You have /5 articles left.
Sign up for a free account or log in.
Inside Higher Ed
In the past two years, professionals who are antidiscrimination practitioners and hold primary responsibilities for reducing inequality in institutions of higher education have faced intense and growing pressure from the scores of state bills that seek to eliminate or curtail DEI offices and programs at colleges and universities. And just this week, a U. S. senator asked the Office of Inspector General to investigate how colleges and universities are investing federal dollars to support DEI initiatives. Unfortunately, in addition to the wholesale dismantling of antidiscrimination initiatives, such legislative efforts—even when unsuccessful— are heightening the challenges that antidiscrimination practitioners face within their own institutions.
One result of the pressure is that antidiscrimination practitioners who work through DEI, equal opportunity, Title IX and other offices—are showing high rates of burnout and job attrition due to “contrapower harassment.” With support from the Center for Institutional Courage, we surveyed 93 such professionals at public and private comprehensive and doctoral universities in the United States in the spring of 2023. We found that they are experiencing high rates of incivility, bullying, condescension, belittling and withholding information, as well as generalized disregard for their feelings and opinions.
The Landscape of Contrapower Harassment
When asked about the barriers to their work as leaders, the professionals who participated in our study pointed to frequent “contrapower harassment” as a significant challenge to their professional success and a stressor in their daily lives. Contrapower harassment occurs when an individual with less perceived power within an organization harasses another with greater positional power. This type of harassment—whether based on gender, race or other protected categories—has been challenging to recognize, precisely because of the lack of alignment between positional and social power that characterizes such interactions.
Our survey showed that the contrapower harassment that antidiscrimination practitioners experience is coming not from supervisors, but rather from colleagues and individuals with less institutional power, such as the reporting and respondent parties in antidiscrimination processes. One HR director, for example, reported that her professional authority was constantly challenged with rude emails, allegations, veiled threats and abuse that disabled her from exercising her duties effectively. Additionally, antidiscrimination practitioners—especially female, BIPOC, and SOGIE individuals—report hostility and challenges coming from their own administrative peers, in particular when questions of jurisdiction and accountability are also at play.
The presence of contrapower harassment of antidiscrimination practitioners is not a new phenomenon but an expected behavioral expression of the persistence of hierarchies of power and authority present in society writ large. What is new is the finding that antidiscrimination practitioners understand that contrapower harassment is not visible because it’s unlikely to be reported, is not contemplated in university policies, and has not been studied. Typically, colleges and universities have focused on keeping students safe, assuming faculty and staff members are exempt from, or immune to, student bullying or other bullying from people in ranks below.
The research on student harassment of female faculty members tells us that faculty are often unaware of support or policies that address these types of issues. One female administrator revealed that: “The bullying by my employee is a particular problem in higher education, because I am a leader and I don’t know where to go for help with this. I don’t think any university policy covers this situation.”
Moreover, it is clear that when faced with contrapower conduct, the target of the behavior may be reluctant to come forward: “To be honest, I am a bit embarrassed about this. I am supposed to be in charge here,” she added. “Every time I try and do something about it, there is another threat of a lawsuit or investigation to face.” A common concern that those who are the targets of contrapower harassment voice is the fear of embarrassment or concern for making the report. Consequently, many institutions have little or no support to assist staff and faculty members who face these forms of incivility.
Differences in Race, Ethnicity and Gender
Our study found that antidiscrimination practitioners face high rates of contrapower harassment within their own institutions. One of our research subjects, an administrator at a research-focused university, described similarities in the faculty and administrators’ experiences with contrapower harassment: “I certainly saw this as a faculty member in the classroom—especially around grading time, granting extensions for makeup exams, etc. But, in institutions where there are few women leaders, my authority as a woman [leader] is similarly resisted by subordinates.”
In our study, we also analyzed our data for evidence of contrapower harassment based on racial, gender and sexuality status. The focus of harassing behavior differed for each of these groups in important ways. In our sample, 81 percent of female-identifying antidiscrimination practitioners experienced threats, intimidation, or demands and ultimatums to control their actions. More than half of those threats included shouting, swearing or the raising of voices, as well as hostile or derogatory remarks based on gender, race, ethnicity or sexual orientation.
As an example, a female-identifying academic affairs administrator in our study shared that one faculty member “would come into my office and raise his voice at me. Eventually, I had to have someone else present every time we met and lay down boundaries about acceptable behavior.” Meanwhile, male antidiscrimination practitioners experienced this behavior at just a little more than half the rate of women, or 44 percent.
When we examined race or ethnicity as a variable, we found a statistical correlation between race and ethnicity across five out of seven contrapower variables. Our study coincides with established research in finding that nonwhite practitioners were more likely to report increased levels of incivility and bullying. Public outcry on the impact of higher education’s toxicity on Black women is a case in point.
Pathways and Recommendations
Our findings add to the growing evidence that disrespect, misbehavior and backlash is shaping the experience of antidiscrimination practitioners working in higher education, especially if those practitioners identify as women and/or belong to minoritized populations. The study, which highlights the particular risks of contrapower harassment for minoritized and women-identifying antidiscrimination practitioners, is an important first step to developing pathways toward promoting campus civility.
As one of our research subjects noted, “We really should be looking at this through a socio-cultural lens. If we can identify contrapower harassment as an actionable form of misconduct, we [will] require our courts and our institutions to conceive of ‘power’ in a different manner than through the traditional hierarchical/organizational power lens.” This transition is crucial as the academy seeks, often by hiring antidiscrimination practitioners, to manage continuing manifestations of social inequality on campus, particularly in the context of the blame and distrust wrought by broader societal polarization.
To mitigate the impact of contrapower harassment, colleges and universities can take a five key steps.
First, institutional leaders should broaden their understanding of harassment of those who can become susceptible to it. One academic administrator in our study emphasized that understanding contrapower harassment requires a consideration of the behavioral expectations inherent in the ethical exercise of organizational power. The need for antidiscrimination practitioners to act with professionalism and restraint when faced with uncivil behavior from respondents can make them susceptible to harassment because, as our interviewees noted, given their compliance roles, they are unable to react as independent individuals.
Second, college and university leaders should acknowledge the differential impacts of incivility on the lives of antidiscrimination practitioners by developing plans to mitigate this form of harassment and ensure appropriate support is available. They should also consider that, for minoritized antidiscrimination practitioners, coping with harassment may be endemic to living in a discriminatory society and a source of continuing stress. One senior academic antidiscrimination leader described the behavior they experienced as “designed to remind [me] that I am unwelcome in this workplace.”
Third, when campus leaders become aware of incidents of contrapower harassment, no matter how minor, they should be prepared to acknowledge and respond to it. Preparation for campus leaders includes training on the varied manifestations of contrapower harassment that enable recognition and intervention. Messaging about contrapower harassment can also be incorporated into campus communication on expected norms of conduct. Institutions can also prepare by modifying grievance procedures to allow for complaints from those with greater institutional power than those accused of misconduct. Taking quick action can both stem HR problems and enable effective antidiscrimination functions.
We found that the administrators whom we surveyed tied the lack of action of contrapower harassment to the inherent problems in siloed equity work, as antidiscrimination practitioners’ offices and efforts are frequently isolated from other campus operations and activities. The process of seeking resolution by one administrator exemplifies how contrapower harassment is a barrier to success in antidiscrimination work. At her institution, she noted: “We are woefully noncompliant in many areas and as I’ve tried to advance these conversations to leadership, they have been repeatedly ignored, including by risk management. My in-unit support is invaluable, but I think siloing this equity work is causing major barriers to success and compliance at my institution.”
Fourth, universities should incorporate training on contrapower harassment into institutional professional development. To stem such harassment, it is important to address the systems and narratives that undergird it, because those narratives are not attended to in college and university nondiscrimination policies—and even less so by the legal system.
Finally, college and university leaders should consider alternative mechanisms for dealing with contrapower behavior, such as through adaptable resolution pathways. (Restorative justice and mediation come to mind.) Part of the issue in dealing with contrapower conduct may be the overreliance on compliance mechanisms such as formal investigations without considering other pathways to mitigate harm.
This is particularly important because many examples of contrapower harassment that emerged in our study—like so much of sexually harassing behavior—were forms of uncivil and harassing behavior that would be unlikely to qualify as violations of campus antidiscrimination policies. Alternative pathways for mitigating this harm, such as adaptable resolution and restorative justice practices, allow those affected by a dispute to arrive at a mediated resolution. Such new approaches are essential to cultivating cultures of fairness, respect, trust and accountability that can lead to improved campus civility.
Our study has identified a group of employees who are particularly susceptible to harassment on campuses in the current political landscape—one in which a U.S. Supreme Court decision on affirmative action has outlawed antiracist admissions, in which legislators and other elected officials are challenging DEI programs, and in which political interference in higher education seeks to repress teaching of America’s historical conflicts over race. Amid all that and current concerns about campus incivility, higher education leaders cannot afford to overlook harassment in any form.
