Sex, Violence and Justice on Campus: A Report on a Difficult Dialogue
Amy Life, Intern at GENDER.ED and one of the Founders of #MeToo Edinburgh, reflects on a difficult dialogue convened by GENDER.ED earlier this month in a packed room on campus.
Over a month has passed since our 16 Days International Blogathon ended in December with a theme of ‘Sexual Violence and Harassment in Higher Education Institutions’. Now, in February, we returned to this theme again in our Sex, Violence and Justice on Campus event, which saw Professor John Devaney (Head of SPS), Dr Poppy Gerard-Abbott (PhD researcher), Kirsten Hay (Sex? On Campus! Campaign Lead), Professor Sharon Cowan (Edinburgh Law School), and Professor Lesley McAra (IASH) in conversation with our Associate Director.
Sexual violence is always a challenging issue to talk about; it's personal and deeply distressing, and conversations usually occur in the face of intransigent positions from institutions and governing bodies. When under the stress of the urgent need for change, it can be a challenge to find common ground. Questions abound about what should be tackled first, who should lead the campaign for change, and what such a campaign should look like. As Poppy Gerard-Abbott said during the event, at the University of Edinburgh, we seem to have hit rock bottom when it comes to the prevention of sexual violence and the handling of instances of sexual violence after they’ve happened. With almost no students (or staff) receiving disciplinary measures as the result of sexual misconduct despite high levels of reported sexual violence from students, the numbers simply don’t add up.
All of the speakers seemed to agree that progress in the institution has been slow. If anything, Lesley McAra pointed out, things have regressed since she arrived at the University forty years ago. This may, in part, be due to the failure to evaluate the situation and the changes that are implemented to improve it – if the University doesn’t monitor the situation, how can they address it?
Hemangini Gupta asked the speakers what challenges we face when addressing these systems, and the speakers offered several thoughts on this. John Devaney began by pointing out the challenge posed by the Student Code of Conduct (CoC), which is continually in need of reform. However, the process of making the needed reforms is painfully slow, bureaucratic, and legalistic. As John said, it is hard to use a CoC primarily concerned with academic misconduct to address sexual misconduct, which requires a trauma-informed approach that is not present in the CoC. Sharon Cowan added that the legalisation of the redressal system following the inclusion of legal representation for reporting parties in university investigations across the UK has ramped up the conditions and stakes of the process. Poppy highlighted that the diplomatic and democratic processes and dialogues between the University and survivors of sexual violence are at an all-time low, with unnecessary bureaucracy overshadowing student voices. Lesley and Kirsten mentioned the need for prevention; these systems shouldn’t be necessary, and the University must play a part in dispersing the culture of sexual violence that is rampant on campus.
Kirsten talked about their experiences as a student activist trying to engage with senior staff at the University on the issue. They told the room that they have had no luck, with the only opportunity to talk to senior staff being at a student voice meeting where they asked Principal Peter Mathieson about the implementation of mandatory consent training before being met with what they felt was a less-than-adequate response. The call for mandatory consent training has been made by student activists over numerous years. It seems a simple measure to implement and one which could have positive effects. Yet, the University claim the need to protect survivors from engaging with material on sexual violence as a reason to keep consent training optional. The irony is not lost on anyone.
Next, Hemangini asked about what measures are needed to ensure community members are heard and that their testimony is fed back into the processes to change the redressal system. Kirsten began by pointing out that students are rarely asked what the University could do to improve the redressal system, leading to a lack of student voice. They also emphasised the need for all students to be able to have a say; student activist groups shouldn’t be the only students with the power to create change. Lesley further emphasised the importance of presenting data to senior management and that having both quantitative and qualitative research is vital for creating the pressure needed for change. John added to this that there is a need for more diverse representation when it comes to evidence of the extent of sexual violence at the University. Sharon pointed out that the experiences of trans and non-binary students are particularly underrepresented.
When reflecting on changes that they have witnessed, the speakers highlighted that, by and large, such changes have been either minimal or ineffective. For example, Kirsten offered the example of the reports from students that the Equally Safe team hasn’t been supportive enough, often leading to further traumatic experiences as well as the lack of clarity surrounding the training that the Equally Safe team receive. John noted that student voices have come to the fore, helping to raise a more general awareness of these issues. Poppy echoed this sentiment; rising from the ashes is an increased sense of solidarity, especially between staff and students.
The final question asked by Hemangini was about what justice looks like for each speaker. For Sharon, it was about understanding people’s experiences and when institutions listen and respond to these experiences. For Lesley, justice will be served when the University is safe for everyone. For Poppy, justice is believing in survivors and listening to them. For Kirsten, it’s about considering every individual who experiences sexual assault, as every experience is different and depends on individual identity.
The discussion was followed by questions and personal testimonies from the room. While it is hard to look into the future and how things might change, there is always a sense of hope that comes from talking and listening to experiences and ideas as well as from staff/student solidarity, as seen from the panel. It is in conversations like these that seeds for change are planted, and I, for one, am looking forward to seeing them grow.
Author Bio
Amy Life is a fourth year French and Philosophy student and an Undergraduate Communications Intern for GENDER.ED. She has previously been the president of Edinburgh University’s Feminist Society and is one of the founders of #MeToo Edinburgh University.