Tag: harassment

Jury Awards $6M in CSU Harassment Case

The California State University system must pay $6 million to a former official at Cal State San Bernardino who accused administrators of harassment, The San Bernardino Sun reported.

Anissa Rogers, a former associate dean at CSUSB’s Palm Desert campus from 2019 through 2022, alleged that she and other female employees were subjected to “severe or pervasive” gender-based harassment by system officials. Rogers alleged she observed unequal treatment of female employees by university administrators, which was never investigated when she raised concerns. Instead, Rogers said, she was forced to resign after expressing concerns.

Rogers and Clare Weber, the former vice provost of the Palm Desert campus, sued the system and two San Bernardino officials in 2023. Weber alleged in the lawsuit that she was fired after expressing concerns about her low pay compared to male counterparts with similar duties.

That lawsuit was later split, and Weber’s case is reportedly expected to go to trial next year.

“Dr. Rogers stood up not only for herself, but also the other women who have been subjected to gender-based double standards within the Cal State system,” Courtney Abrams, the plaintiff’s attorney, told The San Bernadino Sun following a three-week trial in Los Angeles Superior Court.

A Cal State San Bernardino spokesperson told the newspaper that CSUSB was “disappointed by the verdict reached by the jury” and “we will be reviewing our options to assess next steps.”

Source link

October 23, 2025
University of Rochester student expelled after speaking out about harassment will lead orchestra in concert to affirm free expression

ROCHESTER, N.Y., Oct. 20, 2025 — A former doctoral conducting student at the Eastman School of Music who was silenced after reporting harassment by a faculty member is standing up for herself in the way she knows best — by conducting a classical music concert in support of free expression.

Rebecca Bryant Novak will conduct a volunteer orchestra at the Hochstein School of Music Performance Hall in Rochester, N.Y., on Thursday, Nov. 20, in a concert sponsored by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, our first-ever classical music concert in support of free speech. The evening will feature Beethoven’s Fidelio Overture and selections from Shostakovich’s Symphony No. 5 — two works that faced censorial pressure in their own time and which emphasize the timeless connection between civil liberties and artistic expression.

The event will also feature internationally acclaimed violinist Lara St. John, praised by The New York Times as “a high-powered soloist.”

For Bryant Novak, who was expelled from the University of Rochester earlier this year after filing a complaint against one of her professors at Eastman, the evening will provide her not only with an opportunity to create wonderful music but to send a message to the school that she will not be intimidated into silence.

“All I’ve wanted since I came to Eastman was to become a conductor and share my appreciation for great music with others,” Bryant Novak said. “I’m looking forward to doing so this evening — while reminding Eastman that I’m not going away.”

Shortly into her first semester as a doctoral student in fall 2023, Bryant Novak complained about behavior by a professor who she said made sexist comments.

After a yearlong investigation, a panel of faculty and administrators agreed that the professor had indeed violated Rochester’s harassment policy and that Eastman’s Title IX coordinator had mishandled her complaint.

Despite all this, Eastman allowed the same school authorities to retain oversight of Bryant Novak’s academic trajectory — with one official telling her that the school restricted her performance times because of her complaint against the professor.

When Bryant Novak complained, Eastman did nothing. As a result of the alleged retaliation, Rochester opened a second investigation into Eastman’s mishandling of the situation in December 2024, and Bryant Novak publicly disclosed the university’s new investigation in a Substack article on Feb. 10.

Two weeks later, Eastman abruptly expelled Bryant Novak, citing a failure to make academic progress, even though the school never showed that she met that criteria. In doing so, the school ignored its written policy that calls for students to be given ample notice if they are in danger of falling short of academic standards.

FIRE is calling on Rochester President Sarah C. Mangelsdorf to immediately reinstate Bryant Novak and ensure that she is able to complete her doctorate under the oversight of Eastman faculty and officials who are not already subject to investigation for misconduct in her case. And we’re not alone. Over 800 members of the public have signed on to our Take Action campaign telling Mangelsdorf to heed the call.

In any case, Bryant Novak won’t be banished from the conductor’s podium. We hope to have you join us for “Outspoken: Music for Free Speech,” an evening championing the right to free expression — hers and yours.

The concert is free and open to the public. To attend, RSVP here to reserve your spot.

The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to defending and sustaining the individual rights of all Americans to free speech and free thought—the most essential qualities of liberty. FIRE educates Americans about the importance of these inalienable rights, promotes a culture of respect for these rights, and provides the means to preserve them.

CONTACT
Karl de Vries, Director of Media Relations, FIRE: 215-717-3473; [email protected]

Source link

October 17, 2025
What OfS’ data on harassment and sexual misconduct doesn’t tell us

New England-wide data from the Office for Students (OfS) confirms what we have known for a long time.

A concerningly high number of students – particularly LGBTQ+ and disabled people, as well as women – are subjected to sexual violence and harassment while studying in higher education. Wonkhe’s Jim Dickinson reviews the findings elsewhere on the site.

The data is limited to final year undergraduates who filled out the National Student Survey, who were then given the option to fill out this further module. OfS’ report on the data details the proportion of final year students who experienced sexual harassment or violence “since being a student” as well as their experiences within the last 12 months.

It also includes data on experiences of reporting, as well as prevalence of staff-student intimate relationships – but its omission of all postgraduate students, as well as all undergraduates other than final year students means that its findings should be seen as one piece of a wider puzzle.

Here, I try to lay out a few of the other pieces of the puzzle to help put the new data in context.

The timing is important

On 1^st August 2025 the new condition of registration for higher education providers in England came into force, which involves regulatory requirements for all institutions in England to address harassment and sexual misconduct, including training for all staff and students, taking steps to “prevent abuses of power” between staff and students, and requiring institutions to publish a “single, comprehensive source of information” about their approach to this work, including support services and handling of reports.

When announcing this regulatory approach last year, OfS also published two studies published in 2024 – a pilot prevalence survey of a small selection of English HEIs, as well as a ‘poll’ of a representative sample of 3000 students. I have discussed that data as well as the regulation more generally elsewhere.

In this year’s data release, 51,920 students responded to the survey with an overall response rate of 12.1 per cent. This is significantly larger sample size than both of the 2024 studies, which comprised responses from 3000 and 5000 students respectively.

This year’s survey finds somewhat lower prevalence figures for sexual harassment and “unwanted sexual contact” than last year’s studies. In the new survey, sexual harassment was experienced by 13.3 per cent of respondents within the last 12 months (and by 24.5 per cent since becoming a student), while 5.4 per cent of respondents had been subjected to unwanted sexual contact or sexual violence within the last 12 months (since becoming a student, this figure rises to 14.1 per cent).

By any measure, these figures represent a very concerning level of gender-based violence in higher education populations. But if anything, they are at the lower end of what we would expect.

By comparison, in OfS’ 2024 representative poll of 3000 students, over a third (36 per cent) of respondents had experienced some form of unwanted sexual contact since becoming a student with a fifth (21 per cent) stating the incident(s) happened within the past year. 61 per cent had experienced sexual harassment since being a student, and 43 per cent of the total sample had experienced this in the past year.

The lower prevalence in the latest dataset could be (in part) because it draws on a population of final year undergraduate students – studies from the US have repeatedly found that first year undergraduate students are at the greatest risk, especially when they start their studies.

Final year students may simply have forgotten – or blocked out – some of their experiences from first year, leading to lower prevalence. They may also have dropped out. The timing of the new survey is also important – the NSS is completed in late spring, while we would expect more sexual harassment and violence to occur when students arrive at university in the autumn.

A study carried out in autumn or winter might find higher prevalence. Indeed, the previous two studies carried out by OfS involved data collected at different times to year – in August 2023 (for the 3000-strong poll) and ‘autumn 2023’ (for the pilot prevalence study).

A wide range of prevalence

Systematic reviews published in 2023 from Steele et al and Lagdon et al from across the UK, Ireland and the US have found prevalence rates of sexual violence between 7 per cent to 86 per cent.

Steele et al.’s recent study of Oxford University found that 20.5 per cent of respondents had experienced at least one act of attempted or forced sexual touching or rape, and 52.7 per cent of respondents experienced at least one act of sexual harassment within the past year.

Lagdon et al.’s study of “unwanted sexual experiences” in Northern Ireland found that a staggering 63 per cent had been targeted. And my own study of a UK HEI found that 30 per cent of respondents had been subjected to sexual violence since enrolling in their university, and 55 per cent had been subjected to sexual harassment.

For now, I don’t think it’s helpful to get hung up on comparing datasets between last year and this year that draw on somewhat different populations. It’s also not necessarily important that respondents were self-selecting within those who filled out the NSS – a US study compared prevalence rates for sexual contact without consent among students between a self-selecting sample and a non-self-selecting sample, finding no difference.

The key take-home message is that students are being subject to a significant level of sexual harassment and violence, and particularly women, LGBTQ+ and disabled students are unable to access higher education in safety.

Reporting experiences

The findings on reporting reveals some important challenges for the higher education sector. According to the OfS new survey findings, rates of reporting to higher education institutions remain relatively low at 13.2 per cent of those experiencing sexual harassment, and 12.7 per cent of those subjected to sexual violence.

Of students who reported to their HEI, only around half of rated their experience as “good”. But for women as well as for disabled and LGBTQ+ students there were much lower rates of satisfaction with reporting than men, heterosexuals and non-disabled students who reported incidents to their university.

This survey doesn’t reveal why students were rating their reporting experiences as poor, but my study Higher Education After #MeToo sheds light on some of the reasons why reporting is not working out for many students (and staff).

At the time of data collection in 2020-21, a key reason was that – according to staff handling complaints – policies in this area were not yet fit for purpose. It’s therefore not surprising that reporting was seen as ineffective and sometimes harmful for many interviewees who had reported. Four years on, hopefully HEIs have made progress in devising and implementing policies in this area, so other reasons may be relevant.

A further issue focused on by my study is that reporting processes for sexual misconduct in HE focus on sanctions against the reported party rather than prioritising safety or other needs of those who report. Many HEIs do now have processes for putting in place safety (“precautionary” or “interim”) measures to keep students safe after reporting.

Risk assessment practices are developing. But these practices appear to be patchy and students (and staff) who report sexual harassment or violence are still not necessarily getting the support they need to ensure their safety from further harm. Not only this, but at the end of a process they are not usually told the actions that their university has taken as a result of the report.

More generally, there’s a mismatch between why people report, and what is on offer from universities. Forthcoming analysis of the Power in the Academy data on staff-student sexual misconduct reveals that by the time a student gets to the point of reporting or disclosing sexual misconduct from faculty/staff to their HEI, the impacts are already being felt more severely than those who do not report.

In laywoman’s terms, if people report staff sexual misconduct, it’s likely to be having a really bad impact on their lives and/or studies. Reasons for reporting are usually to protect oneself and others and to be able to continue in work/study. So it’s crucial that when HEIs receive reports, they are able to take immediate steps to support students’ safety. If HEIs are listening to students – including the voices of those who have reported or disclosed to their institution – then this is what they’ll be hearing.

Staff-student relationships

The survey also provides new data on staff-student intimate relationships. The survey details that:

By intimate relationship we mean any relationship that includes: physical intimacy, including one-off or repeated sexual activity; romantic or emotional intimacy; and/or financial dependency. This includes both in person and online, or via digital devices.

From this sample, 1.5 per cent of respondents stated that they had been in such a relationship with a staff member. Of those who had been involved in a relationship, a staggering 68.8 per cent of respondents said that the university or college staff member(s) had been involved with their education or assessment.

Even as someone who researches within this area, I’m surprised by how high both these figures are. While not all students who enter into such relationships or connections will be harmed, for some, deep harms can be caused. While a much higher proportion of students who reported “intimate relationships” with staff members were 21 or over, age of the student is no barrier to such harms.

It’s worth revisiting some of the findings from 2024 to give some context to these points. In the 3000-strong representative survey from the OfS, a third of those in relationships with staff said they felt pressure to begin, continue or take the relationship further than they wanted because they were worried that refusing would negatively impact them, their studies or career in some way.

Even consensual relationships led to problems when the relationship broke up. My research has described the ways in which students can be targeted for “grooming” and “boundary-blurring” behaviours from staff. These questions on coercion from the 2024 survey were omitted from the shorter 2025 version – but assuming such patterns of coercion are present in the current dataset, these findings are extremely concerning.

They give strong support to OfS’ approach towards staff-student relationships in the new condition of registration. OfS has required HEIs to take “one or more steps which could make a significant and credible difference in protecting students from any actual or potential conflict of interest and/or abuse of power.”

Such a step could include a ban on intimate personal relationships between relevant staff and students but HEIs may instead chose to propose other ways to protect students from abuses of power from staff. While most HEIs appear to be implementing partial bans on such relationships, some have chosen not to.

Nevertheless, all HEIs should take steps to clarify appropriate professional boundaries between staff and students – which, as my research shows, students themselves overwhelmingly want.

Gaps in the data

The publication of this data is very welcome in contributing towards better understanding patterns of victimisation among students in HE. It’s crucial to position this dataset within the context of an emerging body of research in this area – both the OfS’ previous publications, but also academic studies as outlined above – in order to build up a more nuanced understanding of students’ experiences.

Some of the gaps in the data can be filled from other studies, but others cannot. For example, while the new OfS regulatory condition E6 covers harassment on the basis of all protected characteristics, these survey findings focus only on sexual harassment and violence.

National data on the prevalence of racial harassment or on harassment on the basis of gender reassignment would be particularly valuable in the current climate. This decision seems to be a political choice – sexual harassment and violence is a focus that both right- and left-wing voices can agree should be addressed as a matter of urgency, while it is more politically challenging (and therefore, important) to talk about racial harassment.

The data also omits stalking and domestic abuse, which young people – including students – are more likely than other age groups to be subjected to, according to the Crime Survey of England and Wales. My own research found that 26 per cent of respondents in a study of gender-based violence at a university in England in 2020 had been subjected to psychological or physical violence from a partner.

It does appear that despite the narrow focus on sexual harassment and violence from the OfS, many HEIs are taking a broader approach in their work, addressing domestic abuse and stalking, as well as technology-facilitated sexual abuse.

Another gap in the data analysis report from the OfS is around international students. Last year’s pilot study of this survey included some important findings on their experiences. International students were less likely to have experienced sexual misconduct in general than UK-domiciled students, but more likely to have been involved in an intimate relationship with a member of staff at their university (2 per cent of international students in contrast with 1 per cent of UK students).

They were also slightly more likely to state that a staff member had attempted to pressured them into a relationship. Their experiences of accessing support from their university were also poorer. These findings are important in relation to any new policies HEIs may be introducing on staff-student relationships: as international students appear to be more likely to be targeted, then communications around such policies need to be tailored to this group.

We also know that the same groups who are more likely to be subjected to sexual violence/harassment are also more likely to experience more harassment/violence, i.e. a higher number of incidents. The new data from OfS do not report on how many incidents were experienced. Sexual harassment can be harmful as a one-off experience, but if someone is experiencing repeated harassment or unwanted sexual contact from one or more others in their university environment (and both staff and student perpetrators are likely to be carry out repeated behaviours), then this can have a very heavy impact on those targeted.

The global context

Too often, policy and debate in England on gender-based violence in higher education fails to learn from the global context. Government-led initiatives in Ireland and Australia show good practice that England could learn from.

Ireland ran a national researcher-led survey of staff as well as students in 2021, due to be repeated in 2026, producing detailed data that is being used to inform national and cross-institutional interventions. Australia has carried out two national surveys – in 2017 and 2021 – and informed by the results has just passed legislation for a mandatory National Higher Education Code to Prevent and Respond to Gender-based Violence.

The data published by OfS is much more limited than these studies from other contexts in its focus on third year undergraduate students only. It will be imperative to make sure that HEIs, OfS, government or other actors do not rely solely on this data – and future iterations of the survey – as a tool to direct policy, interventions or practice.

Nevertheless, in the absence of more comprehensive studies, it adds another piece to the puzzle in understanding sexual harassment and violence in English HE.

Source link

September 25, 2025
Student voices should shape how universities tackle harassment

In the midst of a global crisis in social relations, spiralling levels of harassment, scapegoating and online and interpersonal hostility have become routine, especially for members of minoritised and stigmatised communities.

As microcosms of wider society, university spaces are not immune to these social, cultural and political tensions. Yet the ways prejudices play out in higher education often go under-explored. As a result, many students feel unsafe and unsupported at a time when multiple points of crisis have exposed student communities to a heightened risk of harassment.

In response to these mounting pressures, the OfS has emphasised the urgent need for action. From August 2025, new requirements will compel institutions to actively address harassment and sexual misconduct. However, current discussions too often overlook the full spectrum of harassment. Non-sexual forms of hostility—such as racist, disablist, homophobic, and transphobic harassment—frequently remain at the periphery of institutional priorities.

Our current research, due to be completed in July 2027, addresses this gap. It takes an inclusive, victim-centred approach to examining all forms of harassment. By investigating the barriers students face in accessing effective support and understanding their lived experiences of violence, microaggressions, and exclusion, the study will generate critical insights to help universities create truly safe and supportive environments.

The importance of self-definition

A crucial aspect of this research is that harassment cannot, and should not, be narrowly defined by institutional standards or legislation alone. This is why allowing students to define what constitutes as harassment to them is so important.

Self-definition acknowledges that students are best placed to interpret the behaviours that harm them, informed by their unique identities, cultural contexts, and lived experiences.

This approach moves beyond rigid, exclusionary notions of who experiences harassment and in what form. It acknowledges the subjective and often complex nature of harassment and fosters empathy and inclusivity. For instance, a seemingly minor microaggression may carry significant emotional weight for a student facing intersecting disadvantages. Equally, behaviours such as online victimisation, sustained name-calling, or subtle exclusion may not fit traditional definitions of harassment, yet they can deeply impact an individual.

Our 2020 pilot study at the University of Leicester embraced this framework of self-definition. Students identified more than a dozen identity characteristics as a motivating factor in their victimisation. Amongst some of the more often discussed identity characteristics, students spoke about how their political views, subcultural status, accent, dress and appearance, and their status as a mature student were also reasons they felt they were targeted.

The emotional, behavioural and educational impacts of targeted harassment were diverse, far-reaching and profoundly damaging to their student experience.

Self-definition does not mean abandoning clear policies or legal obligations. Instead, it complements existing frameworks by placing student voices at the centre of institutional responses. By understanding often ‘hidden’ and under-acknowledged forms of harassment, universities can build more holistic, evidence-based systems to support victims. For instance, reporting systems should allow students to disclose harassment that targets multiple aspects of their identity – for example, a student who is both Black and gay, or a student who is Muslim and disabled. Staff training can then focus on recognising these nuanced impacts, ensuring that responses are handled with cultural sensitivity and empathy.

Working across institutions

Sector-wide progress has been hindered by fear of reputational damage, a culture of conservatism, and, in some cases, a continued denial of the problem entirely. Where reliable research on harassment within HE exists, it generally focuses on one particular institution or just a single form of harassment. Our approach is different.

We are working across five participating higher education institutions (HEIs) in England, purposefully selected for their very different geographical locations, student demographics and institutional profile. By working cross-institutionally and through our continued collaborations with OfS and Universities UK, we can maximise the impact of our findings and shift the narrative surrounding harassment and sexual misconduct. Rather than being perceived as an issue confined to a handful of “bad apple” universities, this approach acknowledges that such problems exist across the sector and require a unified response.

This technique should also help to reduce fears of reputational damage, as it frames the issue as a systemic challenge rather than a localised failure. It also fosters a culture of accountability and continuous improvement, showing that universities are committed to addressing misconduct comprehensively rather than reacting defensively after incidents occur.

Working with a range of HEIs in this way allows us to produce a suite of student-informed resources that can be tailored to individual HEIs. The insights gained from our research will not merely reflect existing challenges; they offer a roadmap for compliance with OfS conditions and for creating transformative, lasting change. By prioritising inclusivity and evidence, institutions can fulfil their obligations while fostering safer, more equitable spaces for all students.

To find out more, please reach out to the research team at [email protected]

Source link

September 2, 2025
The Critical Role of University Leaders in Shaping Safer Cultures and Meeting OfS Condition E6 on Harassment and Sexual Misconduct
Harassment and sexual misconduct have no place on our university campuses, nor in wider society. Yet, both continue to be pervasive. The Office for National Statistics reports that 1 in 10 people aged 16 years and over experienced at least one form of harassment in the previous 12 months, while the Crime Survey for England and Wales reveals that “an estimated 7.9 million (16.6%) adults aged 16 years and over had experienced sexual assault since the age of 16 years”. The adverse sequelae for victims/survivors are well documented.

The Office for Students (OfS), noting the absence of national-level data at higher education institutions (HEIs), piloted the design and delivery of a national sexual misconduct prevalence survey in 2023 (full survey due to be reported in September 2025). The study, involving 12 volunteering institutions, found 20% of participating students experienced sexual harassment and 9% experienced sexual assault/violence. The 4% response rate requires cautious interpretation of the findings; however, they are in line with other studies.

Over the last decade, universities have taken these matters more seriously, appreciating both the impact on victims/survivors and on their institution’s culture and reputation. In 2016, Universities UK and Pinsent Mason published guidance (updated in 2022) for HEIs on managing student misconduct, including sexual misconduct and that which may constitute a crime. As of 1 August 2025, the OfS has sought to strengthen universities’ actions through introducing condition E6 to ensure institutions enact robust, responsive policies to address harassment and sexual misconduct, as well as promote a proactive, preventative culture. Our experience, however, suggests that universities’ preparedness is varied, and the deadline is not far away.

Culture Starts at the Top

Organisational culture is shaped significantly by those at the top. At its heart is ‘the way things are done around here’: the established, normative patterns of behaviour and interaction that have come to be. Senior leaders have the power to challenge and change entrenched patterns of behaviour or to reinforce them. Thus, compliance with Condition E6 is just a starting point; herein lies an opportunity for university leaders to lean deeper into transforming institutional culture to the benefit of all.

Understandably, times of significant financial challenge may cause executive teams to quail at more demand on limited resource. This can precipitate a light-touch, bare minimum and additive approach; that is, devolving almost exclusive responsibility to a university directorate to work out how to do even more with less. Yet, the manifold benefits of inclusive cultures are well established, including improved performance and productivity and lower rates of harassment and sexual violence. Leadership attention to and engagement in building a positive culture will see wider improvements follow. Moreover, hard though it is to write this, we know from our own work in the sector that some leaders or teams are not modelling the ‘right’ behaviour.

Ultimately, the imperative to transform culture is in the best interests of the institution although it should also manifest a desire for social justice. Consequently, university governors need to understand and have oversight of the imperative; though narrowly defined as regulatory, it should be strategically defined as the route to creating a happier, healthier and more productive community likely to generate the outputs and outcomes the governing authority seek for a successful and sustainable institution.

Creating Safer Cultures

We use the term ‘safer culture’ to refer to a holistic organisational environment that is intolerant of harassment, discrimination, and mistreatment in any form. Underpinning the sustainable development of a safer culture are eight key pillars:
1. Leadership Commitment, Governance and Accountability
  Senior leaders and university governors need to visibly and actively promote an inclusive and respectful culture, holding themselves – and others – accountable. Strategic allocation of resources and institutional infrastructure needs to support cultural change, and governance mechanisms must enable assurance against objectives. A whole-institution approach is required to avoid commitments becoming initiative-based, siloed, inconsistent, or symbolic: the responsibility should be shared and collective.
2. Clear Policies, Procedures and Systems
  Institutions need to develop accessible policies that define inappropriate behaviour, including harassment and sexual misconduct, and outline clear consequences for non-adherence. Associated procedures and systems should support effective prevention and response measures.
3. Training and Development
  A tiered training approach should be adopted to embed shared understanding, develop capability and confidence, raise awareness, and foster appropriate levels of accountability across the organisation: among students and staff, including the executive team and governing body. Specialist skills training for those in frontline and support roles is essential.
4. Reporting Processes
  Simple, reliable, confidential, and trusted reporting mechanisms are required. These must protect against retaliation, the need to repeat disclosure information unnecessarily, and provide swift access to appropriate support through a minimum of touchpoints.
5. Provision of Support
  A trauma-informed, empathetic environment is crucial to ensure individuals feel safe and supported, whether they are disclosing misconduct or have been accused of such. User-focused support systems and wellbeing services need to be in place for all members of the university’s community.
6. Investigation and Resolution
  Fair, timely, and impartial processes are required which uphold the rights of all parties and enforce meaningful consequences when misconduct is confirmed. Those involved must be appropriately trained and supported to ensure just outcomes for all.
7. Risk Management
  Risk should be proactively identified and appropriately managed. Individuals throughout the organisation need to understand their responsibility in relation to risk, both individual and institutional.
8. Investigation and Resolution
  Creating a safer culture requires regular evaluation through policy review, data analysis and reporting, including staff and student feedback. This is essential to address emerging issues, enhance interventions in line with changing policy and practice, and achieve cultural maturity.
A Leadership Imperative

The imminent introduction of condition E6 offers university leaders an opportunity to bring renewed and purposeful focus to developing an institutional culture that is safe, respectful and high achieving – the very foundation of academic excellence, creativity and innovation. At a time when equity, diversity and inclusion are under threat worldwide, including in the UK, the imperative has never been greater.
Source link
July 24, 2025
Orchestrated silence: How one of America’s most elite music schools expelled a student for reporting harassment

TAKE ACTION

On stage, baton in hand, Rebecca Bryant Novak found her calling in the precarious. She says conducting an orchestra sometimes “feels like trying to do brain surgery on a conveyor belt. You don’t get to stop. You don’t get to pause and say, ‘Hold on, let me think.’” But that high-stakes intensity, the kind that crackles through a Brahms crescendo or explodes in a Mahler finale, is what drew her in. “I love that,” she says. “To conduct an orchestra once in your lifetime, much less dozens or hundreds of times, is just an enormous privilege.”

But behind the podium at the University of Rochester’s Eastman School of Music, one of the world’s premier conservatories, the peril Bryant Novak faced was not merely musical. In October 2023, she reported her doctoral program advisor and the director of orchestras, Neil Varon, for harassment. What followed, by her account and email correspondence describing the university’s own investigative findings, was a spiral of institutional dysfunction in which Eastman abandoned its own policies to retaliate against Bryant Novak for speaking out.

What began as a childhood dream — “I saved my babysitting money to buy tickets for me and my mom to go to St. Louis Symphony concerts,” she recalls — has now soured into a fight not merely for her academic degree but for her dignity, for institutional transparency, and for a measure of justice in an industry she loves.

A pianist by training, she fell for music director David Robertson’s conducting as a teenager in St. Louis, where she was captivated by his orchestra’s sound and force. “I loved the idea of being part of it,” she says. “As I look back at that person, she had no idea what she was getting into. But the draw was strong.”

Chasing the grueling dream of the podium was a particularly steep climb for a woman. “There have only been three women admitted to my program in over 20 years,” she says, referring to Varon’s conducting studio, which she estimates has accepted approximately 40 students during that time. “The resources are immense. So is the gender disparity. I mean, it’s extreme.”

Bryant Novak, a first-generation college graduate, said that upon arrival she felt “very much a fish out of water in the fancy music school scene.” Still, she was undeterred. “I said to myself, look, I won the audition. The orchestra voted, and I got an overwhelming orchestra vote. Everyone was thrilled about my being here.” She believed — naïvely, she now says — that the music would speak for itself. “Gender has nothing to do with this. My work stands on its own. So I was kind of in that mindset going in.”

Her optimism did not last.

I had jobs in this field before going back for my doctorate. I knew the scene. My actual experience is that staying silent doesn’t help you that much.

Bryant Novak claims that during one rehearsal, as she was conducting in front of about 60 students, Varon told her she was “Gibson impregnated,” a reference to her former teacher at the University of Cincinnati, Mark Gibson, with whom she had cut contact after completing her master’s degree. Bryant Novak’s history with Gibson was fraught with alleged maltreatment: she says she suffered “inappropriate behavior, including comments on [her] physical appearance” and “physical contact under the guise of instruction” that resulted in “lasting professional harm.”

Gibson and Varon were close professional contacts, and though Bryant Novak says Varon repeatedly noted Gibson’s problematic history and widely known reputation for abuse, she claims he “began referencing [her] history with Gibson as early as [her] audition.” According to Bryant Novak, Varon’s increasingly hostile and erratic behavior in class eventually forced her to end a conducting session with the orchestra, which typically lasted almost an hour, after just fifteen minutes.

In what she describes as a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” calculation, Bryant Novak chose to report Varon. “I had jobs in this field before going back for my doctorate. I knew the scene,” she says. “There have been situations where I’ve stayed silent before, as in my master’s program studying with Mark Gibson. My actual experience is that staying silent doesn’t help you that much.”

Initially, she raised the alarm privately, requesting the administration limit her contact with Varon rather than filing a formal complaint. Her request was denied. Instead, Bryant Novak says Title IX coordinator John Hain suggested she transfer. “I remember asking, ‘How is that supposed to work?’ These programs are very competitive. They’re very small. It’s not like I’m getting my bachelor’s in history. How is this the solution? It was just not at all thought through.”

“I don’t think it’s an exaggeration to call it sabotage,” she said, after her final recital was stacked with outlandishly difficult material. (Smiley Photography)

“I got this whole lecture about how there’s no law against being a jerk. I’m like, ‘I’m aware of that.’” Worse, she adds, “They disclosed the report to [Varon]. They kind of wagged their finger at him and said ‘good luck’ to me. I was stunned.”

Faced with Eastman’s inaction, Bryant Novak used the only tool she had left — her voice. She wrote about the experience in a post on her Substack, The Queen of Wands, sharing conversations with administrators, naming names, and describing Eastman’s lack of support.

That’s when the retaliation began.

A senior administrator threatened her with a defamation lawsuit — the very same John Hain in charge of handling her Title IX complaint. Students who once applauded her presence grew cold. Some faculty offered quiet support but refused to speak publicly. “It got very bizarre,” she says. “Very, very weird.”

According to email correspondence between Rebecca and university officials, the University of Rochester — Eastman’s parent institution — conducted an investigation that concluded Varon had indeed violated their harassment policy and that Eastman had grossly mishandled her complaint. Despite this, rather than offering protection to Rebecca, Eastman remained intent on shielding its own faculty.

Tell Rochester to Stop Muzzling its Students

Take Action

Tell the University of Rochester: Reinstate Rebecca Bryant Novak, restore due process, and stop muzzling students into a culture of silence.

Read More

By the following semester, “there was some nastiness” from some of her fellow students in the orchestra. Her conducting opportunities were reduced. The faculty grew tight-lipped. She would walk into a room and people would stop talking. One tenured professor whispered to her that he’d written a letter of support but begged her not to tell anyone.

Meanwhile, Bryant Novak continued writing publicly about her experience on Substack. Her posts were measured, personal, and often devastating. Her first post, titled “My First Year at Eastman,” told the story of the initial incident and the process that ensued from her point of view. Another, titled “Cease and desist,” detailed John Hain’s defamation threat against her.

Then, however implausibly, things got worse.

In December 2024, the University of Rochester launched a second investigation, this time into Eastman’s continued mishandling of Bryant Novak’s complaint and the retaliation she alleged had taken place against her. That might seem like a reason to think things were finally looking up — except two weeks after Bryant Novak disclosed the second investigation in a Substack post, Eastman expelled her for a “lack of academic progress.”

According to Bryant Novak, this came despite Eastman’s prior confirmation that her academic plan and credits were sufficient in order to graduate. Worse, Eastman’s letter to Bryant Novak ended with a list of non-academic allegations: “misuse of University email systems,” “creating a hostile environment,” and “language that has been perceived as threatening violence.” All this was presented without detail or evidence. It was also described as not the actual cause of her dismissal, but worth “remark.” For her part, she sees it as a last-ditch attempt to discredit her. “The double standards were pretty intense,” she says. The school claimed there wasn’t much it could do to restrain Varon but, she says, “When it was time to expel me — boy, their hands were not tied.”

People assume we’ve moved past this stuff. But no, speech is still powerful. People are still afraid of it. And they’ll try to shut you up.

In a June 18 letter to the university, FIRE detailed how Eastman skipped every procedural safeguard required by their own academic progress policy: no warnings, no probation, no appeal. It doesn’t take a bloodhound to sniff out the pretext: just after Bryant Novak disclosed the second investigation on Substack, Eastman’s concerns about her suddenly became so acute that it bypassed the two-semester review process its own policy required before dismissal. FIRE lambasted the university for this egregious betrayal of due process and charged that the expulsion — taking place amidst baseless legal threats and conflicts of interest — was retaliation against Bryant Novak for speech Rochester’s policies protected.

Bryant Novak says it was Eastman itself that endangered her academic progress. After she reported his behavior, she says, “They let Neil [Varon] have control over my degree recital, which is the centerpiece of my degree. I mean, it was retaliatory. He put material on it that was outlandishly difficult — so much so that two guest faculty intervened and said, ‘This is not okay.’ One of them actually said directly to me, ‘That is a giant middle finger from him to you.’ I don’t think it’s an exaggeration to call it sabotage. They did ultimately change it, although you’re supposed to have up to a year to work on this. I was left with two months. And then they were trying to get me out the door. It was very, very clear they wanted me out in any way possible. They created a situation that was unsustainable.”

“There are consequences either way. There are consequences to yourself if you stay silent. There are consequences out in the world if you speak out.” (Smiley Photography)

The situation became so upsetting that she began seeing a university therapist. In her final semester, at the therapist’s request, she started going multiple times a week. “I was just kind of personally deteriorating,” Bryant Novak recalls. “I was honestly kind of having a breakdown.” She spent roughly a month working through her difficulties with her professors and her therapist, who was willing to offer the school documentation of her situation. In turn, Bryant Novak offered to submit that documentation to the school, but says that “a week later,” the school “responded with an expulsion letter.”

In the broader Eastman community, Bryant Novak was shunned by what she describes as a “cultish culture.” Online, including on FIRE’s own social media posts, her classmates have left comments smearing her reputation. Some think their interpersonal issues with Bryant Novak, or whatever shortcomings they see in her as a student or conductor, justify her expulsion.

But being unpopular does not cost you your rights. It does not strip you of due process protections. It does not neuter your expressive freedom.

Bryant Novak sees her case as part of a larger trend. This isn’t the first time Eastman has allegedly blacklisted a student for standing up against misconduct. And beyond its Rochester campus, other classical music artists have suffered similar fates for stepping forward. Bryant Novak has no illusions about the conservatory culture she sees as responsible. “The culture’s awful. It just is,” she says. “Everybody knows it. But at the same time, the music is phenomenal.”

She references a case, documented in New York Magazine, in which an alleged rape victim and an ally were pushed out of the New York Philharmonic and bullied by their peers for speaking up while the accused perpetrators remained. “That story jolted me,” she says. “And now I’m living my own version of it. People assume we’ve moved past this stuff. But no, speech is still powerful. People are still afraid of it. And they’ll try to shut you up.”

Reflecting on it all, Rebecca says that though she is grateful for FIRE’s help, she found it hard to believe she needed it for something like this. “You know, I wasn’t in a Gaza protest. It wasn’t that. It was just saying: ‘Hey, harassment is bad. Can you stop?’ The fact that speaking out against harassment is controversial in this space? That says a lot.”

Still, Bryant Novak refuses to be silenced. In April, she submitted a 200-page complaint to the New York State Division of Human Rights under penalty of perjury. Believing sunlight is the best disinfectant, she is documenting everything and wants it all out in the open. “If there’s an online Neil Varon fan club,” she quips, “I think that’s good for us to know. Surface it all.”

As for her future? “I still want to conduct,” she says. “But more than that, I want a world where women can do this without fear.”

Pausing to think about it, she says, “There are consequences either way. There are consequences to yourself if you stay silent. There are consequences out in the world if you speak out. I prefer the consequences out in the world.”

Source link

June 26, 2025
How to address harassment and sexual misconduct experienced by PGRs
The experiences of postgraduate researchers (PGRs) have not received the same level of attention as undergraduate students in relation to tackling harassment and sexual misconduct.

PGRs have very different conditions of study than undergraduate or taught postgraduate students, and they may be at a different stage in life with significant professional experience.

It would be a mistake, however, to assume that PGRs’ maturity and longer tenure within higher education institutions means that they are less likely to experience these issues.

PGRs face significant risks – particularly in relation to abuses of power from staff both within and outside their institution – that can have deleterious impacts on their lives, careers, and health, requiring a different approach to provisions for students at other levels.

As a result, implementation of the Office for Students’ (OfS) regulatory requirements, coming into force on 1 August 2025, needs to ensure that it takes into account the specific situations and needs of PGRs.

At The 1752 Group, to support HEIs to do this, in partnership with the UK Council for Graduate Education we have published a toolkit to guide work in this area. It draws on our own, as well as international research in this area, to give a snapshot of current good practice.

It also addresses the obligations outlined in the Worker Protection Act – in force since October 2024 – which requires employers to take reasonable steps to prevent the sexual harassment of employees.

While the OfS regulations apply to England only, the toolkit can also be used outside England to guide institutional work on addressing harassment and sexual misconduct experienced by PGRs.

Prevalence

Perhaps the most problematic misconception in the sector about harassment and sexual misconduct is that it is rare. A 2023 survey conducted on behalf of OfS (n=5090) found that 6 per cent of PGRs had experienced unwanted behaviours of a sexual nature in the previous year.

The findings also show there is work to be done on confidence in reporting – 32 per cent of PGRs were not confident in knowing where to seek university support, while 35 per cent were not confident in knowing how to report sexual misconduct.

However, the OfS survey only had a small number of PGR respondents. Larger-scale studies from Australia (n=31,000) and the US (n=181,752) indicate that as many as 15 per cent of postgraduate students experience sexual harassment in a university setting each year, with 58 per cent being targeted by another student and 10 per cent being targeted by a tutor or lecturer from their university (the data is not disaggregated for PGRs specifically).

Of course, sexual harassment intersects with harassment on the basis of other protected characteristics – non-binary and trans people are subjected to higher rates of sexual harassment at university than women (45 per cent and 32 per cent respectively), and lesbian, bisexual, gay and queer students, as well as women, also experience significantly higher rates of sexual harassment than heterosexual, cis-gendered men.

On top of sexual harassment, LBGTQ+ doctoral students may also be experiencing homophobic and/or transphobic behaviour or feel that they have to conceal their sexual orientation/expression and/or gender identity/expression. There is also a risk that, following the Supreme Court’s recent judgement on the legal definition of sex, trans and non-binary students and staff (as well as those perceived to be trans, non-binary or gender nonconforming) face an even higher risk of harassment.

OfS regulatory requirements around E6 cover all forms of harassment on the basis of protected characteristics. Data on experiences among PGRs is often unavailable. However, in a 2020 survey of 828 students across all levels of study in the UK, 24 per cent of respondents from an ethnic minority background had experienced racial harassment since becoming a student.

That figure rose to 45 per cent of Black respondents, with the most common form of harassment being racist name calling, insults or “jokes”. Research specifically focusing on the experiences of racially minoritised PGRs in the UK shows that they face “multiple challenges, which are often triggered and amplified by circumstances specific to their ethnicity and result in their disempowerment within HEIs”, with women and international racially minoritised PGRs being especially marginalised.

Similarly, Muslim doctoral students, who may also be racially minoritised, face Islamophobia, overt and covert racism, and marginalisation.

What, then, do higher education institutions need to do to address this issue? A first step is to make sure that appropriate institutional governance and oversight is in place. Beyond that, institutional provision can be divided into three stages (based in public health models of primary, secondary and tertiary prevention):
- Preventing harassment before it occurs
- Short-term responses that should be in place when gender-based violence or harassment occurs, including to prevent it from recurring
- Longer-term actions to deal with the lasting consequences of gender-based violence
Preventing harassment

The first stage, preventing harassment before it occurs, should be where the most substantial amount of work occurs. One area is in preventing abuses of power. OfS requires institutions to take one or more steps which could (individually or in combination) make a significant and credible difference in protecting students from any actual or potential conflict of interest and/or abuse of power.

This is a significant challenge in relation to PGRs, given deeply hierarchical nature of academia. Ways in which HEIs can prevent abuses of power include clarifying professional boundaries, introducing a staff-student relationships policy, minimising power imbalances in admissions processes and supervision arrangements, and safer staff recruitment.

For example, discussions of professional boundaries with supervisors and PGRs within departments and schools can feed into an institution-wide policy in this area. Institutional requirements in terms of professional boundaries could then be added to existing staff training and PGR professional development programmes, as well as induction procedures.

More generally, training is required not only for PGRs themselves, but most urgently for staff, not least because any staff member could potentially receive a disclosure of harassment or sexual misconduct. Staff involved in making decisions or providing ongoing support will need further training on the required knowledge and skills.

The OfS guidance does not discuss addressing inequalities as part of prevention work. Nevertheless, this is an essential part of preventing harassment and sexual misconduct. For example, racialised inequalities can support a culture where harassment on the basis of race is normalised and accepted, or a predominance of male students or staff can enable a culture where sexualised humour or derogatory comments about women or gender minorities are seen as normal.

These inequalities can shape the culture in different disciplines or departments; some disciplines – medicine, engineering, and law – have been found in the US to have higher rates of sexual harassment by staff and/or postgraduate students, which may relate to gender inequality in some of these disciplines.

As such, it is important to link up work to gather data and address inequalities in higher education with initiatives to prevent harassment and sexual misconduct. These could include programmes on increasing diversity in recruitment and admissions to PGR programmes, “People, Culture and Environment” statements for the Research Excellence Framework, and where relevant to PGRs, Athena Swan, Race Equality Charter, and Access and Participation Plans.

Data collected for these programmes of work can reveal areas of the institution where gender and other inequalities exist, and therefore where there is a heightened risk of harassment and sexual misconduct occurring.

One area where many if not most institutions have a long way to go is in gathering and using data to assess risk, as required by the Worker Protection Act. Data to assess risk relating to harassment and sexual misconduct can be obtained from online reporting systems, formal reporting, informal disclosures, or institutional surveys. In the toolkit, we highlight a good practice example from the University of Bath. They use quantitative data from their online reporting system as well as qualitative data from independent advisers to understand PGRs’ experiences and to report to the university’s Governing Body. This data then feeds into the content of mandatory in-person training for doctoral supervisors.

Short-term responses when harassment occurs

Often PGRs do not wish to make a formal, named report about their experiences. Wherever possible, choice and control as to next steps should be left with the person who has been targeted. As well as supporting the person/people targeted, an HEI should consider informal/precautionary actions and a risk assessment, and/or a proactive investigation instigated by the institution.

For formal reports, E6 requires HEIs to have an effective reporting mechanism and an investigatory approach that is fair, credible, and in line with natural justice, and to include in their central information hub details on how students, staff and others can report harassment and/or sexual misconduct and how the information received in connection to harassment and/or sexual misconduct will be “handled sensitively and used fairly.”

This is of course a complex area that we have previously written about for Wonkhe, and in the toolkit we highlight some areas of good practice, for example, completing an investigation even where the responding staff member leaves the institution in the middle of it.

Longer-term response after harassment has occurred

Finally, while not addressed in the OfS guidance, to minimise the impacts harassment and sexual misconduct have on gender and other inequalities, longer-term responses are required.

These could include remedies at the end of a reporting process, addressing wider cultural issues that may have been revealed by reports or investigations, or taking steps to enhance transparency and openness in institutional responses to harassment and sexual misconduct.

For example, UCL’s relevant policy states that the reporting party will be informed if someone is dismissed or expelled from the institution as a result of their complaint. This might seem like a very minor step, but many HEIs do not even share this much information with complainants, even though the Equality and Human Rights Commission guidance clearly states that it is possible to do so.

HEIs should also consider how PGRs with relevant lived experience (whether they disclose this or not) can be consulted on policy and practice in accessible, trauma-informed and non-exploitative ways.

Working across the sector

Addressing harassment and sexual misconduct require a cross-sector approach and cannot be addressed solely on the level of individual institutions. This is especially applicable to PGRs, who on top of their doctoral studies may also be employed in (often precarious) roles within other institutions or may have supervision arrangements or affiliations outside their primary institution.

The risk of harassment from third parties outside the institution extends to conferences, online, on field trips, or in relationships with external mentors. These issues draw our attention to the importance of sector-wide work in this area – for example through initiatives such as the Misconduct Disclosure Scheme, which supports safer staff recruitment practices – as well as the role of disciplinary communities in addressing harassment and sexual misconduct.

PGRs may be equally or more aligned to their disciplinary community than their institution, and as such, HEIs need to work in partnership with professional societies on addressing harassment and sexual misconduct. Another example of cross-institutional work comes from research funding organisations (RFOs).

In recognition of their role in setting out and upholding expectations in relation to unacceptable behaviours in research, many RFOs require notification of upheld findings (and sometimes open investigations) relating to any personnel working on research they have funded. RFOs often require funded organisations to have relevant policies and reporting mechanisms.

Moving forward

Throughout the toolkit we have featured PGRs’ own voices about their experiences of harassment and sexual misconduct in higher education. One PGR, Polly, described how:

“The harassment I received is one of the reasons why I don’t want to go into academia. And I did. I passionately did. And I was a good student. I had an exemplary record, I still have an exemplary academic record. And I just thought, I can’t bear the secrecy and the hypocrisy.

Polly’s words remind us what is at stake if this work is not done, and why we continue to press for change. The amount of work that is required may seem daunting, but the toolkit offers an opportunity for institutional leaders to co-create with colleagues and PGRs a bespoke package of work which addresses the local context. As the examples highlighted in the toolkit demonstrate, some HEIs are already making good progress, and continue to review and develop their prevention efforts.

Overall, our hope is that in five years’ time this toolkit will be outdated as good practice will have moved on significantly. As such, work in this area can be seen as part of an ongoing – and, we hope, rapidly changing – movement for preventing and responding to harassment and sexual misconduct in higher education.

Download the toolkit

We would like to thank the Enhancing Research Culture fund from Research England via the University of York for supporting the development of this toolkit and the UK Council for Graduate Education (UKCGE) for partnering with us to consult on the development of the toolkit and to disseminate it.
Source link
June 20, 2025
University of Rochester student expelled after detailing school’s mishandling of harassment complaint on Substack

ROCHESTER, N.Y., June 18, 2025 — The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression is urging the University of Rochester to reinstate an Eastman School of Music student who was expelled after blowing the whistle on a professor who sexually harassed her.

The case lays bare a university system that moved quickly to protect itself at the expense of a student’s right to voice criticisms — even though an internal investigation found the professor responsible for violating the harassment policy.

TAKE ACTION: Tell Rochester to stop muzzling its students

“There was no due process or hearing,” the student, Rebecca Bryant Novak, said. “The university’s administrators were more concerned about protecting the faculty than adhering to their own rules and addressing bad behavior. They basically tried to destroy my career beyond all comprehension.”

Shortly into her first semester as a Ph.D. student in fall 2023, Bryant Novak complained about abusive behavior by a professor who she said would scream at students and make lewd, sexist comments.

After a yearlong investigation, a panel of faculty and administrators agreed that the professor had indeed violated Rochester’s harassment policy and that Eastman’s Title IX coordinator had grossly mishandled her complaint.

Despite all this, Eastman allowed the same school authorities to retain oversight of Bryant Novak’s academic trajectory — with one official telling her that the school restricted her performance times because of her complaint against the professor.

When Bryant Novak complained, Eastman did nothing. As a result of the alleged retaliation, Rochester opened a second investigation into Eastman’s mishandling of the situation in December 2024, and Bryant Novak publicly disclosed the university’s new investigation in a Substack article on Feb. 10.

Tell Rochester to Stop Muzzling its Students

Take Action

Tell the University of Rochester: Reinstate Rebecca Bryant Novak, restore due process, and stop muzzling students into a culture of silence.

Read More

Two weeks later, Eastman abruptly expelled Bryant Novak, citing a failure to make academic progress. In doing so, the school ignored its written policy that calls for students to be given ample notice if they are in danger of falling short of academic standards.

“Rebecca’s expulsion smacks of retaliation for speech that is explicitly protected by the university’s policy,” FIRE Program Counsel Jessie Appleby said. “This is a profound violation of her free speech rights and sends a chilling message to every student at Eastman.”

FIRE is calling on university President Sarah C. Mangelsdorf to immediately reinstate Bryant Novak and ensure that she is able to complete her doctorate under the oversight of Eastman faculty and officials who are not already subject to investigation for misconduct in her case.

“I hope that by taking a stand here, I can help force Rochester to extend the kinds of protections to other students that were denied to me,” Bryant Novak said.

The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to defending and sustaining the individual rights of all Americans to free speech and free thought — the most essential qualities of liberty. FIRE educates Americans about the importance of these inalienable rights, promotes a culture of respect for these rights, and provides the means to preserve them.

CONTACT:

Karl de Vries, Director of Media Relations, FIRE: 215-717-3473; [email protected]

Source link

June 18, 2025
Former ANU boss comments on bullying, harassment review – Campus Review

The former vice-chancellor of the Australian National University said he acted on every single instance of bullying, harassment, sexism and racism he knew about in the university’s medical college, but didn’t go far enough.

Please login below to view content or subscribe now.

Membership Login

Source link

June 2, 2025
OfS free-speech absolutism allows abuse, harassment, and bullying
- By Professor Sasha Roseneil FAcSS PFHEA, Vice-Chancellor and President of the University of Sussex.
On 26 March 2025, after a three-and-a-half-year long, deeply flawed, investigation into freedom of speech and academic freedom at the University of Sussex, the Office for Students issued the unprecedently high fine of £585,000, and decreed a form of free-speech absolutism as the new golden rule for universities. Henceforth, it would appear that universities can only control a very narrowly defined version of unlawful speech that ignores our broader legal and ethical obligations to students and staff. It is an unworkable and highly detrimental decision for the whole higher education sector.

The investigation was initiated in October 2021 in the context of protests against gender-critical philosopher Professor Kathleen Stock, around the time that she decided to resign from her position at Sussex. Much of the media and public reaction to the OfS’s decision has seen it as vindication of Kathleen Stock, and indeed the OfS itself gives as a reason for publishing the decision, that it would be ‘likely to make Professor Stock feel vindicated and may also vindicate her in public perception’. Indeed, the only person interviewed in the investigation was Kathleen Stock. This is despite the OfS acknowledging that it did not have the power to act on behalf of any individual, and that it has not investigated the circumstances relating to Kathleen Stock.

Many commentators also regard the outcome as vindication of the gender-critical beliefs that Kathleen Stock professed during her time at Sussex and since. But again, the investigation was not a judgement in the toxic disputes about sex and gender, and the identities and rights associated with each. It is not the OfS’s role to make such judgements – in its own words it is ‘viewpoint neutral’ – just as it not the role of a university, or a Vice-Chancellor, to do so.

Universities are arenas in which the most controversial ideas of the day are contested – and recent years have seen waves of protest and unrest on campuses across the world about a number of fiercely disputed issues. It is the job of university leaders to facilitate and contain that contestation so that it serves to advance the purpose of universities – the education and development of students and the advancement of knowledge and understanding. Continual efforts to promote and protect overlapping but not identical liberties – freedom of speech and academic freedom – are vital in this. So too are actions to ensure the absence of intimidation and bullying, and to create inclusive, supportive, and respectful learning and working environments, in which people of diverse backgrounds, beliefs and identities can succeed as individuals and come together in productive dialogue, however vehemently they might disagree. Indeed, the exercise of academic freedom and freedom of speech depends on this. Freedom of speech cannot mean the ability to shout the loudest or to abuse and frighten less powerful opponents into silence.

The OfS’s has just made this work of universities infinitely harder, if not impossible. The single short offending document identified by the OfS, on which the weight of its findings rest, was designed to protect the welfare of trans and non-binary staff and students, a student group the OfS itself identifies as at particular risk in relation to access to and participation in higher education. When adopted at Sussex in 2018 – around the same time as at many other universities across the country – thinking about how best to support trans and non-binary people within universities was just beginning, and gender-critical beliefs had not yet been recognised as ‘protected philosophical beliefs’ under the 2010 Equality Act.

If the OfS is ‘viewpoint neutral’, its findings about a policy statement seeking to support trans and non-binary staff and students must be understood to apply to all staff and students – whatever their beliefs and identities. A thought experiment helps make the point: replace the trans and non-binary people with whose protection the offending document is concerned with members of other minoritised and marginalised groups – Jewish, Black, Muslim or Gypsy, Roma and Traveller people, disabled people, or lesbians and gay men, for instance.

The implications of the OfS decision are wide ranging and highly corrosive of attempts to create diverse, inclusive, and equal working and learning environments, and threaten university autonomy. Under the OfS’s ruling, it would seem that universities cannot seek to prevent our curricula from relying on or reinforcing stereotypical assumptions about (for example) Jews or Black people, because to do otherwise could limit lawful speech. Universities cannot, from now on, remove antisemitic or racist propaganda from campus unless what it says is unlawful – again, extremely narrowly defined. And universities should not discipline anyone who engages in abuse, harassment or bullying unless that abuse, harassment or bullying meets the legal definition of harassment or hate speech – even if it breaches a range of other duties and obligations.

In effect, the decision implies that universities cannot have policies that aim to reduce abuse, bullying and harassment – whether motivated by transphobia, antisemitism, homophobia, Islamophobia, racism, or sexism – beyond simply reproducing existing restrictions in law (which restrictions the OfS appears not to understand – for example, it does not appreciate that abuse, bullying and harassment are restricted by the Public Order Act 1986).

It is, I fear, a charter that risks giving free rein to antisemitic, anti-Muslim, homophobic, racist, sexist, and anti-trans speech and expression in universities, as long as it stays just on the right side of the law.

Moreover, the decision could be significantly at odds both with the wider legal obligations of universities in relation to equalities, and with the OfS’s own regulatory expectations regarding equality of opportunity for students, the quality and standards of the academic experience, and the soon to be introduced requirement to take steps to protect students from harassment and sexual misconduct.

The OfS’s regressive and dangerous decision threatens the cohesion and governability of each of England’s diverse and vibrant universities, and it must be set aside. Today Sussex is publishing our pre-action protocol letter, which sets out the grounds of our legal challenge. I invite the OfS to respond positively, and to become a regulator that seeks collaboration and open dialogue with universities rather than punishment.
Source link
April 9, 2025