Written evidence submitted by Dr Emma Chapman, Proleptic Lecturer at University of Nottingham (DIV0004)

Submission Relating to the Sexual Misconduct Aimed at Women in Higher Education

Dr Emma Chapman, Proleptic Lecturer at University of Nottingham

Royal Society Research Fellow and Royal Astronomical Society Fellow

Recipient of the 2018 Royal Society Athena Award for driving nationally impactful policy changes concerning sexual harassment issues in higher education

Member of The 1752 Group 2015-2020, a national campaign group tackling sexual misconduct in higher education

This contribution will focus on a wider academic environment than astronomy, however as the recent Royal Astronomical Society harassment report shows (https://ras.ac.uk/education-and-careers/ras-harassment-and-bullying-survey), the issues discussed apply just as much to astronomy as any other area. Sexual misconduct is endemic in higher education and results in the loss of women in STEM, increasing the diversity problem in discussion.

Sexual misconduct defines a continuum of sexualised and predatory behaviours of those with power over another individual. This term is used to move beyond more narrow definitions of sexual harassment as ‘unwanted behaviour’ in order to address the specific nature of the power imbalances in higher education. This draws attention to lower level, boundary-blurring behaviours of staff. These can be included within wider patterns of grooming by academic staff to exploit their position of power to gain sexual access to students.

We have known for a long time that universities are providing inadequate responses to reports of sexual misconduct. These findings show how far away the sector is in taking sexual violence and harassment seriously. While many institutions have made good progress, others have not implemented even the most basic recommendations. As a result, in many institutions, students remain unsupported at every stage of reporting sexual misconduct, and so are being failed by the very institutions that should safeguard their welfare. This lack of support can lead to fresh forms of trauma when institutions cannot respond rapidly and effectively to sexual misconduct perpetrated by their own staff. These institutions are pointedly saying to their students that they do not take sexual misconduct seriously, and that students’ welfare is not their priority.

There are three urgent areas of improvement that can be impressed upon the scientific institutions that host students. First, demonstrate how sexual misconduct is endemic in higher education institutions. Second, improve of complaint mechanisms. Third, relinquish the use of non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) to settle cases, and exchange what should be freely available compensations for silence.

The Endemic Nature of Sexual Misconduct in Higher Education Institutions

• There are no national guidelines on how universities should prevent staff sexual misconduct or respond effectively when it happens.
• There is no necessity for universities to record when it happens.

The 1752 Group (https://1752group.com) worked with Guardian to analyse Freedom of information (FoI) request sent to 120 universities (https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/mar/05/students-staff-uk-universities-sexual-harassment-epidemic. 

• 32% of universities have no student-staff relationship policy.
• Of the 104 universities that responded, more than a third (39%) said they provided no training to staff on sexual misconduct
• Only 27 universities reported that training on sexual misconduct was mandatory, representing just under half of universities that provide some level of training. 
• Nearly a quarter of the universities (23%) reported that they had no clearly designated point of contact for victims of sexual misconduct at all.
• Just under a quarter (24%) of the universities said their student advisers, who provide help and support to students with welfare and academic issues, had no training on sexual misconduct.

The issue is not restricted to the UK and so any solutions should also be drawn from international research.

• In the US, 1 in 20 female undergraduates and 1 in 6 female postgrad students reported sexual harassment from a teacher or advisor (AAU, 2015) Assoc. American Unis.
• The Australian Human Rights Commission found that 7% of students who experienced sexual harassment named the perpetrator as a tutor or lecturer, and this occurred in a higher proportion of postgraduate than undergraduate students.

Improvement of Complaint Mechanisms

The apparent lack of justice observed by the wider community prevents further complaints. One reason potential complainants choose not to pursue a complaint is because they think nothing will happen. The 1752 Group survey (“Power in the Academy: Staff sexual misconduct in UK higher education”, The 1752 Group, April 2018) showed that fewer than one in ten respondents (9.6%) who experienced staff sexual misconduct reported to their institution. 81% of respondents who experienced or were aware of misconduct did not report an incident.

We need action to address the fact that quarter of universities do not have a designated point of contact for new disciplinary cases against students or staff. This lack of a clear pathway of support for students means that reporting numbers will remain low. To address this, every university needs to appoint trained sexual violence officers that prioritise the well-being of students in guiding them through reporting and university disciplinary procedures.

Even if students report an experience of staff sexual misconduct, at present many students will report to someone who is not equipped to deal with this disclosure. One of the most worrying aspects is the lack of independent investigators for staff sexual misconduct cases. This means that someone who is a colleague or even a friend of the alleged perpetrator may carry an investigation out. This conflict of interest is completely unacceptable.

In partnership with law firm McAllister Olivarius the 1752 Group has published:

The 1752 Group and McAllister Olivarius Sector Guidance to Address Staff Sexual Misconduct in UK HE. This guidance provides detailed recommendations for higher education institutions processing student complaints and makes key recommendations during the crucial steps within the end-to-end procedure. It is the first guidance of its kind, and its implementation should be considered by all UK universities.

The Relinquishment of NDAs

NDAs are a common method used by UK universities when a settlement is sought by either the accused harasser or the complainant. The silencing nature of NDAs has made it difficult to find out the full quantitative extent of their implementation, but their prevalence is clear from discussions with victims/survivors and legal experts in the area (e.g. McAllister Olivarius www.mcolaw.com).

NDAs are implemented when a complainant seeks action by the university, including financial or other compensation. Examples include asking for an extension on study time or research contract, financial compensation for medical costs associated with original harassment or trauma of the reporting process, or acquisition of a statement from the university on the outcome of the disciplinary process. Their blanket application in this manner in inappropriate as it exploits the vulnerability and desperation of complainants, who are often just requesting reasonable protections in line with what the accused has received.

When you make a complaint of sexual misconduct, it is standard that the investigation and disciplinary process must remain confidential, even after its conclusion. Internal processes are usually biased towards the alleged harasser, with little or no protection given to the complainant. They are often without time limit and contain inappropriate allowances such as allowing cross-examination by the alleged harassers and denying complainants any knowledge of the outcome of the process they started with their complaint. NDAs not only prevent complainants from speaking out about the harassment they experienced or the outcome of a process, but they also prevent complainant from whistleblowing an inadequate process - a legally inadequate situation. NDAs can also give the illusion of lack of action by institutions following a complaint, reinforcing the antiquated culture which tolerates sexual harassment, backing up those who believe this behaviour is reasonable.

NDAs and contractually imposed silence are major obstacles towards reform of sexual misconduct policy in higher education. They prevent victims from protecting themselves against retaliation, enable toxic cultures and harassers to perpetuate and allow inadequate complaints processes to remain unchallenged.

After my personal campaign against the use of NDAs (https://dr-emma-chapman.com/diversity-work/ ; https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/sex-harassment-victims-force-university-college-london-to-end-gagging-orders-h9v9v279f ), some universities have pledged not to use NDAs for sexual harassment complaints. First, there is no way to verify this without independent oversight. Second, this promise should be extended to all forms of harassment and bullying. Third, there should be regulation to ensure all universities enact such bans.

---

I strongly believe that the lack of action towards fair complaints processes in UK higher education is causing toxic cultures that drive women out of STEM. I hope this of use to the Science and Technology Committee’s Inquiry into Diversity in STEM.

Further details can be found on www.1752group.com which as well as containing their own reports, also summarises the literature of the sector.

Sector Guidance: https://1752group.com/sector-guidance/

Power in the Academy: Institutional responses to staff sexual misconduct in UK higher education 

https://1752group.com/power-in-the-academy-report/

Silencing Students:

https://1752group.com/sexual-misconduct-research-silencing-students/

January 2022