Campaigning for Anonymous Reporting at Warwick University

The Problem with Indifference

If you were to ask any Warwick student, “what has been the most prominent issue on campus over the last two years”, the answer would almost certainly be the group chat scandal which was not only racist and sexist, but graphically depicted the rape of several named students. The apathy shown by the University was a clear indicator of a greater issue that needed to be examined, which led us to find a gaping hole in the current system that supposedly aims to protect its students; the harassment reporting system in place is incomplete and inaccessible to the point of being unusable. Intuitively to us, there needed to be a better system in place, and further research into the facilities at other universities, such as easy to access web pages, supportive interfaces, and, importantly, anonymous reporting, proved that Warwick’s system is inadequate in comparison. For Warwick to meet the standard that these other universities set would be beneficial for all parties involved; not only do the students feel safer, as we can demonstrate through statistics, but also Warwick could regain its reputation and respect. Consequently, we formed our aim for the project: To promote awareness of the importance of a good reporting system for sexual harassment, including anonymous reporting, with the goal of provoking Warwick to implement such a system, and to protect students from the kind of culture that the group chat exposed.

                            ***************************************************

Why do we need improve?

Our research has suggested that, under-reporting is a major problem affecting Universities across the country. On the 25th February 2019, Brook published their new research on sexual harassment and violence in universities in the UK. This survey is the largest of its kind with 5,649 responses. It revealed that more than half of university students have been victims of unwanted sexual behavior compared to a disturbingly low 8% of students reporting this behavior. Worryingly, almost 50% of female students were touched inappropriately with only 5% making a report and only one quarter of students who had been victims of rape reported the incident (Brook, 2019).

Obviously, there is a huge gap between the number of incidents and reports and the few formal complaints provide minimal information with regards to the prevalence and extent of sexual misconduct on campus. Consequently, this could be a huge issue facing the University of Warwick as they remain unaware of the chronic under-reporting of abuse and harassment cases occurring among the student population. Furthermore, the consequences of not reporting incidents and not receiving enough report are serious. In a report by NUS women’s campaign carried out 2009 to 2012 on 2058 female university students revealed that 49% women who had experienced sexual assault reported mental health issues, 12% reported consequences to their physical health and 13% had considered dropping out university, (NUS, 2010).

In recent years, driven by the problems associated with under-reporting, other universities have addressed this issue and improved their reporting systems accordingly such as Manchester, Bristol, Birmingham, UCL, and Cardiff. The University of Cambridge launched its ‘breaking the silence’ campaign which included the introduction of an anonymous reporting system (University of Cambridge, 2018). Revolt Sexual Assault and The Student Room conducted a National consultation into sexual misconduct which asked victims of sexual violence why they did not report their incident, revealing that 56% believed it wasn’t serious enough, 35% felt too ashamed and 29% did not know how to report (Revolt Sexual Assault, 2019). Therefore, an anonymous reporting system allows all students to still have a voice but one that is free from the fear of consequences such as worries about pressing criminal charges and free from reliving upsetting and traumatic experiences. We contacted the University Cambridge and asked them to share their research from their reporting system to which they responded with their report. The report revealed that between 5 May 2017 and 30 September, 316 reports and in the first few weeks, 76 anonymous reports were made versus 6 formal complaints; this research directly supports the assertion that when an anonymous reporting system is not in place, such as at Warwick, that there exists a chronic under-reporting of incidents among the student population, moreover the kind of culture which led to the now infamous Warwick group chat, might have become clear earlier on.

Although the university cannot act directly upon anonymous reports, they provide useful data detailing the levels and patterns of sexual misconduct in and around campus, moreover there is the potential that someone having experienced abuse might use an anonymous report as a ‘foot in the door’, before building the courage to contact the police etc. Consequently, this means interventions can be put into place and monitored. Therefore, we believe that an anonymous reporting system would be hugely beneficial to the University of Warwick and vital for students’ well-being and safety. It is possible that critics might point towards the potential for an anonymous system to be used in a malicious manner, however the University of Cambridge, in their review of the first years data from their anonymous report, suggest this concern can be dismissed, as the university generally used the system to investigate broader issues, and a statement from an individual would have to be made in order for action to be taken again another specific individual.

                          ***************************************************

The Process

Our initial course of action to bring this issue to the awareness of the university was an idealistic one we contacted the Student Union via a number of email addresses, and also attempted to contact the university's vice chancellor with our concerns. Our idealised course of action was a naïve one, despite the mass outrage regarding the group chat scandal (including the related petition with 80,000+ signatures and coverage on national TV), days passed, and our email inboxes remained empty. The issue immediately became exacerbated by the university's seeming unwillingness to accept the issue in the first place. 

Finally, an email arrived from an SU representative in response to our concerns (pictured above); despite our inclusion of statistics and information regarding the crucial importance of an anonymous reporting system in many others universities, we were met with resistance and a patronising tone, being told that it wasn’t within the SU’s power to change the web page, and that we might receive a response from the vice-chancellor. This attitude was almost as problematic as the group chat which had catalysed our project itself; we were far from happy with this response.

 Our unsatisfied reaction to the university's response to the problem, led us to brainstorm ways In which to bring this issue to wider awareness; the SU, supposedly acting in the student interest, would have to listen if we could get people talking about how inadequate the current system is place was. 

Public outrage towards the original group chat started with an article published by the media outlet ‘The Tab’, and it was this newspaper which we turned towards, driven by frustration towards the university's patronising response towards the issue.  

What ensued was a series to emails and messages to The Tab’s London HQ, finalising the details of the story and making explicit that our primary concern lay with the university's current reporting system, and how we believed that it was leading to a chronic under reporting of abuse and harassment at the university.  

The culmination of the correspondence with The Tab, is detailed below; an article aimed squarely at the university's seemingly nonchalant attitude towards abuse and harassment on campus. The article also raised awareness of a petition we had started, also with the intention of trying to make the university take notice, with the added publicity swelling support from the petition.

Link to the article here

Finally, the SU listens: In light of our success getting an article published and bring wider awareness to the issue, we received a response from the SU president, Liam Jackson. He met with Jennifer to discuss our ideas regarding the implementation of an anonymous reporting system. Liam agreed that ‘under-reporting in universities is a major problem’ and that the current system is unnecessarily confusing and, ultimately, off-putting. He commented that ‘many students have requested an improved reporting system’ such as the ‘report and support’ system, implemented at the University of Manchester, which he has been pushing Warwick University to implement ‘over and over again’, with there being a burning need for a ‘centralised system, in order to unite university departments’, as this very issue is what makes the current reporting system just so off putting in the first place.  There was also a suggestion made that the university needed to improve cohesion between departments, as the many complaints received by the SU regarding the current reporting system weren't reaching other departments. Furthermore, with regards to hate crime Liam stated there is a large problem with students who live in Canley experiencing racist abuse. An anonymous reporting system would allow students to report these incidents and provide the university with a deeper understanding of the extent and prevalence of the issue and thus allowing them to implement appropriate interventions in that area. This meeting culminated in Liam expressing a desire to work with our group in the future in order to help the University develop an anonymous reporting system, with our group being invited to a taskforce meeting in April, where the issue will be discussed at length. As well as this, we received a response from the MP for Warwick and Leamington expressing his admiration for our project, with an indication that he may get the MP for Cambridge involved too.

                            ***************************************************

Barriers to our quest for safety

It took multiple protests, Facebook groups, and a petition getting over 80,000 signatures for the University and Student’s Union to even acknowledge to the student majority about their feelings regarding the boys in the group chat, so we were prepared to face passivity and opposition in our pursuit of change. As expected, we were left in the dark numerous times after sending emails, waiting weeks for some replies, and sometimes even being completely ignored. A screenshot below from the Tab shows clearly how correspondence is an issue for the university.

As our proposal should be naturally desirable for everyone involved, we must ask why there was opposition, specifically to do with this lack of response we got, and how we tried to overcome this. For the university, we believe there are three main theories. The university might not have wanted to make this a public issue to prevent tarnishing their reputation to prospective students and the general public, especially after the group chat backlash. Secondly, it must be acknowledged that our email recipients may genuinely have been very busy with, for example, SU elections. Thirdly, and the most likely considering the number of times the Tab’s email chain was viewed, we feel that the Bystander effect (Darley & Latané, 1968) must have been in play to some extent, with a diffusion of responsibility between the various uncoordinated departments at Warwick. This is a problem evident not just at our university but throughout the administrative world; we didn't even receive an email back from the Women's Officer at UCL about how she jumped these very hurdles.

Overcoming a lack of ability to communicate with a group is difficult without an alternative to just emailing them. With each email that was ignored, we found someone in a more prestigious or visible position to target. For example, when we received no reply from the Welfare Advisor, we went to the Vice-Chancellor and the President of the SU, and when we did not receive these replies, we went to the Tab who have a large audience, and then the Leamington and Warwickshire MP. Calling to authority is a well-established persuasion technique (Cialdini, 1992), supported by the well-known Milgram experiment (1963).

                          

                            ***************************************************

Some of the persuasive techniques we used

As this topic is highly and personally relevant to students and staff at Warwick University, they are more motivated to attend to the central arguments behind our campaign as a result of using the central path of the Elaboration Likelihood Model. Consequently, the strength of our argument was crucial for persuasion. As a result, we presented indisputable research and statistics, compiled from recent surveys and reports given to us by Cambridge University, creating a defensible and compelling argument. Evidence for this persuasive technique comes from Petty, Cacioppo & Goldman (1981) who presented students with written arguments for the introduction of exit exams. When the students were told these exams would be implemented in a year (personally relevant), students were persuaded more by the quality of the argument, as opposed to source expertise. Therefore, we ensured our emails and discussions included substantial research in order to influence and initiate change.

In numerous emails and discussions, we contrasted Warwick’s reporting system to superior systems provided at other universities such as Cambridge, Manchester and UCL. This demonstrates our utilisation of norms (MINDSPACE) as a persuasive technique. According to Clapp & McDonnell (2000), this technique is influential as norms set a benchmark and expectation for which others compare themselves to, ultimately leading to conforming behaviour. We hoped using higher ranking universities such as Cambridge and UCL would amplify this conforming behaviour as Warwick strives to increase its reputation to the same high level as these universities, making the change even more desirable.

Elaborating on the MINDSPACE system, we understand how effective the choice of who delivers the message can be, and looked to combine that with people's tendency to listen to those they feel are authoritative figures. Our two target audiences were arguably the higher-ups at Warwick with the ability to implement a change, and the students who have proved in the past that they can influence these higher-ups. In influencing the students, we contacted the Tab, who consider themselves the voice of the student majority so therefore would be fuel to the fire that is student outrage. We also looked to turn the Student's Union President, who by his very title is an authority figure for students, into one of our messengers. In persuading those in charge at the university, we contacted authority figures such as the MP for Leamington and Warwick. Studies suggest that the target audience would be more likely to accept the message from "credible sources" like this than from four students doing a group project (Hovland & Weiss, 1951).

                            ***************************************************

Where do we go next?

Overall, we believe our campaign for an anonymous reporting system at Warwick has been successful. Whilst the system has not yet been implemented, the progress we have made and the support we have gathered provides hope that an anonymous system will be introduced in the future. However, this campaign has not been without its setbacks and barriers. For example, we have experienced a lack of responses to numerous emails, as well as some resistance to our ideas. Highlights from this campaign include our success in raising awareness of the issue of under-reporting and the necessity of an anonymous system at Warwick, as a result of our article in The Tab. Furthermore, our invitation to the taskforce meeting in April and the support from our local MP is particularly promising and we are enthusiastic and excited to continue with this campaign even after the conclusion of this assignment.

                            ***************************************************

Jennifer Cox
Hamish Wood-Cutler
Sid Saraogi
Saara Khan
  

                            ***************************************************
References

Brook. (2019). Our new research on sexual harassment and violence at UK universities. Retrieved 27th February from https://www.brook.org.uk/press-releases/sexual-violence-and-harassment-remains-rife-in-universities-according-to-ne.

Darley, J. M., & Latané, B. (1968). Bystander intervention in emergencies: Diffusion of responsibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8, 377-383.

Hovland, C. I. & Weiss, W. (1951). The influence of source credibility on communication effectiveness. Public Opinion Quarterly, 15, 635-650

National Union of Students. (2010). Hidden Marks: A study of women students’ experiences of harassment, stalking, violence and sexual assault. Retrieved 27th February from https://www.nus.org.uk/global/nus_hidden_marks_report_2nd_edition_web.pdf.

Revolt Sexual Assault. (2018). Students’ experience of sexual violence. Retrieved 27th February from https://revoltsexualassault.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Report-Sexual-Violence-at-University-Revolt-Sexual-Assault-The-Student-Room-March-2018.pdf. 

University of Cambridge. (2018). Opinion: Why Cambridge University received 173 anonymous reports of sexual misconduct in nine months. Retrieved 27th February from https://www.cam.ac.uk/news/opinion-why-cambridge-university-received-173-anonymous-reports-of-sexual-misconduct-in-nine-months.