A Guide to Intersectional IPV Training for Staff and Students
By: Indya Gettings
Source: Dialectic
This page is designed to aid in making sexual violence (SV) and interpersonal violence (IPV) prevention on college campuses much more inclusive and sensitive to oppressed groups, which as we talked about in class, are often ignored in conversations of SV and IPV because of society’s idea of how “victims” and “perpetrators” look. Of course, the amendments I suggest are not exhaustive, but I hope they will help provide guidance as we university-associated people evolve in our understanding of SV and IPV.
CN: sexual violence, conversations about gender, race, and sexual orientation, hate crime
Why do we need this?
While a lot of colleges and universities do have training practices in place for sexual violence (SV) and interpersonal violence (IPV), intersectional identities and the role they play when it comes to SV and IPV are not very well centered. Therefore, students in marginalized communities can face additional barriers when it comes to taking action after they experience harm. All students should feel comfortable on their respective campuses, which is why I aim to help create a framework for training that acknowledges these identities and does not treat every case of sexual assault like a monolith. Hopefully, this webpage will serve as a guide for those looking to upgrade and expand their SV and IPV training to better accommodate every student on their campus.
History of SV and IPV Training
According to the American Psychological Association, sexual violence awareness and activism began across campuses around the 1970s with “Take Back the Night” and other marches designed to bring awareness to the topic. (Winerman, 2018). Unfortunately, proper prevention and training protocol was pretty much non-existent across campuses for decades. However, one early example of SV and IPV training and prevention was the “Green Dot Program,'”created by Dr. Dorothy Edwards in 2005 at the University of Kentucky. Essentially, this program was created to educate students on what potentially dangerous situations look like and how intervene and be an “active bystander” if they see an unsafe situation. (Winerman, 2018). However, only a selected number of students initially participated in this program, which is not helpful in situations where the selected students are not present. In 2013, Congress passed the Campus Sexual Violence Elimination (SaVE) Act where “all schools that receive Title IX funding” are required to “provide bystander training to their students.” (Winerman, 2018). Another approach to the prevention of SV and IPV was created by Dr. Charlene Senn, a Canadian professor who developed the “Enhanced Assess, Acknowledge, Act (EAAA) Program” which centers undergraduate women and teaches them resistance techniques as well as educates them about the different aspects of SV and IPV about which they might have misconceptions. (Winerman, 2018). Although these programs are positive steps towards SV and IPV prevention, they still do not pay attention to the impacts that identities such as race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, etc could have on people who experience harm, thus showing the necessity for more inclusive training.
What is Intersectionality?
Cultural Betrayal Trauma Theory
Those within marginalized groups can face a lot of challenges when they experience SV and IPV, especially when it is at the hands of someone within their respective group. Jennifer Gomez (2022) states that, when minority people experience harm within their group, it compromises the sense of solidarity and collective responsibility that they had with their respective community. As a result, the trauma of experiencing harm is amplified by the trauma that their own group has “betrayed” them (Gomez, 2022). Ultimately, Jennifer Gomes developed this theory with Black women and girls in mind, but other identities such a sexual orientation, class, and religion can also play a role in the additional trauma associated with SV and IPV and one’s identity.
What are some other identities and impacts?
| Sexual Orientation | Immigration Status | Disability Status | Class and/or Income | Gender |
| Members of the LGBTQ+ community who experience harm within colleges and universities could face fear of being “outed” and/or “outing” someone else if they report the harm they experience. | Students who are undocumented may be fearful of working with law enforcement. Also, xenophobia within members of their university forces some students into silence. | Students with disabilities are often slighted if the space that they are seeking after experiencing harm is not accessible with “lack of ramps and elevators” (Hieftje, 2022). Also, if training does not consider the role that disabilities play in bystander intervention and other forms of prevention, a student with a disability could struggle with next steps. | Those with a lower income and have trouble “meeting their basic survival needs” likely do not have access to things such as legal help (if they wish to take legal action) and other resources that could aid in their healing if they experience harm. (Hieftje, 2022). | SV and IPV training and general conversations are thought about in very dichotomous, binary terms, which ignores trans and non-binary people who experience harm and causes some to not pursue action in they event that they do experience harm. |
Shocking Statistics
The National Alliance to End Sexual Violence (2017) found that sexual violence disproportionately affects minority women, concluding with their survey that ~18% of white women will experience sexual violence compared to their Black (19%), mixed race (25%), and Native American (34%) counterparts. (www.endsexualviolence.org). Robert Coulter et al. from the University of Pittsburgh (2017) conducted surveys among 71,421 college students from 120 colleges and universities where they found that marginalized groups face a much higher risk for SV and IPV. For example, transgender college students had “~300% odds of being sexually assaulted than cisgender students.” (Coulter el al., 2017). Additionally, LGBTQ+ men were more likely to experience sexual assault than their heterosexual counterparts. Bisexual women also had higher chances of SV than heterosexual women. (Coulter et al., 2017).
My proposals for training amendments
Identity Activity
Objective: to get students and staff to understand different identities and how they could have an impact on the people who occupy them.
Have participants (anonymously) write down all of the identities that they feel impact them on a daily basis. The facilitator will collect the cards, shuffle them, and then read them out loud and/or write them down. The participants will then discuss how the respective identities could create additional harm and trauma in the event of SV and IPV. Also discuss some privileges associated with some identities when it comes to cases of SV and IPV. When discussing the barriers and additional harm, have the group also brainstorm some steps they would take to best accommodate the individual who occupies this identity if they experienced harm as well as ways they would intervene to prevent harm. Be sure to send out a content warning prior to the workshop and make sure that everyone is in the headspace and has the capacity to participate in this activity.
Look outside of traditional institutions
Racial minorities and other marginalized populations have a contentious history with law enforcement, which would prevent people who identify with those communities from seeking punitive measures in the event that they experience harm. Also, because of the high standards of evidence (beyond a reasonable doubt) within criminal proceedings, many SV and IPV survivors have a hard time seeking justice. For many, it is more traumatic because they have to deal with the trauma of the harm itself along with the potential discrimination from law enforcement and/or criminal justice system invalidating their experiences due to “insufficient evidence.” (Armstrong et al.,, 2018). Also, many institutions, colleges and universities included, are patriarchal and hierarchical in nature, which leads to denial of sexual violence and further oppression of already oppressed groups. (Armstrong et al., 2018). Therefore, in your training, highlight alternatives to going the punitive route. However, remember that people’s marginalized identities often put them in an especially vulnerable position, which can be additionally harmful after experiencing SV or IPV, so it is important to let them lead and not try to push one solution over another — give them agency. Some Penn-specific examples are Restorative Practices @ Penn, Penn Violence Prevention, culture centers, the LGBT center, along with others. Find those for your respective campus and highlight them in your training sessions. Be sure to also acknowledge barriers within the criminal justice system!
Change the conversation
A lot of training videos and/or scenarios are very heteronormative in nature and feature often feature cisgender (white) women as those who experience harm. Additionally, the role of perpetrator has been assigned to minority men. While there are indeed people who cause harm and people who experience harm who do fit those identities, the constant attention to cisgender (white) women perpetuates the idea that only cis (white) women experience harm and thus leaves lots of others out of the conversation and further oppresses them. (Karunaratne, 2017). Also, the blatant sexualization and fetishization of Black and other minority women inhibits minority women’s victimhood from being properly acknowledged and thus leads to more harm against these marginalized women. (Karunaratne, 2017). In addition to the necessity for representation of identities and bodies, it is important to highlight the varying types of harm within training. Although people may have had harmful experiences, they do not view their experiences as noteworthy because the nature of them may not have been as egregious. (Armstrong et al., 2017). Therefore, more inclusive measures are necessary. Some examples include diversifying scenarios in training to include identities such as racial minorities, queer couples, trans people, and other marginalized identities not as a form of tokenism, but rather to open up the conversation that survivorship looks different within college campuses. This diversity is also necessary in the different types of experiences that are showcased in scenarios and videos so that staff and students are equipped to recognize different types of harm to properly respond and/or prevent them.
Understand power dynamics
SV and IPV are rooted in colonial practices where they were used as “white colonizers’ violent tactics to eradicate and oppress indigenous communities.” Naturally, during this time, the white colonizers’ positions in society made them immune to accountability. (Karunaratne, 2017). Because this country was founded with discriminatory values, these oppressive practices have continued long after the conclusion of slavery, thus adding the additional layer of oppression and discrimination when it comes to SV, especially with regards to Black women. Additionally, these power structures pervade institutions, especially on college campuses. Examples of this power dynamic are the dominance that cishet men have when it comes to parties and the concentration of first-year students within their dorms. (Armstrong et al., 2018). Also, those in positions of power, such as law enforcement on campuses. can hold biases, which affects the way that they handle instances of SV and IPV. Victim blaming and questioning of their credibility is very prevalent, especially within communities that I mentioned earlier fall at or near the bottom of campus hierarchy. (Armstrong et al., 2018). Therefore, rather than just conducting training with a “one-size-fits-all” approach, discuss how identity can impact the aftermath of SV and IPV as well as how certain groups are more susceptible to harm than others because of the power structures set in place. Also, encourage dialogues about how to combat the power structure, such as having people with marginalized identities facilitate training workshops who can not only approach the training with a unique sensitivity but also work with other campus resources to help best accommodate students who identify with oppressed groups on campus.
Conclusion
I hope that this information is helpful and starts some very much needed conversations at Penn and beyond. IPV is not a monolith and should not be treated as such. It is important to remain educated on students’ identities and the best ways to respect them and/or intervene when harm does occur. Taking the time to better care for all students will help to not only make campus safer but change the culture that makes it unsafe in the first place. Thank you!
Resources
Armstrong, E. A., Gleckman-Krut, M., & Johnson, L. (2018). Silence, power, and inequality: An intersectional approach to sexual violence. Annual Review of Sociology, 44, 99-122.
Coulter, R. W., Mair, C., Miller, E., Blosnich, J. R., Matthews, D. D., & McCauley, H. L. (2017). Prevalence of past-year sexual assault victimization among undergraduate students: Exploring differences by and intersections of gender identity, sexual identity, and race/ethnicity. Prevention Science, 18, 726-736.
Gómez J. M. (2022). When solidarity hurts: (Intra)cultural trust, cultural betrayal sexual trauma, and PTSD in culturally diverse minoritized youth transitioning to adulthood. Transcultural psychiatry, 59(3), 292–301. https://doi.org/10.1177/13634615211062970
Karunaratne, N. (2017, August 31). Sexual violence prevention requires focusing on how multiple forms of oppression intersect with sexism. Inside Higher Ed | Higher Education News, Events and Jobs. https://www.insidehighered.com/advice/2017/09/01/sexual-violence-prevention-requires-focusing-how-multiple-forms-oppression
National Alliance to End Sexual Violence. (2017). Where we stand: Racism and Rape. National Alliance to End Sexual Violence. https://endsexualviolence.org/where_we_stand/racism-and-rape/
Stewart, D. (2022, April 12). 10 barriers marginalized survivors encounter after domestic/sexual violence. Resilience. https://resiliencemi.org/barriers-marginalized-survivors/
Winerman, L. (2018, October). Making campuses safer. Monitor on Psychology. from https://www.apa.org/monitor/2018/10/campuses-safer
Trauma Porn to Title IX: Gender Based Violence at Penn 