Suffering in Silence: Reasons Why Victims of Gender-Based Violence in Higher Education Institutions Choose Not to Report Their Victimization

Abstract

The underreporting of gender-based violence (GBV) in institutions of higher learning can be attributed to a range of causes and has an impact on students’ physical and mental health. Institutions of higher learning have made efforts to eradicate the problem, yet incidences are still on the rise, calling for urgent attention. This paper focuses on the causes of the underreporting of GBV in higher education institutions (HEIs) as a point of reference to understanding the root magnitude of the pandemic in order to devise problem-specific interventions to eradicate GBV in institutions of higher learning. The rational choice theory and cultural acceptance of violence theory guided the analysis of the findings discussed in this paper. The rational choice theory provides insights into why victims choose not to report their victimization. The cultural acceptance of violence theory highlights how cultural norms can normalize and perpetuate GBV, creating barriers for victims to come forward. The findings discussed in this paper emanate from a qualitative study that gathered data using 22 one-on-one interviews with students and one focus group comprising seven supporting staff members from the University of Zululand. Data were thematically analyzed to address the research objectives. The findings indicate that intimidation and distrust in law enforcement agents and institutions are the main reasons why GBV is underreported. Other factors that may be at play include fear of the perpetrator taking revenge, fear of not being believed, stigma and shame, the patriarchy, reliance on money, and a lack of awareness about GBV. To address these issues, this paper recommends that higher education institutions should uphold the principles of justice, fairness, and transparency in handling GBV cases. Moreover, there should be ongoing facilitation of awareness campaigns on GBV covering issues of consent, gender equality, safety, and reporting and support. When victims of GBV feel supported, they are more likely to trust the institution and report any victimization.

1. Introduction

Gender-based violence (GBV) remains one of the most pressing human rights violations globally, undermining individuals’ rights to safety, dignity, and protection (South African Government 1996, Chapter 2, Bill of Rights). It encompasses physical, sexual, psychological, and emotional behaviors that can harm an individual’s well-being and health. Efforts to address GBV were initiated by introducing the Republic of South Africa’s Constitution in 1997, which guarantees equality and human dignity for all citizens and explicitly prohibits GBV in any form (Brink et al. 2021). However, despite constitutional measures, incidents of GBV at higher education institutions (HEIs) are underreported, and a culture of silence prevails (Von Meullen 2021).

Institutions of higher education, which are meant to be spaces of safety and intellectual growth, have become environments where students’ rights are violated through acts of GBV. Recent incidents bear testimony to this disturbing trend. For example, in November 2023, a female student at the Cape Peninsula University of Technology (CPUT) was brutally stabbed multiple times by her partner in a private student residence (The Citizen 2023). In another case, a University of Zululand lecturer was suspended following allegations of sexual harassment against a female student (University of Zululand 2024). These events highlight the persistence of GBV in academic institutions. They reflect a broader pattern of violence that is often silenced or ignored due to underreporting.

Global and national studies reinforce the seriousness of this issue. According to the World Health Organization (WHO) (2021), one in four women worldwide suffers fatal consequences from intimate partner violence (IPV). While GBV can affect anyone, women are disproportionately targeted. In South Africa, the Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET) (2020) acknowledges the absence of comprehensive national data on GBV within HEIs, highlighting both the neglect of this issue and the lack of adequate response mechanisms.

Low reporting rates significantly hinder efforts to address this issue. Mofokeng and Simelane (2024) note that many women do disclose their experiences, but primarily to informal sources such as friends or family, rather than to police or institutional authorities. International findings mirror this trend. A European survey by UniSAFE across 46 universities in 15 countries found that 31% of students and staff experienced sexual harassment, yet only 13% reported it (Lipinsky et al. 2022). Many victims cited uncertainty about the seriousness of the behavior or failed to recognize it as violence at the time. This points to a broader problem of limited awareness and understanding of what constitutes GBV, contributing to the silence that surrounds it.

South African research further illustrates the severity of the problem. A study by Mutinta (2022) conducted in the Eastern Cape found that 58% of university students had experienced some form of GBV. Despite this, 98.6% of those affected did not report their experiences to law enforcement. The reasons included fear of parental reactions, believing that the incident was not serious enough, fear of retaliation, and a lack of knowledge about how or where to report. These findings emphasize the urgent need to examine not just the prevalence of GBV but the specific barriers that prevent victims from coming forward.

Despite the urgent need for institutional accountability, many universities lack clear policies and effective support systems to combat GBV (Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET) 2020). As Mahabeer (2021) observes, ambiguous reporting channels and limited support structures leave victims feeling isolated and hopeless. Consequently, students increasingly turn to informal platforms such as social media to voice their experiences (Davids 2020; Mofokeng and Simelane 2024), further entrenching the culture of silence and fear that discourages formal reporting.

This paper seeks to investigate the underlying reasons behind the underreporting of GBV in South African HEIs, focusing specifically on women as victims. By examining the social, institutional, and psychological barriers to reporting, this paper aims to provide evidence-based recommendations that can inform the development of effective, victim-centered interventions and policies. Addressing underreporting is critical to breaking the cycle of violence, ensuring accountability, and creating safe learning environments for all students.

2. Factors Causing Gender-Based Violence

Gender-based violence (GBV) is a significant problem in universities and has an impact on students’ physical and mental health. It can take many different forms, including sexual assault, rape, violence against intimate partners, and stalking (Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET) 2019). GBV is a problem in universities for several reasons, such as alcohol and drug misuse, poverty, hook-up culture, and sex for marks. These factors are discussed in detail in the subsequent sections.

2.1. Alcohol and Drug Abuse

Alcohol and substance abuse are also significant contributors to GBV in universities. Students who use alcohol and drugs may be more likely to engage in risky behaviors, including sexual assault and intimate partner violence. Research has shown that alcohol use is a common factor in campus sexual assault (Abbey et al. 2004; Shiva et al. 2021). A cross-sectional study by Ajayi et al. (2021) associates sexual violence with substance abuse, as several perpetrators perpetrated GBV when under the influence of alcohol or drugs. For example, when a man at a tavern buys drinks for ladies, he expects a relationship or sex in return. When he does not attain his objective, he uses threats. Mbandlwa (2020) contends that women should know that everything comes at a price; if they are not ready for a relationship or sex, they should not accept alcohol from strangers. This perspective places the responsibility for preventing sexual violence on the victim rather than holding the perpetrators accountable for their actions. Suggesting that women should avoid situations where they might be offered alcohol to prevent potential sexual violence shifts the blame away from the perpetrator’s decision to use alcohol or drugs as a tool for manipulation and control and onto the victim’s supposed failure to avoid risky situations. This argument fails to address the core issue, which is the perpetrator’s behavior and the broader societal factors that enable GBV. This, according to Haikalis et al. (2017), perpetuates victim-blaming attitudes that suggest that women are somehow inviting or responsible for the violence they experience when they drink.

The findings of Ajayi et al. (2021) and Makhaye et al. (2023) assert that male students buy beverages for female students, pressure them to consume alcohol beyond their limits, and abuse them when intoxicated. Alcohol intoxication can incapacitate individuals, subjecting them to rape or the inappropriate and unwanted touching of genitals (Anderson and Naidu 2022). Drug and alcohol abuse, associated with a drinking culture, increases sexual violence alongside negative gendered norms. House parties, emblematic of the overlapping nature of drinking culture and rape culture, can produce a hostile environment, enhancing the probability of sexual encounters (Kiguwa et al. 2015). This prevents victims from reporting, as they cannot identify or interpret cues, negotiate, or make an active decision during such incidents (Chitsamatanga and Ntlama 2020).

2.2. Poverty

George (2020) posits that gender-based violence (GBV) can be attributed to poverty, establishing a connection between the two phenomena. The argument suggests that poor regions are more susceptible to witnessing acts of violence, including homicides, severe assaults, and intimate partner violence, owing to the presence of financial disparity and limited economic development (Yesufu 2022). Moreover, impoverished women may become targets of sexual exploitation by men seeking monetary gain and essential resources, as poverty compels them to enter relationships with higher-income individuals (UN Women n.d.). For instance, financially disadvantaged female students might resort to engaging with “sugar daddies” to cover not only luxury items but also necessities such as tuition fees, educational materials, and clothing (Mgijima 2014).

Similarly, Mutinta’s (2022) study reveals that underprivileged or economically challenged students are more likely to experience GBV when engaging in relationships, becoming financially dependent on their partners and subsequently relinquishing their agency in the relationship. These students often find themselves at the mercy of their financially supportive partners, granting them authority and control (Jasor 2020). Makhene (2022) further argues that the practice of women feeling obligated to establish relationships and engage in sexual activities with men to secure financial support amplifies their vulnerability to victimization and sexual coercion. In this paper, we classify this as a socio-economic-related GBV because women are subjected to abuse due to financial gain.

2.3. Hook-Up Culture

Hook-up culture, which is prevalent on many college and university campuses, can also contribute to GBV. Hook-up culture refers to a normative culture that emphasizes casual sexual encounters without emotional attachment or commitment (Garcia et al. 2012). Studies have shown that students who participate in hook-up culture are more likely to experience sexual assault and other forms of GBV (England et al. 2008). For example, in a study by Manik and Tarisayi (2021, p. 9), a first-year student was invited by a fellow female student to a party, where she was raped. At the party, there were flashy guys with nice cars; she was lured into a car, becoming a victim at the scene. This incident reveals that hook-up culture creates hostile environments, which exposes students to several forms of violence, such as sexual assaults, rape, and oral sex (Garcia et al. 2012). Moreover, this also confirms that first-year female students are a vulnerable group. For many students, the first-year experience of living away from family care and supervision exposes them to abuse, as they have greater opportunities for experimentation. Because of their age and lack of experience, they become more vulnerable to abuse and lack the skills to protect themselves.

Furthermore, hook-up culture may contribute to GBV by perpetuating gender stereotypes and power imbalances. For example, some studies have found that men are more likely to initiate hook-ups, while women are more likely to feel pressure to comply with male advances (Fielder and Carey 2010). This power dynamic can make it difficult for women to assert their boundaries and can increase the risk of coercion or assault. As a result, victims may question whether their experience was really GBV or may be less likely to seek help if they believe their experience is just a normal part of hook-up culture. This can lead to victims of GBV feeling ashamed or embarrassed about what happened to them and being less likely to come forward and report the incident.

2.4. Sex for Marks

“Sex for marks” refers to a disturbing phenomenon where students are coerced or manipulated into engaging in sexual activities with their educators or other academic staff members in exchange for favorable grades, academic advantages, or other benefits (Makhafola 2020). This issue has gained attention as a form of sexual harassment and abuse of power within higher education institutions, highlighting the vulnerability of students and the abuse of authority by those in positions of power. Several studies and reports have shed light on the prevalence of “sex for marks” within higher education institutions. For instance, a study by Ibuchim Nnorom (2024) in Nigeria found that a significant proportion of female students reported experiencing some form of sexual harassment, including solicitation of sexual favors for academic advantages. Such incidents reinforce the unequal power dynamics between students and those in positions of authority, fostering an environment where the dignity and well-being of students are compromised. This power imbalance violates students’ rights to a safe and respectful educational environment.

One major reason victims of “sex for marks” are reluctant to report these cases is the fear of retaliation or negative consequences. A study by Oni and Tshitangano (2019) conducted in South Africa investigated the experiences of university students with regard to sexual harassment. The findings highlighted that “sex for marks” was a recurring concern, particularly for female students. The study indicated that students often felt powerless to report such incidents due to fears of retribution or disbelief from authorities. In this context of “sex for marks”, victims worry about damaging their academic progress or being targeted by those in authority if they speak up. Thus, Mofokeng et al. (2024) argue that these cases are hard to prove. Makhafola’s (2020) study findings provide evidence to this assertion, as one of his respondents attests that she did not report her victimization because she feared that reporting would make her learning environment unpleasant as the perpetrator was a friend of the HOD of the department.

The above factors have laid a foundation for understanding the different dynamics that inform the prevalence of GBV in higher education institutions. To address the purpose of this paper, we now specifically engage the causes of the underreporting of GBV in higher education institutions according to research.

3. Understanding the Barriers That Perpetuate the Underreporting of Gender-Based Violence Cases in HEIs

Multiple interrelated factors contribute to victims’ reluctance or inability to report incidents. These include deeply entrenched cultural and social norms that stigmatize survivors, often blaming them for the abuse they experience. Fear of retaliation from perpetrators, as well as concerns for personal and familial safety, also plays a critical role. Institutional barriers, such as mistrust of law enforcement, inadequate legal protection, and the absence of survivor-sensitive support services, further discourage reporting. These dimensions shape the lived experiences of victims and significantly influence their willingness (rational choice) or ability to report GBV incidents (Yesufu 2022; Malatjie and Mamokhere 2024). According to Adams et al. (2013) and Makhafola (2020), institutional failures, such as inadequate support systems, insufficient training of staff, and a lack of clear and accessible reporting mechanisms, perpetuate an environment where victims feel unsupported and vulnerable. Intersectionality reveals that these barriers are not experienced equally by all victims. Women from low-income families may fear losing financial support if the perpetrator is a breadwinner, while students from minority racial groups may distrust predominantly white institutional structures, perceiving them as unsympathetic or discriminatory (Collins 2022; Yesufu 2022). In this section, we engage some of these factors in efforts to shed light on the barriers that discourage the reporting of GBV.

3.1. Gender and Power Dynamics (Patriarchy)

The intersection of gender and institutional power significantly contributes to the underreporting of GBV. Perpetrators in authoritative positions, such as lecturers, often exploit their status to intimidate victims into silence. Makhafola (2020) documents instances where female students refrained from reporting sexual harassment by lecturers due to fears of academic retaliation and the disruption of their educational pursuits. This dynamic is further compounded by societal patriarchal norms that perpetuate male dominance and normalize such abuses of power. Davis and Meerkotter (2017) argue that these entrenched power imbalances facilitate an environment where male perpetrators manipulate institutional structures to suppress victims’ voices, thereby reinforcing a culture of silence.

Likewise, Mkhize (2015) and Makhafola (2020) concur with the notion that patriarchal power is utilized in societies to exert control over women, thereby perpetuating GBV. A respondent in Kabaya’s (2021) study referred to women’s reluctance to speak out about their victimization, attributing it to ingrained teachings of submission and acceptance of violence as a manifestation of love. This observation underscores the perilous implications of patriarchal norms and gender socialization for women. Consequently, Mkhize (2015) advocates for both women and men to recognize and address gender equity issues at an early stage as a means to tackle divisive gender inequality. This contention aligns with Armstrong et al. (2006) and Cranney’s (2016) argument that gender-inequitable attitudes and beliefs significantly contribute to certain crimes, while they also influence the reporting of such crimes. This suggests that women who choose not to report their experiences of GBV may be influenced by these prevailing attitudes.

3.2. Cultural Norms and Social Stigmas

Cultural expectations and social stigmas surrounding sexuality and gender identity further complicate the reporting of GBV. Victims may fear social ostracization or reputational damage, particularly in environments that condone casual sexual relationships or stigmatize non-heteronormative identities (Kabaya 2021). DeGue (2014) emphasizes that victims often anticipate judgment from peers or authorities, deterring them from disclosing their experiences. LGBTQ+ individuals face additional barriers, as their experiences are frequently marginalized or dismissed within heteronormative institutional cultures, compounding their reluctance to report (Alcantud et al. 2021). Fear of reputation damage is another significant barrier that prevents victims, particularly female students, from reporting GBV. Kabaya (2021) highlights how women are often stigmatized and labeled as provocative, especially in cases of rape. Victims worry about being perceived as impure or tainted, a concern deeply rooted in cultural norms that prioritize women’s chastity and morality (Malatjie and Mamokhere 2024). This stigma amplifies the emotional burden on survivors, creating an atmosphere of silence and shame that discourages open discussions about GBV.

The pervasive culture of victim-blaming exacerbates the challenges faced by survivors of GBV, particularly women. Victims are often held accountable for the crimes committed against them, with societal focus placed on factors such as their dress code or behavior at the time of the incident (George 2020). This unfair attribution of blame is not only unjust but also psychologically damaging, discouraging victims from seeking justice or support. Studies by Grubb and Turner (2012) and Mansour et al. (2021) highlight the troubling association between sexist attitudes, acceptance of rape myths, and a greater tendency to blame victims. These attitudes create a hostile environment where survivors fear judgment, further silencing their voices.

3.3. Lack of Confidence in Institutional Responses

A significant factor contributing to the underreporting of GBV is the lack of confidence in institutional authorities and reporting mechanisms. De Klerk et al. (2007) highlight this issue, citing examples such as Rhodes University, where the failure to hold perpetrators accountable discouraged victims from reporting incidents. Victims often feel unsupported and unheard, a sentiment exacerbated by institutional responses that prioritize reputation over justice (Makhaye et al. 2023). This lack of trust in institutional mechanisms reflects a broader pattern of neglect and insensitivity toward survivors, perpetuating a cycle of silence. Institutional responses to GBV play a pivotal role in shaping survivors’ decisions to report. Through the lens of the rational choice theory, Kidd and Chayet (2010, p. 1) contend that crime victims rationally decide not to report their victimization to law enforcement authorities as the result of three factors that act singly or in concert: “(a) victim fear, (b) feelings of helplessness and the perceived powerlessness of authorities, and (c) the threat of further victimization from law enforcement authorities”. This can be argued to be true when a victim of GBV does not have confidence in institutional responses.

Additionally, Griffin (2023) and Makhaye et al. (2023) found that poorly handled cases, where victims were dismissed or blamed, significantly influenced students’ perceptions of the reporting process. Witnessing or learning about such negative experiences leads to a lack of confidence in institutional support and contributes to a culture of silence. Furthermore, survivors may internalize the idea that reporting is futile when they observe peers being met with insensitivity or injustice (Kidd and Chayet 2010). The rational choice theory provides a framework for understanding this, as Carling (1992) predicts that rational individuals will choose the alternative that gives them the greatest satisfaction. In situations where the costs of reporting outweigh the benefits, individuals may choose not to report their experiences of GBV. This decision may be influenced by factors such as fear of exposure to the offender and the potential ramifications thereof, a lack of faith in institutional response processes, and concern over how the institution or police would handle the case (De Klerk et al. 2007; Adams et al. 2013).

3.4. Fear of the Perpetrator

The fear of retaliation or further harm from the perpetrator is another critical factor that discourages reporting. According to Saferspaces (2022), when institutions fail to respond adequately to GBV cases, they inadvertently send a message that survivors’ safety and well-being are not priorities. (Kidd and Chayet 2010) argue that ineffective institutional responses exacerbate survivors’ fears, deterring them from seeking help. This perception of institutional apathy fosters an environment where survivors are left to navigate their trauma in isolation. For survivors of GBV, this mistrust persists as the justice system is often perceived as unresponsive or biased, particularly in cases involving vulnerable populations (Steyn and Steyn 2008). This barrier can be noted to be true for students in higher education institutions.

Makhaye et al. (2023) argue that this disillusionment stems from the justice system’s ongoing failure to adequately address and resolve GBV cases. Historical patterns of neglect, including the dismissal of survivors’ accounts and mishandling of evidence, have perpetuated the belief that the system is incapable of delivering justice. This issue is particularly pronounced in communities where systemic inequalities have left survivors without access to adequate legal representation or support services, further entrenching barriers to justice (George 2020). As a result, survivors within HEIs may internalize the broader societal mistrust in justice systems, perceiving institutional policies and reporting mechanisms as similarly ineffective or biased. This perception, coupled with inadequate support structures and the fear of re-victimization, discourages students from coming forward, perpetuating a cycle of silence and injustice.

3.5. Socio-Economic Status and Vulnerability

Socio-economic disparities intersect with gender to exacerbate vulnerabilities among female students. Students from economically disadvantaged backgrounds may be coerced into non-consensual sexual activities under threats of academic failure or promises of financial assistance, a phenomenon colloquially known as “sex for marks” (Oni and Tshitangano 2019). Makhafola (2020) highlights how perpetrators leverage the economic insecurities of female students to demand sexual favors, exploiting their desperation to succeed academically. This coercion is facilitated by institutional cultures that often prioritize reputation over accountability, as noted by Makhaye et al. (2023), thereby discouraging victims from reporting due to fears of institutional inaction or personal repercussions. These are some of the factors that play a role in discouraging victims of GBV from reporting their ordeal in HEIs.

4. Methodology

The findings discussed in this paper were extracted from a study conducted at the University of Zululand KwaDlangezwa’s main campus. This study employed a qualitative research approach grounded in the hermeneutics paradigm to explore the reasons for the underreporting of GBV at the University of Zululand (UNIZULU). The aim was to gain a deep understanding of students’ and staff members’ experiences and perspectives related to GBV reporting. The researcher used non-probability sampling, specifically purposive and snowball techniques, to select participants who were most knowledgeable about the issue. This study targeted postgraduate students and support staff, with inclusion criteria requiring postgraduate students (aged 20–40) with a minimum of four years spent at the institution. This demographic was considered to possess sufficient familiarity with campus culture and institutional responses to GBV. Students were sampled from all four faculties to ensure disciplinary diversity.

Support staff participants were selected from departments directly involved in GBV-related services, including the Protective Services Department (PSD), Pastoral Care Unit, Student Services Department (SSD), the Office for Students with Disabilities, and the Housing Unit. Only staff members with a minimum of three years of service were included to ensure experiential depth. Snowball sampling was subsequently employed to expand the pool by leveraging participant referrals (Acharya et al. 2013) while ensuring variation in gender, age, cultural background, and disciplinary affiliation. The final sample consisted of 29 participants, comprising 22 postgraduate students engaged through one-on-one semi-structured interviews and 7 support staff members who participated in a focus group discussion. Both male and female participants were included to ensure gender balance and diverse viewpoints.

Data were collected using semi-structured interviews and a focus group guide, both designed to probe participants’ understanding of GBV, reporting procedures, perceived barriers to reporting, and suggestions for improving the reporting culture. Interviews were conducted in a private setting (the researcher’s residence on campus at UNIZULU) and lasted approximately 20 min each. The focus group session was held online via Microsoft Teams for convenience and lasted around 60 min. The language of interviews was English, although isiZulu was used for clarification when needed, with participants often code-switching between the two languages.

Informed consent was rigorously upheld. Participants were provided with full details of the study, including its purpose, data handling procedures, voluntary nature, and their right to withdraw. Consent forms also covered the use of audio recordings. To safeguard participants’ mental well-being due to the sensitive nature of the topic, a professional psychologist from the Guidance and Counselling Department was on standby throughout the data collection process.

Thematic analysis, as described by Braun and Clarke (2006), was employed to analyze the data. Audio recordings were transcribed verbatim, and the researcher manually coded the data by identifying key phrases and grouping them into themes. An inductive approach was applied to allow themes to emerge naturally from the data. The themes were refined and validated through repeated engagement with the transcripts. Verbatim quotes were used in reporting to support the findings and maintain authenticity.

To ensure this study’s trustworthiness, the researcher applied Lincoln and Guba’s (1985) criteria. Credibility was reinforced through persistent observation and triangulation; transferability through thick description; dependability through detailed documentation of research procedures; and confirmability through the use of audio recordings and supervisor validation. Ethical clearance was obtained from the university’s ethics committee and the Registrar, and all data were stored securely in accordance with the Protection of Personal Information Act No. 4 of 20213 (POPIA). Personal identifiers were removed, and pseudonyms were used to protect participant confidentiality.

In the discussion of findings sections, students are referred to as S1 to S22, and staff members from the Protective Service Department are referred to as PSD1 and PSD2. Lastly, staff from the Student Services Department are referred to as SSD1 to SSD5.

5. Findings and Discussion

This paper engages many responses that depicted a growing concern about the causes of the underreporting of GBV in HEIs. The participants voiced their perspectives on the factors contributing to the underreporting of GBV. Some participants shared their lived experiences and observations, while others shared what they heard.

5.1. The Impact of Patriarchy on GBV Perceptions and Behaviours

It is evident from the responses of students that patriarchal standards learned at home are manifested in the university context. The general assertion is that the university is a microcosm of society, so any social ills that exist in the immediate society will be manifested in the university. This observation aligns with the learning theory, where students internalize patriarchal standards within their homes and subsequently practice them within the university context. For instance, women may learn a sense of helplessness, while men learn to embody traditional notions of masculinity. Hence, this influences their rationale for reporting. The following student participants said:

S2 (female):

“My take on this is, that even university is the reflection of the larger society and outside out there we have kids that grow up at home with domestic violence, only to find that the parent or a mother is not doing anything about it. Or they heard that the mother next door is being beaten and you see bruises, but the father never gets arrested. So, how can we expect people growing up in a society like that to be willing to come forward with such issues and report for themselves if it is something that we don’t see outside?”

S12 (male):

“Some students experience this thing of GBV at a younger age while they are at the primary level. But now, maybe his father is abusing her mother…maybe that matter is not reported, then that person is going to think, you know….if you are subjected to such instances in the future there is no need to report”.

The normalization of violence within households inhibits individuals from recognizing and addressing GBV. This behavior aligns with the culture of violence theory, which posits that societal attitudes toward GBV can deter victims from reporting their experiences (World Health Organization (WHO) 2009). Furthermore, Dlamini and Makhaye (2023) support this argument as they attest that in cultures where violence is normalized as a means of conflict resolution, victims may fear blame or retribution for speaking out. Consequently, victims of GBV may internalize societal norms and refrain from reporting, perceiving it as the expected course of action. A participant stated:

S6 (male):

“What contributes to GBV is that we are from different societies with some places believing that women must be punished whenever they do wrong. They see it as an act of love to hit a woman. To them, hitting a woman is all about discipline. So, when they come to university, they come with that perspective and apply it.”

Another participant stated:

S22 (male):

“As for me, relationship-wise I don’t think I would ever become a victim of GBV because I am a man, and the woman should know her place. I have that mentality, finish.”

The above statement affirms some men’s perception of their masculinity as superior and their mentality of constraining a woman’s ability to assert authority within relationships. Such men tend to condition women to accept their subordinate roles. This, according to Mkhize (2015) and Hadi (2019), is entrenched in the system of patriarchy, where men hold all the power and dominate women.

5.2. Fear of Being Tainted by Stigma and Shame

The phenomenon of societal stigma and shame contributing to the underreporting of GBV can be understood through the lens of the “Abantu bazothini” syndrome (what will people say). This psychological phenomenon influences individuals to prioritize the opinions of others over their own well-being, deterring them from reporting incidents and perpetuating a cycle of victimization. In this paper, we argue that the societal stigma surrounding GBV deters victims from disclosing their experiences due to the fear of being labeled or judged. This fear of stigma and shame is evident in the responses of both students and staff, who expressed apprehension about the repercussions of disclosing their experiences, citing the fear of being judged, pitied, or ridiculed by others, which leads to a preference for confiding in trusted friends rather than seeking formal assistance. The preference to confide in a friend is a clear indication that individuals suffer from “Abantu bazothini” syndrome (stigma and shame). These findings are similar to Randa and McGarry (2023), who reveal a prevalent fear among individuals of being labeled as GBV victims, leading to concerns about the potential exploitation of their vulnerability if they were to disclose. This concern is exemplified in the responses provided by both students and staff participants below:

SSD1 (male):

“I would say what really make students to struggle with reporting is the fear of stigmatisation and some of them fear that everybody will know my business and I don’t want them to know my business”.

S2 (female):

“The chances are, there is this shame that comes with what has happened to me. Sometimes I don’t want people to know that this has happened to me because people will start thinking less of you because you were beaten by your boyfriend or something like that. So, I think I would prefer confiding to a friend, but not just any friend, a very close friend, someone I trust”.

S7 (female):

“What I can say is that people are living in this thing of thinking ‘what will people say?’. This is what hurts them the most because they think people will know what happened in their relationship.”

S4 (male):

“Yes, people don’t report it. Maybe they are afraid that others will see that they are victims. It is not easy, especially for someone who has been raped. Everyone will know that this person is vulnerable and stuff. It’s courage and fear of being seen by people as a victim. It is not easy to be a victim, you see.”

S3 (male):

“I think what makes people to not report is the fear. Fear comes in different ways. One may fear that people they are close to will know about their problem.”

The above sentiments express the perspective that individuals are impacted by the fear of societal stigma and shame. This renders them more susceptible to continued abuse and perpetuates the cycle of victimization.

5.3. Intimidation

The findings underscore a pervasive issue of the underreporting of GBV not only in South African universities but also globally, with intimidation emerging as a key factor hindering reporting efforts. From the analysis, the data revealed that in any violation of rights, there is intimidation, and if there is intimidation, people hide what has happened. The underreporting of GBV emerges not merely from victims’ reluctance but rather from the exacerbating influence of intimidation. This notion resonates with the assertion made by one of the staff members in a focus group discussion, who lamented the imbalance of power between violators (positions of authority) and the violated (vulnerable and voiceless) throughout the reporting journey by saying:

SSD2 (male):

“There is a very sad story about violators, they have powerful positions, and the violated, unfortunately, are very vulnerable. They are in a position where they can’t even report because along the way of reporting they are silenced”.

The participant went on to say:

SSD2 (male):

“I suppose I want to be very strong on this to say it is not underreporting; it is the fear that has been instilled in students because they don’t have people who can stand up and represent them.”

These power differences have been extensively documented in the literature as key contributing factors to underreporting. Pratto and Stewart (2020) and Mbatha (2023) explicitly correlate the underreporting of GBV with these entrenched power imbalances, elucidating how hierarchical structures perpetuate silence and cycles of abuse. Furthermore, Makhafola (2020) contends that individuals in positions of authority often exploit their power to coerce compliance from vulnerable individuals, thereby perpetuating a culture of intimidation and silence. We have seen this in the case of a lecturer in the “sex for marks” phenomenon discussed earlier in this paper. This highlights that the vulnerable will always be exposed to danger and violence because they lack the power to protect themselves and fight back. The student stated:

S9 (male):

“It could be intimidation. It happens sometimes that a person is threatened…uhm…and the lack of dependence. They lack the sense of self to fight for themselves.”

Moreover, participants shared experiences where victims faced pressure from friends and family to withdraw their cases, particularly in instances where economic dependence on perpetrators was involved. This pressure is particularly pronounced in cases where the perpetrator is the breadwinner within the family unit. In such cases, familial pressure is often exerted on victims to refrain from reporting incidents of GBV, as the family’s livelihood may be contingent upon the continued support of the perpetrator. This concurs with Moir et al. (2022), who presented financial dependence as a barrier preventing victims from reporting GBV as they fear losing financial support if they report abuse. This also highlights the role of familial and societal pressures in deterring victims from seeking help or reporting abuse (DeGue et al. 2014). This dynamic perpetuates the cycle of GBV. The participants in the focus group discussion made the following assertion regarding this by saying:

SSD2 (male):

“I’ve got some cases where students will come in and say, 15 years ago this is what happened to me but am not sure what to do and I will give them all the steps. But eventually, the family becomes powerful and says…. if you report this the breadwinner is not going to help us”.

PSD1 (male):

“We tend to experience a couple of withdrawal of cases. People reportthese cases and then immediately after maybe…perhaps after the families, perpetrator, and the victims have met after reporting and then they come back and decide that they withdraw these cases. That is very common. So….ahmm at times it goes to a point where these issues are withdrawn from the police not only here at PSD, from the police [repetition]. A female student would come and say, as family we decided that we should not carry on with this case. So, I am withdrawing the case”.

These findings highlight the complex interplay of familial expectations, financial dependency, and social norms in creating a formidable barrier for victims seeking help against GBV. In many cases, victims may feel compelled to comply with the wishes of their family or community, even at the expense of their own safety and well-being.

5.4. Fearing the Perpetrator

The fear of retaliation from perpetrators or their associates was a recurring theme in participants’ narratives, further reinforcing the notion that intimidation acts as a significant deterrent to reporting GBV incidents. McGuire et al. (2021) shed light on this phenomenon, emphasizing that a substantial number of GBV survivors opt to remain silent about their experiences due to the intimidation tactics employed by their abusers. The fear of potential retaliation looms large in the minds of victims, deterring them from seeking help or disclosing their abuse to authorities (Adams et al. 2013). The reluctance to report stems from a deep-seated apprehension that any action taken against the perpetrator may worsen the situation. In light of this, the following assertions were articulated by students:

S6 (male):

“The victims fear that the perpetrator will come back again to abuse them after they are not arrested. So, I think that the thing why people don’t see the need to report”.

S20 (female):

“Maybe they fear that they will report, and their perpetrators come back to threaten them”.

Other participants confirmed the above notions:

S7 (female):

“I think most time, most women are overpowered by fear. They fear that what if I report this person and when he comes back from jail, maybe he will do something to me.”

S13 (female):

“Maybe fear is what discourages them; maybe, if they report, the abuse is going to get worse if the perpetrator finds out. Most of the time, the perpetrators intimidate victims or threaten them in some way.”

S18 (female):

“Most of the victims fear threats from the perpetrator that’s why they end up not reporting; they just let it go and live with the trauma”.

The fear of retaliation, whether physical or psychological, serves as a powerful deterrent, compelling victims to reconsider pursuing legal action. This fear emanates from a lack of trust in law enforcement, which has proven ineffective in providing adequate protection to victims after reporting (Steyn and Steyn 2008; George 2020; Makhaye et al. 2023). This failure to ensure safety exacerbates the fear experienced by survivors, as victims expressed concerns that reporting their abuse may exacerbate the situation, leading to further violence or harm. This stresses the pressing need for reforms to bolster victim support systems and enhance the responsiveness of law enforcement in addressing such concerns.

Additionally, it emerged that perpetrators are not the sole intimidators of victims, as it was argued that individuals close to the perpetrators also engaged in intimidation tactics through threats and social pressure. This assertion finds support in the research conducted by Cakal (2021) and Tordjman (2022), who argue that perpetrators are not the only intimidators as individuals close to perpetrators also engage in intimidation tactics. In support of this notion, some participants stated:

PSD2 (female):

“In some cases, you find that the victim is threatened by the friends of the perpetrator, not the perpetrator himself or herself. There are cases where we found that the victims were males, and you would find that the group of girls will threaten the male to come and withdraw the case”.

SSD1 (male):

“I believe that peer pressure as well whereby the friends of the perpetrator would collude with his/her friends into saying, ‘Please go and plead with him or her to withdraw the case’”.

SSD4 (female):

“Generally, GBV is underreported and to share my story that I have experienced. I at some point assisted someone in reporting that she was violated. And by assisting, I ended up being a victim of being harassed and then to say why did I not alert the guy that this person was saying that.”

The experience shared by SSD4 highlights how secondary victimization manifests and perpetuates fear. SSD4 recounted how assisting a GBV victim in reporting a violation led to her own harassment, as she was blamed for not alerting the perpetrator about the victim’s intentions. This response underscores how institutional and societal attitudes can shift blame away from perpetrators and place it on those seeking justice. Such actions serve to protect the violator while isolating and intimidating victims and their supporters, thereby reinforcing a culture of silence around GBV (Jennings 2013).

5.5. Distrust of Law Enforcement Agents and Institutions’ Support Services

A significant majority, comprising 25 out of 29 participants, assert that the primary cause of underreporting lies in the perceived failure of both law enforcement and institutional authorities to adequately protect victims and hold perpetrators accountable for their actions. This sentiment was shared by both students and staff members, thus indicating a widespread recognition of the issue. Students and staff participants had the following to say:

S10 (male):

“I can say lack of trust. I think lack of trust is caused mostly by student politics, you see. Because if I have been violated by a person from SASCO, I know that SASCO has power. So, if I report my case, these people are well-connected so my case could disappear and I end up not getting justice.”

SSD2 (male):

“Some of the major reasons people not reporting are exactly the spaces where we report because people do not get protected. And if you look at GBV in particular, generally it is done by well-known people in the communities, and those well-known individuals are actually feared by the members of the community. And how much more if I had to go and report at the police station and the police also actually laughing at you? And you come back you are not safe and, in a nutshell, GBV like any other violation of human rights it is because of the intimidation and the lack of law in our societies across the world”.

The assertion made by SSD2 indicates the political perspective of crime, whereby the law favors those who are in power. This suggests inequality in legal protection, violating the rights of victims who are vulnerable and marginalized. This right is enshrined in Section 8 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, which guarantees equality and human dignity for all citizens and explicitly prohibits GBV in any form. It can therefore be argued that law enforcement violates the rights of GBV victims by failing to protect them and ensuring that they receive justice. This lack of support has contributed to people feeling unsafe in any space (Yu 2021). As a result, victims resort to not reporting their cases because they do not trust that they will get the necessary protection, treatment, and justice that they deserve. A study by Palmer and Kutateladze (2021) highlights that when institutions fail to respond adequately to GBV cases, it sends a message that the safety and well-being of survivors are not prioritized. Victims and the general university community feel exactly this way when cases are not dealt with accordingly. The following statement by a participant reflected on the distrust people have in law enforcement in South Africa:

SSD2 (male):

“I am going to cite a case that unfortunately has nothing to do with the institution. But the case highlights who violates and who is violated. The issue has come to a stage where the person is saying, unfortunately, that South Africa is not safe. ‘I have been violated several times and the perpetrator is known and nothing is done about the perpetrator.’ In fact, even the bigger community is afraid of the perpetrator. If you look at that kind of scenario, you will also even see a situation where somebody says, ‘I think I rather die because there is no space where somebody can hear me. Even if I can be heard, if I come to counselling, I can be heard, but beyond counselling there is no safe space’.”

The student participants referred the issue of distrust in the South African CJS:

S20 (female):

“I think South African law contributes to discouraging people from reporting because we never heard of any case solved in South Africa. So, how can they report if they haven’t seen anyone succeed in their case? Obviously, they will think reporting will be useless because the case won’t go anywhere.”

S19 (female):

“Mina, here in this institution, report? I don’t think so, because I just feel like the justice system here in the institution has failed in a lot of things. So, I feel like it won’t do me any justice. I have seen a lot of things happening in front of me. So, I don’t feel like they would do me justice; rather, I would be just traumatising myself even more, going up and down attending cases, being unable to heal and finding peace with this… So, no.”

The responses by participants S20 and S19 resonate with the rational choice theory. This theory posits that individuals will engage in a cost–benefit analysis when they determine the validity of reporting a case of GBV. According to Wittek (2013), if the perceived costs of reporting outweigh the expected benefits, individuals are less inclined to report incidents of GBV. Some participants in the current study questioned the authority of law enforcement agencies, arguing that they were notorious for failing people in terms of providing justice:

SSD2 (male):

“We want to know what happens at the point of reporting because we have seen several times that people are actually failed at the places where they report the cases. Where we report is actually the main cause.”

S12 (male):

“They also worry about the designated reporting offices in terms of providing assistance. Yes, counselling is available but would they hold that person accountable? I think that is why they are not reporting; they get worried about whether accountability will happen or not.”

S6 (male):

“Another thing that contributes to underreporting is the fear of reporting someone and they don’t take that issue seriously. At the end of the day, nothing is done to hold that person accountable, like they don’t get arrested.”

It should be noted that beyond legal frameworks, South African universities implement their own institutional responses to sexual harassment and other forms of GBV (e.g., protocols or support services for victims), such as GBV hubs, Protective Service Departments where cases are reported and investigated, and student counseling divisions where victims are given psychological support. These are guided by institutional policies that were mandated by the Department of Higher Education and Training.

5.6. Bound to the Perpetrator by Financial Dependence

Economic disparities and financial dependency within relationships exacerbate the risk of experiencing GBV, especially among financially unstable individuals. Participants highlighted how some students, particularly those reliant on their partners for financial support, may feel trapped in abusive relationships due to the fear of losing economic stability if they were to report the abuse.

S12 (male):

“Mmm, they don’t report as far as I can say. You should remember that we are having older people. You will find a student in a relationship with an older person, people who are working in places like Richards Bay. Maybe when she gets beaten by this person, she won’t be able to report because maybe she is depending on him financially. You should remember that not every student is funded, and may be experiencing GBV from people who support them financially.”

S15 (male):

“Some are financially dependent on the people who abuse them, so they fear losing financial support after they have reported. So, they don’t have a choice”.

This insight aligns with existing research findings, which highlight how financial instability can render individuals, particularly women, vulnerable to GBV within intimate relationships. Jasor (2020) contends that financially dependent students are often subject to the authority and control of their partners, limiting their ability to seek help or report abuse. In the earlier section of this paper, financial dependence was identified and discussed as a socio-economic predisposing factor of GBV. This indicates that financial dependence within the student population contributes significantly to the underreporting of GBV within institutions of higher learning, highlighting the need for interventions that address economic disparities and empower students to seek support regardless of their financial circumstances.

5.7. Fear of Not Being Believed

The findings of this study revealed that sexual violation devalues, degrades, and severely harms female student victims, especially if they are not believed. Disbelieving their confession creates frustration and strain and ultimately results in poor academic achievement (Makhaye et al. 2023). Additionally, Makhafola (2020) suggests that individuals often harbor concerns about the credibility of their claims, particularly in instances where no witnesses are present, causing the victims to lack substantial evidence to substantiate their allegations. This phenomenon is frequently observed in scenarios where the perpetrator holds a position of authority and dominance over the victim, as noted in Makhafola’s investigation, where one participant refrained from reporting GBV due to the perpetrator’s role as Head of the Department. To amplify these kinds of incidences, participants of this study mentioned that:

S19 (female):

“Others are afraid to report because maybe the person has some power and is well known even at PSD. So, no one will believe them anyway and the case won’t go anywhere”.

This statement highlights the perceived futility of reporting when the perpetrator is well-known and influential, suggesting that such cases may not be taken seriously or adequately addressed. This may deter individuals from reporting incidents of GBV.

Makhaye et al. (2023) also found that when students try to report their ordeal to support staff, they are often confronted with a lack of caring and empathy, and support staff often blame the victim for the incident. This suggests that the absence of trust and support from one’s close friends may indeed deter individuals from reporting incidents of GBV. The assertion below supports this statement:

S16 (female):

“I have an instance where I was sexually abused, and I told my friends at that time. And my friend at that time was a friend of the guy [perpetrator]. So, they were like, ‘We don’t believe you. Obviously, you’re not gonna report because even your friends don’t believe you, so, who’s gonna support you if you report?’”

5.8. Lack of Awareness of the Nature of GBV

If students and staff lack a clear understanding of GBV or the South African legislation contesting and prohibiting it, they may continue to condone GBV instances without realizing that they are affected by it (Mbatha 2023). Given the diverse backgrounds from which individuals originate, it is evident that perceptions vary. Cultural and societal conditioning shape our understanding and responses to situations, which are subsequently reflected in institutional contexts. For example, in intimate partner violence, some individuals may have been taught that expressions of love involve submission and obedience, with any deviation from these norms warranting punishment. Conversely, others may perceive such actions as abusive. These discrepancies arise from differing worldviews. When individuals are not equipped with knowledge about GBV, they may normalize abusive behaviors. In line with this argument, the student participants stated that:

S21 (male):

“Firstly, I would say lack of awareness because some students might be abused while they are not aware that they are being abused. In other words, not knowing the definition of GBV such as what is regarded as GBV, and how it occurs. Some people stay in an abusive relationship believing that if their partners hit them or if he/she demands sex they should give in because sex form part of the relationship. All these things might happen but because I don’t have the knowledge, I would not report”.

When asked whether students reported GBV, a student participant said:

S5 (female):

“I don’t think so…I don’t think so. I think they have a belief that when their partners hit them, it’s because they love them. You find that they don’t report because they don’t see it as GBV. They feel like, my boyfriend is reprimanding me so that I can be right. You will find this person spending months and months staying in an abusive relationship and they hide this, even amongst their friends. She thinks it is a procedure that you need to go through when you are in a relationship.”

This study’s findings indicate that certain individuals may endure abusive behaviors due to unawareness of being victimized, as well as the misinterpretation of such actions as demonstrations of affection or disciplinary measures. This is particularly evident among first-year students who lack substantial relationship experience (Kabaya 2021; Makhanya 2022). The following was said regarding this:

S5 (female):

“It is rare to find a first-year student in a relationship with other first year students; it is always older men dating kids and they do as they please with them. You will find a kid submitting to everything that is said by this man because they lack knowledge, thinking it is the right thing to do.”

This confirms the vulnerability of first-year students, whose transition to independent living away from familial guidance exposes them to an increased risk of abuse, facilitated by newfound opportunities for experimentation. Given their youth and relative inexperience, they are predisposed to heightened vulnerability and often lack the requisite skills to mitigate such risks.

In summary, this paper argues that intimidation and distrust in law enforcement and institutions are the dominant factors contributing to the underreporting of GBV. Other factors include fear of the perpetrator or people close to the perpetrator, the fear of not being believed, the stigma and shame attached to GBV, the patriarchy, financial dependence, and a lack of awareness about GBV. These are the factors that contribute to the underreporting of GBV in HEIs.

6. Discussion of the Findings

The literature and study findings underscore the impact of underreporting on the perpetuation of GBV not only at South African universities but also at such institutions globally. The findings reveal that the most deeply entrenched factor contributing to the underreporting of GBV is patriarchy. Patriarchy reinforces male dominance and female subordination, shaping societal attitudes that normalize violence against women and silence victims (George 2020). Participants highlighted how patriarchal norms within both the university setting and broader society dictate that women should be submissive and endure suffering quietly. This culture discourages women from speaking out, as doing so is often seen as challenging traditional gender roles (Rikhotso 2022). The participants’ responses confirmed this dynamic. They described how experiences of domestic violence that they witnessed or experienced during their upbringing had shaped their attitude towards reporting GBV. In essence, the normalization of violence in households inhibits individuals from recognizing and addressing GBV. This attitude aligns with the culture of violence theory, which posits that societal attitudes toward GBV can deter victims from reporting their experiences (World Health Organization (WHO) 2009). Furthermore, Dlamini and Makhaye (2023) support this argument as they attest to the fact that, in cultures where violence is normalized as a means of conflict resolution, victims may fear blame or retribution for speaking out. Consequently, victims of GBV may internalize these societal norms and refrain from reporting acts of abuse as they may perceive this as the expected course of action.

The findings of this study further highlight intimidation and distrust in law enforcement agents and institutions as the most prominent barriers to reporting GBV. Intimidation manifests in various forms, including direct threats from perpetrators or their associates, societal pressures, stigma, financial dependence, and fear of repercussions (D’Agostino et al. 2019). Participants in this study described how students’ rights are often violated through intimidation, which leads victims to hide their experiences.

The participants also affirmed that fear is pervasive among GBV victims, particularly as they fear that reporting GBV incidents may not only lead to further harm but also result in social ostracization or ridicule. This fear is deeply rooted in power dynamics that favor perpetrators and suppress the voices of victims, making it difficult for them to come forward. It is evident that, while some survivors express a desire to report an incident, they encounter silencing mechanisms wielded by those in positions of authority throughout the reporting process, thereby perpetuating underreporting. This confirms the perpetual vulnerability of marginalized individuals to danger and violence due to their lack of agency to safeguard themselves or challenge oppressive structures (George 2020).

Hence, the underreporting of GBV emerges not merely from victims’ reluctance but rather from the exacerbating influence of intimidation. The power differentials have been extensively documented in the literature as key contributing factors to underreporting (Makhafola 2020; Pratto and Stewart 2020). Pratto and Stewart (2020) explicitly correlate the underreporting of GBV with these entrenched power imbalances, elucidating how hierarchical structures perpetuate silence and cycles of abuse. Furthermore, Makhafola (2020) contends that individuals in positions of authority often exploit their power to coerce compliance from vulnerable individuals, thereby perpetuating a culture of intimidation and silence.

Closely related to intimidation is the fear of retaliation from perpetrators or their associates, which was a recurring theme in the participants’ narratives, further reinforcing the notion that intimidation acts as a significant deterrent to reporting GBV incidents. D’Agostino et al. (2019) shed light on this phenomenon, emphasizing that a substantial number of GBV survivors opt (rational choice) to remain silent about their experiences due to the intimidation tactics employed by their abusers. The fear of potential retaliation looms large in the minds of victims, and this deters them from seeking help or disclosing their abuse to authorities (Adams et al. 2013). The reluctance to report stems from a deep-seated apprehension that any action taken against the perpetrator may worsen the situation. Participants in this study stated these sentiments, sharing victims’ concerns about potential repercussions if they were to report the abuse. They feared that not only would the abuse persist, but it could escalate into more severe forms of violence if the perpetrator learned of their disclosure. This fear is underscored by power imbalances favoring perpetrators, which further diminishes victims’ confidence in seeking justice.

The fear of retaliation, whether physical or psychological, also serves as a powerful deterrent and compels victims to reconsider pursuing legal action. This fear emanates from a lack of trust in law enforcement, which has proven ineffective in providing adequate protection to victims after reporting (Steyn and Steyn 2008; George 2020; Makhaye et al. 2023). This failure to ensure safety exacerbates the fear experienced by survivors, as victims expressed concerns that reporting their abuse may exacerbate the situation and lead to further violence or harm. Victims often face direct threats or coercion from perpetrators, and this instills a profound sense of fear and vulnerability in them.

Furthermore, distrust in law enforcement and institutional support systems compounds these challenges. Participants echoed concerns about unequal power dynamics within institutions, where well-connected individuals often evade justice (Makhaye et al. 2023; Makhafola 2020). Such distrust reflects the broader societal dynamics where the justice system may appear to favor those in power, violating the principles of equality and dignity enshrined in the Constitution (South African Government 1996). Palmer and Kutateladze (2021) note that negative experiences with the criminal justice system foster a sense of futility among victims, discouraging future reporting. Participants also shared past experiences of mishandled cases, which deepened their skepticism toward institutional responses (Chibango and Chibango 2022). Rational choice is at play in this instance as victims weigh the likelihood of achieving justice and, when the legal system is perceived as ineffective or biased, reporting becomes an unlikely course of action (Steyn and Steyn 2008).

Stigma and shame also played a pivotal role in underreporting. Participants spoke of the “Abantu bazothini” syndrome (“What will people say?”), which fosters a fear of judgment, ridicule, and labeling. This fear led many victims to confide in friends rather than seek formal help. Randa and McGarry (2023) confirm that fear of being labeled a GBV victim is widespread and deters survivors from disclosing abuse. Participants also described how the societal misconception that sexual harassment within intimate relationships is not a crime discourages victims from reporting (Grubb and Turner 2012; Mansour et al. 2021).

Another factor that emerged was a lack of awareness about what constitutes GBV. Many individuals, particularly students, lack a clear understanding of what GBV entails and which laws prohibit such actions in South Africa (Mbatha 2023). This deficiency in understanding fosters the normalization of abusive dynamics within intimate relationships. These factors seem to be particularly evident among first-year students who lack substantial relationship experience (Kabaya 2021; Makhanya 2022). They also confirm their vulnerability as their transition to independent living away from familial guidance exposes them to an increased risk of abuse that is facilitated by newfound opportunities for experimentation. Given their youth and relative inexperience, they are predisposed to heightened vulnerability and often lack the requisite skills to mitigate such risks.

Lastly, financial dependence was highlighted as a significant barrier. Participants noted that students reliant on partners for financial support often felt trapped in abusive relationships, fearing the loss of economic security if they reported the abuse. Mutinta (2022) emphasizes that financial vulnerability, especially among students lacking resources, contributes significantly to GBV underreporting in HEIs. The pressure to maintain financial stability often outweighs the drive to seek justice, deepening victims’ feelings of entrapment.

In summary, this study underscores the multifaceted nature of GBV underreporting, with intimidation and distrust in law enforcement and institutions emerging as central themes. These are compounded by fear of retaliation, disbelief, stigma, patriarchy, financial dependence, and a lack of awareness about GBV. Addressing underreporting requires comprehensive strategies that dismantle intimidation, strengthen institutional trust, and empower victims to seek justice without fear of reprisal.

7. Conclusions and Recommendations

This study has shed light on the multifaceted and deeply entrenched factors that contribute to the underreporting of GBV within HEIs in South Africa. Despite the constitutional and institutional frameworks aimed at safeguarding students, the persistence of GBV remains a stark reality, largely exacerbated by systemic silence. Through qualitative inquiry, this paper has identified intimidation and distrust in law enforcement and institutions as the dominant barrier to reporting, compounded by fears of retaliation, the fear of not being believed, the stigma and shame attached to GBV, the patriarchy, financial dependence, and a lack of awareness about GBV.

These findings illustrate that underreporting is not simply a matter of personal choice but is shaped by complex power dynamics and socio-cultural norms that constrain victims’ agency. The university context, intended as a space for intellectual growth and safety, can replicate societal hierarchies that silence survivors and shield perpetrators. This systemic failure denies victims justice and reinforces cycles of violence.

To disrupt this cycle, institutional responses must go beyond policy formulation and move towards active, victim-centered implementation. HEIs must prioritize protective mechanisms, provide clear and supportive reporting channels, and foster a campus culture that values dignity, equality, and accountability. Educational campaigns that challenge harmful gender norms and raise awareness about reporting mechanisms are essential in empowering students and staff to act. Only through holistic and sustained intervention can institutions begin to address the silence surrounding GBV and promote a safer, more inclusive academic environment.

To fully understand and address GBV, it is important to acknowledge its multidimensional nature and the need for equally multifaceted responses. This includes evaluating the effectiveness of institutional and law enforcement responses to GBV. This study underscores the importance of protecting survivors throughout the reporting process and calls for stronger support systems and more responsive enforcement mechanisms. HEIs must uphold principles of justice, fairness, and transparency to build trust and encourage disclosure. Furthermore, they should facilitate awareness campaigns that promote GBV prevention, financial literacy, and gender equality. These actions are essential in challenging the pervasive nature of GBV and establishing a culture of accountability and safety within higher education.