SEXUAL HARASSMENT IN DIFFERENT CAMPUSES OF A MEXICAN UNIVERSITY

HOSTIGAMIENTO Y ACOSO SEXUAL EN DIFERENTES CAMPUS DE UNA UNIVERSIDAD MEXICANA

Eduardo Santiago-Ruiz[1]

Juana Josefa Ruiz Cruz[2]

Ixchel Paloma Castillo Arreola[3]

DOI: https://doi.org/10.32870/lv.v7i58.7607

Abstract

In recent times, both research and feminist movements have made it clear that there is Sexual Harassment (SH) in Mexican universities and which causes terrible academic, social, and emotional consequences for the victims. This research aims to measure SH at Universidad Pedagógica Nacional (UPN), a public university localized in Mexico City. Specifically, in this paper we: a) determined levels of SH, b) compared the percentage of people who had suffered at least one SH behavior in different campuses, and c) analyzed the open comments shared by the students. The instrument was applied to 645 students from the different campuses between October 19 and November 24, 2021. It was found that, unfortunately, there are behaviors with all levels of violence in UPN. Students were the ones who carried out the largest number of behaviors, but teachers carried out some of the most violent. Significant differences were found in the levels of SH that occur in different campuses. We believe that this paper provides relevant information to design better strategies to combat this problem.

Keywords: sexual harassment, university, gender violence, measurement

Resumen

Recientemente, tanto la investigación como los movimientos feministas han dejado en claro que existe Hostigamiento y Acoso Sexual (HAS) en las universidades mexicanas y que esto provoca terribles consecuencias académicas, sociales y emocionales para las víctimas. Esta investigación tiene como objetivo medir el HAS en la Universidad Pedagógica Nacional (UPN), una institución pública ubicada en la Ciudad de México. En concreto, en este trabajo: a) determinamos los niveles de HAS, b) comparamos el porcentaje de personas que han sufrido al menos una conducta de HAS en diferentes campus, y c) analizamos los comentarios abiertos que compartieron los estudiantes. El instrumento se aplicó a 645 estudiantes de los diferentes campus entre el 19 de octubre y el 24 de noviembre de 2021. Se encontró que, lamentablemente, existen conductas en todos los niveles de violencia en la UPN. Los estudiantes fueron quienes llevaron a cabo la mayor cantidad de conductas, pero los docentes presentaron algunas de las más violentas. Se encontraron diferencias estadísticamente significativas en los niveles de HAS en los diferentes campus. Creemos que este artículo brinda información relevante para diseñar mejores estrategias para combatir este problema.

Palabras clave: acoso sexual, universidad, violencia de género, medición

Recepción: 04 de abril de 2022/Aceptación: 14 de noviembre de 2022

In recent times, both research and feminist movements have made it clear that there is Sexual Harassment (SH) in Mexican universities (Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía [INEGI], 2017; Mingo & Moreno, 2015, 2017), and that this causes terrible academic, social, and emotional consequences for the victims (Larrea, 2018, p. 21). Unfortunately, the Universidad Pedagógica Nacional (UPN) is no exception and also suffers from this type of violence (Lozano Verduzco et al., 2021). As in other universities, self-organized feminist groups have emerged in recent years (Accossatto & Sendra, 2018; Cerva Cerna, 2020; Mingo, 2020) within the UPN in response to gender violence (Juarez Zamora, 2021; Rivera Flores, 2021). On the other hand, this institution published a declaration of zero-tolerance and implemented a Protocol (Universidad Pedagógica Nacional, 2021) to combat this problem.

UPN is a Mexican public university that teaches careers related to education, such as Educational psychology, Educational administration, Sociology of education and Indigenous education. In Mexico, these careers have been related with the feminine, so there is a much higher number of women in this institution. UPN has six campuses in Mexico City (CDMX): 092, 094, 095, 096 097, and 098. Campus 092 is the headquarters, it has a large number of students, and most of the administrative, budgetary and educational decisions are made from there. On the other hand, there are smaller campuses (094, 095, 096, 097 and 098) that not only have fewer students but also less independence and power. Campus 092 is also where feminist groups are most active, they have closed streets, made public complaints and cyberactivism. These groups have denounced that, despite presenting abundant evidence that they have suffered SH, the authorities protect the perpetrators. This is relevant because Pryor et al. (1995) point out that: “Sexual harassment may be more likely to occur in situations where it is perceived as socially permissible” (p. 70). Therefore, it is possible that the climate of impunity that feminist groups have denounced on 092 campus favors the existence of more SH.

This is a cross-sectional study that aims to measure with a quantitative instrument the levels of SH at the campuses of the UPN in CDMX. Specifically, this paper will: a) determine levels of SH, b) compare the percentage of people who had suffered at least one SH behavior in different campuses, and c) analyze open comments shared by students.

Sexual Harassment can be defined as a set of behaviors related to sexuality that are unwanted by the person who suffers them and that generate a hostile, intimidating and offensive environment. This definition can be found in feminists who analyzed SH in the workplace (Farley, 1978; MacKinnon, 1979), in the first studies on harassment in universities (Fitzgerald et al., 1988; Oshinsky, 1980; Till, 1980), and in recent documents from international organizations such as United Nations (UN) and World Health Organization (WHO) (Organización Mundial de la Salud [OMS], 2013; Organización de las Naciones Undas [ONU], 2006; ONU Mujeres, 2018, 2019). Insistent courtship, invasive attention, or pressure to accept affective relationships can also be considered SH, since the game of seduction masks the desire to possess (Briones, 1992; Mingo & Moreno, 2017). Consent is a central part of the definition because a behavior can be understood as SH to the extent that the person receiving it perceives it as uncomfortable, annoying, demeaning, hostile or violent (Larrea, 2018, p. 15). It is worth mentioning that SH violates human rights and is considered a crime under Mexican laws (Congreso General de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos, 2015; de Barbieri & Cano, 1990; González, 1993), and in the UPN’s Protocol (Universidad Pedagógica Nacional, 2021).

There are two types of SH according to the hierarchical position of the person who exercises them. SH with a power position occurs, for example, when a teacher makes sexual offers to a student. On the other hand, there is also SH between peers, that is, between students. In Latin American research, these types of SH are called hostigamiento sexual and acoso sexual, respectively. This distinction is important because when there is a position of power, SH is usually more serious. Both, SH between peers and with a hierarchical position will be measured in this research.

Instrument development

For the specific context of Latin America, there are several published instruments and questionnaires that are a valuable source of information where different harassing behaviors are identified in universities. Unfortunately, many of them do not explain how the items were created neither report their reliability index. Although they have some problems, to gather the experience of these papers, a deductive method was used to generate the items for the present investigation. According to Boateng et al. (2018), the deductive method is: “based on the description of the relevant domain and the identification of items. This can be done through literature review and assessment of existing scales and indicators of that domain” (p. 5).

Seven instruments were analyzed: Castaño-Castrillón et al. (2010); Carvajal Orlich & Delvó Gutiérrez (2009); Salinas Rodríguez & Espinosa Sierra (2013); Silva Perea (2013); Hernández Herrera et al. (2015); Evangelista García (2017) and Larrea (2018). The sources start from different definitions of SH, do not make this definition explicit, or sometimes measure other variables. Therefore, to guarantee coherence, only attitudes that were consistent with the definition of SH indicated in the introduction were included in this study. All these investigations used the same instrument for both men and women, so we consider this to be a common practice and we did not design different instruments for each gender. Other phenomena such as bullying, sexual discrimination, sexist harassment, or harassment based on sexual identity, sexual preference and gender expression, were left out (Larrea, 2018, p. 16; Onetti et al., 2018).

After performing the analysis of the sources, a total of 24 behaviors related to SH were identified. Table 1 shows these behaviors, and in which instruments they appear.

Table 1

Behaviors found in SH instruments and questionnaires

	Behaviors	A	B	C	D	E	F	G
ID1	Sexual remarks	*	*	*	*	*	*	*
ID2	Obscene gestures, whistles, winks	*			*	*		*
ID3	Leering	*	*	*	*	*	*	*
ID4	Pornographic representations and “nudes”			*			*	*
ID5	Obscene teaching material	*
ID6	Calls, emails, messages	*	*		*	*	*	*
ID7	Lewd conversations	*		*		*		*
ID8	Insistent flirting			*
ID9	Invasion of personal space		-	*	*	-		*
ID10	Dating invitations	*		*	*	*	*	*
ID11	Proposals or insinuations of a sexual or affective relationship	*	*	*				*
ID12	Insinuation or direct proposal to obtain benefits in exchange for sexual favors	*			*		*
ID13	Obtaining benefits in exchange for sexual favors			*		-		*
ID14	Pressure, threats or mistreatment to obtain sexual favors or affective relationships	-	*		*			-
ID15	Lower grades and academic losses						-	*
ID16	Pressure to dress provocatively under academic pretexts							*
ID17	Appointments in cubicles, or school offices for sexual purposes	*				*		*
ID18	Forced hugs and kisses			*		*		*
ID19	Touching sexual organs, rubbing against each other, or being forced to touch someone	*	-	*	*		*	*
ID20	Voyeurism							*
ID21	Exhibitionism							*
ID22	Fear of rape						*
ID23	Sexual assault with physical force or forcibly restrained	*					*	*
ID24	Rape		*				*

Note. The letters correspond to the following instruments: A) Carvajal Orlich & Delvó Gutiérrez (2009); B) Castaño-Castrillón et al. (2010); C) Salinas Rodríguez & Espinosa Sierra (2013); D) Silva Perea (2013); E) Hernández Herrera et al. (2015); F) Evangelista García (2017); G) Larrea (2018). The asterisk indicates that an attitude is adequately measured by the instrument, either in one or more items. The minus sign indicates that attitude is measured, but not broadly enough, either because it does not have an item dedicated to it or the wording is not clear.

A large part of these behaviors can occur in other contexts, for example, in work or on public roads. However, ID5, ID15, ID16 and ID17 are specific to SH in educational settings. On the other hand, ID1, ID2, ID3, ID6, ID7, ID9, ID10, ID11, ID14 and ID19 are found in more than 50% of the papers. Here we can find behaviors such as compliments, lewd looks, touching of sexual organs or insistent invitations to dates. One explanation for why they appear in most instruments is that they are spread in different universities in Latin America. In addition, it can be considered that, for all of them, there is an implicit agreement that they are clearly harassing behaviors.

Behaviors relative to ID5, ID8, ID16, ID20, ID21 and ID22 are registered in a single instrument. The fact that they appear in few papers does not mean that they cannot be considered SH. Rather, this is a sign that the phenomenon is very complex and that, unfortunately, it manifests in an enormous number of behaviors. Several of them have been documented in our university, such as insistent flirting, voyeurism, exhibitionism, and fear of rape.

After this analysis, an instrument composed of 24 items on a Likert scale of five options was obtained. The variable repetition has the options: “Never”, “Almost never”, “Occasionally”, “Almost every day” and “Every day”. In case that students answered yes to the above, they are also asked: “Who did it?” and the options are: “Student”, “Teacher”, “Service staff (maintenance, surveillance)”, “Administrative staff”, “Authority” and “Other”. At the end of the instrument, we added a section to leave an open comment if they wanted to.

Population and sample

In CDMX, UPN teaches undergraduate and postgraduate levels, but in this study, we will focus only on the first. This university has a total of 5,133 undergraduate students, as detailed in table two. Campus 092 is the largest, whereas campuses 094, 095, 096, 097, and 098 have smaller facilities and fewer students, so together they only have 12.68% (n=651) of the student population. The proportion of men is 19.15% (n=983).

The research was carried out during the online classes and the COVID-19 pandemic, so it was difficult to obtain the sample. It should be noted that, in the same way that happened with other investigations, the institutionalization of this study could not be achieved (Evangelista García, 2017). Although the research team wrote requests to various coordinators, no campus gave its formal support to carry out the research, even though it was registered, approved, and financed by UPN’s Secretaría Académica. Hence, we obtained a convenience sample as described below. We randomly selected teachers from 092 public directories and asked them to let us apply the instrument in their groups. In the case of those campuses that do not have public directories (094, 095, 096, 097 and 098), we turned to professors with whom we had previous contact.

In total, we obtained a sample of 645 undergraduate students. For both, 092 and the small campuses, the minimum representative sample was exceeded. The average age is 24.17 years, with a standard deviation of 6.93 and a median of 22. Their marital status is single 535, consensual union 60, married 39, divorced 9, and widower 2. Finally, 141 respondents study semesters 1 and 2; 70 attend semesters 3 and 4; 222 go to semesters 5 and 6, and 212 study semesters 7 and 8.

Table 2

Population and sample

	092 population^a	092 sample required^b	092 sample obtained	Small campuses population^a	Small campuses sample required^b	Small campuses sample obtained
Women	3597		332	553		212
Men	885		62	98		39
Totals	4482	354	394	651	242	251

^aData from official letter S. S. E. / 0488 / 2022, obtained through INAI (National Institute for Access to Information).

^bSample size required to have a confidence level of 95% and a margin of error of 5%.

Instrument administration

The instrument was implemented in Google Forms and it was applied in Mexico City campuses between October 19 and November 24, 2021. The process lasted approximately half an hour per group and was carried out in virtual platforms such as Zoom, Google Meet and Microsoft Teams. One or two previously trained people read an informed consent letter and gave detailed instructions on how to respond. We emphasized that participation was voluntary and that there were no risks or benefits, such as grades, involved. We explained to the students that they were being asked specifically about the behaviors that had been committed in the last year by someone from the UPN community, in person or virtually, and both inside and outside the facilities. The identity of participants was always protected and their name, email or any other information that could identify them personally was not requested. The research team had the support of a psychologist in case someone had an emotional shock due to the content of the instrument, however this never happened. At the end of the application, we provided information on how to file a formal complaint about SH in accordance with the UPN’s protocol.

Database preparation, statistical analysis, and graphs were done with R 4.2 and R Studio 2022.07.1. The instrument presented a Cronbach's Alpha of 0.84, so it can be concluded that it has a good level of reliability.

Results

Levels of SH

To make this calculation, the repetition variable was taken as dichotomic. As can be seen in table 3, in our university there are almost all SH behaviors. The only exception is obtaining benefits in exchange for sexual favors (ID13), which did not receive any affirmative response. It is important to highlight that all SH behaviors have a higher percentage in campus 092.

Table 3

Percentage of sexual harassment behaviors

	Behavior	092	Small campuses
ID1	Sexual remarks	31.47	20.32
ID2	Obscene gestures, whistles, winks	19.54	8.37
ID3	Leering	31.22	13.94
ID4	Pornographic representations and nudes	6.85	5.18
ID5	Obscene teaching material	2.54	1.99
ID6	Calls, emails, messages	6.09	3.19
ID7	Lewd conversations	13.42	7.97
ID8	Insistent flirting	14.72	8.76
ID9	Invasion of personal space	15.74	6.72
ID10	Dating invitations	12.43	6.77
ID11	Proposals or insinuations of a sexual or affective relationship	10.40	4.38
ID12	Insinuation to obtain benefits in exchange for sexual favors	2.54	1.20
ID14	Pressure, threats, or mistreatment to obtain sexual favors	3.55	1.20
ID15	Lower grades and academic losses	2.79	0.80
ID16	Pressure to dress provocatively under academic pretexts	1.02	0.80
ID17	Appointments in cubicles, or school offices for sexual purposes	3.30	1.99
ID18	Forced hugs and kisses	10.91	4.74
ID19	Touching sexual organs	5.33	3.59
ID20	Voyeurism	3.81	1.20
ID21	Exhibitionism	2.54	0.80
ID22	Fear of rape	8.38	1.99
ID23	Sexual assault with physical force	2.28	1.59
ID24	Rape	0.76	0.00

To better understand SH levels at UPN, it is necessary to compare them with other universities. A good approximation is to look at behaviors that appear on most instruments (ID1, ID3, ID6), as shown in next table.

Table 4

Comparison of SH behaviors in different universities

	Silva Perea (2013). Faculty of Medicine UNAM	Evangelista García (2017). Universities of the Mexican southeast	Hernández Herrera et al. (2015). IPN	Campus 092
ID1. Sexual remarks	24.9%	17.5%	11.2%	31.47%
ID3. Leering	20.3%	29.1%	36.9%	31.22%
ID6. Calls, emails, messages	3.4%	15.1%	5.2%	6.09%

As can be seen, SH levels are similar among various Mexican universities. However, it is very difficult to do a deeper analysis because the studies published so far employ different instruments and metrics.

According to Gruber et al. (1996), SH behaviors become more serious if they are performed repeatedly. As Figure 1 shows, most of the responses received regarding repetition were “Almost never” and “Occasionally”. In the case of mild behaviors such as sexual remarks (ID1) and leering (ID3), repetition can increase the level of threat and, therefore, make the school environment hostile and demeaning. On the other hand, in behaviors such as invasion of personal space (ID9), kisses and forced hugs (ID18) or touching of sexual organs (ID19), repetition, even if it is occasional, indicates cases where physical integrity is severely threatened. Finally, there are some behaviors where even a single manifestation can be considered extremely serious, such as lowering grades (ID15), cubicle dating for sexual purposes (ID17), sexual assault with physical force (ID23), or rape (ID24).

Figure 1

Repetition of sexual harassment.

Gráfico, Gráfico de barras, Histograma

Descripción generada automáticamente

In Table 5, some behaviors representatives of SH have been selected. As can be seen, repetition is higher on 092, which implies that there is a higher level of severity on this campus.

Table 5

Repetition of some SH behaviors per campus

	Behavior	092				Small campuses
		A%	B%	C%	D%	A%	B%	C%	D%
ID1	Sexual remarks	14.4	16.0	1.02	-	10.8	9.56	-	-
ID3	Leering	12.2	16.2	2.28	0.76	6.37	6.37	1.10	-
ID6	Calls, emails, messages	4.06	2.03	-	-	2.79	0.40	-	-
ID15	Lower grades and academic losses	2.03	0.76	-	-	0.80	-	-	-
ID24	Rape	0.76	-	-	-	-	-	-	-

Note. The letters A, B, C, and D correspond to “Almost never”, “Occasionally”, “Almost every day” and “Every day”, respectively.

To show the differences between types of sexual harassment (acoso and hostigamiento), we will take the example of three items: sexual remarks (ID1) is representative of those behaviors that can be done both by a peer o by a person with power; lowering grades (ID15) represents a set of items that can only be done from a hierarchical position, and rape (ID24) is the most violent type of aggression. Sexual remarks (ID1) are mostly made by students followed by teachers and others, as shown in table 6. This pattern is repeated in most behaviors (ID2, ID3, ID4, ID6, ID7, ID8, ID9, ID10, ID11, ID14, ID18, ID19, ID20, ID21, ID22, ID23).

Table 6

Who performs sexual remarks and rape

	Sexual remarks		Lowering grades		Rape
Who	N	%	N	%	N	%
Student	100	47.8	2	13.3	1	33.3
Teacher	61	29.2	10	66.7	1	33.3
Other	31	14.8	3	20	1	33.3
Administrative staff	8	3.83	-	-	-	-
Service staff	7	3.75	-	-	-	-
Authority	2	0.96	-	-	-	-

There are also behaviors, such as lowering grades (ID15), that are mostly carried out by teachers (ID12, ID15, ID16, ID17). Finally, rape was carried out by students, others, and teachers in the same amount. Even though the number of SH carried out by teachers, administrators and directors is lower (F igure 2), these can be considered serious cases. By having a power relationship over the victim, they can put their physical and emotional well-being at university at risk.

Figure 2

Who performs the behaviors of sexual harassment

Gráfico, Gráfico de barras

Descripción generada automáticamente

It is difficult to interpret who are those others that cause SH. Sometimes, due to fear of pointing out directly, they answer other even if they are teachers, directors, or administrators. Open comments can provide information about it. Some responses indicated: “sports personnel”, “there are times when people from outside the institution enter to drink alcohol on the garden” and “someone who sneaks into the university”.

Difference between campuses

To make this comparison, we resorted to a variable that reflected the difference between campuses in a single number. We call this variable at least one behavior and it is calculated as follows: if a person responded affirmatively to at least one of the 24 items related to SH, this variable is true, otherwise it is false. Then we calculated the proportion of people that suffered at least one by campus. This leads us to the hypotheses:

H_o: The proportion of people who suffered at least one behavior is independent to campus.

H_a: The proportion of people who suffered at least one behavior is different on different campuses.

To test these hypotheses, we used Chi-squared test, as shown in the next table.

Table 7

Contingency table: campus vs at least one behavior

	Campus
At least one behavior	092	Small campuses	Totals
True	207	84	291
False	187	167	354
Totals	394	251	645

In campus 092, 52.54% have suffered at least one behavior, while in the others this number is 33.47%. We found that there is a statistically significant difference (χ²=22.52, df=1, p-value<0.001) between SH suffered in 092 and the other campuses, therefore the null hypothesis is rejected. It is useful to compare these numbers with what has been found in other universities, as shown in the following table.

Table 8

Percentage of people who suffered at least one SH behavior in different universities

	Salinas Rodríguez & Espinosa Sierra (2013). Psychology career, FES Iztacala	Silva Perea (2013). Faculty of Medicine UNAM	Evangelista García (2017). Universities of the Mexican southeast	Campus 092	Small campuses
Percentage	67.5%	53%	40%	52.54%	33.47%
Sample size	120	133	5,154	394	251

Comparison with other universities is difficult because few studies report the variable at least one. On the other hand, none of the studies cited in the previous table explains how the population is constituted, if the sample is random or if the representative sample was reached. It is also necessary to take into account that our study was carried out during the COVID-19 pandemic, so it is possible that online classes have affected SH levels downwards.

Open comments

In the open comments, the topic that was mentioned most frequently was distance learning. Most students pointed out that this modality has reduced SH: “I consider that online classes have reduced sexual aggression, my answers are based on last year, and I want to emphasize that I suffered several actions in person”, “in remote modality, many harassing behaviors apparently do not appear”. However, there were also some comments that denounced forms of SH typical of online classes: “but I agree that sexual harassment also occurs on social networks”, “I want to comment that a classmate sends audios to the WhatsApp group with sexual content, and it is annoying for me and my other colleagues”. A student writes:

If a teacher fixes your screen during the virtual class without a reason (for example, if you were presenting, showing something specific, participating, etc.), does it count as harassment? It made me feel uncomfortable, but I may have misunderstood.

It is possible that by avoiding physical contact, distance classes have led to a decrease in SH at the university. Of course, this is not to say that during COVID-19 pandemic, gender-based violence has generally decreased. As other research has shown, it increased in many settings, especially at home (ONU Mujeres, 2020).

Open comments can also provide information about SH in men. Six comments were received on this topic that underlined that it can also be suffered by men. One of them wrote: “the topic is important and should not go unnoticed, it does not matter if you are a man or a woman, we can all go through a similar situation” and a woman adds: “there are cases of colleagues (women and men) who suffer harassment by teachers, and it is an issue that should not be left aside”. It is important to point out that we do not want to downplay the violence suffered by women, but SH in men is a pending issue that should be analyzed in future research.

Also open comments were used to denounce other forms of violence such as mocking comments by teachers, bullying and discrimination.

Conclusions

One of the limitations of this study is that we used a convenience sample, so results must be corroborated later, however, we believe that this paper yields important findings. Unfortunately, in the UPN there is SH at all levels, from the mildest to the most violent, such as rape. All groups at the university (students, teachers, administrative staff, service staff, authority, and others) carry out SH behaviors, but students cause the greatest number of them. This corroborates what has been found in other investigations (Castaño-Castrillón et al., 2010; INEGI, 2017) and can be explained because students are the largest group. But it is important to note that rape was provoked in equal measure by teachers and students. It is not easy to explain the reason for this phenomenon, but it is possible that their position of power allows teachers to act with greater impunity and violence.

We found that there is a significant difference in SH levels across campuses. First, this is important for UPN, since it allows to identify those schools where prevention efforts should be redoubled. And it is a relevant result in general because it makes it clear that SH levels vary a lot. We believe that higher levels reveal the existence of power mechanisms that favor impunity. However, we cannot affirm this conclusively. Therefore, further research is needed in the future to more objectively determine impunity and permissiveness, and how these variables are related to SH.

For some years now, several Mexican universities have begun to implement measures to combat SH. An example of this is UPN, which in 2021 published a prevention and complaint Protocol (Universidad Pedagógica Nacional, 2021). However, as Gamboa Solís (2019) points out, protocols often only serve to improve institutional image. Those of us who subscribe to this article join the suggestion (Instituto Nacional de las Mujeres [INMUJERES], 2006, p. 24, 2021, pp. 10–12) that SH should be monitored annually, because it is necessary to have evaluation tools that allow us to know if the actions undertaken by universities are really helping to reduce SH. Finally, the need for a valid and reliable instrument that facilitates comparison between different universities and allows monitoring over time is increasingly evident. Undoubtedly, there is a long way to go to eradicate SH in universities, since a deep cultural change is required, and abusive power structures need to be eliminated. The motto of the National Pedagogical University is Educar para transformar (educate to transform). We hope that in the future the ideal that the feminist collectives of our university have popularized will become a reality: Educar para no acosar (educate so as not to sexual harass).

This research was carried out with the financing of the UPN's Secretaría Académica (SAc-0428 B/21).

References

Accossatto, R. & Sendra, M. (2018). Movimientos feministas en la era digital. Las estrategias comunicacionales del movimiento Ni una menos. Encuentros: Revista de Ciencias Humanas, Teoría Social y Pensamiento Crítico, 6(8), 117–136. http://biblioteca.clacso.edu.ar/Venezuela/ceshcunermb/20180909030404/07_Accossatto.pdf

Boateng, G. O., Neilands, T. B., Frongillo, E. A., Melgar-Quiñonez, H. R. & Young, S. L. (2018). Best Practices for Developing and Validating Scales for Health, Social, and Behavioral Research: A Primer. Frontiers in Public Health, 6(June), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2018.00149

Briones, M. (1992). El hostigamiento sexual: un delito. Revista Jurídica de La Facultad de Jurisprudencia y Ciencias Políticas Universidad Católica de Santiago de Guayaquil, 1, 89–100. https://www.revistajuridicaonline.com/1992/09/el-hostigamiento-sexual-un-delito/

Carvajal Orlich, Z. & Delvó Gutiérrez, P. (2009). Costa Rica: un estudio sobre el hostigamiento sexual en población estudiantil universitaria pública y percepción del ambiente homofóbico en el 2008. Abra, 39(29), 14–30.

Castaño-Castrillón, J. J., González, E. K., Guzmán, J. A., Montoya, J. S., Murillo, J. M., Páez-Cala, M. L., Parra, L. M., Salazar, T. V. & Velásquez, Y. (2010). Acoso sexual en la comunidad estudiantil de la universidad de Manizales. Revista Colombiana de Obstetricia y Ginecología, 61(1), 18–27. http://www.scielo.org.co/pdf/rcog/v61n1/v61n1a03.pdf

Cerva Cerna, D. (2020). Activismo feminista en las universidades mexicanas: la impronta política de las colectivas de estudiantes ante la violencia contra las mujeres. Revista de La Educación Superior, 49(194), 137–157. https://doi.org/10.36857/resu.2020.194.1128

Congreso General de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos. (2015). Ley General de Acceso a las Mujeres a una vida libre de violencia. Diario Oficial de la Federación.

de Barbieri, T. & Cano, G. (1990). Ni tanto ni tan poco: las reformas penales relativas a la violencia sexual. Debate Feminista, 2, 345–356. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.22201/cieg.2594066xe.1990.2.1933

Evangelista García, A. A. (2017). Hostigamiento y acoso sexual en ámbitos de educación superior del sureste mexicano. Investigación Cualitativa En Ciencias Sociales, 3(1), 336–341. https://proceedings.ciaiq.org/index.php/ciaiq2017/article/view/1174

Farley, L. (1978). Sexual shakedown: The sexual harassment of women on the job. McGraw-Hill.

Fitzgerald, L. F., Shullman, S. L., Bailey, N., Richards, M., Swecker, J., Gold, Y., Ormerod, M. & Weitzman, L. (1988). The incidence and dimensions of sexual harassment in academia and the workplace. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 32(2), 152–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-8791(88)90012-7

Gamboa Solís, F. D. M. (2019). Acoso sexual en la universidad: de protocolos y protocolos. Nómadas, 51, 211–221. https://doi.org/10.30578/nomadas.n51a12

González, G. (1993). Políticas públicas y hostigamiento sexual. Nueva Sociedad, 2(123), 104–113. http://nuso.org/upload/articulos/2204_1.pdf

Gruber, J., Smith, M. & Kauppinen-Toropainen, K. (1996). Sexual Harassment Types and Severity: Linking Research and Policy. In M. S. Stockdale (Ed.), Women and work: A Research and Policy Series. Vol. 5. Sexual harassment in the workplace: Perspectives, frontiers, and response strategies (pp. 151–173). Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483327280.n8

Hernández Herrera, C. A., Jiménez García, M. & Guadarrama Tapia, E. (2015). La percepción del hostigamiento y acoso sexual en mujeres estudiantes en dos instituciones de educación superior. Revista de La Educación Superior, 44(176), 63–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resu.2015.12.004

Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geográfía. (2017). Encuesta Nacional sobre la Dinámica de las Relaciones en los Hogares (ENDIREH) 2016. INEGI. https://www.inegi.org.mx/contenidos/programas/endireh/2016/doc/endireh2016_presentacion_ejecutiva.pdf

Instituto nacional de las mujeres. (2006). Rutas de atención y prevención del hostigamiento sexual en las instituciones públicas. Gobierno de México.

Instituto nacional de las mujeres. (2021). Directrices para elaborar e implementar mecanismos de percepción, atención y sanción del hostigamiento sexual y el acoso sexual en las instituciones de educación superior. Gobierno de México. https://www.gob.mx/inmujeres/documentos/directrices-para-elaborar-e-implementar-mecanismos-para-la-prevencion-atencion-y-sancion-del-hostigamiento-sexual-y-del-acoso-sexual

Juarez Zamora, S. E. (2021). UPN Violeta: un movimiento en busca de la equidad y la revaloración de las mujeres en la universidad. Observatorio de Violencia de Género de La Universidad Pedagógica Nacional. https://observatorioupn.com/2021/10/07/upn-violeta-un-movimiento-en-busca-de-la-equidad-y-la-revaloracion-de-las-mujeres-en-la-universidad/

Larrea, M. de L. (2018). ¿Cómo se mide el acoso sexual? Sistematización de la experiencia de construcción de contenidos de un instrumento para la medición del acoso sexual en instituciones de educación superior del Ecuador. Fundación Donum-FOS. https://saludyderechos.fundaciondonum.org/wpcontent/uploads/2018/07/machometro-baja-res.pdf

Lozano Verduzco, I., Salinas Quiroz, F., Rosales Mendoza, A. L. & Salinas Rivera, E. (2021). Diagnóstico sobre apropiación de derechos sexuales, acoso y hostigamiento sexual en la Universidad Pedagógica Nacional. UPN.

MacKinnon, C. (1979). Sexual harassment of working women. Yale University Press.

Mingo, A. (2020). “Juntas nos quitamos el miedo”. Estudiantes feministas contra la violencia sexista. Revista Iberoamericana de Educacion Superior, 11(31), 3–23. https://doi.org/10.22201/iisue.20072872e.2020.31.703

Mingo, A. & Moreno, H. (2015). El ocioso intento de tapar el sol con un dedo: violencia de género en la universidad. Perfiles Educativos, 37(148), 138–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pe.2015.11.012

Mingo, A. & Moreno, H. (2017). Sexismo en la universidad. Estudios Sociológicos, 35(105), 571–595. https://doi.org/10.24201/es.2017v35n105.1434

Organización Mundial de la Salud. (2013). Comprender y abordar la violencia contra las mujeres (p. 12). OMS. http://www.svri.org/nacional.pdf%5Cnhttp://www.paho.org/hq/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_download&gid=23947&Itemid=270

Onetti, M., Franco, Ó., Ligero, J. A. & Porta, A. (2018). Estudio sobre el acoso sexual, acoso sexista, acoso por orientación sexual y acoso por identidad y expresión de género en la Universidad Complutense de Madrid. Universidad Complutense de Madrid.

Organización de las Naciones Unidas. (2006). Estudio a fondo sobre todas las formas de violencia contra la mujer. http://scielo.sld.cu/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&amp%0Apid=S1727-897X2014000600005%0Ahttp://www.medisur.sld.cu/index.php/medisur/article/view/2617/1661

ONU Mujeres. (2018). Hacia el fin del acoso sexual: la urgencia y la necesidad del cambio en la era del #metoo. ONU.

ONU Mujeres. (2019). ¿Qué medidas se deben adoptar? Promover el cambio cultural para acabar con el acoso sexual. ONU.

ONU Mujeres. (2020). COVID-19 y su impacto en la violencia contra las mujeres y niñas. https://mexico.unwomen.org/es/digiteca/publicaciones/2020-nuevo/abril-2020/covid19-y-su-impacto-en-la-violencia-contra-las-mujeres-y-ninas#:~:text=Los%20derechos%20de%20las%20mujeres,en%20espacios%20privados%20como%20p%C3%BAblicos. ONU.

Oshinsky, J. C. (1980). Sexual harassment of women students in Higher education. University of Florida.

Pryor, J. B., Giedd, J. L. & Williams, K. B. (1995). A Social Psychological Model for Predicting Sexual Harassment. Journal of Social Issues, 51(1), 69–84. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1995.tb01309.x

Rivera Flores, N. S. (2021). Tallercita Violeta: nuestros actos son políticos. Observatorio de Violencia de Género de La Universidad Pedagógica Nacional. https://observatorioupn.com/2021/09/15/tallercita-violeta-nuestros-actos-son-politicos/

Salinas Rodríguez, J. L. & Espinosa Sierra, V. (2013). Prevalencia y percepción del acoso sexual de profesores hacia estudiantes de la licenciatura de psicología en la Facultad de Estudios Superiores-Iztacala: un estudio exploratorio. Revista Electrónica de Psicología Iztacala, 16(1). http://www.revistas.unam.mx/index.php/repi/article/viewFile/36342/32939

Silva Perea, J. (2013). Frecuencia de acoso sexual y variables asociadas en estudiantes de la facultad de medicina. UNAM.

Till, F. J. (1980). Sexual Harassment: a report on the sexual harassment of students. The National Advisory Council of Women’s Educational Programs.

Universidad Pedagógica Nacional. (2021). Protocolo para la prevención, atención y sanción del hostigamiento sexual y acoso sexual, y cualquier otra forma de Violencia en razón de género y discriminación en la universidad Pedagógica nacional. Gaceta UPN, 149, 13–31.