Sexual Violence on University Campuses: Differences and Similarities in the Experiences of Students, Professors and Employees

Abstract

This article presents a portrait of sexual violence on university campuses (SVUC) at six universities in Québec (Canada) and explores differences and similarities in the experiences of students, professors and employees. Data are drawn from the Enquête Sexualité, Sécurité et Interactions en Milieu Universitaire (ESSIMU). They reveal disturbing rates of SVUC among students (36.2%), professors (38.8%) and employees (38.7%). The results show that the hierarchical status of perpetrators was higher than that of victims for a significant proportion of professors (33%) and employees (50.7%). When asked about the type of assistance they would want in the event of SVUC, the majority of students, professors and employees affirmed they would want support during the reporting/complaint process, information about available recourse within the university to report the incident, and psychological support provided by a resource outside the university.

Full text

Canadian Journal of Higher Education | Revue canadienne d’enseignement supérieur 49:3 (2019)
Sexual Violence on University Campuses:
Differences and Similarities in the Experiences
of Students, Professors and Employees
Abstract
This article presents a portrait of sexual violence on university campuses (SVUC) at six universities in Québec (Canada)
and explores differences and similarities in the experiences of students, professors and employees. Data are drawn from the
Enquête Sexualité, Sécurité et Interactions en Milieu Universitaire (ESSIMU). They reveal disturbing rates of SVUC among
students (36.2%), professors (38.8%) and employees (38.7%). The results show that the hierarchical status of perpetrators
was higher than that of victims for a signicant proportion of professors (33%) and employees (50.7%). When asked about the
type of assistance they would want in the event of SVUC, the majority of students, professors and employees afrmed they
would want support during the reporting/complaint process, information about available recourse within the university to report
the incident, and psychological support provided by a resource outside the university.
Keywords: sexual harassment, sexual violence, university, campuses, prevention
Résumé
Cet article présente un portrait de la violence sexuelle en milieu universitaire (VSMU) sur six campus québécois (Canada) et
explore les différences et les similitudes dans l’expérience des étudiant.es, des enseignant.es et des employé.es. Les données
proviennent de l’Enquête sur la sexualité, la sécurité et les interactions en milieu universitaire (ESSIMU). Les résultats révèlent
des taux inquiétants de VSMU chez les étudiant.es (36,2 %), les enseignant.es (38,8 %) et les employé.es (38,7 %). Les don-
nées indiquent que le statut hiérarchique des personnes commettant les gestes de VSMU est supérieur à celui des victimes
pour une proportion signicative de professeur.es (33 %) et d’employé.es (50,7 %). Sur la question du type d’aide souhaité
en cas de VSMU, la majorité des étudiant.es, enseignant.es et employé.es a afrmé souhaiter un accompagnement dans les
démarches de dénonciation ou de plainte, des informations sur les recours possibles pour dénoncer les gestes à l’intérieur de
l’université ainsi qu’un soutien psychologique à l’extérieur de l’université.
Mots-clés : harcèlement sexuel, violence sexuelle, université, campus, prévention
Introduction
In Canada and elsewhere, many incidents of sexual vio-
lence on university campuses (SVUC) and legal actions
taken against universities by survivors have attracted
media attention in recent years (Quinlan, E., Quinlan,
A., Fogel & Taylor, 2017). Examples of such incidents
include the Saint Mary's University students who chant-
ed slogans celebrating rape culture during initiation
week (Tutton, 2013), the sexist, misogynist, and violent
messages posted on Facebook by dentistry students at
Dalhousie University (Taber, 2014), the sexual assault
involving members of the University of Ottawa hockey
team (Bradshaw, 2014), the female Université du Qué-
bec à Montréal student who was sexually harassed by a
professor who, despite the university’s formal recognition
of the incident, received no sanctions (Elkouri, 2015),
and, in the fall of 2016, the series of sexual assaults in a
Université Laval student residence (Cloutier, 2016).
Despite growing political and public concern over the
last few years, sexual violence in universities is not a new
phenomenon. In the United States, feminist students’
organizing efforts contributed in part to the adoption in
1972 of Title IX of the Education Amendments, legisla-
tion that forced institutions to deal seriously with female
Manon Bergeron
Université du Québec
à Montréal
Marie-France Goyer
Université du Québec
à Montréal
Martine Hébert
Université du Québec
à Montréal
Sandrine Ricci
Université du Québec
à Montréal

Sexual Violence on University Campuses
M. Bergeron, M-F. Goyer, M. Hébert, & S. Ricci
Canadian Journal of Higher Education | Revue canadienne d’enseignement supérieur
49:3 (2019)
89
students' reports of sexual violence (Haaken, 2017). In
Canada, pioneering research teams inspired by the rape
crisis centre movement revealed high levels of violence
against female students (DeKeseredy & Kelly, 1993). In
Québec, the student movement and feminist activists
have denounced this problem for over 25 years (Colpron
& Hétu, 1993). Despite this activism for decades and in-
creased attention in recent years, SVUC continues to be
a serious and signicant problem on Canadian university
campuses.
In the present study, the denition of sexual vio-
lence covers a broad spectrum of experiences, such
as sexual assault, exhibitionism, voyeurism, sexual ha-
rassment, cyber harassment, unwanted touching, rape
threats, sexual blackmail, and other forms of non-con-
sensual sexual behaviors. This inclusive denition aligns
with the approach supported by the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention in the US in its recommendations
on monitoring sexual violence (Basile, Smith, Breiding,
Black & Mahendra, 2014). This continuum approach is
also consistent with the denition of sexual violence ad-
opted by the World Health Organization in its publication
World Report on Violence and Health:
Any sexual act, attempt to obtain a sexual act, un-
wanted sexual comments or advances, or acts to traf-
c, or otherwise directed, against a person’s sexuality
using coercion, by any person regardless of their rela-
tionship to the victim, in any setting, including but not
limited to home and work. (Krug, Mercy, Dahlberg &
Zwi, 2002, p. 149)
According to the empirical data, the rates of sexu-
al violence vary depending on the reporting period used
(e.g. the last 12 months or since arriving on campus) and
the denition of “sexual violence” (e.g. including non-con-
tact forms of victimization such as sexual harassment or
only contact-forms of sexual assault). For example, a
study conducted at the University of Ottawa (2015) re-
ports that 16% of women and 8% of men respondents re-
ported having experienced at least one incident of sexual
assault (with contact) since arriving on campus. With re-
gard to face-to-face harassment, 78% of female students
and 49% of male students had been harassed at least
once since arriving at the university. Another example is
the research of Fedina, Holmes and Backes (2016), who
produced a review of 34 studies published between 2000
and 2015 on the prevalence of sexual violence experi-
enced by US college and university students, excluding
sexual harassment. Fedina et. Al (2016) found that, in
the 10 studies using a broad denition of sexual assault
(unwanted sexual touching, rape and attempted rape),
prevalence varied between 6% and 44.2% among fe-
male students, and between 1.4% and 3.2% among male
students. With regard to sexual assault with penetration,
rates uctuate from 0.5% to 8.4% among women, and
from 0.6% to 0.7% among men.
A study of Canadian students’ negative experiences
during their studies (e.g. interpersonal conicts) shows
that sexual assault caused the most deleterious conse-
quences on students’ quality of life and academic perfor-
mance (Tremblay et al., 2008). In fact, incidents of SVUC
are linked to numerous health consequences such as
intrusive thoughts and nightmares, a heightened state of
vigilance, the avoidance of situations conducive to ha-
rassment and specic locations, and depressive or panic
symptoms (Bastiani, Romito & Saurel-Cubizolles, 2018;
Hill & Silva, 2005; University of Ottawa, 2015). Other re-
percussions specic to academia were also document-
ed: diminished academic performance, higher absentee
rate, problems concentrating in class, difculty complet-
ing assignments, even deciding to leave the university
(Banyard, Ward, Cohn, Plante, Moorhead, & Walsh ,
2007; Hill & Silva, 2005; Krebs et al., 2016). According to
the study conducted by the University of Ottawa (2015),
student victims of sexual violence involving physical con-
tact are not the only ones who reported experiencing
negative health consequences. Results showed that “the
impact of harassment on students is broad and varied
and more commonly reported by women than by men”
(p. 15). Among students victims to face-to-face harass-
ment, 34% reported having avoided situations related to
the harassment, 32% were constantly on guard or easily
startled and 20% suffered from nightmares or recurring
thoughts (University of Ottawa, 2015).
While the presence of SVUC and some of its con-
sequences are known and recognized, Canadian post-
secondary institutions pay varying degrees of attention
to the issue of sexual assault on campuses (Quinlan,
Clarke & Miller, 2016). According to the Canadian Fed-
eration of University Women (2016), many campuses
are ill equipped to handle reported incidents of SVUC.
They apply disciplinary measures that lack clarity, pro-
vide inadequate institutional support, and available as-
sistance is either inaccessible or non-existent (Canadian
Federation of University Women, 2016). Additionally, uni-

Sexual Violence on University Campuses
M. Bergeron, M-F. Goyer, M. Hébert, & S. Ricci
Canadian Journal of Higher Education | Revue canadienne d’enseignement supérieur
49:3 (2019)
90
versity violence policies are not standardized (Quinlan
et al., 2016). The recent legislation adopted in several
Canadian provinces, particularly Ontario (Government of
Ontario, n.d.), British Columbia (Government of British
Columbia, n.d.) and Québec (Government of Québec,
n.d.), is undoubtedly a key SVUC prevention tool. To
encourage implementation of institutional policies and
adequate prevention strategies, fuller understanding of
SVUC is needed, including a description of the dynamics
specic to academic settings and the interventions best
suited to the institutions.
Few studies have focused on SVUC in Canada
(Quinlan et al., 2016), but according to the Canadian
2004 General Social Survey on victimization, students
have signicantly higher rates of sexual assault than
young adults who report working as their main activity
(Brennan & Taylor-Butts, 2008). Studies have document-
ed the phenomenon of SVUC in the United States (Fe-
dina et al., 2016; Fisher, Cullen & Turner, 2000; Krebs,
Lindquist, Warner, Fisher & Martin, 2007), but most fo-
cus simply on sexual violence experienced by students
during the period of university attendance, regardless of
whether it was committed by individuals afliated with
the university. These data are thus not specically linked
to SVUC because the incidents may have occurred in a
private context with a perpetrator unrelated to the insti-
tution (e.g., family member, intimate partner or cowork-
er outside university). Professors and other employee
groups may also be victims of sexual harassment (Bak-
er, 2010; Iconis, 2006). Yet, most previous research has
been based on student samples only, thus omitting all
employee groups who are also potential targets of SVUC
in one form or another. The issue of sexual violence af-
fects all members of the university community, whether
as individuals directly involved in incidents of SVUC, or
as witnesses or condants. This reality commands that
we document the phenomenon by including all groups in
the research and action processes, students, professors
and employees.
Feminist Framework
Our analysis framework is based on a broad denition of
sexual violence, as explained earlier, and aligns with a
paradigm developed by numerous feminist researchers,
practitioners and activists, going back to the pioneering
work of Kelly (1987) and Hanmer (1977), in which sexual
violence is conceived beyond legal categories, as gen-
dered, systemic, and along a continuum. This approach
highlights the analytical and empirical connections be-
tween various forms of gender-based violence, which
have a cumulative effect upon the individual as well as a
negative impact on all women as a social group. In addi-
tion, because sexual comments, harassment, and black-
mail or pressure to have sex tend to occur more often
than physical attacks, situating sexual violence along a
continuum helps to uncover how unequal power relations
operate.
Objectives and Contributions
This article will add to the current body of research on
SVUC by providing a portrait of SVUC in the Québec
context and exploring differences in the experience of
students, professors and employees with data drawn
from the Enquête Sexualité, Sécurité et Interactions en
Milieu Universitaire (ESSIMU): Ce qu’en disent étudi-
ant.es, enseignant.es et employé.es [Study on Sexual-
ity, Security and Interactions on a University Campus:
What Students, Professors and Employees are Saying]
(Bergeron et al., 2016). In contrast to previous studies
based on samples composed exclusively of students,
this article also documents the still relatively unknown
experiences of other groups in the university community.
We examined similarities and differences across status
with regard to different forms of SVUC, characteristics of
the perpetrators, consequences, reasons for not report-
ing to the university, and the assistance expected from
the university.
In addition to distinguishing between three groups,
this study is unique in two other areas. First, it specically
documents the incidence of sexual violence on university
campuses. The expression “university campuses” refers
to the fact that the individuals involved are afliated to the
same university, regardless of the location of the event
(e.g. inside or outside campuses, in physical or virtual
environment). Second, since the reporting period inu-
ences percentages of victimization, this study documents
two periods: within the past 12 months and since the ar-
rival at the university. The Enquête Sexualité, Sécurité
et Interactions en Milieu Universitaire (ESSIMU) survey
is distinguished by its methodological choices that were
designed to compensate for the limitations of previous
studies.

Sexual Violence on University Campuses
M. Bergeron, M-F. Goyer, M. Hébert, & S. Ricci
Canadian Journal of Higher Education | Revue canadienne d’enseignement supérieur
49:3 (2019)
91
Methodology
The data for this article comes from the Enquête Sex-
ualité, Sécurité et Interactions en Milieu Universitaire
(ESSIMU) survey conducted in Québec, a broad survey
of students, professors (also including lecturers and the-
sis directors), and other employees at six francophone
universities concerning sexual violence on university
campuses (Bergeron et al., 2016). The sole criterion for
completing the online questionnaire was that participants
be either employed or studying at one of the six universi-
ties at the time of data collection (January to May 2016).
Following approval from the research ethics committees,
the sample was mainly recruited through email invitations
sent to the entire university community at each site, using
the institutional email lists. In one instance, access to an
email list was declined: other recruitment strategies were
used, such as posting online videos that described the
study and posting invitations in the busy areas of the Uni-
versity (e.g. cafeterias). The overall convenience sample
consisted of 9,284 participants; we used a subsample of
9,145 students, professors and employees for the pres-
ent analysis1.
Participants
The breakdown of the sample (n = 9,145) was as follows:
71.7% students (46.6% undergraduate students and
25.0% graduate students)2; 13.3% professors (including
lecturers and thesis directors); and 15.0% employees.
In each participant category women formed the majority
(73.8% among students; 54.3% among professors; and
75.3% among employees). Table 1 presents the socio-
demographic characteristics of the sample by university
status.
Table 1. Frequency of Socio-Demographic Characteristics for the Sample, by Status (n = 9145)
Student
71.7
(6554)
Professor
13.3
(1220)
Employee
15.0
(1371)
% % %
Period of university attendance/employment
≤one year 25.3 3.6 4.2
> 1 year to 3 years 41.3 8.4 10.3
> 3 years to 5 years 18.2 10.1 12.0
> 5 years 15.2 78.0 73.6
Age
18 - 25 years old 64.7 2.7 4.7
26 - 35 years old 26.2 13.8 26.2
36 - 45 years old 6.3 30.1 29.2
46 - 55 years old 2.1 26.4 26.4
≥ 56 years old 0.7 27.0 13.6
Gender
Women 73.8 54.3 75.3
Men 24.5 44.9 24.3
Gender minorities 1.8 - -
Sexual orientation
Heterosexual 84.2 91.2 93.5
Sexual minorities 14.2 8.8 6.1

Sexual Violence on University Campuses
M. Bergeron, M-F. Goyer, M. Hébert, & S. Ricci
Canadian Journal of Higher Education | Revue canadienne d’enseignement supérieur
49:3 (2019)
92
Measures
Sociodemographic characteristics
Documented characteristics included gender, age, sex-
ual orientation, membership in a visible minority group,
member of an Indigenous community, current period of
university attendance or employment, and current princi-
pal status at the university.
Gender
Gender was determined by two questions. Respondents
rst answered whether they identied as a man, woman,
non-binary, or other; they then indicated whether their cur-
rent gender identity was different from that assigned to
them at birth. Answers were recoded into groups: women,
men, and gender minorities. In this article, the term “gen-
der minorities” refers to individuals who did not answer
that they were a man or woman whose gender identity
corresponds to that assigned to them at birth; trans and
non-binary individuals were included under this term.
Sexual orientation
Respondents indicated their sexual orientation and these
answers were recoded into three groups: heterosexual,
sexual minorities, or uncertain/questioning. The term
“sexual minorities" refers to individuals who answered
the question on sexual orientation by stating they were
homosexual, gay, lesbian, bisexual, two-spirited, gender-
queer, pansexual, or asexual, or chose "other."
University status
Participants were asked to select their principal status
at the university from a list of possible choices. Answers
were recoded into four groups: student, professor, em-
ployee, and manager.
Sexual violence
Sexual violence was measured using a French adapta-
tion of the Sexual Experiences Questionnaire (SEQ—
DoD) which has previously been used by Fitzgerald,
Magley, Drasgow and Waldo (1999). It includes a total
of 21 items and three subscales: 1) sexual harassment
(verbal and non-verbal insults and hostile or degrading
behaviors); 2) unwanted sexual behaviors (verbal and
non-verbal behaviors of a sexual, offensive, unwanted,
or non-reciprocal nature, including attempted rape and
sexual assault); 3) sexual coercion (blackmail involving
promises of future benets related to jobs or studies or
reprisal if sexual favours were not given). Internal consis-
tency reliability for these three dimensions (respectively
.84, .83, and .86) and for the overall scale (.89) is ade-
quate. Three of the questions on the unwanted sexual
behaviors dimension addressed unwanted sexual be-
haviors with contact. To increase comparability to previ-
ous research on sexual assault, a separate scale looking
exclusively at unwanted sexual behaviors with contact
was included in the analyses (USB-with contact). To ob-
tain more details on the development of this scale and
its implications, we recommend consulting the articles of
Fitzgerald and colleagues (1988; 1995; 1999). For each
question, participants were asked how many times an in-
dividual afliated with the university committed these act
against them. They were given a set of possible respons-
es (never, 1 time, 2-3 times, 4-5 times, +5 times). This
section of the questionnaire thus provided two reporting
periods for consideration (within the past 12 months and
since the arrival at the university). Answers were recod-
ed into dichotomous variables for each item and each
dimension of the instrument.
Student
71.7
(6554)
Professor
13.3
(1220)
Employee
15.0
(1371)
% % %
Uncertain / questioning 1.6 - -
Self-declared as a member of a visible minority 7.6 2.9 2.6
Self-declared as a member of an indigenous community 3.2 2.2 2.5
Note. For cells with 10 or fewer individuals, the data is replaced by a hyphen.

Sexual Violence on University Campuses
M. Bergeron, M-F. Goyer, M. Hébert, & S. Ricci
Canadian Journal of Higher Education | Revue canadienne d’enseignement supérieur
49:3 (2019)
93
Characteristics of perpetrators involved in
SVUC incidents
Respondents who reported at least one incident of SVUC
answered a series of questions concerning the charac-
teristics of the incidents. A set of questions documented
the characteristics of the individuals who committed the
acts of SVUC (referred to as perpetrators in this article):
gender, status at the time of the incident (e.g., student,
professor, manager, etc.) and their hierarchical relation-
ship to the victim (inferior, equal, or superior). Multiple
choice answers gave respondents a chance to select
one or more answers to the questions. The answers were
recoded into dichotomous variables (yes/no).
Consequences of SVUC events
Participants who experienced at least one incident of
SVUC were questioned about the consequences of
SVUC in terms of impact on academic, professional, or
athletic performance (two items), personal and social
life (two items), physical health (three items) and mental
health (four items). Items linked to the rst three dimen-
sions were inspired by instruments developed by Ban-
yard et al. (2007) and the University of Ottawa (2015),
except the item “experienced different forms of physi-
cal discomfort (e.g., headaches, nausea, pain)”, which
was formulated by co-researchers at the Université de
Montréal. The four items evaluating mental health (α
= 0.75) query the condition of post-traumatic stress by
means of the Primary Care PTSD instrument (Prins et
al., 2004). For each of the 11 items, the respondent in-
dicated whether they had experienced this repercussion
following an incident of SVUC (yes/no). The internal con-
sistency coefcient for the overall instrument was 0.87.
Reporting/disclosure
Individuals who reported at least one incident of SVUC
answered the question “Did you report the incidents to
university authorities/resources?” Individuals who either
did not report an incident or only reported certain inci-
dents were then asked for the reasons they did not report
the incidents, with a choice of 16 statements inspired by
the studies of Cantin and Proulx (1995) and Krebs et al.
(2007).
Type of assistance desired
All respondents, whether or not they had experienced
SVUC, were asked to answer the question “If you were
to experience sexual harassment or violence committed
by someone connected with the university (or if you have
already experienced it), what type of assistance would
you want?” Participants chose one or more answers from
a list of nine possibilities (including “other, specify”).
Witness/condant
Participants answered two questions about being a wit-
ness and/or condant with regard to an incident of SVUC.
For each situation, the individual could select answers
ranging from “never” to “more than ve times.” The an-
swers were recoded into dichotomous variables (yes/no).
Analysis
The Chi-square test with Bonferroni-corrected post hoc
comparisons was used to compare students, profes-
sors and employees in terms of each variable of inter-
est. Effect sizes are presented in the tables and can be
interpreted using Cohen’s (1988) suggested guidelines
for small, medium and large effects3. Analyses were con-
ducted using SPSS version 23.0.
Results
While the frequency of SVUC reported by participants
since arriving at the university did not vary in terms of uni-
versity statuses (except for subscale USB-with contact),
these data reveal signicant differences in the frequency
of SVUC experienced during the past 12 months (Table
2). First, over one third of the sample indicated having
experienced at least one incident of SVUC committed by
someone connected with the university since they began
studying or working at the university (students, 36.2%;
professors, 38.8%; and employees, 38.7%). When we
consider only the 12 months preceding the study, more
students reported experiencing at least one incident of
SVUC in the past-year period (27.6%) than professors
(16.2%) and employees (19.0%) (χ2(2) = 100.6, p < .001).
As shown in Table 2, this signicant difference between
students and the other status groups was found for all
forms of SVUC. For the period of the last 12 months,
more students (24.9%) reported having experienced at
least one incident of SH than professors (14.7%) and
employees (17.3%) (χ2(2) = 85.9, p < .001); a larger pro-
portion of students (12.3%) reported having experienced
at least one incident of USB than professors (5.2%) and
employees (5.8%) (χ2(2) = 90.2, p < .001); also, students

Sexual Violence on University Campuses
M. Bergeron, M-F. Goyer, M. Hébert, & S. Ricci
Canadian Journal of Higher Education | Revue canadienne d’enseignement supérieur
49:3 (2019)
94
were more likely (6%) to report at least one incident of
USB-with contact than professors (1.2%) and employees
(1.8%) (χ2(2) = 82.5, p < .001) ; and students (1.6%) were
signicantly more numerous in reporting having experi-
enced at least one incident of SC than professors (0.7%)
and employees (0.4%) (χ2(2) = 15.6, p < .001).
The data reveal a signicant association between
gender and frequency of SVUC since arriving at university.
Overall, more women (40.5%) than men (26.5%) reported
having experienced at least one incident of sexual violence
committed by someone connected to the university. Also,
gender minority participants were more likely (55.7%) to
report at least one incident of SVUC than men and wom-
en (χ2(2) = 173.2, p < .001). Table 3 presents the data
broken down by university status. Because of the scarcity
of individuals identifying as members of gender minorities
among the students and professors (see Table 1), we can-
not present reliable estimates for each form of SVUC.
Characteristics of Perpetrators of SVUC
The characteristics of individuals who perpetrated SVUC
reported by survey participants vary depending on uni-
versity status (Table 4). First, the data show that in the
great majority of incidents (between 78.4% and 92.1%
Table 2. Proportion of Participants Reporting SVUC Events, by Status
Student
%
Professor
%
Employee
%
χ2pEffect sizes
ϕ'
SVUC since arriving to university
SH 32.9 34.9 34.8 3.3 .192 .019
USB 18.2 18.2 19.1 .62 .732 .008
USB-with contact 9.1a6.8b6.6b 14.7 .001 .04
SC 3.1 4.0 2.7 4.1 .126 .021
At least 1 event of SVUC 36.2 38.8 38.7 4.9 .085 .023
SVUC in the 12 last months
SH 24.9a14.7b17.3b85.9 < .001 .097
USB 12.3a5.2b5.8b90.2 < .001 .099
USB-with contact 6.0a1.2b1.8b82.5 < .001 .095
SC 1.6a- - 15.6 < .001 .041
At least 1 event of SVUC 27.6a16.2b19.0b100.6 < .001 .105
Note. SVUC = Sexual Violence on University Campuses; SH = Sexual Harassment; USB = Unwanted Sexual Behaviors; SC =
Sexual Coercion. Proportions that do not share the same letters statistically differ at p < .05 in Bonferroni-corrected post hoc
comparisons. For cells with 10 or fewer individuals, the data is replaced by a hyphen.
Table 3. Proportion of Participants Reporting at least one event of SVUC since arriving to university, by gender
Women Men Gender
minorities
χ2pEffect sizes ϕ'
Student 39.2a26.0b54.3c107.2 < .001 .128
Professor 47.1a27.8b-54.5 < .001 .211
Employee 42.6a26.4b- 27.8 < .001 .142
Note. Proportions that do not share the same letters statistically differ at p < .05 in Bonferroni-corrected post hoc comparisons.
For cells with 10 or fewer individuals, the data is replaced by a hyphen.

Sexual Violence on University Campuses
M. Bergeron, M-F. Goyer, M. Hébert, & S. Ricci
Canadian Journal of Higher Education | Revue canadienne d’enseignement supérieur
49:3 (2019)
95
depending on the status), the perpetrator was identied
as male in at least one situation. However, the perpe-
trator was identied as female in at least one incident of
SVUC signicantly more often among professor/victims
(35.2%) than student/victims (28.3%) or employee/vic-
tims (22.5%). Note that the total exceeds 100% because
respondents could check more than one answer (if more
than one SVUC incident occurred).
The data also reveal that most respondents who in-
dicated they were victims of SVUC mentioned that they
had a non-hierarchical academic or professional relation-
ship with the perpetrator (equivalent status ranging from
55.2% to 87.4% depending on university status). The
proportion of incidents involving an individual with superi-
or status is nonetheless quite high in all three groups: the
hierarchical status of the person who committed the acts
Table 4. Gender of the Perpetrator and Hierarchical Relationship with the Victim, by Status
Student
%
Professor
%
Employee
%
χ2pEffect
sizes ϕ'
Since arriving to university
SVUC
Gender of perpetrator
Woman 28.3a35.2b22.5c19.2 < .001 .076
Men 91.0a78.4b92.1a68.6 < .001 .144
Hierarchical status…
Lower 5.0a46.2b25.9c606.0 < .001 .430
Equivalent 87.4a58.2b55.2b381.5 < .001 .341
Higher 25.0a33.0b50.7c132.0 < .001 .201
SH
Gender of perpetrator
Woman 27.4a32.1a20.1b16.8 < .001 .075
Man 90.9a80.1b93.5a51.4 < .001 .131
Hierarchical status…
Lower 4.4a41.7b22.7c490.2 < .001 .407
Equivalent 86.4a58.5b54.8b316.1 < .001 .327
Higher 25.1a32.8b50.2c114.1 < .001 .196
USB
Gender of perpetrator
Woman 15.8a29.6b17.4a23.4 < .001 .119
Men 89.0a76.1b86.4a26.5 < .001 .127
Hierarchical status…
Lower 4.4a43.5b24.7c291.1 < .001 .421
Equivalent 84.7a45.3b46.3b260.8 < .001 .399
Higher 18.2a26.6b40.8c62.9 < .001 .196
SC
Gender of perpetrator

Sexual Violence on University Campuses
M. Bergeron, M-F. Goyer, M. Hébert, & S. Ricci
Canadian Journal of Higher Education | Revue canadienne d’enseignement supérieur
49:3 (2019)
96
was higher than that of the victim signicantly more often
among employees (50.7%) than among the other two
groups, and signicantly more often among professors
(33.0%) than students (25.0%). Table 4 presents ndings
specic to each form of SVUC.
Consequences of SVUC
Individuals who reported at least one incident of SVUC
were asked about the repercussions they experienced. In
all, 47.6% of the sample reported having experienced at
least one consequence that affected their academic, pro-
fessional, or athletic success (e.g., intending or having
changed their academic, athletic, or professional career),
personal/social life (e.g., problems in their emotional,
sexual/intimate relationships), physical (e.g., increased
consumption of alcohol or drugs) or mental health (e.g.,
being constantly on guard, in a state of alert, or jumpy).
The data reveal that signicantly more students (50.0%)
reported having experienced at least one consequence
than professors (40.9%) and employees (42.5%) (χ2(2)=
19.7, p < .001). Some of the reported symptoms are
linked to the dimensions related to post-traumatic stress
such as avoidance, hypervigilance, and re-experienc-
ing (e.g., impression of reliving the incident). A similar
proportion of students (9.5%), professors (7.2%) and
employees (10.5%) attained the clinical threshold for
post-traumatic stress (χ2(2) = 3.3, p = .192).
Reporting Incidents
A total of 95.6% of respondents who experienced one
or more incidents of SVUC did not report any of the in-
cidents (90.7%), or only some of the incidents (4.9%) to
university authorities or resources. Signicantly fewer
students (3.3%) reported all the incidents they experi-
enced compared to professors (6.9%) and employees
(7.2%) (χ2 (2) = 22.6, p < .001). Victims who did not report
one or more incidents of SVUC to university resources or
authorities were asked an additional question to learn the
reasons for not reporting (Table 5).
Student
%
Professor
%
Employee
%
χ2pEffect
sizes ϕ'
Woman 18.9a34.0a34.3a7.5 .023 .165
Man 87.2a76.6a77.1a4.7 .095 .130
Hierarchical status…
Lower - 25.5b-19.4 < .001 .265
Equivalent 73.7a23.4b31.4b53.2 < .001 .439
Higher 31.4a66.0b62.9b26.3 < .001 .309
Note. SVUC = Sexual Violence on University Campuses; SH = Sexual Harassment; USB = Unwanted Sexual Behaviors; SC =
Sexual Coercion. Proportions that do not share the same letters statistically differ at p < .05 in Bonferroni-corrected post
hoc comparisons. For cells with 10 or fewer individuals, the data is replaced by a hyphen.
Table 5. Reasons for not reporting event of SVUC, by Status
Student
%
Professor
%
Employee
%
χ2pEffect
sizes
ϕ'
I thought the situation was not serious enough to report 79.8a73.6a76.5a5.6 .062 .055
I just wanted to put the incident behind me and forget
about it
31.4a21.2b30.2ab 10.4 .006 .076
I was worried that university authorities would not take the
situation seriously
21.0a16.4a20.7a2.8 .247 .039
I worried that I didn’t have enough proof to convince uni-
versity authorities to intervene
21.2a14.0b17.9ab 7.5 .023 .064

Sexual Violence on University Campuses
M. Bergeron, M-F. Goyer, M. Hébert, & S. Ricci
Canadian Journal of Higher Education | Revue canadienne d’enseignement supérieur
49:3 (2019)
97
In the three groups, over 70% of the participants said
they did not report the incident at the university because
they thought the situation was not serious enough to re-
port. While most of the reasons were selected by similar
numbers of students, professors and employees, some
differences were observed, especially in the student
group. Students were signicantly more likely (31.4%)
than professors (21.2%) to not report SVUC incidents be-
cause they wanted to put it behind them and forget about
it (χ2(2) = 10.4, p = .006). The same is true regarding the
fear of not having enough evidence to convince univer-
sity authorities to intervene, a reason given signicantly
more often by students (21.2%) than professors (14.0%)
(χ2(2) = 7.5, p = .023). Students were signicantly more
susceptible than professors and employees to state they
did not know who to contact at the university (students:
19.3%; professors: 9.2%; employees: 10.2%; χ2(2) =
25.3, p < .001) or even whether the university could help
them in this situation (students, 15.6%; professors, 8.0%;
employees, 9.8%; χ2(2) = 14.4, p = .001). Students were,
however, signicantly less numerous (10.4%) than pro-
fessors (18.0%) and employees (18.9%) in mentioning
they did not report out of a fear of negatives consequenc-
es on their job, academic session, obtaining their degree,
or athletic career (χ2(2) = 22.1, p < .001).
Type of Assistance Desired
When asked about the type of assistance they wanted
following an incident of SVUC, most participants chose
support in the report/complaint process (students: 71.1%;
professors: 64.6%; employees: 72.0%; χ2(2) = 22.5, p <
.001), information on possible recourse available within
the university to report the incident (students, 55.4%; pro-
fessors, 53.4%; employees, 54.0%; χ2(2) = 2.1, p =.357)
and psychological support provided by a resource outside
the university (students, 55.2%; professors, 53.0%; em-
ployees, 58.3%; χ2(2) = 7.4, p = .025). Also, nearly half of
the participants stated they would want to receive infor-
mation on possible recourse available outside the univer-
sity to report the incident (students, 46.6%; professors,
42.7%; employees, 46.0%; χ2(2) = 6.0, p = .049). Table 6
presents the percentages for other options.
Student
%
Professor
%
Employee
%
χ2pEffect
sizes
ϕ'
I didn’t know who to contact at the university 19.3a9.2b10.2b25.3 < .001 .118
I worried about reprisals by the attacker or someone close
to them
15.7a16.4a18.2a1.2 .558 .025
I didn’t trust the people or existing university authorities/
resources
15.2a16.4a18.9a2.5 .286 .037
I was afraid people would think I was partly responsible
for the situation
15.1a13.6a13.0a1.1 .587 .024
I was afraid my complaint would not be handled conden-
tially
13.9a16.4a15.4a1.4 .509 .027
I thought the reporting process at the university was too
complicated
15.7a10.4a10.5a8.4 .015 .068
I didn’t know the university could help me in this situation 15.6a8.0b9.8b14.4 .001 .089
I feared negative consequences on my job, academic ses-
sion, getting my degree, athletic career
10.4a18.0b18.9b22.1 < .001 .110
I didn’t want anyone to know about this situation 12.3a10.4a11.9a0.7 .697 .020
I was afraid of negatively affecting the job or studies of the
person to committed these acts
10.4a9.6a9.1a0.5 .794 .016
I needed help or a break, but I didn’t want to make a formal
complaint
5.1a6.4a3.9a1.8 .411 .031
Note. Proportions that do not share the same letters statistically differ at p < .05 in Bonferroni-corrected post hoc comparisons.

Sexual Violence on University Campuses
M. Bergeron, M-F. Goyer, M. Hébert, & S. Ricci
Canadian Journal of Higher Education | Revue canadienne d’enseignement supérieur
49:3 (2019)
98
While fewer participants indicated they would want to
receive psychological support from a resource from with-
in the university, it should be noted that more students
(48.8%) selected this option than professors (34.5%) and
employees (38.3%) (χ2(2) = 112.5, p < .001). The same is
true of sharing with others who have experienced SVUC,
an option selected by signicantly higher numbers of stu-
dents (28.4%) than professors (17.7%) and employees
(21.4%) (χ2(2) = 76.6, p < .001).
Condants and Witnesses of SVUC
A substantial proportion of participants reported having
witnessed a SVUC incident or acted as a condant to a
victim. While similar numbers of students (13.7%), pro-
fessors (14.4%) and employees (13.9%) reported having
witnessed an incident of SVUC (χ2(2) = .4, p = .830), the
same is not true when it comes to acting as a condant
to an SVUC victim. Professors (28.7%) were signicantly
more likely to mention they had acted as a condant than
employees (24.6%) and students (19.0%) (χ2(2) = 66.6,
p < .001).
Discussion
The ndings of this study contribute to our understanding
of SVUC in the Canadian context and conrm the impor-
tance of including professors and employees in SVUC
research. While the ndings reveal many similarities in
the experience of students, professors and employees,
the university community is nonetheless a heteroge-
neous group in which subgroups may face specic chal-
lenges, which need to be taken into account to ensure
that prevention efforts are achieving their goals.
The fact that more than one third of the students,
professors and employees who participated in the study
reported having experienced at least one incident of
SVUC since beginning their studies or employment at the
university indicates that the university setting is not a safe
environment for learning or work, especially for some
groups. While all university community members may
experience SVUC, the data on past-year victimization
suggests that being a student is associated with higher
odds of sexual violence, compared to being a professor
or an employee. This nding conrms the importance
of universities being better equipped to meet the needs
of university students in terms of prevention and treat-
ment of SVUC. Also, the fact that individuals belonging
to gender minorities and women account for particularly
high rates of SVUC victims (55.7% for gender minorities;
40.5% for women; 26.5% for men) supports the idea that
raising awareness about gendered power relations may
reduce the prevalence of sexual violence (Powell & Hen-
ry, 2014). This last result provides needed empirical data
Table 6. Type of assistance desired, by Status
Student
%
Professor
%
Employee
%
χ2pEffect sizes
ϕ'
Support during the reporting process 71.1a64.6b72.0a22.5 <.001 .051
Psychological support from a resource outside
the university
55.2ab 53.0b58.3a7.4 .025 .029
Information on possible recourse available within
the university to report the incident
55.4a53.4a54.0a2.1 .357 .015
Information on possible recourse available out-
side the university to report the incident
46.6a42.7b46.0ab 6.0 .049 .026
Psychological support from a resource within the
university
48.8a34.5b38.3b112.5 <.001 .113
Sharing with others who have experienced SVUC
(support group)
28.4a17.7b21.4b76.6 <.001 .093
I don’t know 10.4a12.4a9.7a5.4 .068 .025
I wouldn’t want any assistance 7.8a7.8a5.0b13.0 .001 .039
Note. Proportions that do not share the same letters statistically differ at p < .05 in Bonferroni-corrected post hoc comparisons.

Sexual Violence on University Campuses
M. Bergeron, M-F. Goyer, M. Hébert, & S. Ricci
Canadian Journal of Higher Education | Revue canadienne d’enseignement supérieur
49:3 (2019)
99
that document these disparities in a Canadian context
and is consistent with other recent studies (e.g. Wright,
Dhunna, Riddle, De Gannes & Berzins, 2019).
Most students, professors and employees who had
experienced at least one incident of SVUC stated that
in at least one of these incidents the perpetrator held a
hierarchically equivalent status to their own. It should be
kept in mind, however, that the hierarchical status of the
individual who committed the acts was superior to that of
the victim signicantly more often among employees and
professors than among students, suggesting the impor-
tance of exploring the power relations inherent to hierar-
chical relationships among these groups and, more spe-
cically, to workplace harassment. The data also reveal
that the majority of students, professors and employees
(between 78.4% and 92.1% depending on the status) re-
ported that at least one incident of SVUC involved a male
perpetrator. These results point to the importance of lo-
cating sexual violence within the wider frame of men’s
violence against women (Powell & Henry, 2014).
The experience of sexual violence in a university
setting is associated with noteworthy repercussions in
different spheres of the lives of victims, regardless of the
victims’ university status (47.6% of the sample reported
experiencing at least one consequence). Some 10% of
victims suffer symptoms associated with post-traumatic
stress. In these situations, the school or work setting be-
comes an unsafe place for the victim of SVUC, who de-
velops strategies to avoid certain locations or individuals,
and is constantly on alert to prevent any new incidents of
sexual violence.
The disturbing rates of SVUC and its consequences
emphasize the importance of preventing SVUC, facilitat-
ing reporting, and supporting victims. To this point, more
than nine out of ten participants either did not report or
reported only certain incidents to university authorities or
resources, with signicantly fewer students reporting all
the incidents to which they were subjected. The reasons
most frequently given for not reporting SVUC concern
the perception of the situation’s severity and the desire to
put the incident behind them and forget about it. Most of
the reasons given by participants were selected in sim-
ilar proportions by students, professors and employees.
However, signicantly more students stated they did not
report because they were afraid that they did not have
sufcient evidence to convince university authorities to
act, or they did not know who to contact at the university
or were unaware that the university could help them in
this situation. This would certainly explain the students’
lower reporting rate. The data also reveal that employees
and professors were more numerous than students in
stating they did not report the incidents out of fear of neg-
ative consequences regarding their jobs, academic ses-
sion, obtaining their degree, or their athletic career. This
is not surprising, given the fact that signicantly more
employees and professors than students reported that
the perpetrator’s hierarchical status was higher than their
own. It suggests that particular attention needs to be paid
to situations in which the perpetrator was in an authority
position because the power relationship attached to hier-
archical status makes reporting much more difcult. Lack
of reporting also highlights the importance of creating
safe and accountable campus climates to enable victims
to report without fear of retaliation.
When questioned about desired assistance, most
students, professors and employees afrmed they would
want support during the reporting/complaint process, in-
formation about possible recourse provided by a resource
within the university to report the incident, and psycholog-
ical support provided by resources outside the university.
In addition, proportionately more students selected the op-
tions of psychological support provided by a resource with-
in the university and support groups. These results empha-
size the need to implement a diversied set of services for
the entire university community so that each person can
choose the options that best meet their needs.
Last, a striking proportion of participants reported
having witnessed a SVUC incident or acted as a con-
dant to a victim. While a similar proportion of students,
professors and employees witnessed an incident of
SVUC (roughly one out of eight), the nding is different
with respect to acting as the condant of an SVUC vic-
tim. Signicantly more professors (28.7%) acted as con-
dant to a victim than employees (24.6%) and students
(19.0%), pointing to the need to promote awareness of all
groups in the university community, including professors,
who appear to serve as resource people. These ndings
are consistent with various studies suggesting that pro-
fessors frequently receive information and disclosures
from students in SVUC situations (Branch, Hayes-Smith,
& Richards, 2011) and conrm the relevance of devel-
oping and implementing programs targeting students,
employees and faculty as they are likely to be potential
witnesses or condants of SVUC situations.

Sexual Violence on University Campuses
M. Bergeron, M-F. Goyer, M. Hébert, & S. Ricci
Canadian Journal of Higher Education | Revue canadienne d’enseignement supérieur
49:3 (2019)
100
Contributions and Limits of the Study
This study contributes to the understanding of the prob-
lem of sexual violence experienced on university cam-
puses (excluding events involving perpetrators from
outside the institution). Our ndings highlight similarities
and differences for students, professors and employees
regarding the rate of SVUC, witnesses and condants,
the relationship between perpetrators and victims, re-
porting to university authorities, and the desired types of
assistance. Our study documents three forms of sexual
violence (sexual harassment, unwanted sexual behav-
iors, and sexual coercion) during two reporting periods
and considers SVUC committed both on and off campus.
As with any research, this study has certain meth-
odological limits, the main ones having to do with the
sample’s representativeness. Firstly, the research was
based on a convenience sample, as is true of many oth-
er studies. Secondly, because the sample could not be
weighted, results cannot be generalized to the university
population as a whole. Also, since the objective of the
analysis already required cutting the sample into three
subsamples (students, professors, employees), we could
not perform analyses for all minority groups. For this rea-
son, this article was not able to examine racial, ethnic
and indigenous differences, nor sexual orientation, age
or disability to more accurately understand the potential
differential impacts for marginalized groups. Further stud-
ies would benet from taking into account these variables
to propose an intersectional analysis of SVUC. One must
also consider that by targeting current members of uni-
versity community, we were unable to reach the students
or workers who left the university as a result of SVUC.
Finally, while our results identify signicant differences
among groups, it should be kept in mind that general-
ly the effect sizes are small, revealing that the groups
(students, professors, employees) are distinguished by
small differences for some of the variables considered.
However, the advantage of this study is that it provides
data that are specic to Canadian university campuses
and that include the entire university community.
Conclusion
Given the low reporting rates, the study suggests that
institutional statistics – based on formal reports – cannot
be considered as valid indicators of the extent of SVUC.
Indeed, such indicators represent only the tip of the ice-
berg, as many situations remain undisclosed to anyone
and the vast majority are not reported. Results conrm a
real problem of sexual violence for students, professors
and employees. There is clearly a need for effective pol-
icies and actions with a “zero tolerance attitude.” Sexual
violence in institutions concerns all groups in the univer-
sity community and prevention strategies must address
all of them, including institutional policy and training and
awareness programs. In this respect, the recent Bill 22.1,
An Act to Prevent and Fight Sexual Violence in Higher
Education Institutions unanimously adopted by the Qué-
bec government in December 2017 (RLRQ, 2017, c. 32,
c. I.), explicitly prescribes measures applying to students
and staff members.
Based on the research ndings, and from the per-
spective of social transformation, the Enquête Sexualité,
Sécurité et Interactions en Milieu Universitaire (ESSIMU)
team proposed 15 recommendations for the prevention
of sexual violence on university campuses which can
be found in the research report (Bergeron et al., 2016).
They are grouped into six focal areas: 1) framework pol-
icy and stand-alone SVUC prevention policy; 2) safe en-
vironment; 3) awareness based on permanent strategies
adapted to different groups; 4) education and training;
5) specialized support interventions accessible to the
whole university population; and, 6) research. These
recommendations are intended to provide members of
the university community with a healthy, egalitarian and
secure learning and work environment, free from sexual
violence.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to acknowledge funding for this project
from the Réseau québécois en études féministes/Qué-
bec network of feminist studies (RéQEF), a grant from
the Service aux collectivités/Services to the communities
of UQAM, and the Women’s Program at Status of Wom-
en Canada. The authors also wish to thank Manon Robi-
chaud for processing the data. Finally, the authors would
like to thank the participants who generously gave their
time to this study.
References
Baker, N. V. (2010). Challenging Sexual Harassment on
Campus. Forum on Public Policy Online, 2010, (5).

Sexual Violence on University Campuses
M. Bergeron, M-F. Goyer, M. Hébert, & S. Ricci
Canadian Journal of Higher Education | Revue canadienne d’enseignement supérieur
49:3 (2019)
101
Banyard, V. L., Ward, S., Cohn, E. S., Plante, E. G.,
Moorhead, C. A. E., & Walsh, W. A. (2007). Un-
wanted sexual contact on campus: a comparison
of women’s and men’s experiences. Violence and
Victims, 22(1), 52–70.
Basile, K. C., Smith, S. G., Breiding, M. J., Black, M. C.,
& Mahendra, R. R. (2014). Sexual Violence Sur-
veillance: Uniform Denitions and Recommended
Data Elements, Version 2.0. Atlanta, GA: National
Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention. Retrieved from
https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/sv_sur-
veillance_denitionsl-2009-a.pdf
Bastiani, F., Romito, P., & Saurel-Cubizolles, M. J.
(2018). Mental distress and sexual harassment in
Italian university students. Archives Of Women's
Mental Health, 1-8.
Bergeron, M., Hébert, M., Ricci, S., Goyer, M.-F., Du-
hamel, N., Kurtzman, L., Auclair, I., Clennet-Sirois,
L., Daigneault, I., Damant, D., Demers, S., Dion,
J., Lavoie, F., Paquette, G., & Parent, S. (2016).
Violences sexuelles en milieu universitaire au
Québec : Rapport de recherche de l’enquête ES-
SIMU. Montréal : Université du Québec à Montréal.
Retrieved from http://essimu.quebec/wp/wp-content/
uploads/2015/12/Rapport-ESSIMU_COMPLET.pdf
Bradshaw, J. (2014, March 3) University of Ottawa
men's hockey team suspended over alleged sex
assault. The Globe and Mail. Retrieved from https://
www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/univer-
sity-of-ottawa-suspends-hockey-team-over-seri-
ous-misconduct/article17201525/
Branch, K. A, Hayes-Smith, R., & Richards, T. N. (2011).
Professors’ experiences with student disclosures of
sexual assault and intimate partner violence: How
“helping” students can inform teaching practices",
Feminist Criminology, 6(1), 54–75.
Brennan, S., & Taylor-Butts, A. (2008). Sexual assault in
Canada. Canadian centre for justice statistics prole
series. Catalogue 85F0033M - No. 19. Ottawa:
Statistics Canada.
Canadian Federation of University Women. (2016).
Mémoire au Comité de la condition féminine pour
étayer son étude intitulée "La violence envers les
jeunes femmes et lles au Canada". Ottawa, On-
tario : Canadian Federation of University Women.
Retrieved from http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/
HOC/Committee/421/FEWO/Brief/BR8406529/
br-external/CanadianFederationofUniversityWom-
en-9437755-f.pdf
Cantin, S., & Proulx, C. (1995). À l’université comme ail-
leurs: rapport du sondage sur le harcèlement sexuel
mené à l’Université de Montréal. Montréal, Québec:
Université de Montréal.
Cloutier, P. (2016, October 16). Vague d'agressions
sexuelles en une nuit à l'Université Laval. Le Soleil.
Retrieved from https://www.lesoleil.com/actualite/
justice-et-faits-divers/vague-dagressions-sex-
uelles-en-une-nuit-a-luniversite-laval-579a2342e-
315383c914b4efb1f201218
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the be-
havioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Earlbaum Associates.
Colpron, S., & Hétu, R. (1993, February 20). Les
agressions sexuelles sur les campus à Montréal. La
Presse.
DeKeseredy, W., & Kelly, K. (1993). The incidence and
prevalence of woman abuse in Canadian university
and college dating relationships. Canadian Journal
of Sociology, 18(2), 137–159.
Elkouri, R. (2015, september 11). Désolé pour votre
agression. La Presse. Retrieved from http://plus.
lapresse.ca/screens/e98203ad-1916-48a6-8586-
3f8e83949b53__7C___0.html
Fedina, L., Holmes, J. L., & Backes, B. L. (2016).
Campus Sexual Assault: A Systematic Review of
Prevalence Research From 2000 to 2015. Trauma,
Violence, & Abuse, 19(1), 76–93.
Fisher, B. S., Cullen, F. T., & Turner, M. G. (2000). The
sexual victimization of college women. Washington,
DC: National Institute of Justice.
Fitzgerald, L. F., Gelfand, M. J., & Drasgow, F. (1995).
Measuring sexual harassment: Theoretical and
psychometric advances. Basic and applied social
psychology, 17(4), 425–445.
Fitzgerald, L. F., Magley, V. J., Drasgow, F., & Waldo,

Sexual Violence on University Campuses
M. Bergeron, M-F. Goyer, M. Hébert, & S. Ricci
Canadian Journal of Higher Education | Revue canadienne d’enseignement supérieur
49:3 (2019)
102
C. R. (1999). Measuring sexual harassment in the
military: The Sexual Experiences Questionnaire
(SEQ—DoD). Military Psychology, 11(3), 243–263.
Fitzgerald, L. F., Shullman, S. L., Bailey, N., Richards,
M., Swecker, J., Gold, Y., Ormerod, M., & Weitz-
man, L. (1988). The incidence and dimensions of
sexual harassment in academia and the workplace.
Journal of vocational behavior, 32(2), 152–175.
Government of British Columbia. (2016). Sexual
violence and misconduct policy act. SBC 2016, c.
23. Retrieved from http://www.bclaws.ca/civix/docu-
ment/id/complete/statreg/e3tlc16023
Government of Ontario. (1990). Sexual violence at
colleges and universities. R.S.O. 1990, c. M.19, O.
Reg. 131/16. Retrieved from https://www.ontario.ca/
laws/regulation/160131
Government of Québec. (2017) Act to prevent and ght
sexual violence in higher education institutions.
RLRQ, c. P-22.1. Retrieved from http://legisquebec.
gouv.qc.ca/fr/ShowDoc/cs/P-22.1
Haaken, J. (2017). Many mornings after: Campus sex-
ual assault and feminist politics. Family Relations,
66(1), 17–28.
Hanmer, J. (1977). Violence et contrôle social des
femmes. Nouvelles Questions féministes, 2(novem-
bre), 68-88. Retrieved from https://www.femin-
istes-radicales.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/
Jalna-Hanmer-Violence-et-contr%C3%B4le-social-
des-femmes-1977-Copie.pdf
Hill, C., & Silva, E. (2005). Drawing the line: Sexual
harassment on campus. Washington, DC: AAUW
Educational Foundation.
Iconis, R. (2006). Sexual harassment on campus:
Development of policies & procedures at the city
university of New York. Journal of College Teaching
& Learning, 3(12), 61–74.
Kelly, L. (1987). The Continuum of Sexual Violence. In
J. Hanmer & M. Maynard (Eds.), Women, violence,
and social control (pp. 46-60). Atlantic Highlands,
N.J. : Humanities Press International.
Krebs, C., Lindquist, C., Berzofsky, M., Shook-Sa, B.,
Peterson, K., Planty, M., Langton, L., & Stroop, J.
(2016). Campus Climate Survey Validation Study
Final Technical Report. Washington, DC: Bureau
of Justice Statistics Research and Development
Series.
Krebs, C. P., Lindquist, C. H., Warner, T. D., Fisher, B.
S., & Martin, S. L. (2007). The Campus Sexual As-
sault (CSA) Study: Final Report. Washington, DC:
National Institute of Justice.
Krug, E. G., Mercy, J. A., Dahlberg, L. L., & Zwi, A. B.
(2002). World Report on Violence and Health. Ge-
neva : World Health Organization. Retrieved from
https://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/
violence/world_report/en/
Powell, A. & Henry, N. (2014). Framing Sexual Violence
Prevention. What Does It Mean to Challenge a
Rape Culture? In Henry, N. & A. Powell (Eds.),
Preventing sexual violence: Interdisciplinary ap-
proaches to overcoming a rape culture (p. 25-80).
Basingstoke, UK : Palgrave Macmillan.
Prins, A., Ouimette, P., Kimerling, R., Cameron, R. P.,
Hugelshofer, D. S., Shaw-Hegwer, J., Thrailkill, A.,
Gusman, F., & Sheikh, J. I. (2004). The primary
care PTSD screen (PC–PTSD): Development and
operating characteristics. Primary Care Psychiatry,
9(1), 9–14.
Quinlan, E., Clarke, A., & Miller, N. (2016). Enhancing
care and advocacy for sexual assault survivors
on Canadian campuses. The Canadian Journal of
Higher Education, 46(2), 40–54.
Quinlan, E., Quinlan, A., Fogel, C., & Taylor, G. (Eds.).
(2017). Sexual Violence at Canadian Universities:
Activism, Institutional Responses, and Strategies
for Change. Waterloo, Ontario: Wilfrid Laurier Univ.
Press.
Taber, J. (2014, December 15) Dalhousie dental school
investigates misogynistic Facebook comments.
The Globe and Mail. Retrieved from https://www.
theglobeandmail.com/news/national/dalhousie-den-
tal-school-investigates-misogynistic-facebook-com-
ments/article22111008/
Tremblay, P. F., Harris, R., Berman, H., MacQuarrie, B.,
Hutchinson, G. E., Smith, M. A., Braley, S., Jelley,
J., & Dearlove, K. (2008). Negative social experi-

Sexual Violence on University Campuses
M. Bergeron, M-F. Goyer, M. Hébert, & S. Ricci
Canadian Journal of Higher Education | Revue canadienne d’enseignement supérieur
49:3 (2019)
103
ences of university and college students. The Cana-
dian Journal of Higher Education, 38(3), 57–75.
Tutton, M. (2013, September 4) Saint Mary’s University
frosh chant cheers for rape, underage sex. Glob-
al News. Retrieved from https://globalnews.ca/
news/819744/saint-marys-university-frosh-chant-
cheers-for-rape-underage-sex/
University of Ottawa. (2015). Report of the Task Force
on Respect and Equality: Ending Sexual Violence at
the University of Ottawa. Ottawa, Canada: Univer-
sity of Ottawa. Retrieved from https://www.uottawa.
ca/president/sites/www.uottawa.ca.president/les/
report-of-the-task-force-on-respect-and-equality.pdf
Wright, J., Dhunna, S., Riddle, T., De Gannes, P., & Ber-
zins, T. (2019). End the Silence, End the Violence:
Experiences and Understandings of Sexual Vio-
lence at the University of Toronto. Toronto, Ontario:
Silence is Violence.
Contact Information
Manon Bergeron, PhD
bergeron.manon@uqam.ca
Notes
1 The overall study sample also comprises participants
who hold managers positions. Because we were un-
able to conduct valid comparative analyses due to
the low number of managers, this subgroup was not
included in these analyses.
2 In Québec, undergraduate studies consist primarily
of Bachelor’s, certicate, and short programs; grad-
uate degrees include the Master's, Ph.D., and Spe-
cialized Graduate Diploma (DESS) programs.
3 According to Cohen (1988), equivalences for small,
medium, and large effects should be established
based on the smallest number of categories (r) in the
contingency table (if r = 2, .10, .30, and .50, respec-
tively; if r = 3, .071, .212, and .354, respectively; if r =
4, .058, .173, and .289, respectively).