51³Ô¹Ï

Several English universities have introduced partial bans on staff-student relationships ahead of new regulations coming into force, but critics say institutions have ¡°missed an opportunity¡± to take more decisive action on sexual misconduct.

From 1 August, universities will, for the first time, be subject to a new condition of registration introduced by the Office for Students (OfS) that aims to protect students from unwanted sexual behaviour after a fifth told the regulator they had experienced this.

It mandates that universities must outline what they are doing to prevent harassment and sexual misconduct and that students must?receive compulsory?training on issues such as consent?and?what to do if they witness misconduct.

Despite the new rules being due for a year, many institutions appeared somewhat unprepared, with several changing policies at the last minute and others failing to make their positions clear.

Institutions are being strongly encouraged by the OfS to ban staff-student relationships as part of the new rules?because of the risk of ¡°abuse of power¡±, but implementation of this ranged widely among Russell Group institutions polled by 51³Ô¹Ï.

The University of Liverpool has confirmed it will introduce no such ban and that its policy will instead ¡°continue to strongly discourage¡­any member of staff from having or pursuing a personal or intimate relationship with a student¡±.

A spokesperson said staff will be required to report the relationships so ¡°measures can be put in place to seek to protect the student from any abuse of power¡±.

¡°It is our view that a ban is both unlikely to stop all such relationships from forming and likely to deter their reporting, thereby impeding our ability to protect the student concerned,¡± they added.

The University of Southampton also confirmed that it will be maintaining its current policy, which ¡°strongly discourages¡± intimate relationships between staff and students, and states staff must declare this relationship to the university. This was despite the University and College Union branch??last year that pushed for a ban.

King¡¯s College London appeared to be taking a similar stance, with a policy ¡°discouraging¡± relationships still active on its website - it did not respond to repeated requests for comment asking?whether it will be changed.

Anna Bull, co-founder of The 1752 Group, which campaigns to end sexual misconduct at universities in UK, said that ¡°clear¡± policies condemning relationships were important in supporting affected students.

¡°When, or if, the relationship goes wrong or becomes abusive or harmful to the student, such policies ensure that there¡¯s a route for the student to raise concerns and that the student knows that they are in the right to be concerned,¡± she said.

¡°In my research, students have told me that they look through university policies when they feel uncomfortable about staff behaviour to find out whether they are justified in their concerns.¡± Not banning relationships ¡°will send the message that blurred boundaries are acceptable, and will deter students from raising concerns,¡± she said.

The universities of Birmingham, Bristol, Oxford,?Manchester and Sheffield,?as well as , the London School of Economics?and Imperial College London, have all banned staff-student relationships where the staff member has a ¡°relevant¡± or ¡°direct responsibility¡± for the student, but have stopped short of introducing a blanket ban.

Bull said that ¡°the ¡®direct¡¯ relationship definition is too narrow¡± and should instead encompass staff where ¡°there is a current or potential learning, pastoral or assessment responsibility¡±.

The University of Exeter has one of the strongest policies among the Russell Group, stating staff ¡°must not pursue or enter into an intimate personal relationship with a student or purchase transactional sex from any student¡±. The University of York, where Bull is a lecturer in the School of Education, has updated its policy to ban relationships where a staff member ¡°has, or is likely to have, direct academic responsibilities¡± for students.?

UCL confirmed it had looked to ¡°go further than the requirements¡± by prohibiting technicians, heads of department, deans, pastoral support staff and security staff from entering relationships with students, on top of bans on relationships between students and staff who have a ¡°direct responsibility¡± for them.

Some policies still appeared ambiguous. For example, Birmingham, which previously discouraged relationships, now says they are ¡°prohibited¡± but ¡°if¡± a staff member enters into a relationship with a student, then this must be declared.

Graham Towl, professor of forensic psychology at Durham University and former pro vice-chancellor, said issuing partial bans on staff-student relationships was ¡°a step in the right direction¡±, but said he was ¡°disappointed¡± that universities have not introduced blanket bans. ¡°It would be the most straightforward thing to do,¡± he said.

¡°In schools, if a teacher was having a sexual relationship with an 18-year-old in a sixth form, they couldn¡¯t simply say, ¡®I teach chemistry, she was doing English¡¯. They¡¯d just get thrown out.¡±

The OfS requirements stipulate that universities must provide readily available information on their sexual harassment policies, which must be ¡°easily accessible by students and those considering applying¡±.

The universities of Durham, Cambridge, Nottingham and Warwick all had pre-existing partial bans on relationships but did not respond to requests for comment on whether they would be updating their policies in light of the changes.?The University of Leeds did not appear to have a copy of its policy available to the public.

Bull said: ¡°We¡¯ve had enough notice of this shift that it shouldn¡¯t be a scramble to get policies over the line and be published at the last minute.¡±

Towl added: ¡°Why wouldn¡¯t universities be open and transparent about something so important?¡±

juliette.rowsell@timeshighereducation.com