The illusion of choice: Organizational dependency and the neutralization of university sexual assault complaints

• Published date: 01 July 2022
• Author: Nicole Bedera
• Date: 01 July 2022
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/lapo.12194

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

The illusion of choice: Organizational dependency

and the neutralization of university sexual assault

complaints

Nicole Bedera

Sociology, University of Michigan, Ann

Arbor, Michigan, USA

Correspondence

Nicole Bedera, Room 3115 LSA Building,

500 S. State St., Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA.

Email: nbedera@umich.edu

Funding information

Horace H. Rackham School of Graduate

Studies, University of Michigan, Grant/Award

Number: REF-18435

Abstract

In response to new regulations, universities have

created multiple options for managing sexual misconduct

complaints. These options are described as maximizing

survivors’autonomy through feminist paradigms of

choice. This study uses data from ethnographic obser-

vation and 76 interviews with survivors, perpetrators,

and administrators to examine whether providing

options gave survivors control over their complaints.

The findings indicate that survivors found the compli-

cated and vague sexual misconduct policies overwhelm-

ing and confusing. As a result, they became dependent on

university actors in decision-making, giving the university

more control over survivors’complaints as institutional

actors guided survivors to options that required minimal

university action.

1|INTRODUCTION

Over the past decade, college sexual violence has received renewed attention in the national

discourse, with a persistent focus on the high rate of victimization and the low rate of reports

made to the organizations tasked with adjudicating cases of sexual assault (e.g., university

police, Title IX Offices) (Cantor et al., 2015; Krebs et al., 2007). In contrast to other survivor-

supportive resources, reporting is unique in that it is often the first step to any kind of action

that mandates the participation of the perpetrator, including accountability-focused measures

(e.g., expulsion or suspension) and protective actions to ensure survivors’safety and comfort

(e.g., coordination of academic schedules to avoid contact, moving a perpetrator to a different

dorm). Survivors unable to report may also struggle to access other formal services that

DOI: 10.1111/lapo.12194

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits

use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial, and no modifications or

adaptations are made.

©2022 The Author. Law & Policy published by University of Denver and Wiley Periodicals LLC.

208 Law & Policy. 2022;44:208–229.

wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/lapo

facilitate healing after trauma (Campbell, 2008; Campbell et al., 1999,2009). Many scholars

have demonstrated that low reporting rates are not indicative of survivors’lack of interest in

reporting, but instead reflect structural and cultural barriers to the reporting process, such as

survivors’fear of refusal of services after not being believed (Allen et al., 2015; Amar, 2008;

Sable et al., 2006; Walsh et al., 2010; Zinzow & Thompson, 2011) or a difficulty in labeling

their experiences as “severe”enough to “count”as discrimination and merit intervention

(Hlavka, 2014; Holland & Cortina, 2017). Notably, universities have recently implemented pol-

icies and procedures—such as instituting “Start by Believing”policies, offering survivors multi-

ple reporting options, and hiring campus victim advocates who can provide support through

the reporting process—with the stated intention of encouraging reporting by removing known

barriers. Still, survivors who wish to report are struggling to do so.

The current study examines college sexual misconduct policies and procedures themselves as

barriers to reporting. Specifically, this study focuses on the now legally mandated practice of

providing multiple reporting options to survivors with the stated goal of maximizing survivor

autonomy in choosing how their cases will be handled. I argue that these practices have the

opposite effect, instead creating complexity in policies and procedures that forces survivors to

become dependent on organizational actors to make sense of them. In this state of “organiza-

tional dependency,”universities can—and do—subtly discourage survivors from pursuing for-

mal investigations that pose a risk to the institution and instead steer them toward options that

require minimal university action. More broadly, the current study offers insight into how orga-

nizations exert control over individuals who seek to hold them accountable or access legal rights

that are threatening or inconvenient to the organization.

2|LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 |Background on Title IX and universities’role in reporting sexual violence

Title IX is a federal regulation originally passed as a part of the US Education Amendments

Act of 1972 that obligates all educational institutions that receive federal funds to provide a

learning environment free from gender discrimination (Educational Amendments, 1972). Title

IX was first successfully applied to sexual violence and harassment in the courts

(e.g., Alexander v. Yale University, 1980), and an interpretation of Title IX explicitly inclusive

of sexual violence was codified into federal guidance through multiple Dear Colleague Letters

by the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (e.g., 1997; 2001; 2014; 2017). There

is well-established legal precedent that universities must take action in response to reports of

sexual violence with the goal of providing redress for survivors and preventing future harm. A

failure to do so constitutes a form of organizational discrimination against survivors of gender-

based violence since unsupported survivors face disadvantages in educational outcomes

(e.g., low GPA, high risk of dropping out) (Baker et al., 2016; Jordan et al., 2014).

To meet these legal obligations, universities must ensure that students can report incidents

of sexual violence after they occur in order to prompt university action (US Department of

Education, 2001,2014). Importantly, any options for redress must be accessible to survivors

and described in detail in a campus “sexual misconduct policy.”University actors cannot dis-

courage survivors from reporting or retaliate against them for coming forward. Undue struc-

tural burdens or barriers in the reporting process are also prohibited, as they, too, can

discourage reporting, resulting in what experts call a “chilling effect.”If a university’s policies

and procedures have a demonstrable chilling effect on complaints of sexual misconduct, the uni-

versity can be held legally responsible for the production of a discriminatory environment,

although scholars have recognized that the legal landscape makes it extremely difficult to hold

noncompliant schools accountable (e.g., Buzuvis, 2020).

BEDERA 209