Understanding institutional betrayal
Photo by Wiser by the Mile on Unsplash
The places meant to protect us can harm us
I dislike the metaphor of the backpack.
In lots of trauma-informed education texts, authors use a visual of a backpack to describe how students’ experiences of trauma come with them, no matter where they go. That’s true, but if you’ve ever opened a child’s backpack, you know something else: lots of stuff gets crammed into the backpack at school. That mess spills out when they get home, even if their backpack was empty in the morning.
Schools can cause trauma. And lately I’ve been returning to one concept that explains how schools can cause and worsen student trauma: institutional betrayal.
Developed by Jennifer Freyd, the concept of institutional betrayal explains how the institutions that are supposed to help us—schools, colleges, healthcare systems, the military, for example—can actually harm us or worsen the harm we experience while involved with those institutions.
Here’s a definition: “Institutional betrayal includes deliberate acts or acts of omission (e.g., negligence) perpetrated by institutions onto individuals that rely on these institutions for support, resources, protection, and in some cases survival.” (Smidt & Freyd, 2018).
What makes institutional betrayal so harmful?
According to Freyd, institutional betrayal is a type of betrayal trauma. Betrayal trauma theory is the concept that harm from someone we know and trust hurts more or differently than harm from a stranger.
When we trust the systems we’re embedded in, it harms us when those systems deny, diminish, or worsen our personal experiences of harm. Imagine a student who goes to her favorite teacher to report that she’s experiencing bullying. The bullying is already traumatic. When the teacher says, “It doesn’t sound like that big of a deal,” or “I’m not sure who to believe,” the betrayal then compounds the harm. In Freyd’s research, sexual assault survivors who also experienced institutional betrayal experienced heightened PTSD symptoms.
Institutions and systems hold power over the individuals within them. The impact of the denial and silencing are profound.
Cornell’s response to Jane Doe is institutional betrayal.
Institutional betrayal has been on my mind as I read the news coming out of Cornell University the past couple of weeks. Jane Doe is facing institutional betrayal, and so are many others (at Cornell and beyond) as we face this reminder of what institutions usually do when survivors ask for justice and for support.
Look at the items on the Institutional Betrayal Questionnaire (this one is from Smith & Freyd, 2013, other versions here). How do you see these present in the Cornell story? In your own?
Is the institution...
1. Not taking proactive steps to prevent this type of experience?
2. Creating an environment in which this type of experience seemed common or like no big deal?
3. Creating an environment in which this experience seemed more likely to occur?
4. Making it difficult to report the experience?
5. Responding inadequately to the experience, if reported?
6. Covering up the experience?
7. Punishing you in some way for this experience (e.g., loss of privileges or status)?
There are other ways for institutions to show up
Freyd, who conceptualized institutional betrayal, also conceptualized institutional courage.
Institutional courage is “an institution’s commitment to seek the truth and engage in moral action, despite unpleasantness, risk, and short-term cost.” (institutionalcourage.org)
Among the Steps to Promote Institutional Courage: Commit to seek the truth. Add checks and balances to power structures. Cherish the whistle-blowers.
What would our institutions look like if we committed to these steps? What if we recognized that the institution is never more important than the people within it?
What can we do as educators?
Even if we didn’t sign up to teach to become an agent of an institution, we do represent the institution for our students. You may have strong relationships with your students as individuals, but your decision-making still reflects institutional policy and priorities. Because of this position, we need to be accountable for how we might be demonstrating institutional courage—or perpetuating institutional betrayal.
This means reflecting on how we step up in moments of harm.
What role do you play in making sure that students can report harm, be believed, and be supported?
How do you stand alongside your students when they are wronged within your school?
How are you fostering an environment where harm doesn’t occur in the first place?
These aren’t easy questions, but they’re the heart of our work as trauma-informed educators. If you’ve been feeling unsettled by stories of institutional betrayal in the national news, channel some of your energy into these discussions locally. We are all part of the collective work to prevent trauma and to support trauma survivors.
Learn more
In case you can’t tell, I’m a superfan of Freyd's work. Explore resources on institutional betrayal and institutional courage at https://www.institutionalcourage.org/.
I also write about schools as sites of trauma and discuss institutional betrayal in Equity-Centered Trauma-Informed Education.
Thanks for reading. We can’t do it all, but we can all do something. Get started.
