Call for Action

While this paper attempts to initiate a conversation about effective anti-retaliation responses, starting with ways institutions can broaden their anti-retaliation policies and supplement those policies with individualized anti-retaliation plans, much work still needs to occur to address, respond to, and prevent retaliatory behavior. Academia still needs to understand how institutions can best respond to retaliation, what actions and responses are successful, what factors help prevent retaliation, and more. In particular, we believe an initial step includes additional research on any of the following questions:

• A person who fears retaliation may never report sexual harassment in the first place, and therefore may never be in a position to engage in an anti-retaliation plan. How does education about the existence of this mechanism affect the willingness of the target to initiate a conversation?
• How do institutions of higher education formulate, communicate, and execute policy prohibitions on retaliation for complaints of sexual harassment?
• What role do confidential resources, for example, health care providers, therapists, and ombuds play in helping targets of sexual harassment navigate and utilize anti-retaliation policies?
• What do university leaders understand as “retaliation,” particularly through their experiences with managing complaints, coaching by university counsel, and any trainings they receive? Does faculty governance play a role in defining and highlighting retaliation in academic settings?
• What are promising practices and strategies for addressing, responding to, and preventing retaliation?
• How can institutions properly evaluate strategies for responding to and preventing retaliation?
• How can institutions properly evaluate the effectiveness of their current anti-retaliation policies, plans, and responses?
• What kinds of anti-retaliation policies and procedures would center and address how retaliation is experienced by the most marginalized individuals in higher education, such as women and men of color, persons with disabilities, and those with sexual orientation and gender identity expression that differs from the majority population?

Ultimately, as the 2018 National Academies report Sexual Harassment of Women recommends, academic institutions should provide support to individuals who are targets of sexual harassment by developing approaches to prevent them from experiencing or fearing retaliation. Some institutions are taking important steps to develop and implement new anti-retaliation policies with broader definitions and clearer communication plans. These institutions are prioritizing anti-retaliation prevention efforts by including

individualized anti-retaliation plans or other innovative efforts in their procedures. We applaud these important efforts to move beyond legal compliance.

As institutions create, develop, and implement anti-retaliation policies and practices, we encourage them to also evaluate their response and prevention efforts. Regardless of changes that could affect the legal framework (e.g., anticipated changes to Title IX regulations), this paper aims to illustrate the complexity and severity of retaliation and offer general strategies for navigating this important issue in the academic environment. Furthermore, we hope institutions and leaders will build on this work in light of the variability of the legal framework. Finally, we hope this paper inspires institutions to take action to effectively respond to and prevent retaliation, which, in turn, can help create a climate and culture in academia that tolerates neither sexual harassment nor the opposition to sexual harassment.