Eight ways to improve responses to sexual misconduct in universities

Sexual misconduct is prevalent in UK universities. As institutions of learning and growth, universities bear a profound responsibility to ensure the safety and well-being of their community members. Yet, all too often, responses to such grave issues have been inadequate or misinformed. It's crucial that universities implement comprehensive, informed, and compassionate measures to handle cases of sexual misconduct. We have learned key lessons while developing a sexual misconduct case toolkit through a collaborative university effort involving our academics from various disciplines and working with professional services staff. The following outlines eight critical steps that we have identified that can significantly enhance the response within higher education institutions.

1. Enhanced reporting mechanism. It is crucial to offer an enhanced reporting mechanism tailored specifically for sexual misconduct complaints. A dedicated, user-friendly system (such as Report and Support) should dismantle barriers to reporting incidents. Using standard complaint forms seems inappropriate. Universities should ensure that the reporting tool is easily accessible and transparent. The system should provide information on what will happen to the report and how long it will take for someone to respond, and should identify who will be able to access the report.

• What does ‘taking sexual violence seriously’ look like at universities?
• Campus webinar: Student support and wellness strategies for a new term
• Resource collection: Gender equality in higher education: how to overcome key challenges

2. Video-recorded interviews. One highly effective way of making the evidence-gathering process more robust is for investigators to video their interviews with the reporting and responding parties, as well as key witnesses, with their consent. By recording these conversations, the evidence gathered is not only detailed and comprehensive, but it also ensures that both parties’ voices are equally represented when the evidence comes before a panel. This method can also drastically reduce the need for parties to repeat their accounts on multiple occasions, minimising the risk of further traumatising either party.

3. Treat reporting parties as core participants. Those who report incidents should not be treated merely as witnesses in the process. To ensure fairness, reporting parties should be afforded the right to respond to any alternative version of events advanced by the responding party or other witnesses, while the case is still at the investigation stage. This can be crucial for testing discrepancies between accounts. Any introduction of new evidence or statements at the hearing should warrant a pause in proceedings, allowing the reporting party a right of reply. Update reporting parties with important developments and outcomes.

4. Responsibilities to both parties. Universities face unique challenges in these cases when they hold legal and ethical duties to both parties, such as when they are students or staff. As much as possible, efforts should be made to reduce unnecessary stress on the parties during interviews. Both parties should be assigned their own points of contact and offered the opportunity to attend interviews with a supporter.

5. Mandate specialised training. Eligibility for roles such as investigating officers or panel members – those who uphold or dismiss the complaint – shouldn’t be based solely on job titles. Instead, the emphasis should be on requisite knowledge, skills and training. The university should make proactive efforts to ensure that those entrusted with such responsibilities are well equipped to manage them. When initially asked to be part of an investigation, staff should reflect on their abilities before agreeing to take part. Leading topics include the myriad types of sexual misconduct, perpetrator strategies, the role of alcohol and drugs, the intricacies of consent, biases and myths, and the neurobiology of trauma[MP1] .

6. Trauma-informed approaches. Incorporating trauma-informed investigative and interviewing strategies is also paramount. By staying informed about the latest research on trauma, its impact and the behavioural responses it triggers, staff can approach such cases with a heightened level of empathy and understanding. The science behind trauma reveals insights into how individuals process and remember traumatic events. Recognising the nuances of these responses, like the effects of dissociation or the impact of reflexive reactions, can improve the information elicited from those affected by trauma. This awareness not only aids in rapport building with the reporting party but also prevents potential misunderstandings that can arise due to the complex nature of trauma and memory.

7. Incident-led interviews. When structuring interviews, it's advisable to first focus on the incident itself. This structure recognises and counters the challenges survivors face when recalling traumatic incidents. Guilt, shame and self-blame are common emotions for survivors. They might, consciously or unconsciously, make omissions in their recounting to cover up embarrassing or seemingly conflicting things they did – or did not do – before or after the incident. By addressing the incident directly, investigators can reduce the likelihood of such omissions. However, it is then important to address events or contacts, before or after, which can provide important context to help with understanding the complaint.

8. Supporting staff. Dealing with cases involving trauma can leave an emotional imprint on those handling them. By acknowledging this, universities should put support systems in place. These can range from offering counselling sessions to conducting debriefing and reflection exercises, ensuring that staff have the necessary resources to manage and mitigate the effects of secondary trauma.

By integrating these measures, universities can cultivate a compassionate, informed and fair system to address and combat sexual misconduct effectively.

Melissa Hamilton is a professor of law and criminal justice at the University of Surrey; Ioana Enany is head of student conduct and compliance at St. George’s, University of London; Amy Knight is case manager in the Office of Student Complaints, Appeals and Regulation, also at the University of Surrey.

If you would like advice and insight from academics and university staff delivered direct to your inbox each week, sign up for the Campus newsletter.