Engaging Campuses in Meaningful Change Efforts to Address Relationship Violence and Sexual Misconduct: Lessons Learned From the Michigan State University Experience

The televised testimony provided by survivors of Larry Nassar's widespread sexual abuse in the gymnastics program at Michigan State University (MSU) will undoubtedly be remembered by all who watched. Survivors courageously and powerfully spoke not only about the abusive behavior of Nassar himself, but also about the widespread failure of the systems around them to function appropriately after they reported their victimization (Kitchener & Wong, 2018; Mountjoy, 2019). In the wake of this institutional crisis, MSU developed a five-year strategic plan to improve its reaction to and prevention of relationship violence and sexual misconduct (RVSM). In their article, “Creating a university strategic plan to address relationship violence and sexual misconduct (RVSM): An application of principles-focused evaluation at Michigan State University,” Campbell et al. (2023) describe the process of creating and implementing this plan. The authors note that while MSU was responding to extraordinary circumstances, lessons from its challenges can benefit other institutions of higher education (IHE).

Indeed, MSU's self-study revealed issues that are not unique. Its experience may be viewed as a cautionary tale as well as an invitation to proactively engage in a reflective process. As the authors note, prior to the Nassar events, MSU had implemented several resources for survivors, yet struggled to address RVSM “meaningfully” (p. 4). This is similar to many other IHE. Although the past two decades have been marked by tremendous strides in addressing RVSM at IHE across the country—for example, the proliferation of advocacy and counseling services, crisis intervention, policy implementation, innovative prevention and education programs, and utilization of campus climate surveys—there still exists a range of degree and meaningfulness of these changes. Distinguishing between change and meaningful change is an important nuance not always addressed when considering the impact of RVSM initiatives at IHE, but which is essential for their assessment. In the medical and psychological arenas, there is a differentiation between change demonstrated by statistical significance and change that has “clinical meaningfulness,” which is defined by the US Food and Drug Administration as something that “substantively affects how the patient feels, functions, or survives” (Guralnik et al., 2020). Translated to the field of RVSM, meaningful change must substantively impact the way community members feel, function, and survive, individually and collectively; it requires more than authorizing policy changes as part of an act of compliance.

As of yet, as Campbell et al. (2023) note, it is unclear whether the proliferation of changes at IHE over recent years has resulted in meaningful improvement. Reviews of IHE responses to RVSM indicate inconsistently implemented mandated policies, with some institutions failing to adhere to even the most basic requirements (Richards, 2016). Even when policies do exist, they are often not well disseminated, resulting in a major lack of awareness (McNair et al., 2018; Potter et al., 2016). Other scholars have questioned whether revamped policies have been significant enough to create substantial culture change (e.g., Moylan, 2016).

There is often a disconnect between the policies that IHE announce and their actual implementation, or what Moylan and Hammock (2021) refer to as decoupling, which is especially “…problematic if and when an organization only adopts legitimized behaviors at the surface level, projecting an image that appeals to stakeholders, while behaving in ways that harm or do a disservice to those same stakeholders” (p. 144). For example, Campbell et al. (2023) noted that although task forces at MSU had issued recommendations to better address RVSM in 2005 and 2015, many had not been fully implemented. This is likely common at many other IHE, as reports indicate a lack of implementation and compliance with legislative mandates and best practices (e.g., McCaskill, 2014). Decoupling can lead to institutional betrayal (Smith & Freyd, 2013), a sense that the institution does not actually take RVSM seriously, and engenders distrust and even trauma among survivors and other members of the community. The opposite is institutional courage, which is demonstrated commitment, accountability, transparency, and action to address RVSM (Center for Institutional Change, n.d.) . A key question raised by Campbell et al. (2023) is how to align institutional commitment with actions, as well as engage in “meaningful” change. Three aspects of the MSU model that reflect a commitment to deeper, meaningful change include working toward culture change; engaging the larger campus community; and conducting an ongoing evaluation.

Working Toward Culture Change

What does it mean to “do more” as an institution and work toward meaningful change? On one level, IHE clearly must provide certain resources (policies, programs, and procedures); however, this is not enough. The MSU model illustrates that immediate reforms are often implemented without simultaneously committing to a longer-term goal of system-wide, comprehensive culture change. MSU's process included not only the implementation of immediate changes based on best practices, but also the development of a five-year strategic plan that included culture change goals.

Wholesale culture change is admittedly a formidable ideal; yet is a critical component for reducing RVSM (Dills et al., 2016). Scholars, practitioners, and activists emphasize that social change around RVSM must occur at multiple levels, including shifting social norms and cultural expectations around gender, violence, and helping behavior (Banyard, 2014). Prevention efforts must move away from an exclusive focus on individual student behavior to better understand the role of institutional context and campus culture and subcultures in promoting an environment that values safety and respect (Dills et al., 2016; Moylan & Javorka, 2020). This fits with a public health, socioecological approach to violence prevention and recognizes the interconnectedness of individual and collective well-being (Chan et al., 2016).

As evidenced by the MSU model, working toward systems-level culture change requires a deep, honest examination and clarification of the university's core values and principles, and how they manifest throughout the institution's structure, policies, procedures, and climate. Their approach fits with transformational leadership theories, which emphasize the importance of working from a value-based framework and prioritizing moral commitment and the greater good over self-interest and expediency (Middleton et al., 2015). They introduced and revised campus initiatives and intervention strategies, but only after wrestling with the clarification of MSU's driving values and principles, a step that is often overlooked when IHE react to crises or mandates without a clear foundation to guide and integrate these initiatives. “Identifying core values helps organizations then identify principles for guiding action. Unlike strategic plans that are goal-driven and work toward static objectives (which become less urgent or obsolete once goals are met), effective principles provide an enduring orientation toward positive culture and outcomes” (Campbell et al., 2023, p. 11).

Clarifying current principles and values must include an acknowledgment of the institution's history, such as the ways that different events, policies, procedures, and cultures or subcultures may have contributed to RVSM and other forms of violence, harm, and oppression (Harris et al., 2020; Moylan et al., 2021). This is critical for identifying problematic patterns that may have led to a sense of institutional betrayal, as well as recognizing the ways that forms of harm and oppression are interconnected (Harris & Linder, 2017; Moylan et al., 2021). As IHE reflect upon their values and principles, acknowledgment of their historical misalignment must be incorporated to create meaningful change.

Building Community-Engaged, De-Siloed Models

Another important aspect of the MSU model is its commitment to engaging the larger campus community. All too often, RVSM work is relegated to a single office or person on campus, which can result in a disjointed, understaffed, and poorly resourced approach. Transformational culture change must engage the entire campus community at multiple levels to engender a sense of shared responsibility (Sisneros & Rivera, 2018). This is aligned with “whole school approaches” to RVSM, which purport that all individuals have a potential role to play in prevention and response (Beres et al., 2019; McMahon, Steiner et al., 2019). MSU accomplished this in part through the creation of a multidisciplinary advisory board, which is an important way to coordinate campus efforts and work toward multiple levels of sustainable change (Mabachi et al., 2020; Swartout et al., 2020). At MSU, the advisory board was implemented via a presidential directive, thereby reflecting buy-in from the highest levels of leadership. The MSU process also included other methods of engaging the community, such as conducting in-person listening sessions and creating an online portal where individuals could submit comments and recommendations. This comprehensive approach requires time, space, and willingness to engage in difficult and painful conversations; it is not a quick fix.

The strategic initiatives at MSU also recognize the role of all community members. For example, their plan highlights the importance of ensuring that “all members of our community have the knowledge and skills to respond with empathy and connect survivors to services” (Campbell et al., 2023, p. 13). This is a critically important approach, as we know that response to disclosures impacts the well-being and trajectory of those victimized (Ullman, 2010). Additionally, Campbell et al.'s (2023) article mention the need to address respondents accused of RVSM. Just as campus community members may receive disclosures from survivors, they may also witness or be made aware of those who are committing harm. Discussion of this critical aspect is largely absent from IHE initiatives (McMahon et al., 2018). Work is urgently needed to move beyond purely punitive models to determine how to address the range of harmful behaviors enacted by community members, including many that do not rise to the level of expulsion, but which are problematic and hurtful. There is increasing work on initiatives that hold space for both accountability and growth, such as restorative justice (Koss et al., 2014; McMahon, Karp et al., 2019).

The MSU model also emphasizes the need to integrate RVSM work with other campus efforts to create welcoming, inclusive, and safe climates. Traditionally, RVSM efforts have been siloed, yet social justice frameworks urge us to recognize RVSM's interconnection with other issues related to forms of systematic oppression, violence, and harm such as racism, homophobia, ableism, xenophobia, and more (Klein et al., 2021; Harris & Linder, 2017; McCauley et al., 2019; Rothman, 2019). Models are needed that consider climate as multidimensional, with various domains overlapping and connected in important ways that recognize the intersectionality of types of oppression (Crenshaw, 1991). This social justice-based lens is needed to drive meaningful changes to policy, programs, and climate. This requires partnerships and collaboration among different IHE offices and divisions to develop integrated efforts to improve the climate for all members of the community.

Evaluating for Meaningful Change

The model put forth by Campbell et al. (2023) addresses the critical role of evaluation. Although programs and policies to address RVSM have rapidly proliferated, evaluation efforts have not kept pace. This is an urgent issue to address, particularly as it relates to the meaningfulness and impact of campus efforts. The bulk of recent research on RVSM focuses on campus climate surveys, which can serve an important role in the assessment of student experiences and perceptions (Wood et al., 2017) and provide more accurate rates of RVSM than official reports (Krebs et al., 2022). Thus far, campus climate surveys have typically focused on student experiences, yet as recognized by the MSU model, to be truly inclusive, these assessments can expand to include all members of the community. Importantly, the dissemination of campus climate findings is often overlooked or rushed—yet is essential for transparency and building institutional trust. The dissemination efforts at MSU included multiple listening sessions. Distilling the results into accessible formats such as infographics are other ways that IHE can share information. Additionally, units can be invited to discuss ways that they can take action based on the findings. This leads to a more comprehensive, whole-school approach.

Beyond campus climate surveys, however, IHE must engage in ongoing, coordinated efforts to evaluate their campus initiatives. Campbell et al. (2023) share their intention to collect a variety of metrics, including incidence rates for RVSM, data on service utilization, and community members’ awareness of services and perceptions of the institutional response. This is aligned with a recent report which recommends that IHE collect multiple forms of quantitative and qualitative data to complement campus climate surveys in order to create a “data ecosystem” (Driver-Linn & Svensen, 2017, p. 1). Finding ways to amplify the voices of students and those impacted by RVSM is especially critical. These suggested activities are in addition to large climate studies and occur at various intervals over time.

Synthesizing these various data points and sharing them with the larger campus community is an important aspect of the model (Driver-Linn & Svenson, 2017; McMahon et al., 2022). This has the potential to provide a more accurate and meaningful assessment of the campus climate, as well as demonstrate commitment and transparency, which will in turn build trust with the institution. This work can be de-siloed so that campus partners can share data from multiple sources and about various dimensions of campus climate to better understand it as a more robust construct.

Further scientific work is also needed to help operationalize “meaningful” change and to identify indicators of success at changing campus culture and effectiveness in responding to and preventing RVSM. There is a need for tools to help IHE to measure short-term capacity building as well as for tracking indicators of change over time. Beyond this, large-scale, rigorous research is needed to determine the impact of changes on rates of victimization and perpetration and help clarify best practices. For example, Klein et al. (2018) suggest the creation of a national data repository that would help inform the development of evidence-informed strategies and help provide a roadmap for researchers to advance the science.

Institutional Readiness for Change

The motivation for MSU to enact meaningful change was prompted in response to an institutional crisis. Important questions remain about how to urge IHE to proactively undertake a deep self-reflection of their work to address RVSM. However, engaging in such work poses risks and requires resources from the IHE. There may be concerns about public image and reputation, legal ramifications, and the impact on recruitment and ultimately financial health. Determining the institutional readiness for change and willingness to engage in this work, while acknowledging these challenges, is a critical step (Edwards et al., 2015).

Ultimately, university leadership must make a commitment for meaningful change to occur. At some IHE, university leaders are willing to engage in this work, and at others, leaders might be receptive to learning more from members of the campus community about the urgency of this issue. Students, faculty, and staff all have valuable data, experiences, and perspectives that can potentially be shared with university leadership and encourage meaningful action. Other IHE leaders may be motivated by recognizing the risks inherent in failing to address RVSM, as has become apparent in recent news coverage at IHE where leaders have been removed for their inadequate, neglectful, or harmful response.

The MSU model explained by Campbell et al. (2023) provides a blueprint for other IHE to engage in this work at a deep, transformative level while also acknowledging the real challenges that come with moving beyond creating a surface-level response toward “meaningful” change.