Yale University

Report of the 2012-13 Campus
Sexual Climate Assessment
May 15, 2013

Stephanie S. Spangler, M.D.
Deputy Provost for Health Affairs & Academic Integrity
University Title IX Coordinator

 Table of Contents
Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 2
Process............................................................................................................................................ 4
Observations .................................................................................................................................. 6
A.

Student awareness of definitions of sexual misconduct and related University policies ... 6

B.

Student awareness of resources for sexual misconduct response ....................................... 7

C.

Student perceptions of sexual climate................................................................................. 9

D.

1.

Undergraduate assessment of climate......................................................................... 10

2.

Graduate and professional student assessment of climate .......................................... 14
Administrator perceptions of sexual climate .................................................................... 18

Conclusions and Future Steps.................................................................................................... 20
A.

Definitions and resources.................................................................................................. 20

B.

Sexual climate ................................................................................................................... 21

Closing Comments ...................................................................................................................... 25
Attachment A:

University-wide Email from Stephanie Spangler ............................................ 26

Attachment B:

Discussion Groups ........................................................................................... 28

Attachment C:

Facilitator Guide .............................................................................................. 29

Attachment D:

Campus Climate Planning & Implementation Team ....................................... 31

1

 
 

 Introduction
To the Members of the Yale University Community:
In the fall of 2012, my office embarked upon an initiative to assess certain aspects of the sexual
climate on Yale’s campus. The first such assessment had been conducted in 2011 by an external
advisory committee chaired by the Honorable Margaret H. Marshall. The Marshall Committee’s
charge was broad: to recommend “how sexual harassment, violence or misconduct may be more
effectively combated at Yale, and what additional steps the University might take to create a
culture and community in which all of our students are safe and feel well supported.” That
Committee’s findings and suggestions (available at: http://provost.yale.edu/title-ix/reports) have
been invaluable guides in shaping our efforts to address and prevent sexual misconduct across
the University and to build a culture of respect and responsibility. Equally important has been
the ongoing, thoughtful and candid input from members of the Yale community regarding their
experiences, observations, and recommendations relating to the sexual climate on campus.
The 2012-2013 campus sexual climate assessment was similar to the Marshall Committee’s
examination in that it sought largely qualitative information from convened discussion groups
and through an email solicitation to the entire community. However, the purpose and focus of
the 2012-2013 assessment differed from those of its predecessor. The intentions of the 20122013 assessment were two-fold: to gauge the community’s current understanding of Yale’s
policies, procedures, and resources relating to sexual misconduct; and to engage the community
in broad discussion of the sexual climate in their schools and departments and across the
University.
In the following pages, we present the highlights and recurrent themes of many conversations
and communications. Unfortunately, there is no way in this summary document to capture fully
the richness of the conversations or the wisdom and generosity of the participants, who called
upon both personal experience and shared perception to add not only content but texture to the
discussions. In order to attend to the privacy of participants, we will not share verbatim the
many comments that at various times pleased us, troubled us, moved us, and inspired us.
Nonetheless, we will undoubtedly refer to them time and time again not only to inform our future

2

 
 

 efforts but also to remind us of the power of engaging many views and voices across the
University in order to make change.
Numerous individuals1 contributed to this initiative; their skills and time and sheer effort allowed
us to recruit a diversity of participants from across the University, create safe and supportive
venues for open conversation and anonymous communications, and retain faithful and
confidential documentation of participants’ observations and suggestions. They deserve our
heartfelt thanks.
I look forward to your thoughts about this report and, as always, welcome your own suggestions
about how we can make Yale a better place.

Stephanie S. Spangler
May 15, 2013

                                                       
1

See Attachment D for a list of members of the Campus Climate Planning and Implementation Team.

3

 
 

 Process
This report summarizes the general observations and recommendations gathered from the Yale
community during the fall semester of 2012. Through a variety of venues (discussed below), we
received input on the campus climate from many individuals with a wide range of perspectives
and experiences, including undergraduates, graduate and professional students, faculty, staff, and
administrators. In all, more than 300 members of the Yale community offered their feedback.
We are very grateful to everyone who took the time to share their thoughts with us.
In an October 22, 2012 email,2 we invited all Yale faculty, students, and staff, to share their
insights, experiences, and suggestions on the campus climate. This invitation provided several
options for the Yale community to provide input, including by email, in one-to-one meetings,
and anonymously through an online comment form on the University’s Title IX website
(http://provost.yale.edu/title-ix). Roughly one third of the individuals who participated this past
fall used one of these mechanisms to provide their comments and suggestions.
In addition to the venues described above, we also gathered input through discussions with more
than 30 groups of community members held during November and December 2012, including
many groups that had participated in the Marshall Committee’s assessment in 2011. We met
with faculty and administrator groups with a wide variety of roles and affiliations. We talked
with undergraduates representing a range of student organizations, societies, and varsity athletic
teams, as well as with randomly selected sophomores. We talked with graduate students and
professional students from many of the schools as well as graduate and professional student
leaders. In some cases, students were randomly selected to participate in a discussion group with
colleagues from their class or school. In other cases, representatives of specific student
organizations were invited to participate in a facilitated discussion.3
In each of the student group sessions, which generally lasted 60 to 90 minutes, a neutral
facilitator guided the discussion,4 a note taker captured comments without attribution, and a Title
IX Coordinator or other administrator listened and responded to student questions at the close of
the discussion.
                                                       
2

See Attachment A, the email from Stephanie Spangler to the University community.
See Attachment B for the list of the discussion groups that participated this past fall.
4
See Attachment C for the questions that the facilitators used to guide the discussions.
3

4

 
 

 Through both the University-wide email and the group discussions, we sought to:


gauge the community’s current understanding of Yale’s policies, procedures, and
resources relating to sexual misconduct;



gather community members’ impressions of the sexual climate in their own
schools/departments and the University more generally;



learn whether and how individuals feel they can influence the day-to-day climate in
which they study, work, and live; and



better understand what additional actions the University should take to address and
prevent sexual misconduct.

5

 
 

 Observations
A. Student awareness of definitions of sexual misconduct and related University policies
Although rarely expressing quotable familiarity with the University’s posted definition of sexual
misconduct, undergraduate and graduate and professional student groups consistently offered up
key elements of that definition. Responses to the question “what constitutes sexual
misconduct?” routinely included terms such as “assault,” “nonconsensual sex,” “unwanted,
unasked for sexual conduct including touching,” “stalking,” “intimate partner violence,” and
“harassment.” Students repeatedly acknowledged that the definition is broad and includes verbal
as well as physical behaviors. They also generally understood that the definition of sexual
misconduct includes certain consensual acts involving individuals with unequal institutional
power and were aware of the existence of Yale's Policy on Teacher-Student Consensual
Relations.
Similarly, while rarely able to cite Yale definitions verbatim, student groups demonstrated a
nuanced understanding of sexual consent. They acknowledged the need for consent to be
explicit, clear, and current and were routinely aware that consent cannot be obtained from
someone who is mentally or physically incapacitated.
In addressing the definitions, students frequently discussed the potential subjectivity of sexual
misconduct, noting that in certain circumstances the definition seems to be dependent on an
individual’s perceptions and sense of boundaries. In several groups, this element of subjectivity
became a focus of discussion, and students grappled with the interpretive elements of the
definition and the related need to pay continual attention to what is and isn’t appropriate in
various contexts. Occasionally, students worried about the possibility of false accusations,
arising either out of definitional ambiguity or malice. Despite these concerns, student groups
repeatedly demonstrated their ability to make well-reasoned judgments regarding the presence of
sexual misconduct in hypothetical examples.
While once again not always able to recite specific text, students were almost uniformly aware of
the University’s commitment to create a campus free of sexual misconduct. Many also observed
that the University has been more open and clearer in stating its position. That said, there was
variation in students’ degrees of familiarity with University policies and definitions across

6

 
 

 schools and among class cohorts; more specifically, those students who participated in
orientation programs in the past two years appeared to be more deeply versed in the details of
definitions, policies and procedures.
In the discussions about what would or would not constitute sexual misconduct, a few points of
confusion emerged. Some of the graduate and professional school students raised questions
about the limits of the consensual relations policy, e.g., regarding the scope of restrictions that
apply to graduate student-faculty relationships. Others wondered about the definitional
similarities and differences between sexual misconduct and gender discrimination.
Undergraduates’ uncertainties related to sexual contact under the influence of alcohol. More
specifically, a number of students seemed to equate intoxication, or even mild to moderate
alcohol use, with incapacitation. Accordingly, these students often believed (inaccurately) that
consent cannot be given by an individual who has consumed any amount of alcohol.
Finally, there were students in both undergraduate and graduate and professional student groups
who sought clarification regarding which behaviors constitute sexual harassment and verbal
sexual misconduct. They further suggested that exemplary “scenarios” might be helpful
educational tools, especially to address areas of uncertainty.
While these discussions identified a few areas of uncertainty, the overwhelming message was
positive. Students appear to know the core elements of the sexual misconduct definition and are
capable of having thoughtful and substantive discussions about them.
B. Student awareness of resources for sexual misconduct response
In the discussion groups, facilitators asked participants if they would know where to go for help,
should an instance of sexual misconduct occur. Undergraduates uniformly responded with
“SHARE” (the Sexual Harassment and Assault Response & Education Center). Graduate and
professional students varied somewhat in their responses by school and by year-in-program, but
many responded with this answer as well. Whether or not they mentioned SHARE or another
specific sexual misconduct resource, almost all participants were confident that they could find
such resources if necessary.

7

 
 

 SHARE’s key features—support, information, advocacy--were widely understood by most of the
undergraduates and many graduate/professional students. However, some students, especially in
graduate and professional student groups, were unaware of the full range of SHARE’s services,
and a few were under the impression that SHARE is only a telephone “hotline” or an extension
of Mental Health.
Many students were able to name not just SHARE, but also one or more of the other key sexual
misconduct resources: the Title IX Coordinators, the University-Wide Committee on Sexual
Misconduct, and the Yale Police Department. Graduate and professional students were
especially likely to point to their Title IX Coordinators as sources of help, and to refer to them by
name. Undergraduates were much less likely to identify a Title IX Coordinator as a primary
resource. Again, students who were unsure about specific resources were confident that they
would be able to find them if needed. “Google it” was the most common strategy for locating
resources, closely followed by “search my email” for messages from the deans and Title IX
Coordinators, including the semi-annual reports of cases of sexual misconduct. Students also
cited orientation trainings, as primary sources of information on the topic; however, they
repeatedly emphasized the difficulty of absorbing and retaining orientation-related information
given both the timing and volume of material presented in this setting. They further stressed the
importance of ongoing communication both as a reminder and as a sign of administrative
commitment.
In addition to University-wide resources, many students expected that, if they encountered sexual
misconduct, they would turn to familiar and local sources of support: friends, deans, department
chairs, directors of undergraduate/graduate studies, registrars, the Chaplain’s Office, cultural
center directors, freshman counselors, and so on. For some students, though, that very
familiarity might pose a problem. Some graduate students in particular expressed concerns that
there is risk in bringing complaints to or about an advisor due to “the power dynamics” and the
influence that advisors have on students’ academic success and future careers. The variations in
these discussions underscored the importance of having both local and centralized resources.
For most students, the conversation about resources was largely hypothetical. They knew that
these resources exist, but had no personal experience with any of them. In picturing what it
might be like to engage support services and complaint procedures, students drew on their day8

 
 

 to-day experiences of the sexual climate within their own schools or departments and sometimes
also gleaned information from the semi-annual reports of complaints of sexual misconduct.
Discussions of complaint procedures sometimes reflected ongoing uncertainty about distinctions
between the formal and informal complaint processes and the available array and appropriate
application of sanctions and remedies. In a few discussion groups, students suggested that the
community’s understanding of the procedures might be enhanced by supplementing existing
textual descriptions on the Sexual Misconduct Response website with diagrammatic
representations of complaint processes and detailed (but hypothetical) case scenarios.
Worth noting here are the reports of a few students for whom this was not a hypothetical
conversation. The group of participants with first- or second-hand experiences of taking action
felt, in general, that the process had gone very well. However, a few students raised questions
about the efficiency of the system—were there too many options? too many hand-offs?—and a
few raised concerns about the ways in which their or their friends’ cases were handled.5
C. Student perceptions of sexual climate
For the purposes of this assessment, we defined sexual climate very broadly. We asked students
to consider the overall atmosphere in their schools, including casual comments, attitudes,
patterns of behavior, and presumptions, and to share their general awareness of incidents of
sexual misconduct. In applying this broad definition, participants were asked to reflect on the full
range of their social, educational, and professional experiences at Yale.
One theme emerged in all groups and across all schools: climate is local—or, at least, is
experienced as local. Students were aware of University-wide actions, and often expressed a
belief that these broad strategies will make change, but only insofar as they engage the interest
and action of local communities that some students referred to as “microclimates.”
Students’ assessments of their “microclimates” varied widely. Some felt they inhabit safe,
respectful, supportive spaces; some felt their situations were mixed; some perceived a strong
                                                       
5

When students expressed concerns about their own or a friend’s specific experiences, Title IX Coordinators and/or
other administrators followed up afterwards; information about specific experiences is not included in this report in
order to protect individuals’ privacy.

 
9

 
 

 negative climate. Across these varying assessments, undergraduates consistently focused on the
climate impact of social interactions among peers, rather than with faculty or staff. Graduate
and professional students, by contrast, focused almost exclusively on professional and
educational interactions with faculty. Given the sharp difference in perspectives, we have
provided two separate summaries of the climate discussions, one relating to undergraduates and
the other for graduate and professional students.
1. Undergraduate assessment of climate
Undergraduate students described a wide range of sexual climates that vary across different
campus communities and even among specific groups of friends. Despite significant differences
in students’ observations and experiences, some common themes and shared core perceptions
emerged in discussions, which are listed here and described in more detail below:
(a) Yale is making substantial change, and progress, in addressing the sexual climate;
(b) Students feel Yale is more comfortable than many other campuses;
(c) There are still issues to address;
(d) Patterns of social and sexual life change dramatically between freshman and senior
year; and
(e) Conversations about sex, relationships, and sexual misconduct are both difficult and
necessary.
Variations on these themes emerged among and within discussion groups as students moved into
more detail. This flow of observations and ideas was itself a measure of climate – once
conversations began, students had a lot to say, especially on the topic of how the administration
should (or shouldn’t) attempt to reshape undergraduate life.
(a): Yale is making substantial change, and progress, in addressing the sexual climate
To many undergraduates, the most salient aspects of Yale’s climate are the ways in which it is
actively, rapidly evolving. They frequently remarked that, with regard to its approach to sexual
misconduct, the Yale of today is substantially different—and better—from the Yale of last year
or two years ago. Students appeared to be aware of the intensity of University efforts to address
sexual misconduct and felt those efforts were paying off. Even though some expressed
10

 
 

 skepticism regarding the stimulus for these efforts, e.g., as reaction to regulatory pressure,
students generally offered a narrative of progress and optimism.
Students were aware of the institutional support for change and most seemed to appreciate it.
However, some students expressed frustration with the volume of communication they receive
from the University and the expectations being placed upon them, e.g., to attend multiple
mandatory trainings.
Students emphasized the importance of their ongoing participation in institutional efforts,
especially those relating to alcohol and other drugs, and wanted to make sure their perspectives
are included in institutional planning. They also recognized the active roles that students
themselves are now playing in attempts to transform campus climate, e.g., by having frank and
open daily conversations, organizing and leading group discussions, and setting examples by
making responsible choices with regard to social activities.
(b): Students feel Yale is more comfortable than many other campuses
In many of the discussion groups, students expressed their opinion that the climate is better at
Yale than at other colleges and universities. They compared their experiences at Yale to those of
friends at other schools and shared impressions about their own visits to other institutions. They
frequently described Yale as an open and safe environment where they felt they could discuss
sensitive issues. They often credited this comfortable culture to their peers, whom they
described as both knowledgeable and accepting of differing views about sexuality. However,
some were quick to point out that comfort levels vary depending on a student’s local climate and
social group.
(c): There are still issues to address
While the majority of students perceived the overall campus climate as positive, there were
students in nearly every session who had encountered situations or patterns of behavior that fell
short of campus ideals. The problems described ranged from inappropriate comments to
incidents of assault.
Most often, students described problems that arose among peers and in social settings. Many
students pointed to campus pressures toward casual sex; they felt these pressures caused

11

 
 

 difficulties for students who want to form other kinds of romantic relationships, as well as for
students (often, but not only, women) who find themselves treated disrespectfully within the
hookup culture. Some students expressed concerns about the effects of the culture on broader
social interactions among peers.
Students observed that the incidents of sexual misconduct that they were aware of frequently
occurred between individuals who know each other. Accordingly, many students worried about
not only the direct harm of these behaviors—the impacts on survivors of these assaults and
abuses—but also about the divisive effects on social groups and communities.
Infrequently, students noted examples of sexual misconduct, largely in the form of inappropriate
comments, that took place in academic settings and/or involved faculty members. Such situations
were cast as rare, but nonetheless are quite troubling when they occur.
A number of students discussed the inherent difficulties in reporting incidents of sexual
misconduct to those in positions of authority. Many students spoke of the risk of fracturing
one’s own social group or community, of being dismissed or even abandoned by friends. Other
students expressed discomfort at the thought of describing such a deeply personal experience to
an institutional figure. Still others worried about what would happen once a complaint was filed:
would they retain control? would appropriate action be taken? would there be enough evidence
for anything to happen? Many students offered suggestions for increasing the likelihood of
reporting: make the details of the complaint process more readily available; stress the breadth of
behaviors that are considered to be misconduct; give more specifics in the semi-annual reports of
complaints to make both the incidents and the responses to them more easily imaginable.
In these discussions of sexual climate, the presence of alcohol in sexual situations was often
mentioned or presumed. Students had widely divergent assessments of the role alcohol plays—a
trigger for misconduct, or just an excuse for it—and about what peers should do in response.
Rather than pursue these debates, however, students quickly turned the focus of these
conversations to recent changes in undergraduate alcohol regulations and procedures. Important
content emerged in these often critical discussions, e.g., students are often confused about the
origin and nature of the changes and they want administrators to seek more student input.
However, the students’ focus on policy pre-empted more extensive discussion of the role of

12

 
 

 alcohol and other drugs in campus climate.
As students discussed the problems they see—ranging from inappropriate joking to disrespectful
social interactions to incidents of assault—they almost always framed the problems as exceptions
in an otherwise safe and supportive environment. Still, these exceptions troubled them and
colored their sense of the climate at Yale. At the same time, most students felt that change was
possible. Overwhelmingly, they thought that a combination of strong University action and
ongoing community reflection and engagement could address the problematic situations they
observed.
(d): Patterns of social and sexual life change dramatically between freshman and senior year
Students described a campus climate that shifts for students as they move along the trajectory
from freshman to senior year. They note that although freshmen receive substantial training and
support, they are uniquely vulnerable because of their relative inexperience in navigating the
academic and social aspects of university life. Sophomores, juniors, and seniors understand
themselves to be increasingly enfolded within protective social structures—in residential
colleges and in well-chosen microclimates, they feel safer.
Most students attributed the relative vulnerability of younger students to both social inexperience
and limitations on social venues imposed by the drinking age. Due to these limitations, freshmen
are more likely to be drawn to large parties where they know very few people. Furthermore,
because they have no established social groups, they lack peer support to assess risks and
navigate uncomfortable situations.
Some students felt that even though upperclassmen are in a better position, they, as well as
freshman, would benefit from continued training and support. Many felt that the training they
had received at orientation was not as robust as that currently provided to freshman. Others
suggested that all students could benefit from well-timed “refresher courses.” Some upper-class
students wanted not just reminders, but expanded training opportunities that included content
such as hypothetical scenarios and information about how to help friends who had been impacted
by sexual misconduct.

13

 
 

 (e): Conversations about sex, relationships, and sexual misconduct are important and difficult 6
Overall, students felt that in order to effect campus-wide change the community must find ways
to have ongoing, productive, and open conversations about sex, relationships, and sexual
misconduct. In particular, many noted that current conversations about sexual misconduct are
not sufficiently frank. Many also felt that there is not enough discussion about the “little things”
people do or say that cumulatively shape the sexual climate.
The desire to discuss sexuality (not just sexual misconduct) came up repeatedly. More
specifically, many students expressed the need to hear more about healthy relationships and
positive experiences of sexuality.
Students stressed that these conversations should be conducted and cultivated at all levels. Many
suggested that professors, deans, and masters be trained to address these issues meaningfully
with students. Students also noted the importance of conversations happening within peer groups
and local student communities and a few gave examples of successful student-led discussion
groups. While opinions varied regarding the details of content and implementation, there was
overwhelming consensus that these were important, if sometimes challenging, conversations for
the campus to pursue.
2. Graduate and professional student assessment of climate
As with the undergraduates, the graduate and professional (G&P) students experience the sexual
climate as largely local; and, indeed, student perceptions varied widely across different
professional schools and Graduate School departments. Some groups felt strongly that their
schools or departments are supportive communities—and frequently used the words “open,”
“safe” and “respectful” in describing departmental or school culture. This sense of shared
community was expressed more frequently by professional students than by graduate students.
Other groups were deeply concerned about their local environments.
Across the groups, four themes recurred. Students expressed:


A sense of vulnerability: G&P students focused on their status as professionals-intraining, and the dependence upon faculty that this status creates. Many groups felt it

                                                       
6

This finding may reflect self-selection bias, in that participation in the discussion groups was largely optional.

14

 
 

 would be risky to raise concerns, even in settings where they felt the climate to be
generally positive.


An awareness of gender as a potential factor in professional success: many G&P
students were concerned that their disciplines and professions are still shaped by gender
bias; they were alert to ways their programs at Yale resist or perpetuate such dynamics.



An attention to administrative cues: G&P students look to faculty and administrators for
signs of leadership in and commitment to addressing sexual misconduct and other climate
issues within their programs.



A belief that “it’s better here:” thinking of other institutional contexts, many students
expressed appreciation for the climate in their G&P programs; their own local concerns
notwithstanding, most students expressed confidence that Yale is doing comparatively
well.

In the G&P student sessions, these four themes arose repeatedly and were deeply intertwined
across many topics, including the impacts of: subtle and repetitive sexual harassment; gender
dynamics in mentoring, hiring, and tenuring; faculty misbehavior (rumored or experienced);
fears about the difficulty of filing a complaint against an advisor; experiences and expectations
of change within their own programs; and the possibility of more active and visible faculty and
administrative engagement, especially at the school or departmental level, in issues relating to
sexual climate and gender dynamics.
G&P students, in contrast to the undergraduates, had relatively little to say about interactions
with peers when discussing sexual climate, despite prompts from the group facilitators. What
they did say was mostly positive. With a few exceptions, the G&P students characterized their
peers as respectful and open-minded. They often added that they felt the G&P peer interactions
at Yale are significantly better than those they had experienced as undergraduates.
G&P students reflected on the sexual climate mainly in the context of their professional lives.
With regard to classroom interactions, G&P students discussed their roles both as teachers and as
students. Graduate students often focused on their vulnerability as teachers, worrying about
crossing boundaries or somehow triggering a false accusation; some called for additional
clarification about the range of acceptable graduate-undergraduate relationships, where “the line”
15

 
 

 should be drawn. Students in certain professional schools, primarily where physical contact or
issues relating to sexuality and sexual misconduct are components of the curriculum, expressed
discipline-specific concerns about navigating the boundaries between the personal and the
professional—the theoretical and experiential—aspects of these issues and underscored their
need for faculty to help them explore and define those boundaries. In both graduate and
professional student sessions, when discussions turned to specific examples of sexual
misconduct, students primarily referred to episodes involving the faculty in their schools and
departments, and issues such as consensual relationships and ongoing patterns of inappropriate
speech.
In session after session, especially those involving graduate students, discussions regarding
sexual climate shifted quickly to explorations of power dynamics. More specifically, students
referred repeatedly to their perceptions of the power that advisors have over them and the
potential for advisors to use that power not only to impose unacceptable behaviors but also to
retaliate against complaints about those behaviors. Many G&P students found it difficult to
imagine that they would be able to take effective action to address sexual misconduct, even if
they were fully aware of University resources. Many worried that filing a complaint, or even just
discussing an uncomfortable situation, would risk disrupting their careers.
Not all groups talked about reporting sexual misconduct in terms of risk or worry. Some
students, primarily in professional schools, reported that they would feel comfortable going to an
advisor or administrator for help. Other students described local climates that not only
accommodate complaints but actively stimulate positive behavioral change by promptly calling
out inappropriate behaviors and by engaging students and faculty in productive conversations
about cultural and climate issues.
Given the power exerted by faculty, almost all students called for more faculty training on issues
of sexual climate not only to increase their awareness of sexual misconduct issues and
procedures but also to engage their active leadership in cultivating a positive climate. Many
students felt that faculty would welcome more guidance and looked to the University
administration to be clearer and firmer with faculty regarding their responsibilities not only to set
good examples themselves, but also to address the behaviors of their colleagues and to promote
open conversation about issues of concern and opportunities for improvement. However, there
16

 
 

 were also some students who expressed skepticism about the University’s commitment and
ability to address incidents of sexual misconduct among the faculty; to these students, it seemed
that powerful faculty members were beyond accountability. Graduate and professional students
frequently discussed the impacts of gender dynamics on their experiences of the sexual climate.
Recurring topics of discussion included faculty diversity, patterns and styles of mentoring, the
availability (or lack thereof) of role models, and the interactions between junior and senior
faculty.
A number of groups raised concerns about the scarcity of female faculty in their departments,
schools or disciplines. They noted that students view female faculty not only as mentors and role
models, but also as evidence that women can succeed in specific fields. Some students observed
that female students were frequently overlooked in the classroom and were also less likely to
receive good mentoring from male faculty. Ironically enough, mentoring problems were
sometimes attributed to male professors’ fears of sexual harassment accusations or even the
appearance of impropriety. Some students were wary of relying on female faculty to mentor
female students because of the potential risk of further exclusion of “the girls’ club.”
Many students acknowledged that they have the ability and opportunity to influence the sexual
climate in their departments and schools and, in particular, in their relationships with peers and
trainees. However, most students felt that it is the faculty and local administrators who have the
most powerful influence on the climate and therefore the greatest ability to establish enduring
cultures of respect. Students in nearly every session advocated for departmental/school
sponsorship of open and recurring discussion of issues relating specifically to sexual misconduct
and more broadly to sexual climate. In many fields, students were particularly grateful to faculty
who offered strategies for navigating the sexism and sexual harassment they expected to
encounter after graduation. That said, students generally felt powerless to impact faculty
diversity and gender dynamics issues in their schools and departments. While generally
appreciative of the University’s recent initiatives relating to sexual misconduct, students also
offered suggestions for ways in which the University leadership might address sexual
misconduct and impact the sexual climate more effectively. Students viewed the routine emails
from their deans, as well as the semi-annual reports from the Title IX Coordinator, as very
important in terms of both content and community significance. They also expressed interest in

17

 
 

 additional anonymous and routine mechanisms for reporting complaints, such as surveys at the
end of each semester.
Most students also placed responsibility—and their hopes--with the University leadership for
improvements in power and gender dynamics and the diversity of the faculty. Some expressed
their hopes that the University would address gender and diversity issues with an intensity equal
to that used to address sexual misconduct.
D. Administrator perceptions of sexual climate
We met with several groups of administrators from across the University and asked them to
discuss their observations regarding student awareness of sexual misconduct policies and
resources, as well as their perceptions of the sexual climate for students on campus. During
these discussions, the administrators repeatedly echoed the themes we heard in the student
discussion groups.
With regard to student awareness of the University’s definitions and policies related to sexual
misconduct, administrators felt that most students have a general understanding about the range
of behaviors that constitute sexual misconduct, even if they don’t know every “twist and turn.”
The administrators pointed to the discussions at orientation and during other training programs as
providing good basic information for students about the University’s policies. However, they,
like students, emphasized the need for both regular reminders and ready access to information
when needed. They also highlighted several areas of uncertainty for students, most frequently
regarding the definitional scope of sexual misconduct particularly as it applies to inappropriate
language and, for graduate students, consensual relationships with undergraduates.
With regard to student awareness of the University resources available for responding to sexual
misconduct, administrators felt that students, particularly the undergraduates, are widely aware
of the resources and, in those cases where the students may not recall every resource, they agreed
that students would use the University and school-specific websites to find the information they
need. In discussing their interactions with students regarding questions or concerns about sexual
misconduct, the administrators generally concurred that maintaining the current range of “entry
points” is important so that students can decide which is most comfortable for them. That said,
they also stressed the need for coordination among the various resources to ensure that students

18

 
 

 do not feel that there are too many steps in the complaint process or that they will be required to
repeat their stories on multiple occasions.
In discussing their interactions with students, administrators noted several factors, in addition to
definitional confusion and perceived or real procedural impediments, that seem to discourage
some students from reporting sexual misconduct. They noted that among undergraduates peer
pressure and the fear of negative impacts on their social group or classmate’s reputation are
frequently cited disincentives. In contrast, some graduate students fear that reporting faculty
behaviors will undermine their careers at Yale and beyond.
In reflecting upon the sexual climate for students, administrators drew conclusions that often
resonated with those of the students themselves. They noted frequently and firmly that climate is
largely “local” and dependent on the dynamics of small academic and social communities. They
cited alcohol as a “problem,” predominately for undergraduates, and, while not delving deeply
into the details of the relationship between alcohol and sexual climate, noted the need for clear
and effective policies to address alcohol use. They also suggested that undergraduates in
particular would benefit from more extensive training about and exposure to models of healthy
relationships and behaviors. When discussing graduate students’ circumstances, administrators,
like students, highlighted the central role of the power gradient between faculty and students in
shaping local culture, and called for more intensive training and active engagement of the faculty
on matters relating to sexual misconduct and gender dynamics.
Finally, in both student and administrator discussion groups, participants reflected upon the
unique challenges faced by international students in understanding and navigating the cultural
norms and expectations at American academic institutions and Yale, more specifically.
Although we did not find it possible, due to logistics, to recruit discussion groups largely
composed of international students, we did get input from individual international students that
reinforced their colleagues’ reflections about these challenges. We will be sure to focus our
efforts in the near future on identifying and implementing ways to more fully and meaningfully
engage and educate this group.
 

19

 
 

 Conclusions and Future Steps
We were extremely gratified by the high level of community engagement in all aspects of this
climate assessment initiative. The discussions were invariably vibrant and far-ranging. The
correspondence we received was deeply thoughtful. Both the conversations and the
communications showed the community’s sophisticated awareness of the issues and genuine
interest in creating a campus-wide culture of respect and responsibility.
A. Definitions and resources
While we were encouraged that the community members who participated in this initiative
demonstrated a broad general knowledge of the University’s policies, procedures and resources,
we also identified a number of opportunities to address points of uncertainty, to simplify
processes, and to communicate in ways that are clearer and more meaningful to each and every
University constituency. We list those opportunities and some responsive actions below.


Confusion persists regarding distinctions between the University-Wide Committee
(UWC) informal process and the Title IX Coordinator process for addressing complaints.
Indeed, in our experience with these processes over the past two years, we have identified
substantial overlap and a few significant, but perhaps unnecessary, differences between
them. We are working to better harmonize—and perhaps consolidate—these approaches.
We have also worked to fortify communication among the directors of the various
complaint processes (UWC leadership, Title IX Coordinators, Yale Police Department)
both to assure appropriate consistency in addressing cases and to reduce the number of
“hand-offs” that an individual might face when bringing a complaint forward.



Students suggested that they might be more likely to report incidents of sexual
misconduct if they had a better sense of how the complaint process transpires and what
array of outcomes are possible. Some suggested hypothetical case scenarios might be
illuminating. We are considering placing such scenarios on our website and
incorporating case studies in our training.



We recognize the need to provide more complete and clearer information regarding the
roles played and range of support provided by the Title IX Coordinators, especially for
undergraduates who seemed to be relatively unaware of this resource. Additionally, we

20

 
 

 will work to better communicate, especially to graduate and professional students, the full
range of supports offered by SHARE.


In discussing hypothetical and actual incidents of sexual misconduct, students frequently
identified individuals, other than explicitly designated sexual misconduct resources,
whom they would seek out for advice and support, e.g., deans, masters, registrars,
advisors, directors of undergraduate/graduate studies. We will intensify our efforts to
provide specialized training with these “go to” resources and partner with them to assure
that they have ready access to our office for support and guidance.



As noted above, but worth repeating here, since faculty play such a powerful role in
shaping students’ experiences and perceptions of the climate, we must continue to
develop guidance, training, and resources that are relevant and useful for faculty.

B. Sexual climate
One of our most consistent findings from this initiative was that community members from all
areas of campus, and students in particular, are eager for more opportunities and venues for open
discussion of sexual climate, gender dynamics and broader cultural issues. In light of this strong
and repeated request, coupled with the equally firm and prevalent assertion that “climate is
local,” we feel it will be important over the coming months to meet with the leadership of
schools, departments and student groups to discuss in greater detail the findings pertinent to their
constituencies and to explore means to continue and expand these valuable conversations.
Another common finding from this initiative was that students, especially in the graduate and
professional schools, are looking to faculty not only to be responsible for knowing and
complying with Yale’s policies regarding sexual misconduct, but also to serve as models of
exemplary behavior and to influence colleagues to do likewise. Additionally, many graduate
students expressed the hope that faculty would create safe and productive “spaces” for open
explorations of the influence of power structures and gender dynamics on their academic
experiences. In order to address these expectations, our office will intensify its efforts to train
and communicate with faculty using materials that are both informative and relevant to their
roles and their disciplines. Along those lines, we have already developed and disseminated
guidance for faculty and academic administrators who may be approached by students with

21

 
 

 concerns about sexual misconduct. We have also worked with a number of departments to
develop training materials and programs that are more discipline-specific and reflective of local
cultural issues. In the future, we must expand both the substantive scope and the “geographic”
reach of our educational initiatives. However, as we heard over and over in discussion groups,
enduring cultural change is dependent upon “local” action and diligent attention to both subtle
and overt influences on climate. We must find ways not only to educate but also to engage and
support academic leaders in their efforts to address issues and pursue opportunities for change in
their own academic settings.
Gender diversity of the faculty and the impact of gender on student and faculty professional
advancement were strong and recurrent themes in our discussions with G&P students, themes
that were inextricably related to students’ perceptions of the sexual climate. As was the case
with sexual misconduct and departmental power dynamics, students expressed a strong interest
in engaging in ongoing dialogue with faculty and departmental and school leaders on these
issues. We plan to share the relevant results of this initiative with the individuals and University
offices that are devoting their efforts to faculty diversity and development initiatives so that they
can continue to engage G&P students in discussions and, where appropriate, decisions regarding
academic environment and career trajectories.
Like their graduate and professional school colleagues, undergraduate students stressed that
climate is locally determined and expressed their eagerness for models of positive behaviors and
relationships. In contrast to the graduate and professional students, however, undergraduates
made it clear that they experience Yale’s sexual climate largely through peer interactions. While
they made some observations that applied to a broad range of classmates, they returned again and
again to the profound importance of relatively small social groups. In working to improve
undergraduate climate, thus, it is clear we must engage these “microclimates,” offering students
additional tools for creating and sustaining protective, respectful groups. At the same time, we
must continue to build a stronger “safety net” of broad community support and clear community
values, ensuring that even students in less cohesive or less respectful groups have places to turn
for guidance and help. Such small-group and community work will be especially important in
addressing the needs of freshmen, who may not have established social groups, a well-developed
sense of social norms, or access to all of the structural supports of the residential college setting.

22

 
 

 Given their focus on local culture and peer interactions, it is not surprising that many
undergraduate students expressed a preference for small group, peer-led venues for learning
about sexual misconduct and discussing sexual climate. They also made it clear that training
sessions should be frank and direct in addressing sexual misconduct and include information
about sexual health and positive relationships. We are aware (as were the students in our groups)
that a number of initiatives that respond to student calls for more extensive and nuanced
discussion are already underway through the efforts of the Yale College Dean’s Office (YCDO),
which include expanded training for student leaders, such as freshman counselors, peer liaisons,
and officers of student groups; and the addition of a number of small-group workshops, such as
the “Health and Sexuality” sessions during freshman orientation.
The YCDO has also created the Office of Gender and Campus Culture, with a core mandate of
building a more positive sexual climate. Prominent among its many efforts is the
Communication and Consent Educators (CCEs) program. While the CCEs have been most
visible in large-scale trainings, they spend most of their time on small collaborative projects with
a range of student groups and communities, helping to address issues as they arise at these more
local levels. In 2012-13, the CCEs engaged in 1800 individual conversations and hosted over
2500 students in small workshop events, including the CCE-led course, “The Myth of
Miscommunication,” and sophomore training in “Bystander Intervention: Breaking the Script of
Sexual Violence.”
As we review the findings of this climate assessment with the YCDO, we will work with the
deans and masters to develop mechanisms to assess the effectiveness and impacts of existing
programs, to make revisions where indicated, and to identify new opportunities to train and
engage the undergraduate community. We are particularly interested in exploring additional
strategies to fortify community-wide support systems, especially, but not only, for freshmen.
Although alcohol was mentioned frequently in undergraduate discussion groups and
communications with our office, the discussions shed little light on the specific impacts of
alcohol on the sexual climate. To the contrary, students underscored the complexity of the
relationship between alcohol and sexual misconduct, behaviors that each carry a wide range of
possible harms. That said, these discussions and the presence of alcohol use in some reported
cases of sexual misconduct, underscore the need to continue to study each of these behaviors and
23

 
 

 how their associated harms may be compounded when the behaviors occur together. Over the
past months the University, through the Yale College Dean’s Office Task Force on Alcohol and
Other Drugs and the University Council Committee on Alcohol in Yale College, has conducted
both an internal and external review of alcohol use and its impacts. Our office has been in
contact with the leaders of these efforts, and over the coming months we will review together the
findings of the alcohol studies with those from this initiative to better define and address the
intersection between sexual misconduct and alcohol.

24

 
 

 Closing Comments
This campus climate assessment, like its predecessor conducted by the Marshall Committee, has
provided us with abundant information about community members’ day-to-day experience of the
sexual climate at Yale. This information will be invaluable as we chart our future directions and
plan programs and initiatives. We recognize, however, that the results of this assessment provide
only a “snapshot” of the sexual climate at Yale – a climate that will continue to evolve over time.
We also recognize that this initiative engaged only a fraction of the Yale community and focused
primarily on students. Accordingly, we are committed not only to continuing and expanding the
discussions we began this past fall but also to pursuing opportunities to better understand the
experiences and perceptions of a broader array of constituencies – especially staff, faculty, and
postdoctoral trainees – across Yale’s campus. Additionally, while rich in content, this
assessment has been largely qualitative; as our programs and initiatives mature, we will explore
the use of alternative and/or additional assessment methodologies to measure the impacts and
effectiveness of our programs.
In closing, I would like reiterate my appreciation and admiration for all of those who contributed
to this initiative. The extraordinary efforts and deep wisdom of those who supported and
participated in this assessment confirm the community’s overwhelming message to the Marshall
Committee: “Yale is an amazing place.”

25

 
 

 Attachment A:

University-wide Email from Stephanie Spangler

 
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Stephanie Spangler <TitleIX@yale.edu>
Monday, October 22, 2012 6:01 PM
All Yale Faculty, Students & Staff
Seeking community input: Campus Climate

 

 

To the Members of the Yale University Community:

 
I am writing to invite you to participate in an important University-wide activity.

 
Over the past few years, the University has fortified its commitments, enhanced existing
programs, and introduced a number of new initiatives to address issues related to sexual
misconduct and to strengthen the culture of respect and responsibility at Yale. Among those
initiatives are periodic assessments of the sexual climate on Yale’s campus. The first such
assessment, conducted by an external advisory committee chaired by the Hon. Margaret H.
Marshall, proved to be an invaluable guide in shaping our ongoing efforts and charting our
future directions. The Marshall Committee Report and President Levin’s response are
available at http://provost.yale.edu/title-ix/reports.
 
Over the next few weeks, my office will be conducting a second climate assessment with the
overarching goal of determining how well our current programs are working and what future
steps—on the part of the institution and individuals—might prove most effective in
addressing and preventing sexual misconduct. More specifically, we hope that this year’s
assessment will help us to:

 





gauge the community’s current understanding of Yale’s policies, procedures, and
resources relating to sexual misconduct;
gather community members’ impressions of the sexual climate in their own
schools/departments and the University more generally;
learn whether and how individuals feel they can influence the day-to-day climate in
which they study, work, and live; and
better understand what additional actions the University should take to address
and prevent sexual misconduct.

 
The value of this assessment will be highly dependent on the breadth of input we receive
from the University community. We have therefore created a number of venues for
participation (listed below), and I encourage you to choose one or more of them to provide us
with your own insights and suggestions relating to the objectives listed above. Please
provide your input by November 16, 2012.

 



Email: titleix@yale.edu
Online (anonymous): http://provost.yale.edu/campus-climate-feedback

26

 
 

 

Letter: Deputy Provost Stephanie Spangler, Office of the Provost, P.O. Box 208365,
New Haven, CT 06520
 Office hours: by appointment, contact 203-432-4446

 
I realize that “sexual climate” is difficult to define with precision, and, indeed, it is a term
that is intentionally broad, designed to capture not only incidents of misconduct but also the
dynamics within the professional, educational and social contexts in which those incidents
occur—or are prevented. In reflecting upon your own experiences and impressions of Yale’s
climate, it may be useful to think about patterns of behavior, casual comments, formal
expectations, and attitudes in your own department, school, or office and their impacts on the
productivity and well-being of you and your classmates or colleagues. Which behaviors and
attitudes should attract our concern? Which should warrant our praise and serve as models
for others?

 
Thank you very much for your participation in this initiative. It is only with the active
engagement of community members like you that we can make Yale a better place to study,
work, and live.

 
Sincerely,
Stephanie Spangler
Stephanie S. Spangler, M.D.
Deputy Provost for Health Affairs and Academic Integrity
University Title IX Coordinator
Clinical Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology

 
Telephone: 203-432-4446
Fax: 203-432-8139

27

 
 

 Attachment B:

Discussion Groups

Yale College Students
Communication & Consent Educators
Feminist & LGBTQ leadership
Fraternity leadership
Peer Liaisons
Sophomores, randomly-selected (female only group)
Sophomores, randomly-selected (male only group)
Sophomores, randomly-selected (mixed gender group)
Varsity athletic captains (male and female teams)
Graduate and Professional Students
Divinity School students
Graduate & Professional Student Senate
Graduate Student Assembly
Graduate Student Assembly Steering Committee
Graduate students in the Humanities
Graduate students in the Natural Sciences
Graduate students in the Social Sciences
School of Architecture students
School of Art students
School of Drama students
School of Forestry & Environmental Studies students
School of Law students
School of Management students
School of Medicine students
School of Music students
School of Public Health students
Faculty, Administrators, and Staff
Deans of Student Affairs from the graduate & professional schools
Departmental business administrators
Faculty Committee on Athletics
Residential College Deans and Masters
Title IX Coordinators
Varsity coaches
Women Faculty Forum
Yale College Dean’s Office
Yale Police Department

28

 
 

 Attachment C:

Facilitator Guide

1) Policies and Resources
a) The University has been working to educate the community about Yale’s policies
and resources for addressing sexual misconduct. We’re curious to know how far
we’ve gotten in that process. What do you think? How well do you feel you
understand Yale’s policies—the definitions and the procedures—relating to sexual
misconduct? Not every twist and turn, but basically?
i) Can you explain the definitions, in your own words?
~ What counts as sexual misconduct?
~ What behaviors does the University prohibit?
~ What counts as consent?
~ What elements seem most important? Is there anything missing?
~ Are there elements of the definition that seem confusing?
~ Where would you go for more details if you needed them?
ii) If you wanted to report an incident of sexual misconduct, would you how?
~ What are the options?
~ If you weren’t sure where to go, or whom to contact, how would you find out?

b) What do you know about the resources available at Yale for responding to sexual
misconduct – not just for reporting, but for getting other forms of help?
i) Which people or campus services would you turn to?
ii) What do you think would happen?

c) Do you feel your level of knowledge about resources and procedures is pretty
typical? What makes you feel that way?

29

 
 

 2) Sexual Climate
a) I want to turn now to the questions about “sexual climate.” As I said earlier, this is
the term we use to describe the overall atmosphere: casual comments, attitudes,
patterns of behavior, presumptions, and so on, as well as incidents of sexual
misconduct. The dynamics of the sexual climate do have something implicitly or
explicitly sexual about them, but they aren’t necessarily social or peer interactions—
i.e., these issues arise in educational and professional contexts as well, with faculty,
staff, and administrators as well as with fellow students.
How would you describe the sexual climate at [your school]? What do you
experience?
i) In what ways does your school feel like a safe, respectful place?
ii) In what ways does it feel unsafe? Do you see patterns of disrespect?
iii) Do the patterns change in different contexts and relationships, i.e., social vs
professional vs educational – and peers vs faculty vs other administrative staff?

3) Influencing the sexual climate
a) How much do you feel that you and your peers can influence the sexual climate?
i) What kinds of things can people do?
~ Ways to respond to specific problems? (Small things? Bigger steps?)
~ Strategies for encouraging positive dynamics?
~ What kinds of steps do you see people taking? What do you do yourself?
ii) What do you think enables people to take action? What prevents them from doing
so?
iii) Do you feel support from the faculty and/or administration in building a more
respectful sexual climate? What form does that take?

4) What haven’t we asked you that we should have?

30

 
 

 Attachment D:

Campus Climate Planning & Implementation Team

University Title IX Coordinator

Other Collaborators & Advisors

Stephanie Spangler

Amy Backus
Elisabeth Becker

Deputy Title IX Coordinators

Melanie Boyd

Joan Channick

David Caruso

Betsy Dailinger

Alison Coleman

Margaret Deamer

Jennifer Czincz

Joanne DeBernardo

Lani Danilowitz

Paul Hawkshaw

Elena DePalma

Dolores Hayden

Chelsea Doub

Lisa Huck

Meredith Fahey

Lisa Kereszi

Garrett Fiddler

Jean Koh Peters

Rebecca Friedkin

Melinda Pettigrew

Marichal Gentry

Lois Sadler

Alicia Grendziszewski

Pamela Schirmeister

Carole Goldberg

Valarie Stanley

Joseph Gordon

Rebecca Udler

Caroline Hendel

Merle Waxman

Martha Highsmith

Vince Wilczynski

Hellen Hom-Diamond
Jason Killheffer
Cynthia Langin
Laverne Marks
Aley Menon
Hannah Peck
Susan Sawyer
Ernie Scrivani
Cynthia Smith
Elizabeth Stauderman
Linda Veronneau
Kim Zarra Wieler

31