A short discussion around the how to appropriately consider terminology in this context.Universities are little worlds in their own ways and, as similar as they can be, they can sometimes use their own language for the same work. This is particularly the case with relatively new work, such as responding to sexual violence/ sexual misconduct (we’ll discuss this specifically later). Whilst it’s not absolutely vital that all Universities use the same terminology, there absolutely needs to be consistency within the same organisation.
As discussed in ‘Why Don’t University Conduct Processes Work?’, there is a distinction between academic and non-academic misconduct in terms of confidence in these processes – both from students and staff. One way to build confidence in processes is to ensure consistent, well-known and understood terminology. This also helps secure a foundation on which to build effective and sensitive processes, rather than conflating terminology and creating confusion.
Below are some commonly used terms, and some common conflations/ misconceptions, with suggestions of how they should be used.
(Image by Will McPhail)
Disclosure Vs Reporting (Vs Complaints Vs Appeals)
These, at least in my experience, are 4 separate processes. Again, in my experience, the most common conflations of terms are saying “report” when meaning “disclosure", and saying “complaint” when meaning “report”. In my view, disclosure is the act of making new or secret information known to somebody other than yourself – however, this does not trigger any formal processes (safeguarding considerations aside). Disclosures can happen at any time, from anyone, to anyone. Just because a student discloses to somebody in a position of power relative to them, e.g. a member of staff at the University, this does not mean that that student necessarily wants any action taken on that disclosure, let alone it being reported through formal channels. Taking disclosures can be difficult and at least basic training for all staff should be considered.
Reporting, in this context, is the formal process of making information (or allegations at that stage) known to the appropriate bodies (i.e. Conduct and Resolution teams) in order to request something be done with that information which may result in disciplinary action, or educational consequences. Reporting has to have an official and recognised ‘start’ point, and the process of reporting should be with informed consent. As with disclosures, staff involved in reporting processes should be appropriately trained - not just in relation to their role of investigating, for example, but also in the specifics of the behaviours they are investigations (e.g. sexual violence).
In my experience, complaints and appeals are separate processes which often get conflated with the reporting processes – the overlap of these processes needs to be carefully identified, communicated and enacted in practice. If possible, the staff dealing with each of these processes should also be from separate teams, not just due to conflicts of interest (i.e. if a student were to complain about the reporting process and staff), but due to conflicts of time and priorities. How do you expect the same staff to choose between 300 strike action complaints and 5 sexual misconduct reports?
The importance of having clearly defined and communicated understandings of these processes is linked to empowering students to make decisions on their own information. Students should have the choice to disclose personal, sensitive information in order to access support for themselves, without having to consider the consequences of reporting. Reporting the incident(s) may not be the best thing for that student, but they should still be able to receive the appropriate support, for them to recover and thrive. The transition between disclosure and reporting must be clearly defined, for the benefit of the students, and the staff working in this area. This is key to setting expectations, which ultimately lead to satisfaction and overall wellbeing.
Discipline Vs Misconduct Vs Conduct
These can often be used interchangeably to describe processes in which a reporting student presents information to a University body to request they process this information, which may potentially lead to a punishment for the reported student. Whilst they generally all describe this process, there seems to have been a shift in recent years from “discipline” to “misconduct” to “conduct”. Perhaps the former two connote processes where the outcome may have already been decided, and “conduct” eludes to more of an open process of fact-finding and decision-making.
Whatever the terminology used, as discussed in ‘Why Don’t University Conduct Processes Work?’, these processes should be seen as a process of ‘resolution’ rather than punitive, or to ensure ‘quality’.
Sexual Violence Vs Sexual Misconduct
These terms on their own perhaps needs some defining, but there are also reasons for using them carefully in specific contexts. Firstly, “sexual violence” is a term commonly used to cover all kinds of unacceptable behaviours which are conducted without the consent of the recipient – for instance, sexual assault and rape. Sometimes sexual harassment is included in the umbrella term of sexual violence, and sometimes the term is just used to refer to physical unacceptable sexual acts which an individual is subjected to.
In a University setting, however, when processing a report (not 'disclosure') of sexual violence, it is usually referred to as ‘sexual misconduct’. One main reason for this distinction is to make reference to the distinction between investigating a criminal offense and investigating a potential breach of University regulations, with ‘sexual misconduct’ referring to the latter. This distinction allows the University to investigate in line with their responsibilities over governing student behaviour through regulations and policies, and make decisions on breaches with a lower burden of proof due to lesser punitive measures at their disposal. Please note, there is a place for the term “sexual violence” in Universities, particularly at the disclosure stage, but terminology, where possible, should be guided by the student and any deviations from this chosen terminology should be justified and explained to them.
Whilst these distinctions may seem insignificant, they allow for respective processes, whatever they may be called, to sit more reasonably and appropriately in a University setting. This is so important when designing and enacting processes, hiring and training staff, and setting expectations for, and effectively supporting, students.
Comments