Photo Credit: Zerbor
When a sexual assault happens, the way it’s discussed publicly is as important as the way it’s handled behind-the-scenes. When a workplace issues a public statement about the sexual misconduct at their company, or when a news outlet reports a story about sexual harassment or abuse, the language they use could harm the survivor in the story or other survivors in the reading audience. Conversely, language that is trauma-informed and survivor-centered has the power to make survivors feel seen, understood, and protected by institutions. In today’s blog, we are focusing on the role language plays in our understanding of sexual assault and some best practices for speaking about it publicly in work and reporting contexts.
Over the past decade, we have seen workplaces miss the mark when discussing sexual violence. Sometimes it can come in the form of a thoughtless social media post, like in 2014 when the Massachusetts government Twitter account tweeted, “Sexual assault is always avoidable.” Other times it’s through email, such as the 2021 Villanova University campus safety email that chose to substitute “rape” with “non-consensual sexual intercourse.” Most problematically, sometimes this can happen even when a communications department drafts a public statement, like the infamous 2021 Activision Blizzard statement in response to sexual harassment allegations they described as “distorted, and in many cases false” and the lawsuit against them as “irresponsible.” All of these examples demonstrate a clear misunderstanding and diminishing of sexual violence, and there are far from the only times an organization has condescended to survivors or redirected blame for their victimization. When this happens, employees at these companies are more likely to feel unsafe to report, unsupported in their trauma, and unreflected in their values. Institutional betrayal can have real emotional, mental, and physical consequences, which is why employers should exercise caution when speaking about sensitive issues like sexual violence internally and externally.
In a similar vein, media outlets have also perpetuated harm when reporting on sexual violence. This was particularly true in the heyday of the #MeToo movement. Rolling Stone Publisher Jann Wenner referred to the movement as a “witch hunt.” New York Times Columnist Bret Stephens defended Harvey Weinstein by attributing the issue to a cultural change rather than an issue of long-standing, institutional power exploiting the vulnerable. “He was just another libidinous cad,” Stephens wrote, “in a libertine culture that long ago dispensed with most notions of personal restraint and gentlemanly behavior.” Sometimes the harm comes from pulling stories altogether, such as when the New York Post scrubbed Jean Carroll’s sexual assault allegations from their website. Other times, articles will focus on the backstory, accomplishments, and perceived positive attributes of the perpetrator rather than the crime or the survivor who experienced it, as seen by the coverage of college campus rapist Brock Turner. In an era of increasing disinformation, “body language experts” speculating on victim testimony, and cultural myths about the roots of sexual assault and its impact on survivors, the media must be a part of the healing work. All of the instances above demonstrate all-too common responses to stories of sexual assault: presuming the victim is malicious for speaking out, the perpetrator likely didn’t do anything meaningfully wrong, and the issue of sexual assault is not of great concern. The media both reflects and shapes our culture in the ways that it interacts and reports stories of sexual violence, so they too have an incredible responsibility to ensure that their coverage doesn’t alienate survivors, further retraumatize the victim in these stories, or perpetuate harmful cultural narratives that contribute to this very violence.
While office communication and news reporting may not aim to accomplish the same goals, both workplaces and media outlets can work to better their language when addressing sexual assault to their audience. Below are some best practices to follow.
Have a RALIANCE Policy Review and Use RALIANCE’s Taxonomy
RALIANCE is comprised of experts with decades of experience within the anti-sexual violence movement, and have engaged with conversations across industries throughout the past 10 years of RALIANCE’s history to meet our clients where they are to resolve these issues. We would be happy to partner with any workplace to lay out best communication practices, both internal and external, to respond to workplace sexual misconduct allegations. Our taxonomy further helps employers categorize the different areas of sexual misconduct, which eases their ability to articulate the problem at hand. Ultimately, a partnership with us can aid workplaces in learning how to process and speak about such complex issues. When employers have clear, trauma-informed, survivor-centered communication practices in place, staff are safer, feel valued, and are more empowered to challenge those who violate workplace sexual misconduct policy.
Refer to the Language Recommended to Journalists by Gender-Based Violence Experts
The language we use to describe sexual assault changes over time as we learn more about it and become more survivor-centered. There are some excellent resources made available by gender-based violence experts that give practical guidelines for how to discuss sexual violence in ways that affirm victims and do not diminish the crimes reported. We recommend looking into the Chicago Taskforce on Violence Against Girls & Young Women’s resource, “Reporting On Rape and Sexual Violence: A Media Toolkit for Local and National Journalists to Better Media Coverage.” Media outlets and employers can look into a variety of other resources at the National Sexual Violence Resource Center’s page, “Additional Resources for Reporters and Advocates Working with Media.”
Incorporate Empathetic Workplace Responses When Crafting Communication About Traumatic Topics
Whether it’s the initial investigation or a public statement, the most important part about communicating about sexual violence is coming from a place of empathy. To be trauma-informed, a workplace does not need to know everything about everything. They do need to know how to lead their conversations with compassion and openness, not through negative assumptions about those who come forward. Katharine Manning’s The Empathetic Workplace: 5 Steps to a Compassionate, Calm, and Confident Response to Trauma On the Job might be a good place to start to build that foundation.
Check In with the Survivor Afterwards to Assess What They Need
If one’s public communication is about a particular survivor that they have contact with, it is important to check in with them afterwards. They may need mental health resources, request accommodation, or something else entirely. By opening or re-opening communication with them, they will gain back some power they need to take their next steps forward. Doing so is not only beneficial to the survivor, but it sets a precedent to the whole organization that working with survivors is a long-standing commitment, not an inevitable afterthought.
Language shapes the understanding of the world we live in. When so many survivors are forced into silence, and large entities engage in insensitive or victim-blaming communication, everyone is worse off. It’s never too late to begin the work, and we hope you’ll join us in crafting conversations that maintain survivor dignity and take sexual violence seriously.
RALIANCE is a trusted adviser for organizations committed to building cultures that are safe, equitable, and respectful. RALIANCE offers unparalleled expertise in serving survivors of sexual harassment, misconduct, and abuse which drives our mission to help organizations across sectors create inclusive environments for all. For more information, please visit www.RALIANCE.org.
 Â