the implementation of institutional bravery is pivotal for change. It became clear that there needs to be a shift in the campus culture mindset, and programs were created at MSU to help accomplish this, such as Dr. Prior’s Campus Sexual Culture Lab, which we will discuss next.

Dr. Sarah Prior’s Campus Sexual Culture Lab at MSU was founded in 2024. At this lab, students work closely with Dr. Prior to conduct research on issues regarding campus sexual culture, consent, and gender-based violence. This research has been showcased at both the University Undergraduate Research and Arts Forum and the Healthcare Education Advocacy Leaders Conference causing Dr. Prior to recently win the UURAF Faculty Mentor of the Year award due to her leadership and her students’ exemplary work. This lab and its success rely on the education and implementation of these findings into IHEs in order to see a positive change in campus culture.

Dr. Sarah Prior:

The Campus Sexual Culture Lab is seeking to educate all of us about campus sexual culture, about gender-based violence, about consent, and about issues that are related to how we create a campus community that is safe and free of harm. We are trying to acknowledge the ways that harm is associated with institutional betrayal, and we are also creating spaces where we can enact institutional courage in our communities. At the Campus Sexual Culture Lab, we’re focusing on a need for things like comprehensive sexual health education. This is particularly important because particularly for our students, they come here with their own set of understandings about things like consent and sex ed. Some of the practices that we use in the campus Sexual Culture Lab to minimize or to educate the campus community about campus sexual culture are collecting data.

Riley Michael:

So we began our project with a convenience sample of just under 500 students. The data collection period occurred between 2022 and 2024, so this was two years of data collection. Taking inspiration from a 2017 study by Lisa Wade, we asked students to submit a written response to a series of questions regarding campus sexual culture.

Lauren Golden:

Our goal is to illuminate the voices of students directly, and that is why our project is comprised of qualitative free response questions from students, allowing them to express their thoughts in a less confined manner.

Riley Michael:

We were able to perform a data analysis from a thematic approach, and we were ultimately able to develop three main themes. Those main themes were conditions for consent. The second theme was the largest, which was what people expect to be able to communicate through consent, and the last was our smallest category, but did allow us to explore some different avenues, which was situations requiring consent, so that could look like a non-sexual situation or a sexual situation.

Dr. Sarah Prior:

These journal entries highlight the ways in which campus sexual culture permeates into different spheres. We see it in the ways that we engage with our students. We see it in the ways that students engage with each other. We see it in the ways that young people think about, how do I go to parties? Where am I going to go? How do I engage in this environment? And so understanding their perceptions is key for us to create safer campus cultures, safer campus environments.

Lauren Golden:

Our main findings displayed a variety of perceptions from students, but an overwhelming amount of our respondents reported negative emotional implications, and even on instances violence occurring on or around campus. Even respondents who reported positive responses regarding hookup culture ultimately reported these feelings due to pressure to conform to social norms and expectations, or felt positively because their desire to engage in hookup culture was utilized as a coping mechanism for other underlying issues, such as issues concerning self-esteem or a desire to fit in socially. A big takeaway of this project for me was learning about the lack of resources and education many students have about their sexual health and what consent truly means and looks like. Concerning consent, specifically, there was no one definition that students were able to provide.

Riley Michael:

Interestingly, a lot of our students reported that they hadn’t had these conversations about consent until they came to college. That’s interesting because it tells us a lot about when exactly these definitions are developing for people. It also allows us to understand consent guidelines and where there may be gray areas or areas of opportunity where students can have these definitions given to them sooner. It’s important to close this gap when defining consent because it means that we can reduce harm not just for college students, but for other populations in the future as well.

Dr. Sarah Prior:

Students who participate in the Campus Sexual Culture Lab are learning how to make change and influence change in their spheres of influence. They’ve written papers that have been published to educate themselves and their communities about campus sexual culture and about how to create a safer, more educated population about things like consent and safe sex.

Lauren Golden:

I truly believe that this lab is positively affecting MSU’s campus culture. Through presenting this on multiple occasions, I’ve been able to speak to MSU students and faculty members and shine a light on a topic that so many viewers taboo and are hesitant to talk about. Our findings reveal that there are real life consequences that are impacting significant amounts of students on our campus, and these results are the first step in making change to improve the safety and comfortability of MSU students.

Riley Michael:

I think that as research like this and research that touches on this subject continues to grow in popularity and continues to be something that we discuss, I think we’ll start seeing a lot of shifts in how people not only handle consent and non-consensual situations, but also when we’re having those conversations.

Lauren Golden:

The first step in changing culture is to educate and communicate that there is a necessity to change in the first place without identifying and labeling an issue. A solution in progress cannot begin to set forth.

Voiceover:

This lab and the research gathered through it are important examples of the work that can be done to elicit a positive change in IHEs. The implementation of programs like these will only help to further a change in campus culture. In this video, we learned that campus sexual violence is a systemic problem that directly involves institutes of higher education, not a separate individual problem. We also learned about how institutions can apply institutional courage within their universities with programs such as the Campus Sexual Culture Lab being the first step towards a cultural change. In the next video, we will discuss a recent study abroad program that analyzed the effects of different cultures on campus sexual violence.