Academic environments are expected to uphold high standards of integrity and professionalism. Yet, sexual misconduct by faculty has been a persistent and deeply concerning issue in U.S. colleges. Furthermore, sanctions for such misconduct remain lenient and inconsistent across colleges, which potentially contributes to victims’ exposure to risky environments. Previous scholarly efforts found cultural factors leading to lenient sanctions for sexual misconduct. However, the earlier approaches did not fully examine broad external factors that could affect institutional sanction decisions. College administrations make critical decisions regarding sanctions for faculty sexual misconduct cases. Therefore, understanding factors that influence colleges’ decisions is important for sexual misconduct prevention through clearer and consistent policies. To contribute, the current study aims to investigate (a) how U.S. colleges respond to sexual misconduct by the faculty and (b) which external factors are associated with the severity of sanctions. By analyzing the Academic Sexual Misconduct Database (ASMD), the current study found that (a) tenured faculty tend to receive lenient sanctions and (b) non-white faculty tend to receive harsher sanctions. Notably, the seriousness of sexual misconduct is not associated with sanction severity. These findings are consistent with sociological and criminological theories regarding institutional decision-making processes—colleges’ decision-making processes follow rational choices based on cost estimation, and it may eventually lead to bias against non-white faculty who commit similar misconduct as white faculty. To promote safer academic environments, the current study recommends that colleges prepare better standards based on the nature of sexual misconduct. Additional implications for future research are also discussed.
Shin et al. (Thu,) studied this question.