Report on Survey on Awareness and Status of Diversity at The Universityof Tokyo, 2020： Summary
Executive Summary
Notes on the analysis results in this report
・ The respondents to this survey account for only about one-fourth of all
students or faculty and staff members at the University of Tokyo. It is
likely that many of these respondents have a keener interest in or awarenessof diversity than other students or faculty and staff members. Therefore,
we should be careful not to assume that the results of this survey represent
the whole picture of students as well as faculty and staff at the Universityof Tokyo. The answer percentages shown in this report have been calculated
from answers provided by those survey respondents.
・ It has been pointed out that social survey respondents in general tend toselect societally desirable answers to questions about their awareness andattitudes. Therefore, it should be noted that answers to the questions about
respondents’awareness

in

this

surveymay

partlyreflectsocialdesirability.
・ It should also be noted that answers to the questions about respondents’experiences of sexual harassment may be in some way influenced by each
respondent’s subjective view on when he/she feels harassed.
・ The method and details used for this survey differ from those for the previous
survey conducted in 2007. Therefore, the analysis results regarding changes
in the tendency of respondents may be partly influenced by the change of
method and details.
・ This survey was conducted over the period between December 2020 and January
2021, which coincided with the time when most classes and business processes
at the University of Tokyo took place online because of the COVID-19
pandemic. The answers provided in the questionnaires may be influenced bythese special circumstances under which the survey was conducted.
・ This report examines differences in the answer percentages between students
or faculty and staff members according to their social attributes. However,since this survey is capable of illuminating only a limited range of why
thosedifferencesinterpretations.

arose,

thereportonly

providesconjectural

The following are digests of the summaries shown in the beginning of the chapters.
Chapter 1: Overview of the Survey
・ The call for respondents to this survey was announced to all students as well
as faculty and staff, and the survey was conducted over the period between
December 2020 and January 2021. In the end, 25.6 percent of students and 26.0
percent of faculty and staff members responded.
・ To the question asking the respondent’s gender, 30.2 percent of student
respondents answered “Female,” 65.7 percent “Male,” 0.9 percent “Other,”
2.8 percent “Don’t want to answer,” and 0.4 percent provided no answer. The
percentage of the female student respondents among female students enrolled at
the University (31.9 percent) was higher than the percentage of the male student
respondents among male students enrolled at the University (22.3 percent).
・ To the question asking the respondent’s gender, 46.1 percent of faculty andstaff respondents answered “Female,” 49.7 percent “Male,” 0.2 percent“Other,” 3.3 percent “Don’t want to answer,” and 0.7 percent provided noanswer. The percentage of the female faculty and staff respondents among female
faculty and staff members working at the University (25.6 percent) was almost
the same as the percentage of the male faculty and staff respondents among malefaculty and staff members working at the University (26.3 percent).
Chapter 2: Differences from the Previous Survey
・ Regarding opinions about sexual harassment, more respondents chose “I disagree”
as their response to such a statement as “Sexual jokes and topics help facilitate
human relations.”
・ A higher percentage of faculty and staff respondents selected “I agree” astheir view on the statement “I’d rather stay away from sexual harassment
issues.” The reason for the increase cannot be identified solely through thissurvey.
・ Higher percentages of respondents answered “I think the behavior is always
deemed as sexual harassment” to the questions asking if they think certain
behaviors as sexual harassment in various cases.
・ The percentages of respondents who had been subject to sexual harassment did
not significantly change. What is notable is that, among the male respondents
who answered that they had been subject to sexual harassment, much higher
percentages answered “No, I didn’t” to the question asking if they consulted
anyone about what had happened. This survey alone is not enough to determine
whether the percentages rose because more people now correctly acknowledge

incidents that they had not bother to consult someone about as sexual harassmentor there are any other reasons.
Chapter 3: Gender and Harassment Awareness・ The survey presented a set of statements designed to study respondents’ genderand harassment awareness. Overall, there was a greater tendency for the
respondents--students and faculty/staff alike--to express disagreement (“Idisagree” or “I somewhat disagree”) with the statements that deny diversity
or suggest sexism, and a decreasing tendency to express agreement (“I agree”
or “I somewhat agree”) with those statements. On the other hand, more
respondents indicated their willingness to evade dealing with harassment issues.
Also, more respondents expressed agreement with the statement “It is naturalthat differences of ability and aptitude exist between men and women” than those
who expressed disagreement.
・ To the questions asking about respondents’ gender and harassment awareness,the percentages of the answers that indicated agreement, disagreement, andneutrality (“I neither

agree nordisagree”) showed slightly different

tendencies between the respondents’ attributes. For example, to the statement“Sexual jokes and topics help facilitate human relations,” more students
selected the answers that indicated agreement or neutrality than faculty andstaff members, and more faculty and staff members expressed disagreement thanstudents. More non-international students expressed agreement with the statement“It is natural that differences of ability and aptitude exist between men andwomen” than international students, and more international students expressed
disagreement than non-international students. However, given that the overall
effect size was quite small and differences between attributes are unclear, theseresults should be interpreted carefully.
・ Factor analysis was conducted to study responses to the 11 statements about
gender and harassment awareness. The findings showed a three-factor structure
consisting of “conservative views on gender roles,” “gender bias,” and“willingness

to

evade

harassment

issues(including

also

an

item

on

acknowledgement of fundamental differences between genders).” Furthermore, each
subscale showed interactions between genders (i.e., “Female,” “Male,”“Other,” and “Don’t want to answer” and positions (i.e., “Student,”“Faculty and Staff”), and the mean differed depending on the combination. Morespecifically, the scores made by female respondents--students and faculty/staff
alike--tended to be lower than those by other respondents of different genders
in all items but for “conservative views on gender roles,” regardless of
position. On the other hand, student respondents who provided the answer “Other”

or “Don’t want to answer” as their gender tended to score lower than other
respondents of different genders in all items. Faculty and staff respondents who
provided the answer “Other” or “Don’t want to answer” as their gender tended
to score higher in “conservative views on gender roles.”
Chapter 4: Students’ Awareness and Experiences of Sexual Harassment
・ According to the survey responses from students, at least 79 percent of the
respondents answered that the following are deemed as sexual harassment: making
comments

onsomeone’s

physicalappearance,

personal

life,

and

sexualorientation; trying to have a personal relationship with someone even thoughhe/she does not want to; most of the behaviors that coerce a person into playing
a gender role. This indicates that these students at the University of Tokyo
share the awareness of what sexual harassment is. On the other hand, whether
they think those behaviors are “always deemed as sexual harassment” or “canbe deemed as sexual harassment depending on the situation” differ between
genders. The percentage of the male respondents who answered “I think the
behavior is always deemed as sexual harassment” was lower than that of the
respondents who specified themselves as “Female” or “Other.” Moreover,compared to the respondents who identified themselves as “Other” gender, lower
percentages of male and female respondents think that they feel sexually harassed
when someone pries into their personal life or talks about their sexual
orientation and/or gender identity without their permission. These results
indicate that even if people share the awareness that a certain behavior can besexual harassment, whether the behavior is actually perceived as sexual
harassment in certain contexts and/or relationships differs between genders.
・ Higher percentages of female respondents and of those who identified themselves
as “Other” gender had sexual harassment experiences than male respondents.
15.3 percent of male respondents had been subject to sexual harassment in someform, whereas 30.1 percent of female respondents and 39.4 percent of those who
identified themselves as “Other” gender had sexual harassment experiences. The
percentage of the respondents who had been subject to sexual harassment wasparticularly higher among women who are in graduate schools and undergraduate
faculties/college with a lower percentage of female students. Furthermore, therespondents who provided the answer “Female,” “Other,” or “Don’t want toanswer” as their gender or who provided no answer were more prone to the effects
of sexual harassment on their university life than male respondents.
・ Male respondents were less likely to suffer sexual harassment. A high percentageof the male respondents who had been subject to sexual harassment answered thatthe experiences had no effects on them. That said, at least 10 percent of themale respondents with sexual harassment experiences answered, “I came to
distrust, feel disgust at, or fear other people,” which means men are nottotally free from damage done by sexual harassment experiences.
・ 45 percent or more of the respondents who had been subject to sexual harassment,
regardless of gender, answered that the person who harassed them was their peer,
and about 40 percent answered that it was an older student. This indicates thatsexual harassment often occurs among students. On the other hand, although thepercentage of the respondents who had been sexually harassed by their supervisors
was low, harassment by a supervisor tend to have multiple effects on the
respondents who suffered it, such as those on their study, research, andemotional health.
Chapter 5: Faculty and Staff’s Awareness and Experiences of Sexual Harassment
・

Regardless of who the perpetrator may be, the following behaviors are
particularly deemed as sexual harassment: naming and/or making fun of individuals
who are gay, lesbian, or of unknown sex; bringing up the topic of someone’s
sexual orientation or gender identity without his/her consent; staring at partsof someone’s body (e.g., breast, hip, legs, crotch).

・ Respondents tended to feel sexually harassed when an executive faculty memberor their superior, rather than their colleague, displayed these behaviors. They
also found it easier to say “No” to these behaviors when their colleagues
displayed them.
・ Among faculty and staff respondents, 6.5 percent of females, 6.3 percent ofmales, and 5.6 percent of those who provided the answer “Other” or “Don’twant to answer” as their gender experienced the type of sexual harassment thatsexually objectifies a person by talking about his or her physical appearance
in an undesirable manner. As for the type of harassment that is manifested in aphysical setting, such as a nude poster put up on the wall of the workplace,
4.4 percent of females, 4.3 percent of males, and 4.2 percent of those who
provided the answer “Other” or “Don’t want to answer” had experienced it.
As for the type of harassment that coerces a person into playing a gender rolein the workplace or in an educational or research setting, such as coercive
assignment to a certain role based on gender, 5.9 percent of females, 5.6 percent
of males, and 1.4 percent of those who provided the answer “Other” or “Don’twant to answer” had experiences of it. As for the type of harassment that is
manifested in an undesirable interaction, such as an obscene look at a person’s
body, 4.7 percent of females, 2.5 percent of males, and 1.4 percent of those
who provided the answer “Other” or “Don’t want to answer” had experienced
it. As for the type of harassment that constitutes a criminal act, such asforcing a person to take off his or her clothes, 1.0 percent of females, 0.8
percent of males, and 1.4 percent of those who provided the answer “Other” or“Don’t want to answer” had experienced it.
・ Female respondents and those who provided the answer “Other” or “Don’t wantto answer” as their gender were almost twice as likely to be subject to sexual
harassment as male respondents.
・ According to the regression analysis, respondents who are in their 30s, female,staff members, full-time workers, and Japanese were prone to sexual harassment.
・ Although it was difficult to confirm significant differences in the regression
analysis, the applicable rate of victimization among respondents who provided
the answer “Other” or “Don’t want to answer” as their gender or who are
foreign nationals was relatively high for all types of sexual harassment.
・ Both males and females were more prone to sexual harassment “during regular
working hours” and “during a social gathering.”
・ In many cases, one perpetrator harassed a female, and three or more perpetrators
harassed a male.
・ In many cases, perpetrators were males regardless of the victim’s gender.
・ Respondents who did not consult anyone about what had happened and/or who areon a contract without term tended to answer, “I did not experience any
particular change (in my physical/mental state and/or work).” In terms ofgender characteristics, female respondents didn’t.
Chapter 6: Characteristics of Student Respondents by Discipline
・ We sorted responses from students by discipline (i.e., the humanities and social
sciences, natural sciences, and interdisciplinary or other fields) to comparethem in terms of gender and harassment awareness. Students in the humanities andsocial sciences (HSS) showed somewhat greater awareness, those in the naturalsciences (NS) somewhat lower awareness, and those in interdisciplinary or otherfields (IO) were somewhere in between. Overall, no significant difference wasnoted.
・ There was no difference between the disciplines in their views of what theywould do if the hypothetical harassment behaviors were directed at them.
・

We compared responses from female students in terms of experiences ofharassment. More respondents in the HSS had the experiences of harassment in
human interactions they were unwilling to have than their counterparts in otherfields, whereas more respondents in the NS were prone to harassment during school
activities in the forms of being assigned to a role based on their gender and of
witnessing the display of sexual images in a common space such as a club room or
research office. Students in IO tended to be less subject to the behaviors ofharassment. One of the reasons for this tendency may be that many of these
respondents were first- or second-year undergraduate students who have been at
the University for only a limited time. We also compared responses from malestudents sorted by discipline. Although the comparison was done within a rangeof limited degrees of experiences, the tendencies by discipline were largely thesame.
・ First-year undergraduate students made up about 60 percent of the student in
IO. Among these students, the percentage of those who had experienced harassment
was notably lower than those of students in the other disciplines. This isprobably because they’d have had only limited in-person interactions due to thecoronavirus pandemic.
・ To the question about the effect of harassment they had been subject to, morethan half of the respondents answered “I did not experience any particularchange” in all disciplines. On the other hand, more respondents in the HSS
answered that they came to distrust other people and avoid the location where theharassment had occurred. When responses from men and women were compared, a highpercentage of female students in the HSS answered that they became sociallywithdrawn and/or their health was affected, whereas that of female students in
the NS answered that they changed their career plans. More male respondents in
the HSS answered that they avoided or distanced themselves from the location
and/or organization where they had been subject to harassment than those in otherfields.
Chapter 7: Differences in Awareness and Sexual Harassment Experience Rates: From
the Points of View of the Types of Respondents’Alma Mater and School Year・ Little difference was noted in gender and sexual harassment awareness between
undergraduate respondents from coed high schools and those from all-male or allfemale high schools. Among graduate students, only a slight difference inawareness

was

noted

betweenrespondents

from

the

University

of

Tokyo

undergraduate programs and those from other universities.
・ Notably higher percentages of female undergraduate students from all-female
high schools and of female graduate students from the University of Tokyo
undergraduate programs had experiences of sexual harassment. More male graduate
students from the University of Tokyo undergraduate programs also had experiencesof harassment than other graduate students from different universities.
・ It has been ascertained that both undergraduate and graduate students become
more prone to sexual harassment or get to witness or hear about harassment cases
as they spend more years at the University.

Chapter 8: Problem Awareness and Necessary Measures
・ About half of student respondents recognized that the University of Tokyo has
problems related to sexual harassment, sexism, and sexual violence. Thisawareness was particularly strong among females and those who identified
themselves as “Other” gender, undergraduate and PhD students, students in the
HSS, students from Japan, graduate students from the University of Tokyo
undergraduate programs, and respondents who had experienced sexual harassment.
・ A little over 40 percent of faculty and staff respondents recognized the problems.
This awareness was particularly strong among female professors/associate
professors/lecturers, male professors, those who have been working for the
University for many years, and those who had experienced sexual harassment andconsulted someone about the experience, and it was limited among females on
short-time working terms.
・ About half of student and faculty/staff respondents answered that “genderrelated education” and “full dissemination of the University’s counselling
services”should be implemented as measures by the University of Tokyo. Female
respondents tended to select the former and male respondents the latter, andrespondents who had experienced harassment tended to choose the options about
education and raising awareness.
Chapter 9: Analysis of Answers to the Open-ended Questions
・ Responses to the open-ended question asking about their experiences of sexual
harassment revealed that students were subject to such experiences mostly in
graduate schools, followed by undergraduate programs. The locations whereharassment occurred were, in descending order, “in a lab/seminar class/a school
course,” “during a circle/extracurricular activity,” “social gathering fora meal or drink,” “in a classroom/during a class.” The most common
perpetrators were students, followed by faculty members. The forms of harassment
were “exclusion/discriminatory treatment of a certain gender or sexuality,”“coercive

requests

to

play

a

gender/stereotypicalrole,”“bringingup/assessing/making fun of a person’s physical appearance and characteristics,”
and other microaggressions. Many acts that constituted “sexual offences” werealso listed in addition to “unintentional sexism.” There were also manyaccounts of harassment and discrimination that were not sexual.
・ Students’ responses to the open-ended question asking for their opinions were
diverse. They were divided into seven broad categories (e.g., “feedback on thesurvey,” “comments to bring attention to problems on the campus,” and“suggestions and requests”), each of which included numerous subcategories.
While these responses included a lot of criticism and doubts about the survey
method and details, many of them expressed support for the survey and hope forpublication of the survey results. Many of the suggestions and requests wereabout “education and training,” “the overall initiative,” and “public
relations/university-wide awareness and knowledge.”
・ Responses from faculty and staff to the open-ended question asking about theirexperiences of sexual harassment included a considerable number of comments
regarding their work, occupational duties, and family responsibilities, inaddition to the issues also raised by students. Just as students, faculty andstaff respondents gave accounts of acts that constituted microaggressions andunintentional sexism as well as serious sexual offences, and many described casesof power harassment and other various forms of discrimination.
・ Faculty and staff members’ responses to the open-ended question asking fortheir opinions included issues specific to faculty and staff as well as thoseraised by students. Some expressed agreement with having more female faculty andstaff members, and others disagreement. There were a certain number ofsuggestions about “the system and structure,” along with “requests for a more
extensive and in-depth survey.”
Chapter 10: Conclusions from the Analysis and Implications
・ All in all, student and faculty/staff respondents showed keen gender and sexual
harassment awareness. The overall level of the awareness turned out to be higher
than the previous survey. That said, some issues remain a concern. For example,
the majority expressed agreement with the statement “It is natural thatdifferences of ability and aptitude exist between men and women.” Among all
respondents, males, NS students, and first- and second-year students displayed
lower awareness in their responses to many of the survey questions. As forreactions to hypothetical sexual harassment directed at them, students andyounger faculty and staff members found it more difficult to clearly say “No”
than other respondents did if the perpetrator was someone in a higher position,
which confirms that power relationships within an organization has an influenceon the possibility of rejecting sexual harassment.
・ As to the reality of sexual harassment surrounding respondents, their answers
to the items that could be compared with the previous survey showed that thepercentage of those who had experienced the harassment did not decrease. The twomost common forms of harassment among students and faculty/staff alike were
sexual topics discussed in their presence and comments on their physicalappearances. Coercive assignment to varying roles based on gender also made up

a certain percentage among responses from faculty and staff members. The
percentages of those who experienced sexual harassment notably differed between
genders. Fewer male respondents had experiences. Around 10 percent of female
students had been subject to undesirable physical contact or advances, and also
around 10 percent of students who identified themselves as “Other” gender had
been subject to discriminatory words and behavior because they are a sexual
minority. Experience rates were relatively high among long-time students at the
University of Tokyo, students from all-female high schools, students indepartments with fewer female students, and students in the HSS. The rates werehigh among staff members, and faculty and staff members in their 30s. Many of
those who had harassed the student respondents were peers or older students, andmany of these perpetrators were males. Harassment tended to be repeated and had
greater adverse effects when the perpetrators were faculty members. Faculty andstaff members were prone to be harassed in the workplace or social gathering,and executive or senior faculty/staff members were perpetrators in many cases.
More respondents to this survey chose “I did not experience any particularchange” as the effect of the harassment directed at them than the previous
survey, and fewer respondents consulted with anyone about what had happened.
These findings indicate that sexual harassment has continued to occur withcertain frequency on the campus, varying by attribute and position of the
University community members and in detail and severity, and that the corrective
action needed has not been taken in quite a few cases.
・ More than 50 percent of student respondents and 40 percent of faculty and staff
respondents believed that “there are problems” on the campus. To address thisreality, the University should give priority to providing more extensive and indepth education and training as well as counseling services for all its community
members, as the survey confirmed that there is great demand for these efforts.
In addition, we should identify and respond to each of the items that require
specific institutional actions. Currently, there are discrepancies and discords
in perception among the University community members. The University of Tokyo
should present its precise ideas and direction even more clearly to rectify thediscrepancies and discords.
*Please also refer to Chapter 10 for the conclusion of our analysis.

Chapter 10: Conclusions from the Analysis and Implications
Summary・ All in all, student and faculty/staff respondents showed keen gender and sexual
harassment awareness. The overall level of the awareness turned out to be higher
than the previous survey. That said, some issues remain a concern. For example,
the majority expressed agreement with the statement “It is natural thatdifferences of ability and aptitude exist between men and women.” Among all
respondents, males, NS students, and first- and second-year students displayed
lower awareness in their responses to many of the survey questions. As forreactions to hypothetical sexual harassment directed at them, students andyounger faculty and staff members found it more difficult to clearly say “No”
than other respondents did if the perpetrator was someone in a higher position,
which ascertains that power relationships within an organization has an influenceon the possibility of rejecting sexual harassment..
・ As to the reality of sexual harassment surrounding respondents, their answers
to the items that could be compared with the previous survey showed that thepercentage of those who had experienced the harassment did not decrease. The twomost common forms of harassment among students and faculty/staff alike were
sexual topics discussed in their presence and comments on their physicalappearances. Coercive assignment to varying roles based on gender also made upa certain percentage among responses from faculty and staff members. The
percentages of those who experienced sexual harassment notably differed between
genders. Fewer male respondents had experiences. Around 10 percent of female
students had been subject to undesirable physical contact or advances, and also
around 10 percent of students who identified themselves as “Other” gender had
been subject to discriminatory words and behavior because they are a sexual
minority. Experience rates were relatively high among long-time students at the
University of Tokyo, students from all-female high schools, students infaculties/graduate schools with fewer female students, and students in the HSS.
The rates were high among staff members, and faculty and staff members in their30s. Many of those who had harassed the student respondents were peers or older
students, and many of these perpetrators were males. Harassment tended to berepeated and had greater adverse effects when the perpetrators were faculty
members. Faculty and staff members were prone to be harassed in the workplace orsocial gathering, and executive or senior faculty/staff members were perpetrators
in many cases. More respondents to this survey chose “I did not experience any
particular change” as the effect of the harassment directed at them than theprevious survey, and fewer respondents consulted with anyone about what had
happened. These findings indicate that sexual harassment has continued to occur

with certain frequency on the campus, varying by attribute and position of the
University community members and in detail and severity, and that the corrective
action needed has not been taken in quite a few cases.
・ More than 50 percent of student respondents and 40 percent of faculty and staff
respondents believed that “there are problems” on the campus. To address thisreality, the University should give priority to providing more extensive and indepth education and training as well as counseling services for all its community
members, as the survey confirmed that there is great demand for these efforts.
In addition, we should identify and respond to each of the items that require
specific institutional actions. Currently, there are discrepancies and discords
in perception among the University community members. The University of Tokyo
should present its precise ideas and direction even more clearly to rectify thediscrepancies and discords.
1. About the Chapter
Each of the chapters in this report offers a multiple-perspective analysis ofdata from the Survey on Awareness and Status of Diversity at The University ofTokyo conducted by the University of Tokyo in FY 2020. The respondents were students
as well as faculty and staff members. In this final chapter, Section 2 recapitulates
the insights provided in each chapter that are key to gaining an accurate pictureof the current realities facing the University of Tokyo. Then Section 3 discusses
the implications provided as to the measures that the University should take.
2. Summaries of the Insights Gained through the Analyses in the Chapters
2.1 Gender and Sexual Harassment AwarenessThis survey consists of three questions in order to gain a clear picture of theawareness and views that students and faculty/staff members have regarding genderand sexual harassment. Q1 asks whether respondents agree or disagree with given
statements about gender and sexual harassment. Q2 is designed to see if respondents
would react differently to certain behaviors that would likely constitute sexual
harassment if doers were different. Q3 asks how respondents would react to sexual
harassment in given cases. This section summarizes the results of the analysis
each chapter provides in connection with these questions.
2.1.1 Agreement/Disagreement with Views regarding Gender and Sexual Harassment
According to the results in Chapter 3 that analyzes responses to Q1, most of
the student and faculty/staff respondents expressed disagreementwith thestatements “Sexual jokes and topics help facilitate human relations,” “It isperfectly acceptable that women are expected to be feminine, and men masculine,”“The male-female ratio of 8:2 of undergraduate students at the University of Tokyo
reflects the difference in academic ability between men and women,” “It is
understandable for men to be generally more forceful in a romantic relationship,”“Romantic relationships between people of the same sex are abnormal,” and “A
person should not change the sex he or she was assigned at birth.” Although thepercentages of the students who expressed agreement were somewhat higher than thoseof faculty and staff, the differences were not notable.
As for the two statements “Expectations or requirements for a person’s work or
research will naturally be different depending on whether it is a man or a woman”
and “It is natural that people are divided into two sex categories of men andwomen,” responses that expressed agreement rose to 20 to 30 percent, and again
higher percentages of students agreed than those of faculty and staff. That said,
the students and faculty/staff members who disagreed greatly outnumbered those who
agreed.
As for the three statements “It is natural that differences of ability andaptitude exist between men and women,” “I am concerned about the potential
increase of false accusations of sexual harassment due to misunderstanding, false
claim, or malice,” and “I’d rather stay away from sexual harassment issues,”
responses that expressed agreement made up around 60 percent. Agreement with thesecond and third statements may be interpreted as the respondents’ concern about
negative effects and burdens that might accompany an increase in cases that arerecognized and/or accused as sexual harassment. The statement “It is natural thatdifferences of ability and aptitude exist between men and women” implies
acknowledgement of fundamental differences between genders, which is controversial
and cannot always be unconditionally accepted. Nevertheless, more than half of the
respondents agreed with it, which is worth noting.
According to Chapter 2 that examines differences between responses to this survey
and those to the last survey conducted in FY 2007, the percentages of responses
that agreed with many of these statements were significantly lower in this survey.
This likely indicates that, all in all, students as well as faculty and staff at
the University of Tokyo are more sensitive to sexual harassment and gender-based
discrimination than before. That said, the percentage of the respondents who agreed
with the statement “I’d rather stay away from sexual harassment issues” hasrisen in the recent years, especially among faculty and staff respondents. Thisimplies that faculty and staff increasingly perceive these issues as difficult andtaxing to handle.
Going back to the results in Chapter 3, when we look at differences in theawareness among students or faculty and staff according to their attributes, thepercentages of responses that agreed with these statements were relatively highamong male students, NS students, first- and second-year students, and students

from all-male high schools. Among faculty and staff members, differences in the
responses to many of these statements between internal attributes were not as clear
as those among students. Among international students and foreign national faculty
and staff, which of the statements got low or high percentages of agreement differedfrom that among students and faculty/staff members from Japan. This type ofdifference in awareness among respondents has also been observed with high accuracy
in the multiple regression analysis that used the questions integrated into threefactors as dependent variables.
Chapter 6, which provides a comprehensive look at differences in the responses
from students sorted by discipline, also points out that students in the HSS weremost inclined to disagree with all statements presented in Q1, even after the maleto-female ratio was corrected, that NS students were most inclined to agree withthese statements, and that students in IO largely fell somewhere in between. The
chapter also states that there were considerable differences between disciplines
in responses to “It is natural that differences of ability and aptitude exist
between men and women” and “It is natural that people are divided into two sex
categories of men and women.” As reasons for these findings, it is surmised thatNS students might have associated these questions with biological differences in
reproduction and that the limited number of women, along with the scarcity ofdiversity education that also covers gender issues, in the NS faculties/graduate
schools, might have influenced their answers1).
Chapter 7 examines differences in the awareness between respondents sorted bygender and school year, using the indicators that integrated answers to Q1, witha focus on the types of high schools undergraduate respondents were from and thetypes of universities graduate respondents were from. The analysis results in thechapter confirm that female students and upper-year students were more aware ofgender equality issues, whereas it states that whether the types of high schoolsor universities they went to made any differences was inconclusive.
2.1.2 Perceptions about Which Behaviors Constitute Sexual Harassment and How They
Would RespondQ2 and Q3 were more specifically about sexual harassment perceived by respondents.
Chapters 4 (students) and 5 (faculty and staff) analyze responses to the questions.
Chapter 4 analyzes Q2 that asked if respondents would deem each of the 10
behaviors provided as sexual harassment. About 80 percent of student respondents
answered that all behaviors would always or could be deemed as sexual harassment
if the doer was a faculty or staff member. Yet the percentages of students whochose “always deemed” varied between the behaviors, while around 70 percent
answered that the following would always be deemed as harassment: “Sends you longtext messages/e-mails that have nothing to do with your job or research on a daily

basis,” “Stares at parts of your body (such as breast, hip, legs, and crotch),”“Has a photo of individuals in their swimsuits or sexual images as a wallpaper orscreen saver on their computer,” “Brings up the topic of your sexual orientationor gender identity without your consent,” and “Names and/or makes fun ofindividuals who are gay, lesbian, or of unknown sex.”
When differences in the responses sorted by students’ attributes were examined,
fewer male students answered that almost all behaviors would be “always deemed”
as sexual harassment, as might be expected. Notably fewer male students chose theanswer “Says things like ‘Girls should be loveable,’ or ‘be a man,’” whichconstitutes a behavior that forces a person to accept a gender role, would always
be deemed as sexual harassment.
For that matter, Chapter 7 also points out that responses from male students to
Q2 clearly indicated their lower awareness and that there was almost no differencein the responses that was attributable to the types of high schools or universities
the male students had gone to. Moreover, Chapter 6 provides the analyses of
responses sorted by discipline in relation to Q2 as well as Q1, confirming thatstudents in the HSS have the strongest sexual harassment awareness, followed bythose in IO, and then NS students.
Chapter 5 analyzes responses from faculty and staff to the same questions. The
behaviors that high percentages of the respondents would deem as sexual harassment
were the same as those that many students would deem as harassment. Those choices
were “Names and/or makes fun of individuals who are gay, lesbian or of unknown
sex,” “Brings up the topic of your sexual orientation or gender identity without
your consent,” “Stares at parts of your body (such as breast, hip, legs, andcrotch),” “Has a photo of individuals in their swimsuits or sexual images as awallpaper or screen saver on their computer,” and “Sends you long text
messages/e-mails that have nothing to do with your job or research on a daily
basis,” among others.
Chapter 5 also conducts multivariate analysis that overviews the tendencies in
the responses from faculty and staff to all behaviors. The analysis results confirm
that higher percentages of the respondents would deem these behaviors as sexual
harassment in the case that the respondents are a female or someone who specified“Other” or “Don’t want to answer” as their gender, someone who is older,someone who is not on a limited-term contract, someone who is not a foreign national,
and in the case that these behaviors were done by an executive faculty member ortheir boss rather than colleagues. Again, responses from male faculty and staff
members indicated relatively low awareness that certain behaviors would constitutesexual harassment.
According to the analysis in Chapter 2 that compares the responses to Q2 withthe previous survey responses, more students and faculty/staff members answered

that they would deem almost all these behaviors as sexual harassment than in thelast survey. Just as the responses to Q1 indicate, this finding implies respondents’keener sexual harassment awareness.
Q3 gave three hypothetical situations, namely where someone “Makes you feel
uncomfortable with verbal remarks (sexual topics, imposition of gender roles,
insults, etc.),” “Personally asks you out (for a meal, to go see a movie, etc.),
when you don’t want to go,” and “Makes unnecessary and overly familiar physicalcontact with you (such as holding your hand, touching your back, waist or shoulder).”
Then it asked respondents to choose a reaction from the options provided, namely“Clearly convey the message that you dislike such behavior,” “Implicitly convey
the message that you dislike such behavior,” and “Do not convey the message,”considering who the perpetrator was.
About 50 percent of students and faculty/staff members answered that they would“clearly convey the message that they dislike such behavior” in the case ofphysical contact. However, only around 30 percent of students and faculty/staff
respondents chose the same response to the first two situations (Chapters 4 and2).
Chapter 4 examines students’ responses sorted by hypothetical perpetrator. The
results show that the highest percentage of students would “clearly convey themessage that they dislike such behavior” if “a student in the same year or lower
grade” was the perpetrator. Nearly the same percentages of students chose this
response

in

the

case

of

a

“faculty

or

staff

member

other

than

their

instructor/supervisor” and a “student in a higher grade or a person of a higher
rank.” The lowest percentage chose this answer in the case of “theirinstructor/supervisor.” These findings confirm that students would find it
difficult to say “No” when the perpetrator was in a higher rank. For example, ifthey took offense at something that their instructor/supervisor said, students who
would “not convey the message” (28.5%) outnumbered those who would “convey themessage that they dislike such behavior” (23.8%).
Chapter 7 analyzed students’ responses the same way. The analysis finds that
there was little difference between genders or university years, whereas students
who had been in high schools and/or universities overseas tend to say “No” inclear terms. Chapter 6 also states that there was almost no difference in the
responses from students that was attributable to their disciplines.
According to the results of the multivariate analysis that overviews responses
from faculty and staff in Chapter 5, the respondents who were staff members,
younger, Japanese nationals, and/or not on short-time working terms tended not to
say “No” if the perpetrator was an executive faculty member or their boss,
regardless of the respondents’ gender. Given these findings, the chapter calls
attention to the issue that although a behavior exhibited by an executive faculty

or supervisor can easily be deemed as sexual harassment, faculty and staff areunable to clearly say “No” especially when they are younger or in a relatively
weak position in the organization.
Chapter 2 also compares responses to Q3 with those in the previous survey. The
results confirm that more students and faculty/staff members in this survey
answered that they would say “No,” especially “implicitly,” to almost all
situations. This indicates that more respondents are inclined to reject sexual
harassment.
2.1.3 Summation of Respondents’ AwarenessAs we have seen thus far, student and faculty/staff respondents on the whole
showed keen gender and sexual harassment awareness. The overall level of theawareness turned out to be higher than that shown in the previous survey. Thatsaid, some issues remain a concern. For example, the majority expressed agreementwith the statement “It is natural that differences of ability and aptitude exist
between men and women.” Among all respondents, males, NS students, and first- andsecond-year students displayed lower awareness in their responses to many of thesurvey questions. As for reactions to hypothetical sexual harassment directed atthem, students and younger faculty and staff members found it more difficult toclearly say “No” than other respondents did if the perpetrator was someone in ahigher position, which confirms that power relationships within an organization
has an influence on the possibility of rejecting sexual harassment.
2.2 Experiences of Sexual Harassment
2.2.1 Reality of Sexual Harassment Experiences
The previous section overviews the analysis results related to respondents’awareness. What is equally important is the reality of sexual harassment
experiences on the campus of the University of Tokyo.
Q4 in this survey listed 13 behaviors and asked respondents to select all thatapplied to each of these behaviors from the options of “I have been subject tosuch behavior,” “I have been consulted about such a case,” “I havewitnessed/heard about such a case,” and “I have never experienced or heard aboutsuch a case.” Then Q5 - Q11 asked in detail about the experience (or “the most
upsetting experience” if a respondent had been subject to more than one of thosebehaviors), such as the setting, the respondent’s and the perpetrator’s positions,
whether the respondent consulted anyone about what had happened, and the effectthat the experience had on the respondent.
Chapter 4 analyzes students’ responses related to their experiences. The
experience that got the highest percentage of students’ responses was “having
heard sexual topics and obscene jokes in an unwanted way” (12.7%), followed by

“having been subject to conversation about their appearance, body shape, clothes,age, height, baldness, or body hair in an unwanted way” (10.0%). The otherexperiences got only 0.3 to 3.7 percent. That said, when the experience rates were
sorted by gender, 18.1 percent of females and 22.7 percent of respondents of“Other” gender “had heard sexual topics and obscene jokes in an unwanted way,”while only 9.9 percent of males selected this option. Moreover, 9.4 percent and9.3 percent of females “had been looked at with an obscene look, had been
physically approached too closely, or had been subject to overly familiar physicalcontacts” and “had been persistently asked out (for a meal or to see a movie),
repeatedly received phone calls or e-mails, or been stalked” respectively. 16.7
percent of the respondents who identified themselves as “Other” gender “hadbeen avoided by other people because they could not decide whether they are a man
or a woman or been laughed at or teased for being a sexual minority (such asLGBT).” Since these experience rates are not low, these findings indicate that
there are concerns about the reality of sexual harassment at the University ofTokyo.
Then Chapter 4 moves on to examining the factors that might have had an effecton the experience rates through multivariate analysis, using the indicators thatre-classified the 13 items into five groups. The results show that experience rates
were higher among females and respondents of “Other” gender as well as long-timestudents at the University of Tokyo and that experience rates rose among
respondents in faculties/graduate schools with fewer female students. The results
also

confirmthatexperience

rates

tendedtobehigher

among

men

in

faculties/graduate schools with high percentages of female students. These findings
are critical in that the survey has found a gender ratio between the University
community members influences the incidence of sexual harassment.
The analysis in Chapter 8 has also confirmed that the longer students wereenrolled at the University, the higher their experience rates grew. In addition,it has also been found that female undergraduate students from all-female highschools had higher experience rates.
Chapter 6 examines experience rates sorted by respondents’ discipline. According
to the results of the examination, students in the humanities and social sciences(HSS) had the highest rates of experiences of the behaviors, followed by naturalscience (NS) students, and then by students in interdisciplinary or other fields(IO). These results were the same after the male-to-female ratio was corrected ineach of the disciplines. The reason for the lowest percentage among students in IO
is likely that the classification “students in interdisciplinary and other fields”
included undergraduate students in the Junior Division and because of thecoronavirus pandemic, first-year students attended classes mostly online when thissurvey was conducted. When we consider the findings that more students in the HSS

experienced sexual harassment and that NS students had lower awareness of sexual
harassment as stated in the previous section, it is surmised that the presence of
not a small number of sexual harassment cases in the HSS faculties/graduate schools
made students more keenly aware of the reality. It is also possible that NS students
might not recognize some behaviors as sexual harassment when they are subject tothem because they are less sensitive to the reality.
The analysis in Chapter 5 also shows that the top two experiences that faculty
and staff members had were the same as those that students had. But the experience
rates for “having been subject to conversation about your appearance, body shape,
clothes, age, height, baldness, or body hair in an unwanted way” and “having
heard sexual topics and obscene jokes in an unwanted way” were 6.2 percent and5.4 percent respectively, which were lower than the rates among students. On theother hand, 4.4 percent “had been assigned a certain role based on sex/gender inan educational or research setting or in the workplace; or had been treateddifferently based on gender/sex in terms of work or research,” which is higher
than the experience rate among students (3.1%).
Chapter 5, just as Chapter 4, also re-classifies these items into five groups
for multivariate analysis. Unlike students’ cases, the effect that respondents’genders might have had on experiences was not obvious, except that fewer males had
been subjected to unwanted relationship. It has also been noted that more
respondents in their 30s had experienced sexual harassment and that fewer
respondents on short-time working terms had experienced sexual harassment.
The examples and wording used in this question have been considerably changed
since the previous survey in FY 2007. Nevertheless, the results in Chapter 2 thatexamines differences from the last survey in comparable items show that experience
rates have not dramatically changed.
To sum up the findings in Chapter 4, the following details of students’ sexual
harassment experiences have been shown: many of the perpetrators were peers orolder students; the perpetrators were predominantly males, whereas females wereperpetrators in about 20 percent of the cases; students were repeatedly harassed
when the perpetrators were faculty members, and a relatively large percentage ofthese students “put up with the behavior” as their response; as the effect that
their sexual harassment experiences had on them, 24.7 percent selected the answer“I felt depressed, became aggressive to others, and became emotionally unstable,”and 12.5 percent “I came to distrust, feel disgust at, or fear other people,”
indicating that these negative effects should never be downplayed; and the negative
effects were particularly notable when the respondents were not males or were
graduatestudents,

when

the

perpetrators

were

the

respondents’

instructors/supervisors, and when the respondents were harassed repeatedly by thesame perpetrators. The findings in Chapter 6 about differences between students’disciplines show that, even after controlling gender, more male and female students
in the HSS suffered the negative effects than NS students. This may have something
to do with the fact that more students in the HSS were harassed by the same
perpetrators multiple times.
To sum up the findings in Chapter 5 about details of faculty and staff members’
experiences of sexual harassment in the same way, the following have been
ascertained: the situation in which they had been subject to harassment was mostly
either “during regular working hours” (41.2%) or “during a social gathering”(40.0%); administrative staff was most prone to harassment; many of theperpetrators were male “executive or senior faculty members” and “staff
members”; about 30 percent of those who were subject to sexual harassment
consulted someone about what had happened, many of the people they consulted were
their colleagues, and they hardly chose to contact an external expert or
specialized institution; and they consulted someone mostly when the negative effectof the harassment was strongly felt.
According to Chapter 2 that compares these details of sexual harassment provided
by respondents with those in the previous survey, somewhat more respondents“implicitly” said “No” to the perpetrators, yet there had been no increase in
the cases where respondents clearly rejected the harassment behavior, and there
had been no decrease in the cases where respondents put up with the behavior. It
is also notable that significantly fewer respondents “consulted anyone” about
the harassment they had been subject to than the previous survey. It is difficult
to compare who the respondents in this survey consulted with the previous survey
because the options provided this time were considerably different than those
provided last time. As the reasons why they had not consulted anyone, more
respondents, particularly students, selected the answers “I didn’t think that
consulting someone would help solve the situation” as well as “I didn’t feelthe need to consult anyone.” Moreover, as the effect of the sexual harassment
they had suffered, significantly more respondents in this survey chose the answer“I did not experience any particular change.”
Chapter 9 provides an analysis of answers to open-ended questions that presents
in detail specific examples of sexual harassment that could not be identified by
the multiple-choice questions. In addition to sexual harassment and gender-based
bias and discrimination, numerous examples are given to show that the Universityof Tokyo has problems that must be addressed, including power harassment, academic
harassment, speech and action that lack respect for people, and problems in systems.
2.2.2. Summation of Respondents’ Experiences of Sexual Harassment
As we have seen thus far, as the reality of sexual harassment surrounding
respondents, their answers to the items that can be compared with the previous

survey show that the percentage of those who have experienced the harassment has
not decreased. The two most common forms of harassment among students andfaculty/staff alike were sexual topics discussed in their presence and comments on
their physical appearances. Coercive assignment to varying roles based on genderalso made up a certain percentage among responses from faculty and staff members.
The percentages of those who experienced sexual harassment notably differed between
genders. Fewer male respondents had experiences. Around 10 percent of female
students had been subject to undesirable physical contact or advances, and also
around 10 percent of students who identified themselves as “Other” gender had
been subject to discriminatory words and behavior because they are a sexual
minority. Experience rates were relatively high among long-time students at the
UniversityofTokyo,

students

fromall-femalehighschools,

students

infaculties/graduate schools with fewer female students, and students in the HSS.
The rates were high among staff members, and faculty and staff members in their30s. Many of those who had harassed the student respondents were peers or older
students, and many of these perpetrators were males. Harassment tended to berepeated and had greater adverse effects when the perpetrators were faculty members.
Faculty and staff members were prone to be harassed in the workplace or social
gathering, and executive or senior faculty/staff members were perpetrators in manycases. More respondents to this survey chose “I did not experience any particularchange” as the effect of the harassment directed at them than the previous survey,
and fewer respondents consulted with anyone about what had happened. These findings
indicate that sexual harassment has continued to occur with certain frequency on
the campus, varying by attribute and position of the University community members
and in detail and severity, and that the corrective action needed has not beentaken in quite a few cases.
2.3 Problem Awareness, Necessary Measures, and Opinions related to Current
Realities Facing the University of Tokyo
This section recapitulates the overall problem awareness, measures that need tobe taken in the future, and various opinions related to current realities facing
the University of Tokyo.
As a question designed to see respondents’ problem awareness, Q13 “Do you thinkthat there are sexual harassment, sexual discrimination, or sexual violence-related
problems in The University of Tokyo?” asked respondents to choose one answer fromthe choices of “I don’t think there are any problems at all,” “I don’t think
there are serious problems,” “I think there are problems,” and “I think there
are serious problems.”
According to Chapter 8 that analyzes responses to this question, 6.9 percent ofstudent respondents selected the first answer, 44.5 percent the second, 39.7

percent the third, and 7.5 percent the fourth (1.4 percent selected none), whichindicates that the total percentage of the students who gave answers that did not
acknowledge problems is nearly the same as that of those who answered there areproblems. That said, the respondents who chose “I think there are serious problems”
comprise 7.5 percent and when they are combined with those who selected “I think
there are problems,” the students who provided answers that acknowledged problems
accounted for almost 50 percent. This reality should not be viewed with optimism.
As for faculty and staff respondents, 5.5 percent selected the first answer,
48.8 percent the second, 37.2 percent the third, and 4.9 percent the fourth (3.6
percent selected none), which shows that while slightly more faculty and staff
members provided answers that did not acknowledge problems, more than 40 percent
answered there are problems.
These responses also revealed that students’ and faculty/staff’s problem
awareness varied between their attributes and positions. Male students showed
limited awareness, while students in the HSS, long-time students at the Universityof Tokyo, and professors displayed keen awareness.
Q14 asked “What do you think are the most urgent or important measures that the
University should implement to prevent sexual discrimination and violence? Please
select up to three options from the following” and presented eight choices in thequestionnaire for students and seven choices in that for faculty and staff. The
analysis results in Chapter 8 show that the most-chosen answers both by students
and facutly/staff members was “Incorporate gender related education in the student
curriculum and training programs for faculty and staff,” followed by “Advertisethat the University offers counselling service on sexual harassment problems andmake sure that everyone knows about it,” and then “Improve counselling services,
for instance by increasing the number of counselors with professional expertiseand experience.” Only a small number of respondents chose “Other,” yet many of
the answers that students specified in this field requested tough penalties,
corrective

actionfor

extracurricular

activities,

and

help

from

external

specialists, and those that faculty and staff members specified suggested
improvements in post-consultation actions as well as greater gender diversity.
Chapter 9 sorts opinions provided by respondents at the end of the questionnaireand shows that many stated there should be education and training for not only
students but also faculty and staff, along with more rigorous and extensive
university-wide initiatives. Section 3 below discusses the implications provided
as to the measures that the University of Tokyo should take in line with these
opinions.

3. Implications of the Findings and Insights
3.1 Priority Measures
3.1.1 Education and Training
As stated in the previous section, the necessary measure that was most requested
by student and faculty/staff respondents was education and training for students
and faculty/staff. Many of the opinions provided in the open-ended question alsosuggested how education and training should be given and what they should offer.
Major suggestions include the following:- All students and faculty/staff should be required to receive sexual harassment
prevention education and training, just as they have to take information
security training, because it is essential to ensure that students andfaculty/staff members with lower awareness and the likelihood of becoming
perpetrators also attend.
- What actions likely constitute sexual harassment or sexual discrimination, andwhat problems a perpetrator and victim face when harassment occurs, should beclearly communicated.
- Education and training should use techniques designed to have a great
educational impact on participants, adopting role-playing and workshop-stylesessions, in addition to just imparting knowledge.
- Cases of sexual harassment that actually occurred at the University of Tokyo
should be used for discussion (without disclosing the names of the people
involved) to ground the program in reality.
Adopting all of these at once may be difficult. Yet, given that there are growing
needs for education and training, it is desirable that the University provides awell-developed educational curriculum for students and training program for faculty
and staff as soon as possible. The University of Tokyo has been showing an
educational video about diversity and inclusion to undergraduate students in the
Junior Division since July 2021. The University should also improve this video sothat it will be geared for a wider range of audiences and settings.
3.1.2 Enhancement of Counseling Services
Better availability of counseling followed education and training as a measurethat the University should take in both surveys of students and faculty/staff.
Respondents listed the need to ensure that everyone at the University would know
about counseling services and to hire skilled counselors. It is quite known acrossthe University that the Harassment Counseling Center and the Student CounselingCenter are available. That there are persistent calls for counseling services
nevertheless indicates that, as respondents’ answers to the open-ended question
imply, the current services are considered inadequate. Some of these answers mightbe based on misunderstandings and incorrect information. Such misunderstandings
should be cleared up, whereas the University should explore the possibility of
improving and expanding the counseling systems it offers. The major suggestions
that respondents made in detail in their answers to the open-ended question include
the following:- Providing a clearer picture of the process/procedure the University uses to
respond to a report of sexual harassment and ensuring that it is known to all
University community members.
- Setting up a service for helping University community members contact offcampus third-party professionals with legal expertise and/or authority tointervene.
- Establishing a well-developed program designed to provide care and follow-ups
for both perpetrators and victims.
- Setting up an anonymous counseling service available via e-mail or LINE.
- Clearly presenting the procedures for selecting and training faculty and staff
members

responsibleforhandling

sexualharassment

issuesineachfaculties/graduate schools.
- Improving and expanding the counseling service available to international
students in their languages.
These ideas may also be difficult to incorporate at once, yet the University
should discuss which one can be adopted as soon as possible.
There was also criticism against the copy “Harassment??” on the Harassment
Counseling Center’s current leaflet. It is suggested that this copy, which may
sound as if harassment were encouraged, be changed.
3.2 Other Specific Measures to Explore
In their answers to the open-ended question, respondents provided many specificissues that the University of Tokyo should systematically address, other than theneed for education and training as well as counseling services. The following aresome of the major issues we present as a step toward improvement:- First- and second-year female students are divided into classes as evenly as
possible across the Junior Division. This often creates a classroom settingwith only a few female students in some divisions, making these women feel
isolated. The University should reconsider its policy on gender composition in
the classroom2).
- The PE course required in the Junior Division is coed, and female students
often find themselves in an awkward or unpleasant situation in class. Gendercomposition should be reconsidered for this reason as well.
- Many school documents require that a gender be specified even when one’s genderhas nothing to do with the purpose of the documents. This field should beremoved.
- The University should provide single-sex locker rooms, changing rooms, andlounges, etc.
It should also be noted that responses contained many criticisms and doubts about
the method and details of this survey, along with requests for improvements andexpansion. Chapter 9 presents those comments in detail. The comments indicate thatthe survey should be continuously reworked in order to ensure respondents’anonymity, increase the response rate, and provide relevant questions. Many
comments also requested that the University conduct the survey repeatedly. Hence,
it is vital to do a survey for the same purpose every few years to monitor thesituation on the campus. Moreover, many pointed out that the contents of the survey
are exclusively about sexual harassment and gender although the title is “Survey
on Awareness and Status of Diversity at The University of Tokyo” and that othertypes of diversity or power harassment and academic harassment, among others,
should also be surveyed. The University should consider doing more extensive
surveys.
Many responses to the open-ended questions, particularly those from students,
mentioned that sexual harassment and sexual discrimination are prevalent in
extracurricular activities and the orientation camp for new students, in addition
to the above issues that the University of Tokyo is clearly responsible foraddressing. In connection with this matter, the FY 2020 College of Arts and Sciences
Orientation Committee at the University of Tokyo announced the policy in January
2020 that clubs and circles that refuse to accept female members are not allowed
to participate in orientation activities. This was a step forward, yet it has been
pointed out that gender-related problems remain in clubs and circles. Many also
raised the issues of prevalent activities that involve lookism and/or commercial
intent, including male and female beauty pageants and Todai Bijo Zukan (Universityof Tokyo Beauties Encyclopedia). The University of Tokyo has maintained the basic
stance that it respects students’ autonomy in extracurricular activities. However,given that these activities may serve as a breeding ground for sexual harassment,
sexism, and sexual offences, it is time for the University to commit to not allowing
any form of these behaviors.
3.3 Addressing Differences in Awareness on the Campus
Finally, we will present the findings from various opinions provided by students
and faculty/staff that particularly call for attention. As recapitulated in Section
2 of this Chapter, the awareness and reality of sexual harassment and gender issues
vary among the University of Tokyo community members. It should be particularly
noted that the survey results clearly showed the tendency of lower awareness andfewer experiences of sexual harassment among male members, who make up the majority.

Of course, these males include those with acute awareness and/or sexual harassment
experiences. There are also cases where non-males are perpetrators. Nevertheless,on the whole, males as the majority on the campus still seldom note the situation
surrounding a minority.
Furthermore, some males resent or feel repelled by the University’s recent
policy that clearly aims to increase gender diversity, that is, to increase female
students and faculty/staff members. This is because they perceive the policy as
unfair “reverse discrimination” and unfair preferential treatment given to women.
The fact that some of the University community members have this type of perception
could lead to a situation where women and sexual minorities would feel even more
uncomfortable on the campus. In their answers to the open-ended question, somefemales mentioned the experiences of being insulted by words or behavior against
the policy as unfair preferential treatment. Some female respondents also expressed
their doubts about the policy that focuses on “women” as a category of people toincrease and give preferential treatment.
The University of Tokyo should directly face and consider these realities, andthen continue its efforts to provide convincing explanations to its community
members as to why it should aim to create gender diversity. The University’s
ultimate goal should be to become an institution where all community members arerespected as individuals regardless of gender. This will also serve as the key toaddressing other types of harassment and discrimination than sexual ones.
A university is inherently an organization that can easily turn into a breeding
ground for harassment, discrimination, and exclusion because it consists of members
in a wide range of positions and roles, with power relationships and asymmetrical
relationships clearly at work between them, and it focuses on excellence ineducation and research. To lessen this pathology as much as possible, theUniversity should demonstrate greater commitment to universal causes, including
respect for individuals, refusal to interfere in and/or violate privacy, andendorsement of assertion of rights. These ideas are already included in The
University of Tokyo Charter, yet that is not enough. The University is expected tocontinue presenting, internally and externally, where it aims to go with resolution.

Notes:
1) The interdisciplinary research on the spectrum of sex, which presents acontinuous, rather than binary, view of sex, has been making progress. Hence, thefact that the conventional fixed idea of sex is more dominant among NS students
may change in the future. Please refer to the website below for what the spectrumof sex is:
Research in the new academic field “Sex Spectrum”

(http://park.itc.u-tokyo.ac.jp/sexspectrum/index.html)
2) In 2020, the administration department of the University of Tokyo discussed how
to rectify this situation and decided to “place about five female students
wherever possible in the first foreign language course in Natural Sciences I (orplace all female students in one class if fewer than five female students takethe language course). This policy will be enforced in FY 2021, and if no major
issue arises, it will continue to apply from FY 2022 onward.” The plan has been
carried out on a trial basis since FY 2021.