An outright ban on staff-student sexual relationships in?England would help to?avoid some of?the ¡°grey areas and ambiguities¡± that might arise from the Office for Students¡¯ proposed registration scheme, according to?campaigners.

But it has been warned that a?more hard-line approach to?eradicating sexual misconduct on?campuses could also drive such relationships underground and put students in?a more vulnerable position if?they do?not have access to?support.

The OfS, England¡¯s sector regulator, is consulting on plans to force all university staff to declare ¡°personal relationships¡± with students for whom they have responsibility, details of which should be kept on a register by the institution.

Anna Bull, the director of the 1752 Group set up to address sexual harassment in higher education, said such a scheme would provide universities with a clear means of taking action if relationships go undeclared, with staff breaking the rules potentially facing dismissal.

ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø

¡°Whether universities will actually do this is another question,¡± said Dr?Bull, a lecturer in education and social justice at the University of York. ¡°But a?major advantage of the register is this possibility.¡±

There were potential drawbacks, according to Dr Bull: it might ¡°send the message such relationships are OK¡± and it was not clear how students would be supported and protected beyond the registration process.

ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø

Dr Bull said prohibiting all such relationships ¨C the other option the OfS is consulting on ¨C would be preferable as it would ¡°make it easier to take action against sexual harassment because there would be a clear line that says any sexualised behaviour is?not?OK¡±.

But, she admitted, it is a ¡°bit of a catch-22 as it carries a serious risk that it would just be driven underground. You can imagine in a controlling relationship how a staff member could say, ¡®You will destroy my career if you speak up about this.¡¯ It?puts that student in an even more vulnerable position.¡±

Luke Brunning, a lecturer in applied ethics at the University of Leeds, said the OfS proposals were a ¡°massive step in the right direction¡± but there was still a case to be made for adopting the ¡°more radical proposal¡± of an outright ban.

He felt that the ¡°regulatory burden¡± of implementing the registration proposal had been ¡°underthought¡± because it was ¡°very hard to police and creates a grey zone of ambiguity that staff can operate?in¡±.

ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø

¡°It is confusing and sends mixed signals,¡± he said of the plan. ¡°You are telling staff this is something you can do, just let us know about it. I¡¯m not convinced that is robust enough.¡±

Dr Bull agreed with the OfS that sector-wide regulation was needed on harassment and sexual misconduct because universities¡¯ responses to the issues had been ¡°very patchy¡±.

But, she said, the regulator was going to have to ¡°get their hands dirty in terms of the detail of the delivery of this¡±.

¡°Staff who are handling complaints and reports are carrying all the risk and responsibilities because there is a lack of guidance on how to do this work,¡± Dr Bull said, adding that legal advice had indicated that regulatory obligations could equip providers with ¡°firmer ground¡± to, for example, share the results of complaints, an area where universities have been very cautious because of?data protection concerns.

ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø

tom.williams@timeshighereducation.com