No Place for Hate Crime - National Union of Students

No Place for Hate
Victims
When applicable, respondents were asked information
about the number of victims involved. More than two
in three incidents took place when the victim was in
the company of other people, and in many cases
their companions also became victims. This finding
suggests that incidence rates could very well be higher
than our estimates.
In 29 per cent of incidents involving bias against the
student’s sexual orientation, the victim was alone
and the only recipient of harassment. 20 In 71 per cent
of cases, the victim was in the company of others.
In half of these cases, respondents indicated their
companions were also victims.
Thirty-one per cent of incidents believed to be
prejudiced against the victim’s gender identity occurred
while they were alone. 21 Of those who were with
companions, 38 per cent reported the perpetrator(s)
also targeted their friends.
Perpetrators
Number of perpetrators
The evidence suggests that perpetrators often acted
as a group, particularly in incidents involving face-toface
contact with the victim(s), such as in verbal and
physical abuse.
Fifty-one per cent of incidents involving bias against
the victim’s sexual orientation were reported to have
involved more than one perpetrator, with another 23
per cent indicating they were unsure of the number of
perpetrators. This is particularly disturbing in cases of
physical assault, where 52 per cent (69 of 132) involved
multiple perpetrators: 28 per cent of incidents involving
two or three perpetrators, 16 per cent involving four to
six, and 8 per cent involving six or more perpetrators.
Incidents involving a prejudice against the victim’s
gender identity were less likely to involve multiple
perpetrators, though a substantial number (35 per
cent) were apparently committed by more than one
individual.
Relationship to victim
Strangers were found to have committed the majority
of incidents reported in our survey (58 per cent of
those prejudiced against the victim’s sexual orientation
and 70 per cent against their gender identity). The
exception to this was in cases of prejudiced written
communication, which, due to the nature of this type of
incident, primarily involved people known to the victim,
such as acquaintances or friends.
That is not to say, however, that the perpetrators were
completely unknown to the victims. The majority
of victims were in fact able to state whether the
person(s) in question were students, even when they
had indicated that the perpetrators were strangers.
Perpetrators were more often than not someone who
was simultaneously a stranger and someone familiar to
the victim, by way of a shared context or place.
“The people [perpetrators of homophobic
communication] were from my old school, where I
was ‘famous’ for my sexual identity.”
“The perpetrators knew people who know that I
am gay.”
In 45 per cent of incidents motivated by a prejudice
against the victim’s sexual orientation, the perpetrator
was known to be a student. Of these, 85 per cent
were reported to be students at the victim’s college or
university (or in cases of multiple perpetrators, involved
at least one student at the victim’s institution).
The same percentage of incidents motivated by a bias
against the victim’s gender identity (45 per cent) were
committed by students, the large majority of whom also
studied at their college or university (84 per cent).
This finding is significant, not only because some
students are committing such acts, but also because
the nature of close, inter-group relations within many
institutions means that victims often find it difficult to
avoid interacting with their abusers in the aftermath of
incidents. This has clear implications on the victims’
inclination to report the incident, as well as the overall
impact of the experience on their studies and mental
well-being, as discussed in Chapter 6.
36