1. Sexual offenses on college campuses in the US remain at crisis levels, with one third of women experiencing sexual assault by the end of their college careers.
2. LGBTQ+ students, disabled students, and Indigenous students are at highest risk of assault.
3. Survivors often do not report out of fear that the process will be stigmatizing and punitive and will lead to revictimization and inaction.
The article "Institutional predictors of campus sexual misconduct reporting: the role of gender in leadership" highlights the prevalence of sexual offenses on college campuses in the U.S. and the underreporting of such incidents. The article cites several studies to support its claims, but it also has some potential biases and missing points of consideration.
One potential bias is that the article focuses primarily on the experiences of women as survivors and men as perpetrators, without exploring other gender identities or non-binary individuals. While it acknowledges that LGBTQ+ students are at higher risk for assault, it does not delve into their experiences in depth.
Additionally, the article does not address how race and ethnicity intersect with sexual violence on college campuses. It briefly mentions Indigenous students as being at higher risk but does not explore this further or discuss how other marginalized communities may be affected differently.
The article also makes unsupported claims about why survivors do not report sexual assault, stating that they fear stigmatization and punitive action. While these may be factors, there are many reasons why survivors may choose not to report, including a lack of trust in institutions or fear of retaliation from perpetrators.
Furthermore, the article does not explore counterarguments or alternative perspectives on addressing campus sexual misconduct. For example, some argue that restorative justice practices may be more effective than traditional disciplinary measures.
Overall, while the article raises important issues related to campus sexual misconduct reporting and institutional leadership, it could benefit from a more intersectional approach and a deeper exploration of alternative solutions.