Universities have been warned by the higher education watchdog for England that they could lose their status and public funding if they fail to improve how they tackle harassment and sexual misconduct. But do the proposals go far enough if they are to tackle the “epidemic” of sexual harassment in UK universities?
‘Universities need to change their cultures’
Tiffany Page is co-founder of the 1752 Group, which lobbies to end sexual misconduct in universities, and a lecturer in sociology at the University of Cambridge
Universities have a duty to protect students from harassment and sexual misconduct. We see hundreds of thousands of pounds paid towards the victims and similar amounts spent on NDAs. We need more accountability.
Change in universities needs to move beyond implementing policy and procedures to include hiring practices, cultures and power dynamics, and a consideration of how these things enable sexual misconduct and other forms of discrimination including racism. Currently we see many institutions with policies in place, but they fail to follow them and provide a safe environment.
At the 1752 Group, we welcome the measures introduced in the Office for Students (OfS) consultation, especially in developing consistency across all universities. Students currently experience vastly different outcomes when reporting sexual misconduct. Key will be how the OfS will enforce these new measures, and the resistance from universities to changes. Change so far has largely been driven from the bottom up and and we have seen little driven by university management.
The expectations are much stronger than we have seen, and vitally they include the victim’s voice, which has so far been missing in the discussion.
The consultation also needs to address the reasons why students fail to report incidents of sexual misconduct, the very real fear of bullying and retaliation or impact on their grades, and how universities ensure that students are not disadvantaged from making a complaint. This includes continued access to safe university and college spaces during and after making a complaint.
Other key areas that still need to be addressed include the lack of options students have to seek resolution or redress on their individual cases, and the specific dynamics of staff sexual misconduct cases. Currently the Office of the Independent Adjudicator is the only option. It considers how the university has handled the student’s complaint, but does not review staff disciplinary procedures. This represents a clear gap.
Equally, students and student unions are still expected to act as whistleblowers on their institutions. There should be annual reporting and the option for audits to identify potential problems rather than waiting for failures to be reported.
‘We need to find other ways to sanction universities which don’t take sexual misconduct seriously’
Rachel Fenton is a senior lecturer and Janet Keliher is a visiting lecturer at the University of Exeter’s law school
The consultation proposals are a welcome step forward but simply not enough. The OfS proposes a set of minimum expectations for universities to meet which have no teeth. These proposals echo guidelines already set by Universities UK in 2016: they are nothing new, and in fact are something less.
The proposals pay lip service to the idea of prevention, but only really address response, in the form of disciplinary processes and support. Yet we know that having effective preventative measures in place, such as bystander intervention and other forms of training, are incredibly important in changing the culture.
Equally, the language used is light touch, making it too easy for universities to meet the expectations. There are some gaping holes, such as the lack of reference to specially trained investigators and systematic data collection about student experiences.
And the proposals lack any real bite, as the OfS will revisit them in two years’ time to see if the “expectations” have led to progress before it even considers whether penalties, such as removing public funding, would be necessary. It says anything more would be disproportionate at this stage.
This is simply not the case: the 2016 guidelines have led to piecemeal and inconsistent policies in universities and there are many high-profile recent cases of universities failing survivors at Newcastle, Warwick and Birmingham. Research shows that three-and-a-half years on, senior management commitment is low and staff working in the field are now overwhelmingly supportive of universities being legally obliged to take this issue seriously.
The OfS’s reticence may be explained by its evidence to the women and equalities select committee stating that it does not believe it has legal duties to ensure women’s safety at university, claiming these lie with the European and Human Rights Commission. It appears to be using university autonomy as a veil to hide behind. While the OfS does have the legal power already to act as enforcer, it appears unwilling to act– which is why we recommend that other models of introducing sanctions for universities which don’t take sexual misconduct seriously be explored.
