Sexual Harassment at a Hispanic Serving Institution: Differences between Sexual and Gender Minority Students and Majority Students

Background and Purpose:

Sexual harassment is a common and enduring problem on U.S. college campuses, which researchers and policy-makers have attempted to address for three decades. Within this research there is scant attention paid to the experiences of sexual and gender minority students (Rankin, 2006). A recent study revealed that 75% of transgender, gender-queer, and questioning (TGQN) students reported experiences with sexual harassment (Cantor et al., 2015). Given that sexual and gender minorities feel targeted by sexual harassment on college campuses, it is surprising that research has failed to focus on their experiences. The purpose of this study is to examine what differences exist between sexual and gender minority students and majority students in how each group experiences sexual harassment at a large, public university in the southwestern United States. The second purpose is to examine the relationship between environmental forms of sexual harassment and interpersonal forms.

Methods:

The research team implemented a cross-sectional survey design study to collect information about student campus climate experiences. The team engaged a stratified random sample of students with N = 1,982 respondents, with the following sexual identities: Lesbian (n = 23), Gay (n = 41), Bisexual (n = 77), Queer (n = 7), Other (n = 25), and Heterosexual (n = 1302). Analysis methods included factor analysis, analysis of variance, and cross-tabulation. Two distinct scales captured environmental forms of harassment {ENV} (crude sexual behavior [e.g., sexual jokes, offensive remarks or gestures], sexist gender harassment [e.g., sexist comments, condescending/patronizing treatment]) and individual experiences {IND} (sexual coercion [e.g., bribed, threatened into having sex] and unwanted sexual attention [e.g., pressure for a relationship or unwanted touching]). Both scales have strong reliability with Cronbach’s alpha of ENV = .884 and IND = .892. A Pearson’s chi-square test was conducted to assess differences between LGBQ student experiences with the harassment compared to heterosexual students. As well, we assessed the relationship between ENV and IND categories of harassment.

Results:

The results reveal that LGBQ students reported experiencing more harassment than heterosexual students. Lesbian students represented the largest proportion of students to report experiences with sexual harassment at 72%, compared to heterosexual students at 54%. The results also show that for all students (female, male, lesbian, gay, queer, and other) reporting environmental experiences with sexual harassment is correlated with reporting individual types of harassment. However, Bisexual students showed the strongest correlation, ENV= X²(1 = 77) = 20.18, p = .00, Cramer’s V = .51.

Implications:

Sexual and gender minority students are more likely to feel targeted by sexual harassment. University efforts to prevent sexual harassment should address experiences specific to LGBQ students. Also, students reporting ENV harassment (e.g., crude sexual behaviors and sexist gender harassment) are much more likely to report individualized sexual coercion and unwanted sexual attention. The results suggest a relationship between the broader campus environment and individual sexual harassment behaviors. College campuses may want to consider focusing sexual harassment prevention efforts towards ENV forms of harassment as a mechanism for also addressing IND forms.