Prohibit the use of NDAs, confidentiality clauses, and any other language which prevents victims of harassment, sexual misconduct, and/or discrimination from speaking publicly about their experiences.

We affirm that silencing victims only protects perpetrators and predators.

(a) This applies to investigations triggered by disciplinary procedures outlined in harassment policies, non-academic misconduct bylaws, and other codes, at both the University and college level. 

(b) This includes the University and every college, department/faculty, centre, and/or affiliated institution, publicly committing to never enforcing previously employed NDAs, confidentiality clauses, or other language that limits the speech of victims of harassment, sexual misconduct, and discrimination. 

Change the University’s legal definition of harassment, which has been adopted by many of the colleges in their bylaws. Currently this definition understands harassment as both unwanted and unwarranted.

We affirm that unwanted behaviour and/or interactions are never warranted and such conjunctive clauses cannot continue to be used as defence to avoid penalties in disciplinary proceedings triggered by harassment policies.

(a) We do not think that a respondent’s disabilities or chronic health conditions can prima facie ‘warrant’ or serve as defenses against allegations of harassment, misconduct, and/or discrimination. We protest institutional instrumentalization of ableist logic that effectively states that people with any neuro-divergence cannot categorically determine whether their behaviour is unsafe to, or ‘unwanted’ by, others. 

(b) Please note that, while disabilities or chronic health conditions are private information, their inclusion to offer ‘warrants’ for respondents in harassment proceedings are frequently cited to deny complainants any access to outcomes and findings. The medicalization of proceedings to make outcomes and findings ‘non-disclosable’ to complainants is then used to claim exceptions that deny Freedom of Information requests. We believe this to be inconsistent with Office of the Independent Adjudicator (OIA)  guidance which requires a complainant to be given a resolution to their complaint, and disclosure of findings would bring the handling of non-academic complaints about harassment, sexual misconduct, and/or discrimination more in line with the OIA’s general complaints-handling regime. (Please see Section E, pages 23-24, of The 1752 Group and McAllister Olivarius Sector Guidance to Address Staff Sexual Misconduct in UK HE)

Establish a robust policy prohibiting, regardless of duration, intimate (sexual and romantic) relationships between staff and students.

We affirm that the inherent power dynamics between staff and students make such relationships a real or perceived conflict of interest, and increase the risks of exploitation, favouritism and/or bias. 

(a) No intimate relationships will be tolerated between staff and undergraduates, regardless of either party’s age. 

(b) Any member of staff who has any responsibility or involvement in the education, supervision, assessment, welfare, funding or any other part of a graduate or diploma student’s education cannot engage in intimate relationships with the student, regardless of whether the student attempts to instigate a relationship.

(c) Under this demand staff are also defined as: DPhil students who are employed temporarily or permanently as staff; visiting staff; academic guests; as well as non-academic positions such as chaplains. 

(d) Any staff member, current or prospective, who is party to or plans to be party to, an intimate relationship with a student:

(i) Shall bear the responsibility of ensuring it is not prohibited by (b) and/or (c)

(ii) Shall immediately disclose the relationship to:

1. The member of faculty and/or staff who is clearly enumerated as the ‘main disciplinary officer’ in the bylaws or codes of the university, college, departments/faculty, centres, and/or affiliated institutions. 

2. In acceding to this demand, any college, department/faculty, centre, and/or affiliated institutions that does not possess a clearly enumerated ‘main disciplinary officer’ in their bylaws or codes will transparently designate an appropriate officer.

(iii) Failure to disclose personal or intimate relationships with a student, where there is a real or perceived conflict of interest, breach of trust or confidentiality, will trigger an investigation under the disciplinary procedure for non-academic misconduct. 

1. If during the course of an investigation regarding a failure to disclose, a staff member is found to be in breach, they cannot continue in student-facing roles, or attend social events with students. 

(e) In the event of investigation under disciplinary procedure, the person(s) with greater power or authority in the situation will be held responsible for any breaches of this policy. This person(s) assumes all risks for potential breaches of policy.

Publish annually and publicly the number of complaints of sexual misconduct, discrimination, and violence across the University. This report must include staff-staff complaints, student-staff complaints, and student-student complaints.

We affirm that transparency about safety in the University and in individual colleges is essential to a healthy community.

(a) Data on numbers of complaints, and non-identifying outcomes of complaints per faculty, department and college should be broken down and published annually.

(b) Data relating to complaints of sexual misconduct, discrimination and violence should be recorded centrally within the University, and include all information relating to complaints made within the colleges.

(c) At the moment, it is impossible to obtain a thorough understanding of the state of the complaints within the University. The only centrally recorded data of this nature concerns complaints that go through the University complaint system. As recently as August of 2021, Freedom of Information Requests to 39 Oxford colleges by reporters at Al Jazeera resulted in only 10 colleges sending (generally, partial) responses. 

See Section F (pages 24-25) in The 1752 Group and McAllister Olivarius Sector Guidance to Address Staff Sexual Misconduct in UK HE 

Require that all final job candidates for University and college(s) posts, both temporary and permanent, must sign a declaration that they have never been the subject of adverse findings in discrimination, retaliation or harassment proceedings, lawsuits, administrative or legal complaints or disciplinary actions and that they are not currently the subject of an open investigation or proceedings related to professional misconduct, such as a discrimination or harassment lawsuits or administrative complaints.

We affirm that knowing a candidate’s history of misconduct is as important in hiring processes as their publications and accolades for determining suitability in any role.

(a) This statement must be clearly advertised as part of the job application.

(b) This statement should include declarations that they have not, in the past ten years, been formally disciplined at any academic institution/place of employment. In the event  that the candidate cannot make this declaration, they will be expected to disclose in writing to the hiring committee the circumstances surrounding any formal discipline that they have received, as well as any current or ongoing investigations or disciplinary proceedings of which they are the subject. 

(i) Note that discipline includes a negotiated settlement agreement to resolve a matter related to substantiated misconduct.

(c) The statement should authorize the final candidate’s current and past employers to disclose to the University and relevant college(s) any sexual misconduct committed by the candidate and to make copies of all documents available. Additionally, the form releases the final candidate’s current and past employers, and employees acting on behalf of that employer, from any liability.

(d) We additionally recommend that upheld complaints at the University and college(s) be stated in staff reference letters, including open complaints that have not been resolved before the staff member leaves their position at the University or college(s). Making academia safer means not hiring predators, but also not allowing predators to circulate to other universities to find new victims. We believe that allowing staff members to leave their position during the course of an investigation without disclosing the existence of that investigation to other universities and institutions can potentially lead to foreseeable future violations of Duty of Care when those respondents are invited back for conferences and social events in University spaces.