Tag: misconduct

  • Sexual misconduct data is coming – here’s what universities should do to prepare

    Sexual misconduct data is coming – here’s what universities should do to prepare

    In 2024, the Office for Students (OfS) launched a pilot survey asking UK students about sexual misconduct during their time in higher education.

    For the first time, there is now a national attempt to capture data on how widespread such incidents are, and how effectively students are supported when they come forward.

    The release of the survey’s results will be a moment that reflects a growing reckoning within the sector: one in which the old tools and quiet handling of disclosures are no longer fit for purpose, and the need for culture change is undeniable.

    This new initiative – known as the Sexual Misconduct Survey (SMS) – ran as a supplement to the National Student Survey (NSS), which since 2005 has become a familiar, if evolving, feature of the higher education calendar.

    While the NSS focuses on broad measures of the student experience, the SMS attempts to delve into one of its most difficult and often under-reported aspects – sexual harassment, violence, and misconduct.

    Its arrival comes against the backdrop of high-profile criticisms of university handling of disclosures, including the misuse of non-disclosure agreements (NDAs), and a new OfS regulatory condition (E6) requiring institutions to take meaningful steps to tackle harassment.

    Understanding the SMS

    The Sexual Misconduct Survey collects both qualitative and quantitative data on students’ experiences. It examines the prevalence of misconduct, the extent to which students are aware of reporting mechanisms, and whether they feel able to use them. Its core aim is clear – to ensure students’ experiences are not just heard, but systematically understood.

    Previous, disparate studies — many led by the National Union of Students and grassroots campaigners — have long indicated that sexual misconduct in higher education is significantly under-reported. This is especially true for marginalised groups, including LGBTQ+ students, Black and disabled students, and students engaged in sex work. The SMS marks an attempt to reach further, with standardised questions asked at scale, across providers.

    Despite its intention, the SMS is not without issues. A key concern raised by student support professionals is the opt-out design. Students were automatically enrolled in the survey unless they actively declined – a move which risks retraumatising victim-survivors who may not have realised the nature of the questions until too late.

    Timing has also drawn criticism. Coming immediately after the exhaustive NSS — with its 26 questions and optional free-text fields — the SMS may suffer from survey fatigue, especially during an already intense period in the academic calendar. Low response rates could undermine the richness or representativeness of the data gathered.

    There are also complex ethical questions about the language used in the survey. In striving for clarity and precision, the SMS employs explicitly descriptive terminology. This can potentially open up difficult experiences unrelated to higher education itself, including childhood abuse or incidents beyond university campuses. Anonymous surveys, by nature, can surface trauma but cannot respond to it — and without parallel safeguarding or signposting mechanisms, the risk of harm increases.

    Lastly, the handling of disclosures matters. While survey responses are anonymous, students need to trust that institutions — and regulators — will treat the findings with sensitivity and respect. Transparency about how data will be used, how institutions will be supported to act on it, and how students will see change as a result is essential to building that trust.

    What to do next?

    The data from the pilot survey will be shared with institutions where response rates and anonymity thresholds allow. But even before the results arrive, universities have an opportunity — and arguably a duty — to prepare.

    Universities should start by preparing leadership and staff to anticipate that the results may reveal patterns or prevalence of sexual misconduct that are difficult to read or acknowledge. Institutional leaders must ensure they are ready to respond with compassion and commitment, not defensiveness or denial.

    Universities should be prepared to review support systems and communication now. Are reporting tools easy to find, accessible, and trauma-informed? Is the student community confident that disclosures will be taken seriously? These questions are important and there is potential for the survey to act as a prompt to review what is already in place as well as what might need urgent attention.

    Universities should also engage students meaningfully. Institutions must commit to involving students — especially survivor advocates and representative bodies — in analysing findings and shaping the response. The worst outcome would be seeing the SMS as a tick-box exercise. The best would be for it to spark co-produced action plans.

    When data is released, institutions avoid the urge to benchmark or downplay. Instead, they should be ready to own the story the data tells and act on the issues it raises. A lower prevalence rate does not necessarily mean a safer campus; it may reflect barriers to disclosure or fear of speaking out. Each result will be different, and a patchwork of responses is no bad thing.

    Finally, it is important to look beyond the numbers and see the person. Qualitative insights from the SMS will be just as important as the statistics. Stories of why students did not report, or how they were treated when they did, offer vital direction for reform and should be something which university leaders and policy makers take time to think about.

    This is only the first year of the SMS, and it is not yet clear whether it will become a permanent feature alongside the NSS. That said, whether the pilot continues or evolves into something new, the challenge it presents is real and overdue.

    The sector cannot afford to wait passively for data. If the SMS is to be more than a compliance exercise, it must be the beginning of a broader culture shift – one that faces up to what students have long known, listens without defensiveness, and builds environments where safety, dignity, and justice are non-negotiable.

    Lasting change will not come from surveys alone. Asking the right questions — and acting with purpose on the answers — is a critical start.

    Source link

  • Melbourne uni received 44 sexual misconduct complaints last year – Campus Review

    Melbourne uni received 44 sexual misconduct complaints last year – Campus Review

    A dozen staff members, employed by Australia’s leading tertiary institution, were investigated last year following allegations of sexual misconduct and harassment, a new report has revealed.

    Please login below to view content or subscribe now.

    Membership Login

    Source link

  • Here’s how institutions are faring in handling harassment and sexual misconduct complaints

    Here’s how institutions are faring in handling harassment and sexual misconduct complaints

    Evidence suggests that significant numbers of students experience or are affected by harassment and sexual misconduct each year. Yet student complaints to the Office of the Independent Adjudicator (OIA) about harassment and sexual misconduct have historically formed a very small proportion of our overall caseload.

    The number of complaints about harassment and sexual misconduct we have received has been rising slowly but steadily in recent months. This may in part be a result of greater visibility at providers about mechanisms to disclose, such as “report and support” tools. This is a positive step, but there is more to be done to raise students’ confidence in how their providers can respond to reports.

    Today we have published ten case summaries and a casework note on harassment and sexual misconduct, highlighting some key issues for providers to consider when addressing complaints. Although these examples focus on sexual misconduct, the broad principles of good practice can apply across other forms of harassment.

    Taking reports seriously

    Our recent casework shows that some providers are demonstrating, via the disciplinary action they take against students reported for harassment and sexual misconduct, how seriously they view breaches of their codes of conduct. We’ve seen providers taking swift action to investigate, make findings and apply penalties. In some cases, we have seen well-reasoned and documented decisions and clearly explained outcomes.

    However, we have upheld a high proportion of the complaints we have reviewed about harassment and sexual misconduct. We have identified procedural errors and unfairness that have significantly undermined the value of the process for reporting students, and the validity of findings made against reported students.

    Overall, providers seem to have more confidence in addressing the disciplinary aspect of these complaints. Disciplinary processes are usually well established and are supported by guidance and tools such as classification of the severity of any breaches of a code of conduct and accompanying tariffs of penalties.

    There is less certainty and consistency of approach across the sector in responding to the reporting student. There may be fine nuances between a disclosure, a report or a complaint about harassment and sexual misconduct, and the manner of response to each might be slightly different. Many providers intend to be led by the reporting student’s needs, which is an admirable principle – but not always effective if the student has not been clearly informed about the options available to them and the differences between these routes.

    Sharing an outcome

    In several cases, providers haven’t understood that informing a reporting student that a disciplinary process has taken place is not a complete outcome.

    Providers need to consider how they can support students and lessen the impact upon them of the harassment or sexual misconduct they have experienced. This is especially important when the report concerns the conduct of a member of staff. In our experience, providers have tended to be more transparent about incidents between two students than they have been when a member of staff is involved.

    While providers have particular responsibilities to their employees that may be different to the obligations they have towards students, the imbalance of power makes it even more important that students understand how their complaint has been investigated and what will happen next.

    Gathering and probing evidence

    We recognise that complaints about harassment and sexual misconduct are often complex, and may involve events that unfold over a period of time, multiple incidents or involve numerous individuals. There can be constraints because of concurrent police action, which may not result in a clear outcome for several months. Cases may involve claims and counter-complaints, or turn on the credibility of the parties on nuanced issues such as consent.

    Our experience suggests that in some cases, decision makers have not fully understood the importance of moving carefully through a process that genuinely gives all parties an opportunity to tell their own story and allows for gaps and inconsistencies to be explored. It is right that all parties in these processes must be treated with respect, with kindness, and with an awareness of the impact that re-visiting an experience of harassment or sexual misconduct may have.

    But panel members who must test evidence appear to feel constrained in asking questions. Trying to re-examine or gather additional evidence at a later date can place an undue burden on all parties and prevent individuals from moving forward.

    Consultation on a new section of the Good Practice Framework

    The increased focus on tackling harassment and sexual misconduct across the sector – including the new E6 OfS regulatory condition that applies to some of the providers in our membership – is to be welcomed. The emphasis on clear information that is easy to access, and on well-resourced training for both staff and students may go some way to addressing some issues we have seen in complaints.

    In 2025, we will consult on a new section of the Good Practice Framework addressing these complex issues. It will build on the learning we have identified from our rising volume of casework. Our intention will be to draw together in one place the principles that apply to complaints about harassment and misconduct.

    We look forward to engaging with the sector to benefit from the extensive expertise of hands-on practitioners, to make this as useful a resource as possible. If you’d like to feed in at an early stage, please get in touch with us at outreach@oiahe.org.uk.

    Source link

  • A Shocking Case of Academic Misconduct at Universite Libre de Bruxelles (Emmanuel Legeard)

    A Shocking Case of Academic Misconduct at Universite Libre de Bruxelles (Emmanuel Legeard)

    A Flagrant and Repeated Breach of Academic Ethics (Université Libre de Bruxelles and European Journal of Applied Physiology)

    For
    several years now, Jacques Duchâteau and his team at the Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB) have sought to misappropriate the 3/7 Method, a
    strength-training protocol I independently developed more than 20 years
    ago. Jean-Pierre Egger revealed the method — while respecting its
    intellectual property — during seminars and university lectures in 2012.
    Regardless of this elementary fact, ULB’s claims are contradicted by
    ample evidence proving my authorship, such as correspondence with Egger
    dating back to 2008, his documented public presentation at the
    University of Lausanne in 2012 within the ISSUL Master’s program, and
    Duchâteau’s recorded presentations at the French National Institute of
    Sport (INSEP).

    THE 3/7 METHOD, ALSO KNOWN AS THE LEGEARD PROTOCOL (Presented by Jean-Pierre Egger at the University of Lausanne in 2012)

    (You can download the full .pdf here: (PDF) Emmanuel Legeard Le 3–7 Master en sciences du sport, Université de Lausanne)

    Initially,
    Jacques Duchâteau organized conferences about me — curiously, without
    my involvement or consent — where the 3/7 Method was even referred to as
    “Legeard’s Method”. Gradually, Duchâteau resorted to insinuating that
    the method might not solely be my creation, a claim he knew was false.
    My method has never been modified by anyone. At the time, I dismissed
    these rumors as baseless. However, it became clear that this was a
    calculated strategy to dilute my rights and claim ownership of my work.

    2014: DUCHÂTEAU PRESENTS THE “LEGEARD’S METHOD” AT INSEP

    Subsequently, Duchâteau’s team — including Séverine Stragier, Stéphane Baudry, and Alain Carpentier — published a 12-page article in the European Journal of Applied Physiology about my method. Shockingly, my name, Emmanuel Legeard, WAS ENTIRELY OMITTED
    ! This publication, titled “Efficacy of a new strength training design:
    the 3/7 method”, audaciously describes the method as “new”, a blatant
    misrepresentation given its development over two decades ago and its
    public introduction in 2012 by Egger.

    European
    Journal of Applied Physiology’s predatory publishing — Predatory publishing, also write-only publishing or deceptive publishing, is an
    exploitative academic publishing business model, where the journal or
    publisher prioritizes self-interest at the expense of scholarship. It is
    characterized by misleading information, deviates from the standard
    peer-review process, and is highly opaque.

    The
    misrepresentation has not gone unnoticed. T.C. Luoma, a renowned
    American sports journalist and editor of T-Nation — a site with over
    three million monthly visitors — highlighted the issue, stating:

    “That’s
    why reading about the 3/7 method aroused my interest. It’s a set-rep
    scheme developed by French strength coach Emmanuel Legeard in the early
    2000s.”

    (Source: T-Nation Forums)

    2023: THE DUCHÂTEAU TEAM’S UNABASHED IDEA THEFT

    Last year, Grigoraș Diaconescu, an international rugby player, shared his outrage after discovering a post by Gaël Deboeck, identified as the head of Physical Therapy and Rehabilitation at ULB. Deboeck congratulated Alexis Gillet,
    a doctoral student, for using the 3/7 Method to “prove” what I
    demonstrated 20 years ago. Unsurprisingly, the publication made no
    mention of the method’s original creator. It is now evident that ULB
    intends to mislead the public into believing that their laboratory
    developed the 3/7 Method. These unethical actions demand accountability.

    2023: THE DUCHÂTEAU TEAM’S UNABASHED IDEA THEFT


    CONSEQUENCES OF THIS ACADEMIC MISCONDUCT

    If
    the Université Libre de Bruxelles believes I will quietly accept the
    theft of my work, they are mistaken. This scandal, indicative of
    dishonesty incompatible with academic integrity, must result in
    sanctions. Public funding cannot continue to
    support crooked research where my work is falsely attributed to
    impostors like Jacques Duchâteau, Séverine Stragier    , Stéphane Baudry, Alain Carpentier, Gael Deboeck or Alexis Gillet. I
    have been lenient for years, but my patience as the rightful creator
    has reached its limit. I have begun publicly correcting this falsehood
    online, as seen in similar cases — such as one involving the University
    of Zurich — which have led to severe consequences for academic dishonesty.

    Dr Emmanuel Legeard, Ph.D. — Creator, among quite a few others, of the 3/7 Method, also known as the “Legeard Method”.

    This article originally appeared on Medium.

    Source link

  • Collaboration is key when it comes to addressing harassment and sexual misconduct

    Collaboration is key when it comes to addressing harassment and sexual misconduct

    In all of the noise about the OfS’s new regulation on harassment and sexual misconduct there’s one area where the silence is notable and disappointing – sector collaboration.

    Back in 2022, the independent evaluation of the OfS statement of expectations on harassment and sexual misconduct made a clear recommendation that OfS and DfE “foster more effective partnership working“ both between HE providers and with those external to the sector. Now, having published details of the new condition E6 and the accompanying guidance, this seems to have been largely forgotten.

    There’s a nod to the potential benefit of collaboration in OfS’s analysis of consultation responses, but it only goes as far as to say that providers “may wish to identify collective steps” – with little explanation of what this could look like and no intention or commitment to proactively support this.

    This feels like a significant oversight, and one that is disappointing to say the least. It’s become clear from our work with IHE members that collaboration needs to be front and centre if we have any hope as a sector of delivering in this area. Without it, some providers – especially smaller ones – will not be able to meet the new requirements, creating risk and failing to achieve the consistency of practice and experience that students expect. This feels even more true given the current context of widespread financial insecurity. Any new regulation ought to be presenting mechanisms and incentives to collaborate – and reduce costs in doing so.

    Working together for a stronger sector – or only sometimes?

    The silence around collaboration is also surprising, given that in other spheres it is seen to be – and in many cases is – the solution to institutions meeting regulatory requirements and student expectations. John Blake’s latest speech on a regional approach to access and participation is just one example of this. There is implicit recognition that in this era of “diminishing resources”, working together is the solution. There’s also the recognition that partnership working needs funding – more on that later.

    It’s also surprising given that OfS has made clear that both providers in any academic partnership are responsible for compliance with the new condition, including where there’s a franchise arrangement. This seems like an open door for collaborative approaches, given that over half the providers on the register do not have their own degree awarding powers. However, as usual, it is unclear what this means in practice. There is no reference in the regulation to how the OfS would view any collaborative efforts, or examples of what this might look like in practice.

    Academic partnerships make logical collaborators

    IHE’s recent project on academic partnerships demonstrates the potential of such arrangements for collaboration that benefits both providers and their students. Our research found a number of innovative models where awarding institutions facilitated collaboration with and between their academic partners in areas including shared learning opportunities and use of shared platforms.

    There’s a clear opportunity here when it comes to staff training. All institutions need to have staff who are “appropriately trained”. Training in areas such as receiving disclosures and conducting investigations benefits from group delivery – where staff can learn from each other. A small provider might only have one or two staff who require it, meaning they are unlikely to draw much benefit from this. It would also make such training prohibitively expensive. It’s likely to need to be delivered by an external organisation (to ensure the “credible and demonstrable expertise” required) and such solutions aren’t scaled to an institution with just a handful of relevant staff. Awarding institutions sharing such group training would solve this – and also benefit shared processes in that staff across both institutions have the same level of knowledge and competence.

    A further benefit of shared training would be that partners could share staff when investigations need greater independence than a small provider can offer. This could be staff from the awarding partner, or another academic partner. This would effectively bring together useful knowledge of institutional context, policies and processes with the necessary external objectivity to run a credible investigation.

    Another opportunity for collaboration is in shared online reporting tools. These can be an effective way of encouraging disclosure, but such systems are often not scaled for small institutions. As well as being more cost-effective, sharing these could lead to greater confidence of students reporting in the independence of tool and the process that follows.

    Think local – for everyone’s sake!

    Regional or local collaboration is the other area with the potential to benefit students, providers, and other services supporting those who experience harassment or sexual misconduct.

    Local or regional collaboration on reporting and investigation can support disclosure by creating more independence in the system. The independent evaluation spoke specifically of this, recommending the facilitation of

    formal or informal shared services, such as regional support networks, and in particular regional investigation units or hubs.

    And it would enable more effective partnerships with external support services. Rather than every provider trying to establish a partnership with a local service (putting a greater burden on groups who are often charities or not-for-profits), group collaborations could streamline this. This needs to include all types of provider, including small providers and FE colleges delivering HE. This would be more efficient, reduce unhelpful competition for the limited resource of the service, and ensure that all students have access to these support services irrespective of their place of study.

    Where there aren’t local services, providers could pool resource and expertise to develop and deliver these. This would reduce competition for specialist staff in the same geographic location, and again ensure parity of support for students across providers.

    It’s important that such collaborations involve all parts of the sector, including small providers – with the burden of their participation reflective of their smaller size. This is vital to ensure that collaborative models are cost effective for everyone.

    Getting it right on student engagement

    Collaborative approaches are also going to be critical to make sure we get it right on student engagement. The OfS expectation is clear that providers work with students and their representatives to develop policies and procedures. But what happens when an institution doesn’t have an SU, or a formal representative structure, or the necessary experience in student engagement to do this? There’s a risk that it won’t be done properly or be done at all.

    We need to consider how we facilitate students to support each other to engage in co-production. This could include sharing staff or exploring the development of local student union services that bring in smaller providers or FE colleges without the means to partner with students in the way that is needed.

    Making it happen

    The sort of collaboration outlined above will need more than just the goodwill of institutions to make it happen. It needs regulatory backing, with more explicit recognition of the value of these approaches and guidance on what this might look like in practice. We also need to recognise that it’s costly.

    Catalyst funding, like that provided back in 2019, would represent far better value to the sector than asking individual providers to fund collaboration. The risk is that without it, the burden of developing a system that works for all students at all providers will be left to the smallest institutions who need these collaborative options the most. Funding would also boost evaluation and resource sharing across the sector. It could consider the benefits of collaborative approaches between awarding and teaching institutions as well as regional structures which ensure a greater parity of support across providers large and small.

    Somewhere on this path to regulation we lost the perspective that harassment and sexual misconduct is a societal issue. What we do now to educate, prevent harm to and support students will have a lasting impact on the future as students become employees, employers, parents and educators themselves. It is not a task to be shouldered alone.

    Source link