The Guardian
Universities UK says rules must be updated to bring them into line with human rights laws and institutions’ duty of care to students
Nicola Dandridge: ‘Universities have a clear duty of care when it comes to their students and we need to revisit the guidelines to make sure this duty is at the heart of them.’ Photograph: Geoff Wilson
A taskforce set up to crack down on sexual violence on campus has recommended the overhaul of much-criticised rules governing how universities deal with allegations.
Universities UK, the body representing vice-chancellors and principals, said it had identified an “overwhelming need” for the 22-year-old rules, known as the Zellick guidelines, to be reviewed in order to bring them into line with human rights legislation and universities’ duty of care to students.
The move follows investigations by the Guardian showing that less than half of Russell Group universities log all allegations of rape, sexual assault and harassment reported by students and that student victims of sexual violence felt they were not taken seriously by their institutions.
Women’s rights organisations, students and lawyers have long argued the rules, which predate important human rights legislation such as the Equality Act 2010 and the Human Rights Act, fail to take into account the duty of universities and colleges to protect female students.
The taskforce was set up in November 2015, after Sajid Javid, the business secretary, ordered university vice-chancellors to investigate the “sexual and verbal assault” against woman and sexist “lad culture” on campus. He said he would not rule out legislation to deal with the problem.
Nicola Dandridge, chief executive of Universities UK and chair of the taskforce, said the evidence submitted to it was overwhelming in its view that the guidelines had to be changed due to developments over the past two decades.
Dandridge told the Guardian: “For example, the legal context within which universities must operate has changed significantly since 1994 with the Equality Act 2010 and the Human Rights Act 1998 informing legal decisions.
“Some argue that there is a risk that a blanket prohibition on investigating and invoking internal disciplinary procedures if an incident is not reported to police could amount to direct or indirect discrimination under the Equality Act.”
The growth of social media had also altered the way students interact, she said
“These developments can also play a role in the incidents that universities must deal with, such as online abuse and harassment and misuse of social media.”
The 1994 guidelines were written by Professor Graham J Zellick, for the then Committee of Vice Chancellors and Principals, now Universities UK, to advise universities on handling circumstances where a student’s alleged misconduct could also constitute a criminal offence. He advised universities not to conduct their own investigations into allegations of sexual violence.
In practice, however, critics have argued they meant universities could refuse to investigate allegations of sexual assault, effectively leaving perpetrators free from discipline and exacerbating the problem.
Dandridge said feedback to the taskforce had raised questions on whether there was sufficient balance within the Zellick guidelines between supporting the victims, upholding the rights of the accused and protecting the institution when handling alleged criminal conduct.
“Universities have a clear duty of care when it comes to their students and we need to revisit the guidelines to make sure this duty is at the heart of them,” she said.
The taskforce into violence, harassment and hate crime is also considering specific new recommendations on ensuring assaults are monitored, that staff are trained and that there is proactive work to prevent abuse and harassment before it takes place. It is expected to publish a report in autumn 2016.
Women’s groups and student bodies welcomed the news. They said they hoped it would lead to the institutions properly investigating allegations of sexual violence, so that the alleged perpetrators would be brought to justice.
Susuana Amoah, NUS women’s officer, said: “We’re really pleased to see the UUK taskforce has agreed to do a legal review of the Zellick guidelines. This is something the NUS Women’s Campaign, Rape Crisis and student activists on the ground have been pushing for through the Stand By Me campaign, which aims to improve the support available for student survivors of sexual assault and rape. We hope this review will lead to the creation of a new set of guidelines centring around the welfare of survivors rather than institutional reputation.”
Sarah Green, acting director of the End Violence Against Women Coalition, said: “We warmly welcome the recognition by Universities UK today that changes in equality and human rights law mean it is time for universities to change the way they respond to allegations of rape and other abuse and harassment.
“We also commend Universities UK for the open and transparent way in which they are reporting on the ongoing taskforce’s progress, including its consideration of improving monitoring, staff training, support and work to prevent sexual violence and other abuse before it happens. We look forward to the taskforce’s final recommendations in the autumn.”
Louise Whitfield, from Deighton Pierce Glynn, author of a legal briefing warning that universities and colleges could be breaking the law by refusing to investigate allegations of sexual assault or rape, said the news was “very significant”.
Whitfield said: “The guidelines, which predated the Equality Act and Human Rights Act, failed to take into account the duties of universities to protect the rights of women and their right to education. It is clearly inappropriate for universities to be using these guidelines and failing to protect students from sexual violence.”
Whitfield said “a robust system for investigating allegations and taking appropriate action” was vital to deal with the problem of sexual violence on campus.
Universities UK also highlighted key themes to be discussed in its final report. They included the need for robust reporting mechanisms, a centralised process for recording data and a cross-institutionalised approach, to be developed with input from students.
