Sexual harassment is a pervasive problem on college campuses. Across eight academic campuses, 16,754 students participated in an online study that included questions about sexual harassment victimization by a faculty/staff member or by a peer since enrollment at their Institution of Higher Education (IHE). Utilizing an intersectional theory and hurdle models, this study explored the effects of gender, race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, age at enrollment, student status, and time spent at institution on students' risk for peer- and faculty/staff-perpetrated sexual harassment victimization, as well as the extent of victimization for students who experience harassment. Across institutions, 19% of students reported experiencing faculty/staff-perpetrated sexual harassment and 30% reported experiencing peer-perpetrated sexual harassment. Hypotheses related to intersectional impacts were partially supported, with most significant findings in main effects. Time at institution was found to increase both risk and extent of victimization of both types of harassment. Traditional undergraduate students, non-Latinx White students, female students, and gender and sexual minority students were found to be at increased risk for harassment. Being female increases the odds of experiencing both faculty/staff and peer sexual harassment by 86% and 147%, respectively. Latinx students and students with an ethnicity other than White reported less victimization, but those who reported sexual harassment faced greater extent of harassing behaviors. A discussion of these findings for institutional program planning and policy is explored.

A multisite survey conducted at eight campuses of a southwestern university system provides the data for the present study, total N = 17,039 with 1,869 gender and sexual minority (GSM) students. Sexual violence was measured using the Sexual Experiences Survey (SES), and analysis included both the participant’s risk of experiencing sexual violence and the extent (or total count) of sexual violence experienced. This study poses the following research questions: What effects do gender identity and sexual orientation have on the risk and extent of sexual violence among students and, among victims, what is the relationship between gender identity/sexual orientation and mental health (posttraumatic stress disorder [PTSD], depression) and academic environment (disengagement and safety) outcomes for university students? Multilevel, random effect hurdle models captured this sequential victimization dynamic. GSM and cisgender heterosexual (CH) female students are predicted to be 2.6 and 3 times, respectively, as likely to experience sexual violence compared with CH male students. In addition, GSM students experiencing sexual violence are also expected to experience a greater number of sexually violent acts (74% more) over their college career compared with victimized CH male students. The models confirm that the risk of victimization increases over time (13% per year for CH male students), but GSM students are expected to experience an additional (10%) increase in risk of victimization per year compared with CH male students. GSM and CH female students are also predicted to be more likely to have PTSD and experience more severe depression symptoms than CH male students. GSM students are expected to experience significantly higher rates of PTSD, worse depressive symptoms, and greater disengagement than CH female students. The discussion explores how institutions of higher education might recognize the resilience of GSM students and consider the protective potential of social and community support when developing programs or interventions for diverse populations.

Sexual assault, dating/domestic violence, sexual harassment, and stalking are complex crimes and have been a major focus of national attention at institutions of higher education (IHEs). To grasp the extent and nature of these crimes on campuses, institutionally specific climate surveys are being developed and endorsed by the federal government and conducted at IHEs. These climate surveys differ in content and length. This article describes 10 different climate surveys and outlines the variables measured in each tool. Next steps for assessing climate surveys are discussed.

Background: Few studies are dedicated to understanding the extent and impact of sexual harassment among medical students. The aim of this study was to use behaviorally specific measures to examine prevalence of sexual harassment toward medical students. Associated mental health and academic impacts were also studied. Methods: A multisite survey was conducted at four medical schools. Sexual harassment was measured using the Sexual Experiences Questionnaire (SEQ), a valid and reliable instrument. Students were also surveyed about depressive and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms and their level of academic engagement. We also assessed their perceptions of institutional response and whether they felt safe at their institution. Findings: The final sample included 524 medical students (response rate = 13%). Findings revealed that 36.6% reported sexual harassment by a faculty/staff member and 38.5% reported harassment by a fellow student. The odds of harassment by faculty/staff, as well as peers, were significantly higher for women with an adjusted odds ratio (AOR) = 9.83, 95% confidence interval (CI) = [3.74, 25.80] and multiracial students with an AOR: 2.93, 95% CI: [1.16, 7.39]. Those who experienced sexual harassment were more likely to report academic disengagement and symptoms of depression and PTSD. Conclusion/Application to Practice: Sexual harassment in medical schools can potentially limit a student’s academic success and negatively impact their mental health. Supportive services and efforts to address peer and professional cultures that promote harassment are needed. Experiences of harassment require swift and competent responses by medical school leadership in collaboration with occupational and/or student health services to mitigate detrimental impacts and support medical students throughout their training.

Existing collaborations among public health practitioners, veterinarians, and ecologists do not sufficiently consider illegal wildlife trade in their surveillance, biosafety, and security (SB&S) efforts even though the risks to health and biodiversity from these threats are significant. We highlight multiple cases to illustrate the risks posed by existing gaps in understanding the intersectionality of the illegal wildlife trade and zoonotic disease transmission. We argue for more integrative science in support of decision-making using the One Health approach. Opportunities abound to apply transdisciplinary science to sustainable wildlife trade policy and programming, such as combining on-the-ground monitoring of health, environmental, and social conditions with an understanding of the operational and spatial dynamics of illicit wildlife trade. We advocate for (1) a surveillance sample management system for enhanced diagnostic efficiency in collaboration with diverse and local partners that can help establish new or link existing surveillance networks, outbreak analysis, and risk mitigation strategies; (2) novel analytical tools and decision support models that can enhance self-directed local livelihoods by addressing monitoring, detection, prevention, interdiction, and remediation; (3) enhanced capacity to promote joint SB&S efforts that can encourage improved human and animal health, timely reporting, emerging disease detection, and outbreak response; and, (4) enhanced monitoring of illicit wildlife trade and supply chains across the heterogeneous context within which they occur. By integrating more diverse scientific disciplines, and their respective scientists with indigenous people and local community insight and risk assessment data, we can help promote a more sustainable and equitable wildlife trade.