“Terrifying and Exhausting”: Secondary Victimization in Title IX Proceedings at U.S. Higher Education Institutions

• Author: Amelia Roskin-Frazee
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/15570851221105853
• Published date: 01 April 2023
• Date: 01 April 2023
• Subject Matter: Articles

Article

Feminist Criminology

2023, Vol. 18(2) 114–132

© The Author(s) 2022

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/15570851221105853

journals.sagepub.com/home/fcx

“Terrifying and Exhausting”:

Secondary Victimization in

Title IX Proceedings at U.S.

Higher Education Institutions

Amelia Roskin-Frazee

1



Abstract

Students at United States colleges and universities increasingly turn to campus Title IX

processes to address sexual violence, but little research exists on the emotional fallout

of Title IX processes and student perceptions of process bias. This paper presents an

analysis of 72 responses to a 2021 survey of Title IX process complainants and re-

spondents at higher education institutions. While students on both sides of Title IX

processes experienced negative emotions, complainants often minimized these ex-

periences while respondents emphasized them. This form of comparative secondary

victimization risks further marginalizing complainant voices at higher education

institutions.

Keywords

sexual violence, secondary victimization, title IX, sex discrimination, higher education

Introduction

Sexual violence is endemic on United States (U.S.) college and university campuses.

Women and genderqueer students are especially vulnerable to experiencing sexual

violence: studies have estimated from 20 to 28% of undergraduate women and 28 to

1

Department of Sociology, University of California, Irvine, CA, USA

Corresponding Author:

Amelia Roskin-Frazee, Department of Sociology, University of California, Irvine, 3151 Social Science Plaza,

Irvine, CA 92617, USA.

Email: aroskinf@uci.edu

38% of gender non-conforming undergraduate students in the U.S. experience sexual

violence during their college years (Cantor et al., 2019;Hirsh & Khan, 2020;Mellins

et al., 2017). Under Title IX, part of the Education Amendments Act of 1972, edu-

cational institutions have a legal obligation to have policies that address sexual and

dating violence and give students access to accommodations (Cipriano et al., 2021).

However, little previous research has addressed how students experience Title IX

processes and whether perceptions of school bias alter student views of the process.

Why do students feel the way they do about Title IX processes? Do students feel that

Title IX processes are biased? How do student perceptions of bias line up with student

emotional responses to the Title IX process?

This paper argues that Title IX processes can cause negative emotional conse-

quences for students on both sides of the process like the phenomenon of secondary

victimization documented in the criminal justice system. Further, complainants in Title

IX cases face comparative secondary victimization through minimizing their negative

experiences relative to their perceptions of how their schools treat other students,

whereas respondents often argue they are treated worse than other students. First, I will

examine previous literature on campus sexual violence and secondary victimization.

Second, I will present the results of a 2021 survey of current and former students who

went through Title IX processes at U.S. higher education institutions. Third, I will

discuss comparative secondary victimization, a unique form of trauma that com-

plainants in school Title IX processes experience. Finally, I will propose ways that

schools can ameliorate the trauma that students can experience during Title IX

processes.

Background on School Sexual Violence and Title IX

In 1972, Congress introduced Title IX, a one-sentence directive in the Education

Amendments Act of 1972 that stated, “No person in the United States shall, on the basis

of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benef‌its of, or be subjected to

discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal f‌inancial

assistance”(Education Amendments Act of 1972). This amendment obligated schools

to address sex discrimination or risk losing federal funding —a threat that the U.S. has

never followed through on for a sexual assault-related Title IX violation despite

thousands of student complaints.

Since the 1970s, Title IX has evolved to encompass a complex web of legal

precedents and federal government directives. In 1980, the U.S. government shifted the

burden of enforcing Title IX from the Department of Justice to the Department of

Education, codifying Title IX as an educational, rather than criminal, directive. The

Supreme Court ruled that students may seek monetary compensation for school Title IX

violations (Franklin v Gwinnett County Public Schools), sexual discrimination con-

stituted a hostile work environment and therefore a hostile educational environment

(Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson), and Title IX plaintiffs must prove “deliberate in-

difference”to prevail in a civil suit (Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education). In

Roskin-Frazee 115