Dear Diane Dodds MLA, Keith Brown MSP, Rt Hon Nadhim Zahawi MP, Naomi Long MLA, Robert Buckland QC MP, Jane Hutt MS, Jeremy Miles MS, and Shirley-Anne Somerville MSP,
There is a national problem with how sexual violence is handled in higher education institutions.
For decades, there have been consistent allegations of sexual harassment and abuse of all forms across the UK’s universities. Recently, survivors have taken to social media to voice their experiences. University survivor Instagram accounts created by students at Durham University, Royal Welsh College of Music and Drama, St. Andrews, Queen’s University Belfast, and many other HEIs, illustrate that universities are failing their students.
The need for dozens of social media platforms dedicated to providing a safe space for those affected by sexual violence clearly indicate that there is a national gap in adequate support for survivors, observable both within our universities and the legal system. Thousands of survivors are being denied access to equal education due to the devastating effects of trauma and the HE system’s subsequent failure to protect them. Students, especially survivors, should not have to take time and energy away from their emotional healing and education to advocate for their concerns and safety to be valued.
Business-oriented, self-serving education institutions are not listening. Their indifference to the safety of their students is evidenced by nonexistent safeguarding policies, difficult reporting procedures, biased and traumatic investigations, and generally toxic campus environments. Unfortunately, those who are responsible for supporting students have proven to be incompetent at best, and complicit at worst. When the protection of students is a choice, these HEIs choose to support only themselves. Simple suggestions from representative organisations and government officials for universities to implement and review policies are weak and ineffective. Therefore, the government must step in and demand change to address the system’s failure to secure student safety and support across the UK.
We are calling for a baseline safeguarding policy written by the government in partnership with survivors of, professional advocates against, and experts in sexual violence, that every HEI in the UK is mandated to implement.
Expectations for this universal policy:
1. Accessibility
1.1 Important information must be easily accessible on university websites, including:
1.1.1 This policy.
1.1.2 Support available to students both internal and external to the university, as well as the regulatory body students may report the HEI to.
1.1.3 Relevant information about local resources, such as their nearest hospital, police station, support centre, sexual assault referral centre, sources for legal advice, and forensic testing facility.
1.1.4 Clear, comprehensive information about the options available to students within the disciplinary and reporting process, including step-by-step guides on how to report, what qualifies as an act of sexual violence, what qualifies as a formal report, and what that process looks like.
1.1.4.1 Sexual violence is an umbrella term used to describe any kind of unwanted sexual act, activity, or approach. This includes all forms of sexual assault, sexual harassment, and sexual abuse. Some non-exhaustive examples are image based sexual abuse, rape, public sexual harassment, drink spiking, female genital mutilation, threats or offers of rewards in exchange for sexual favours, fetishisation, leering, unwanted touching, outing, sexual jokes, forced marriage, financial abuse, stalking, cyber abuse, domestic abuse, and performing sexual acts on a person who is unable to consent (due to alcohol, drugs, or an inherent power imbalance). This includes abuse at the intersection of protected characteristics and sexualisation, such as racial harassment.
1.1.5 This must all be available in Accessible Formats and voice recordings.
1.2 At the start of the academic year, before Fresher’s activities begin `and before the commencement of any employment, introductions to sexual violence policies must take place. These should be repeated annually.
1.2.1 For students, these introductions must include:
1.2.1.1 Evidence-based workshops held by survivor organisations. These should discuss consent, grooming, bullying, rape culture and myths, micro-aggressions, spotting predatory behaviour, healthy relationships, sex trafficking, what to do immediately after an attack such as steps for preserving evidence, how to be an active bystander, and how to support a survivor. They must also explain all the varying forms of sexual violence, coercion, bullying, harassment, and abuse, as a lack of education has meant that many survivors struggle to recognise and label an attack until much later.
1.2.1.2 A thorough explanation of the reporting process and contact information for internal support.
1.2.1.3 A guide to relevant local resources and external support.
1.2.1.4 A campaign promoting zero tolerance to sexual violence, including the rules staff must follow, so as to be aware of their boundaries and rights.
1.2.2 For all staff, these must include:
1.2.2.1 Evidence-based workshops on the inherent imbalanced power dynamic between staff and students. The systemic nature of abuse means that this power differential exists even when it is not noticed. It can not be up to the already vulnerable students to address and enforce boundaries, often at the expense of their comfort and career.
1.2.2.2 An introduction to the Code of Conduct expected to be followed by any person employed by the university, no matter their role or term.
1.2.2.2.1 Zero-tolerance policy for enabling and perpetuating toxic behavior. No staff member is allowed to bully, harass, humiliate, intimidate, or assault a student. They are not allowed to complain about any training/workshops that attempt to combat pervasive sexual violence, or speak ill of any one who comes forward with an attack. They are also not allowed to accept this behavior from students. Staff have a duty to report any students who engage in “locker-room talk” or any other activity that harms another student.
1.2.2.2.2 The mandatory policy on staff-student relationships, which actively prevents staff from engaging or pursuing sexual and romantic relationships with students. This means that, no matter the motivation, there is a zero tolerance policy on behaviour such as commenting on appearances, asking students about their protected characteristics, and meeting one on one off campus.
1.2.2.2.3 For conservatoires and other specialist courses, these rules do not change. No staff in any university may comment or question a student about their weight, sexuality, trauma, disability, race, or any protected characteristic. If school work revolves around sensitive material that asks students to look at their own traumas, then this can not be done unless the staff member has disclosure and trauma training and unless a Safeguarding Officer is present. If a staff member has genuine concerns about a student’s health or safety, they must not approach the student unless they have been trained on the subject and have informed the Safeguarding Officer.
1.2.2.2.4 No staff member is allowed to touch another student. If posture requires correcting for that course, then each term requires students to express where they are comfortable being adjusted with options to update this file at any time. There must also never be any touching without a Safeguarding Officer present.
1.2.2.2.5 At no point after receiving a disclosure is a staff member allowed to suggest or request an informal dispute resolution. Asking a survivor to approach their attacker, under any circumstances, is disgustingly dangerous.
1.3 Each HEI must designate specialist staff members who will be key, public, go-to people that manage prevention of and responses to sexual violence. There must be both an internal and external Sexual Violence Liasion Officer to whom students make an initial complaint. There must be an internal Safeguarding Officer, who liaisons with external support and local authorities and is allowed to receive initial complaints. There must also be a designated Investigative Officer, who is independent from the institution. Their contact information must be readily available on the institution’s website and provided at the start of the year. Any disclosure made to them by a student, or that they are made aware of, constitutes a formal complaint and requires investigation. It must be recorded immediately, even if the student withdraws their wish for an investigation.
1.3.1 Any complaint made to another member of staff must be reported to these officers, at the approval of the survivor.
1.3.2 These officers must be qualified trauma counsellors, trained in safeguarding as well as handling disclosures and investigations sympathetically and fairly, so students have access to the support and justice they deserve. Too often, investigations are run by people with absolutely no qualifications, training, or lived experience, which results in victim blaming and abhorrent investigations. They must also have unconscious bias training on the additional, unique barriers and discrimination faced by disabled, neurodivergent, Black, Muslim, Asian, racially minoritised, migrant, international, LGBTQIA+, and all marginalised students, including student sex workers.
1.3.3 These officers must maintain extensive and up-to-date knowledge of external, local, specialist support. They must also be aware of internal processes and links to the relevant staff in different departments. They are the facilitators of care and referral pathways both in and out of the institutions.
1.3.4 These officers are responsible for the systematic recording of any and all conversations, steps, and decisions during an investigation process. This sensitive data must be stored anonymous, except for perpetrators found guilty, and made publicly available.
1.3.5 Support and disclosures from the survivor and the accused must not be taken by the same members of this team. These officers must avoid discussing conflicting details as this would jeopardise a potential court case.
1.3.6 The Sexual Liaison Officer or Safeguarding Officer may double as an advocate, or appoint a separate qualified advocate, so as to reduce the number of times a survivor has to repeat themselves. If not, one must be made available.
1.3.6.1 A trauma-informed BSL and language interpreter and translator must also be made available. All documents must be available in Accessible Formats and compatible with screen readers.
1.3.7 Any internal staff member involved in the investigation process must be qualified. This is achieved by completing at least two workshops delivered by a survivor organisation on subjects such as trauma-informed approaches, psychological first aid, consent, and intersectionality.
1.4 Community-based, peer-support programmes must be advertised on the HEI’s website. This is so survivors have multiple options outside of making a complaint. These programmes may be established internally, like in partnership with their Student Union, or a local organisation made available to students. The leaders of these programmes can not be internal staff members, must have training in trauma-informed approaches, and must have lived experience.
1.5 Students must have their voices heard and respected.
1.5.1 A survivor must be allowed to file a complaint, and have that complaint investigated, no matter the time elapsed following their assault.
1.5.2 A survivor must be allowed to file a complaint, and have all support options available to them, even if their perpetrator is not affiliated with their HEI.
1.5.3 If a survivor discloses that themselves and the accused were in a romantic or sexual relationship at any time, be it historically or presently, this can not affect the investigation or outcome. Consent to intimacy is not consent to abuse.
1.5.4 No restrictions can be in place reducing the number of establishments a survivor may report to. No survivor must choose between the police and the university.
1.5.4.1 No investigation can be dependent on the survivor filing a police report. Investigations must occur even when a survivor, understandably, chooses not to file a report with the police.
1.5.5 A student or staff member must be allowed to file a complaint against someone they believe has perpetrated sexual misconduct, even if they are not the survivor. “Locker room talk” and all other similar micro-aggressions must be severely discouraged, investigated, and punished.
1.5.6 In the event that the accused party leaves the institution during the investigation, the process must still be fully completed regardless.
2. Security
2.1 In cases where shared living space is involved, the HEI must immediately provide the survivor emergency accommodation.
2.1.1 This accommodation must be safe, clean, within walking distance to their classes, accessible, and must not exceed the weekly amount they spent in their unsafe accommodation.
2.1.2 An advocate or legal representative must be made available to help negotiate lease agreements.
2.2 A risk assessment must be completed for any complaint involving a sexual offence.
2.3 The schedules of the survivor and the accused must be immediately compared, and adjustments made to separate them.
2.3.1 The accused must be the one whose schedule is changed, or who has restrictions imposed upon, not the survivor.
2.3.2 For any common areas where there may be overlap, such as a library, a trauma-informed chaperone must be offered to escort the survivor.
2.3.3 Exams and lectures must be available in separate rooms or online.
2.3.4 If the accused is a staff member, with whom the student has a class, then a replacement lecturer must fill in or the student must be removed. Under no circumstances can this have a negative impact on the student’s grades or academic standing.
2.4 The HEI must receive formal permission from the survivor before approaching the accused with their allegation. This can not be done until after sections 2.1-2.2 have been completed and possible schedule collisions identified.
2.5 A no-contact agreement must be put in place as soon as the accused is made aware of the allegation.
2.5.1Any breach of this agreement from the accused must result in immediate formal discipline, as well as included in the decision making process.
2.6 The HEI must inform the accused’s staff and coursemates, or colleagues and students, that a complaint of sexual violence has been made against someone in that class. Once the investigation is complete and the complaint upheld, the perpetrator must be identified. This conflicts with the current GDPR legislation. However, we believe that an exception, similar to Clare’s Law, is necessary. The protection of students from predators is of greater importance than the protection of data.
2.6.1 A risk assessment needs to be carried out and a suspension or no-contact order put in place if there is any risk of harm to other students.
2.7 A survivor must be able to make a report anonymously if they wish. This must not mean that no investigation occurs. The same process must be followed whether the survivor chooses to be anonymous or not.
2.7.1 Any attempt by persons to reveal an anonymous identity results in immediate formal discipline. If it is the accused, then this must also be included in the formal decision making process.
2.8 A survivor must be allowed to bring another person to every interview and other steps in the investigation process in order to feel supported and protected. This person may be a trusted staff member, an internal or external counsellor or advocate, family member, legal representative, or anyone else the survivor would like to be present.
2.8.1 They must also be permitted to record their meetings. Any attempt to dissuade a survivor from recording conversations is a violation of their security and would be subject to investigation.
2.9 There must be active consideration of the emotional, physical, and financial toll that the trauma of experiencing sexual violence and the investigative process has on survivors.
2.9.1 Any decline in schoolwork performance is an understandable effect. HEIs can not punish this, and must instead support the student in whatever they need to best complete their education. With the survivor’s formal permission, their situation may be partially disclosed to their teachers. Leniency and sympathy in staff is essential.
2.9.2 There must be active steps taken to reduce the number of times a survivor has to recount their experience, as constant repetition results in re-traumatisation. Mentioned in section 1.3.6, an advocate must be available for the student. The student can also instead appoint another accredited and trusted person to this role. Aside from their initial complaint to the Investigative Officer and the final statement towards the end of the process, a risk assessment must be completed before requesting additional repetition from the survivor.
2.10 From the onset of any report, the survivor must have available to them a trauma-informed counsellor, specialist medical professionals, an advocate, an ISVA, accessible transport to related appointments, a chaperone for shared spaces, and legal representation, all at no cost. This availability must last throughout the investigation and for the remainder of their course.
3. Accountability
3.1 An independent scrutiny body (such as Ofsted, the Ombudsman Service, the Office of the Independent Adjudicator, the Office for Students, the Northern Ireland Public Services Ombudsman, and Universities Scotland) must stay informed and follow up every step to ensure the HEI has followed through with a competent and sympathetic investigation. If the bodies referred to cannot uphold these duties, as they currently display a pattern of failing to protect students, a new organisation must be established for this specific role.
3.1.1 They must be informed immediately after an initial report, with the approval of the survivor. There must be specific checkpoints for the timeline of disciplinary cases, to ensure universities are taking appropriate action at an appropriate pace.
3.1.1.1 At the time that university disciplinary cases meet each checkpoint, the appointed regulation office must be updated.
3.1.1.2 Universities can no longer drag out investigations. The survivor must be contacted by the Investigating Officer within a week of making their complaint. They must be contacted every two weeks during the investigation, and immediately following any major updates, including the outcome of the investigation. A decision must be reached within 3 months of a report being filed.
3.1.1.3 The Equality Act completely fails to protect students from discrimination due to the ridiculous time limit (the tribunal must receive the complaint within 3 months minus one day of the event). Many survivors can only begin to understand and process their experiences until much later, as well as source funding and suitable legal team, and institutions have long used the tactic of prolonged investigations as a means to silence students. This harmful deadline must be expunged.
3.1.2 Students may also report to this body directly if need be, such as if the assault was carried out by a staff member, or if their university is handling their case at a substandard level. Although this is currently in place, it is abysmal.
3.1.3 This scrutiny body must assist students who wish to bring legal action against their perpetrator or institution.
3.1.3.1 They must either procure funds, seek financial aid, or maintain a list of law firms who will take cases on a reduced fee or no win-no fee agreement. If one of these organisations attempts to take advantage of the vulnerable, then that survivor must be able to report back to the body. It is then the body’s responsibility to refund any losses, secure a replacement, condemn the organisation, and cease that recommendation.
3.2 The government must impose conditions of funding and registration. Any finding that shows the HEI failed to protect their students or follow these rules must result in a penalty, such as fines, withheld funds, and closure of business.
3.2.1 Higher education institutions are businesses. The service they should render is to provide a safe space for students to learn and grow. These schools are funded by tax-payers and tuition fees, and yet they consistently fail to fulfill their promises to their customers. Many students are sick of committing their time, energy, mind, body, and money to these institutions in exchange for an education, when all they ultimately receive is trauma. If any HEI refuses to provide students the support and protection they deserve, then they do not deserve to continue to serve them.
3.3 Statistics regarding the number of complaints against students and staff, expulsions, other disciplinary outcomes, survivors who have left their institution due to pressure or lack of support, and complaints and findings made against the HEI itself, must be documented and made publically available. Cover ups must be treated as crimes.
3.3.1 An anonymous survey into student opinions of campus rape culture and institution responses must be available and advertised at the end of each year. This must be made public once completed, and any consistent patterns investigated by the independent scrutiny body.
4. Justice
4.1 Institutions have a responsibility to provide care to the survivor. They must support the survivor throughout the investigation and following its completion, even if the complaint has not been upheld. Too often, a lack of evidence and biased assumptions wrongly produces no verdict or a not-guilty verdict, but this can not be reflective of the survivor’s honesty or their need for support.
4.1.1 In the event of such a verdict, all the support stated in 2.10 must remain accessible to the survivor.
4.1.1.1 If the survivor is unhappy with the institution’s suggested contacts, then it is the institution’s job to find them a replacement.
4.1.2 The schedules of the survivor and the accused must remain separate, as stated in 2.3 and its subsections.
4.2 The accused does not have a stronger right to private data than the survivor, nor do they have a stronger right to have their voice heard. Justice and closure for survivors absolutely outweighs privacy for perpetrators. This means that:
4.2.1 Survivor testimonies during hearings must be completed without the perpetrator present. Under no circumstances is the accused allowed to communicate with the survivor.
4.2.2 If any information, such as the survivor’s testimony, is made available to the accused, then the accused’s same information must be shared with the survivor.
4.2.3 Survivors must be allowed to attend Disciplinary Hearings. They must be permitted to either read out a statement or appoint someone else to do so. If the accused has been allowed to address their year or the Investigative Team, then the survivor must be afforded that same platform.
4.2.4 The results of an investigation must be provided to absolutely everyone involved, especially the survivor. This is nonnegotiable.
4.2.5 No HEI can suggest or inflict any type of non-disclosure agreement or defamation lawsuit. These oppressive silencing tactics must be banned.
4.3 Reports and complaints of sexual violence must be included in staff and student files and HR references, follow them to any HEI, and retained on file by the independent regulatory body. Too many perpetrators are able to accept roles at a different school or graduate into their industry of choice, allowing them to continue their cycle of violence with impunity.
4.3.1 For staff, there must be an agreed upon number and/or severity of claims that, once surpassed, requires immediate termination and disqualifies this person from further roles in education. All applicants being considered for permanent and temporary staff positions must be investigated. All reports of sexual violence must be included in any reference, and any prior complaints made by students held in higher regard than their curriculum vitae.
4.3.2 For students, there must be an agreed number and severity of claims that, once surpassed, requires immediate expulsion. The HEI is then required to provide the reason for their expulsion to any HEI or employer that seeks information.
4.3.3 Any staff or student who has complained about or dismissed a safeguarding step or survivor must receive formal discipline. Policies and workshops will not work if they are introduced to a victim-blaming environment, encouraging denial of perpetrators and silence in survivors. The perpetuation of a toxic rape culture can not be tolerated.
4.4 There must be adequate consequences for those found to have committed sexual violence.
4.4.1 Survivors must be permitted to appeal disciplinary decisions, and informed of their ability to appeal both to the institution and the scrutiny body.
4.4.2 A verdict of “complaint upheld” must not rely on the accused’s admission of guilt. False accusations of sexual violence are decidedly rare. Someone accused has motivations to lie, whereas our system’s poor treatment of survivors discourages lies and actively encourages silence.
4.4.2.1 Finding a complaint upheld means the accusation has been proven true. Universities can not continue on emptily insisting a complaint has been upheld when they have refused to take action.
4.4.3 Impact on the survivor, such as their grades, mental health, and financial burdens, must be taken into account and viewed as further evidence of the totality of harms committed.
4.4.4 Multiple reports by multiple individuals must not be viewed as separate. They must be seen as examples of a predatory pattern and further indication of guilt.
4.4.5 Punishments should be determined by the impact of the offence on the survivor, rather than continue being made in consideration of the effect of punishment on the offender. The insulting and dangerous narrative that accusations of sexual violence ruin the lives of perpetrators are false. Students are routinely punished more severely for plagiarism or theft than they are for rape, and most students accused of sexual violence graduate with full honours into the life of their dreams. A survivor coming forward does not ruin the accused’s life, but rather their own selfish actions do. Sexual violence has devastating, life-altering affects on survivors. The least we can do is ensure that those responsible suffer the same impact.
Simply put, the safety of all students must be mandatory.
Sincerely,
Survivors from:
Bristol University
Cardiff University
Durham University
Edinburgh Universities
Lancaster University
Queen’s University Belfast
Robert Gordon University
Royal Welsh College of Music and Drama
The Site for Contemporary Psychoanalysis
University of Aberdeen
University of Leicester
University of St. Andrews
University of Stirling
University of the West of England
University of York
With support from:
1752 Group
A-Sisterhood
Bater Law
I am Arla
The Last Taboo
Not On My Campus UK
Radical Resilience Project
Reclaim the Campus
Recognise RED
Red Flag Campaign
Safeline
Stirling University Survivors Support Group
Survivor Space
Survivors UK