“Good People with Good Intentions” - Deconstructing A Post-Secondary Institution’s Sexual Violence Policy Construction

Oct 15, 2026

This exploratory study examines how committee members tasked with constructing sexual violence policies in post-secondary institutions (PSIs) apply expertise and navigate constraints during policy development. Results show committees emphasize institutional risk management, that confusion is normalized, and that many members lack knowledge of intersectionality in violence. The findings contextualize PSI failures to address structural violence. Recommendations urge PSIs to include subject experts, consult service providers, and integrate intersectionality research into policy and program construction.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages15

Reading Time38 min

AccessFree to download

Abstract

Introduction

Background on dissatisfaction and underreporting

Rates and reporting barriers

Intersectionality and heightened risk on campuses

Committee tasking and policy construction (study focus)

“Good People with Good Intentions”: Deconstructing A Post-Secondary Institution’s Sexual Violence Policy Construction Irene Shankar & D. Scharie Tavcer Mount Royal University Abstract This exploratory study investigates the expertise of committee members tasked with constructing sexual violence policies within a post-secondary institution (PSI) and the constraints under which they complete this work. Our findings indicate that allocated committees prioritize institutional risk management, normalize confusion, and most members have little or no understanding of the intersectionality of violence. These findings contextualize PSI’s failure to address structural violence. Our recommendationsurge PSIs to include subject experts, consult with existing service providers, and integrate research on the intersectionality of sexualized violence within their policy and program construction. Keywords: gendered violence, sexual assault, sexual violence policy, post-secondary institutions Introduction In 2017, a student group analyzed a dozen post-secondary institutions1 (PSIs) across Ontario and assigned their sexual assault policies a C-grade; indicating a high level of dissatisfaction (Salvino et al., 2017). Another study found a substantial undercounting of sexual assaults by PSIs, but an increase in reporting by 44% during the audit period, indicating that policymakers and administrators underestimate the actual severity and needs of their students while presenting a low-risk public face (Yung, 2015). Thus, it is not surprising that many Canadian post-secondary institutions (PSIs), such as the University of Manitoba, Brandon University, Brock University, Dalhousie University, University of British Columbia, University of Toronto, and York University have made news for their (mis)handling of sexual violence cases (Anderson, 2016; Browne, 2014; Dehaas, 2014; Drouin, 2018; Laychuk, 2016; Munguia, 2015; Rotstein, 2014; Sawa & Ward, 2015, 2016; Senn et al., 2014; Shen, 2017; Valenti, 2014; Xing, 2017). Canadian PSIs public failures implore us to investigate how institutional policies on sexualized violence are constructed and to question who is tasked to create such policies. (Daigle et al., 2009; Xing, 2017). There is scant information about committees tasked with creating institutional policies, their understanding of sexualized violence, and how their employment position within the PSI affects the policy creation process. Adopting a Canadian university as our case study, we investigated who gets tasked with creating sexual violence policy, what considerations they make in these policy deliberations, and the structural constraints under which they complete such work. Our findings illuminate the barriers in place for constructing meaningful policies on campuses. Canadian and American statistics indicate that approximately 20-25% of college women have experienced sexual assault during their lifetime, and 1 in 5 have experienced sexual assault during their post-secondary education (Benoit et al., 2015; Cantalupo, 2011; Conry & Canter, 2017; Fisher et al., 2000; Holland & Cortina, 2017; Karjane et al., 2002; Krebs et al., 2007; Tjaden & Thoeness, 2000;¹ In this paper, post-secondary institutions (PSIs) refer to any undergraduate or graduate degree granting institution of higher education. United States Department of Justice, 2005). More than 90% of PSI students do not report their assault to school authorities (Fisher et al., 2000; Krebs et al., 2007, 2016). This lack of reporting is consistent with Canadian statistics that indicate only 1 in 10 assaults is reported to police (Brennan & Taylor-Butts, 2008; Statistics Canada, 2017). Similarly, in the United States, rape is the most under-reported crime (Butler et al., 2019; Department of Justice, 2017; RAINN, 2020). The under-reporting of sexual violence within PSIs is due to myriad factors. For many PSI students, sexual assaults happen within the first eight weeks of schoo

FAQs

What does the study investigate about sexual violence policy construction at post-secondary institutions?

It examines the expertise of committee members assigned to build sexual violence policies and the constraints shaping how they do this work.

What key findings describe committee priorities and knowledge gaps?

Allocated committees tend to prioritize institutional risk management, normalize confusion, and many members have little or no understanding of intersectionality in violence.

Why does the paper argue structural violence is not adequately addressed?

It links the observed policy-construction barriers—such as confusion, limited intersectional understanding, and risk-focused approaches—to PSIs’ failure to address structural violence.

Oct 15, 2026

Uploaded by Danger Angel