The recent decision by the University of Manchester to introduce a partial ban on staff-student sexual relationships is a welcome sign that the Office for Students¡¯ are concentrating minds in English universities.

Manchester had previously relied on ¡°the integrity of both parties to ensure that abuses of power do not occur¡±. But, ahead of the implementation of the OfS guidance in August, the university has now ?relationships between staff and ¡°students they have a responsibility for¡± or in whose ¡°academic studies and/or pastoral care¡± they are involved.

We often hear universities insist that they take sexual violence very seriously but if this were true the ¨C which, while stopping short of an outright ban, strongly discourage staff-student relationships ¨C would not be necessary.

Most UK universities¡¯ staff are still permitted to have sex with their students, and abuses of power and sexual misconduct are occurring as a result. Rather than moving towards a ban, some university leaders appear merely to be requiring the staff member to declare the relationship or sexual interaction. How such registers are supposed to prevent abuse of power is unclear because a vulnerable student contacted by HR is unlikely to admit they are being coerced into a relationship or sex with a professor who has enormous power over their academic success. And when survivors do report staff sexual misconduct, often they are?.

51³Ô¹Ï

In our opinion, the only effective solution is a default ban on staff-student relationships and sexual interactions ¨C with reasonable exceptions, such as for relationships that existed before the student/employee relationship. As the OfS regulation states, a ban ¡°could make a significant and credible difference in protecting students from any actual or potential conflict of interest and/or abuse of power¡±.

Many UK universities seem to be doing far worse than simply failing to provide protections for students. Their leaders often seem to gravitate towards protecting perpetrators of sexual misconduct, whether staff or students, because those perpetrators are perceived to bring ¡°greater value¡± to the organisation than the victim does, such as through grant funding or athletic performance.

51³Ô¹Ï

Even when universities censure the perpetrators, they rarely take proper steps to ensure their behaviour is not repeated, choosing not to share information regarding investigations and disciplinary outcomes. Hence the common phenomenon of ¡°pass the perpetrator¡±, whereby known abusers and harassers move between institutions, with no action taken by their previous institution to prevent their recruitment.

Inaccurate and conservative interpretations of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) are used to justify this inaction. Instead, universities should join the (perfectly legal) , launched in 2019 precisely to tackle the pass-the-perpetrator problem. If HR is going to invest in a register, invest in one that , rather than a register that pointlessly keeps track of which employee is sleeping with which student.

Universities must also encourage survivors to report sexual misconduct. Currently, the opposite is more common, as universities fear so-called reputational damage ¨C a concern, perhaps, that prospective students and staff could be put off from becoming part of a university that has a problem with sexual violence. Leaders might also be conscious that if an investigation resulted in a guilty finding, the university would be obliged to dismiss or expel ¡°valuable¡± staff or students.

It really is quite striking that this reluctance to encourage reporting does not even pretend to be grounded in what doing the right thing would look like. Silencing survivors emboldens and protects perpetrators. Sexual violence has historically had a component of secrecy, with perpetrators confident that victim-survivors would fear not being believed if they reported it. This situation is exacerbated when institutional leaders fail to actively encourage reporting.

51³Ô¹Ï

In addition to a campaign to do so, universities should also implement training programmes to teach staff how to respond to complaints appropriately. If reporting becomes the new norm, this could contribute to prevention by chipping away at perpetrators¡¯ beliefs that they will not be caught or sanctioned.

Some institutional leaders protest that there are no resources for prevention and response initiatives in the current financial climate. But such assertions tend to merely reflect the low priority that some institutional leaders still give?this problem ¨C despite the evidence, new regulation and effects on university communities. Universities should establish partnerships with their local rape crisis centre and sexual assault referral centre, and they should appoint a pro vice-chancellor to lead on addressing sexual violence at a strategic level.

All the problems we have outlined have simple solutions. Allowing them to persist, then, demonstrates institutional resistance to addressing them at the highest levels of senior teams and governing bodies.

We invite university leaders to rise above that inertia and have the moral courage to do what it takes to create an environment in which students and staff can study and work without fear of sexual violence.

51³Ô¹Ï

is professor of psychology at Durham University and Clarissa J. DiSantis is education and training lead for at the University of Galway. They are co-authors of the chapter ¡°When Universities Get it Wrong¡± in their latest book , 2nd edition (Emerald, 2025). Use code EME30 for 30 per cent off at the Emerald Bookstore.