The #MeToo movement has cast historical behaviour and curricula in a new, shadowy light. Four writers give us their perspectives
More than six months after the Harvey Weinstein scandal catapulted sexual harassment to the top of the cultural agenda, academia is among the industries still grappling with the extent of the problem that it faces, and what to do about it.
The AHRECS team enthusiastically congratulates Australian universities like Griffith University for events and initiatives like this. It is high time for research institutions to embed discussions about sexual harassment into research professional development strategies, including for HDR candidates and supervisors. Sexual harassment in research is research misconduct, in the same way as other forms of research misconduct might be triggers for action as per an EBA, student misconduct policy, corruption investigation or court process.
In response to the NUS survey, campaign organisation the 1752 Group, which was closely involved in the survey, said that UK universities’ current disciplinary procedures are unfit for purpose, and it called on them to “introduce professional boundaries that clearly define the expected relationship between a staff member and a student”, that “reect the complexities of power and consent in the teaching relationship” and that punish transgressors.
Read the rest of this discussion piece