Watertight HR for the #MeToo Era

Attention to cases of sexual harassment and assault in HE continues to intensify, writes Richard Peachey of CMP Solutions. Media feel they’re onto something.

A recent investigation from the BBC Radio 4's File on 4 programme suggested the system for dealing with complaints was failing students. In 2018, it said, there had been 110 complaints of sexual assault and 80 allegations of rape. The lack of any mandatory guidelines for universities on how they should make records of complaints, and how to go about investigations, meant the response was “patchy”. The lengthy nature of the processes involved meant students felt like they were being deterred from reporting what had happened to them. The implication is that HE puts its reputation first.

Earlier this year, a Channel 4 investigation has claimed reports of rape and sexual assault cases in universities have spiked by 82% in the past year. Number are said to have risen from 65 reports in 2014 to 626 in 2018, with more than 1,600 in total over the period.

We work across the public sector helping organisations as complex as NHS Trusts, police forces and Government departments deal with grievances and claims of harassment. But it’s HR in universities that face the most exceptional circumstances: working each year with cohorts of young people, most away from home for the first time, living independently in hothouse communities of relationships. There’s also the dynamic with academics and other staff - figures of experience and status with a role in pastoral care.

The headline figures are the result of a number of factors that have encouraged reporting: the introduction of anonymous methods for making reports, backed up by awareness-raising campaigns. Universities also also point to the fact that the numbers like those quoted by Channel 4 include the reporting of historic cases. And, of course, the context is different. The #MeToo age has made everyone both more sensitive to, and more willing to talk about, inappropriate behaviours.

In a sense the details aren’t important. It’s the public perception of the sector that matters, something affected over time by all these kinds of special news investigations, social media conversations, gossip and rumour. 

Over the past decade, via Universities UK’s guidelines and initiatives from individual institutions, HE has been putting in place new processes to handle complaints. But systems are all about implementation: how it’s done, the experience of the people involved in providing support, the quality of investigations. There has to be clarity and there has to be trust. 

Universities all need to be looking again at their processes to ensure they bear up to any level of scrutiny. That doesn’t only mean the process for reporting in the first place - although obviously critical - but how the fall-out of the complaint is dealt with.

There are basic principles that should underpin the response:

• investigations into inappropriate behaviours need to be formal in terms of how they are organised, carried out and reported on;

• investigations into allegations need to be proportionate with the alleged offence (so the more serious the allegation, the more evidence should be gathered, more witnesses called and paths of inquiry followed to their logical end);

• there should never be an onus on the ‘victim’ to be accommodating in terms of reaching a settlement (for the sake of the reputation of their institution or the respect of the individuals involved). This only reinforces the natural power relationship, the strength of the institution and individual staff over students;

• any allegation needs to be treated seriously in the first instance - there should, for example, be an onus on the respondent to engage in the process, and not have the option to refuse any participation;

• investigations should not be run by an academic, even if they have no association with the member of staff involved - there are always going to be loyalties and sympathies that cloud decision-making;

• rather than just assuming a personal tutor should be involved, extra care is needed when considering whether an investigation should be handled by a man or woman to encourage openness;

• they need to be undertaken as quickly as possible in the interests of all those involved. Investigations run with internal resources tend to be slow, relying on the availability of senior academic staff, which can prolong anxieties and act as a barrier to victims (not wanting to extend the experience or after a time, to even participate);

• training in fair decision-making can be needed among panel members. A panel may well include HR and a student representative, but the assumed power will usually lie with the academic when there needs to be equality in terms of how views and perspectives are treated;

• there can be a presumption that a panel will be fair-minded, particularly those that involve academics. Academic culture and its intellectual level can be a problem. Academics are typically used to having high levels of control over their world, their area of expertise and research, over lectures and tutorials, and can be wary of any interference. It can be a world of power and privacy;

• if an alleged perpetrator of behaviour like sexual harassment is found guilty, it’s important an institution can ensure that sanctions are consistent - if one staff member is only given a rap over the knuckles while another at a different university is dismissed from their post for a similar offence then it only weakens the sector’s position and creates confusion.

Introducing good processes builds the all-important confidence and trust among all stakeholders involved with institutions; the certainty among students that they will be listened to, and there will be a constructive outcome. Experience from across the public sector - and common sense - tells us that the best cultures are the ones where reports of low-level problems and complaints are fairly frequent - worries and concerns are raised early and dealt with early. People speak up and clear the air.

So while this kind of media attention on HE can feel harsh and unwelcome - it’s also important for focusing minds, for moving away from a world of reticence, secret meetings and NDAs to transparency and constructive support.

Richard Peachey, Consultant at Student Complaints Specialists, CMP, www.cmpsolutions.com