One hotly anticipated expectation from the Office for Students’ response to their 2023 consultation on a proposed new condition of registration is a clear position on how universities should embed education around sexual consent.
It is also hoped that it will answer some ongoing questions from the staff who will be responsible for its implementation.
Offering this kind of training raises several difficulties – namely centred around trying to find the best delivery approach. Questions raised include whether the session should be mandatory and, if not, how will the messages be shared with those who need it the most. If the session is mandatory, what happens if students don’t complete it? And what about students who may be negatively affected by the content of such a session (that would most likely be heavily focused on sexual violence)?
Questions have also been asked about the best method of delivery. Anyone who understands their institution’s staff-to-student ratios will recognise that live training for every single student would be challenging if not a timetabling impossibility. But, many have argued that e-learning alone is not sufficient.
There is quite a simple, if not frustrating, answer to these questions: no single programme delivery is sufficient.
The topic of consent naturally occurs more than we may think – particularly if it’s not only considered in the context of sex. It’s likely to be present in a large proportion of interactions people have with other people, whether they are professional or romantic or have known one another for five years or five minutes.
In this way, consent education can and should feature across the university footprint, be related to all kinds of relationship interactions, and be dosed out on more than one occasion. This means there is less pressure on any one delivery to be all things to all people. This type of education could also empower individuals to set their own boundaries concerning all their personal interactions.
To do this, universities should consider the key touch points they already have, consider what messaging around consent may be appropriately woven through these opportunities, and plan out content appropriate to each opportunity.
Key Touch Points for Universities
- Induction/ onboarding/ matriculation (remember different intakes other than September)
- Re-registration for returning students
- Society and Sports Team inductions/registrations
- Student Leader training/inductions (committee members, student ambassadors, peer mentors)
- Accommodation induction (and throughout the year)
- Academic and course/module inductions
- Annual campaigns (16 Days of Activism, Sexual Violence and Sexual Abuse Awareness Week)
One benefit of a ‘dosage’ approach is that the content can be more or less explicit at different opportunities. An institution’s consent messaging cannot be entirely made of ‘please try not to assault anyone’, but equally, it will not be effective if it solely assumes perpetration and causes defensiveness.
Types of Consent Messaging
The overriding message around consent is that we should
- Care about, and understand, how others are feeling.
- Act appropriately in response.
With this, boundaries around certain behaviours are individualised and specific to the context and the actions taking place. The below examples of messaging provide ways in which consent education can be reinforced – for staff as well as students.
- Messaging explicitly related to sexual violence/ sexual relationships.
These can include clear examples of what is unacceptable (and illegal) – e.g., “too drunk to consent is not consent”, “asleep is not consent”, “forced consent is not consent”. - Messaging specific to university values such as dignity and respect.
E.g. “we will not accept anyone who makes this university unsafe for another student or member of staff – we encourage all students and staff to challenge any actions which harass, harm, humiliate, or threaten others”. - Messaging related to the consequences of breaching university and localised (e.g., accommodation) contracts/ codes of conduct. E.g. “our expectations of you are that you show respect to others” and “the consequences of not behaving within these expectations are significant…”.
- Messaging that reinforces the responsibility of people in positions of power, for example, student leaders, recognising the implications of power differentials on consent, and with regards to looking after others. E.g. “our expectation is that you do not encourage, and that you call out, the unacceptable behaviour of others when it is safe to do so”.
- Messaging that is consent related but is also context specific (e.g., in teams, societies, academic courses). For instance, “consent within martial arts means allowing someone to withdraw consent, even if they entered into a sparring match”, “consent within the drama society means being additionally sensitive around intimacy scenes…”.
- Messaging around support should be considered across all touchpoints.
For instance, reinforcing that “support is available for any student who is subjected to unacceptable behaviours” and “you have the right to feel safe at this university. You do not have to tolerate any behaviours constituting harassment or assault”.
These messages can be embedded into talks, videos, leaflets, stalls, and campaigns and, importantly, consent absolutely must be clearly articulated within misconduct policies and procedures.
This shouldn’t just be about defining other behaviours but as its term with its definition.
Students signing up for contracts with their institutions have a right to understand what they are signing up to and to know how they can set their boundaries and be supported. Staff administrating misconduct policies and procedures have a right to know how they may make decisions. After all, how can misconduct panel members make a decision (on the balance of probability) about whether a reporting student did not consent to sexual intercourse if consent hasn’t been defined within their own misconduct processes and policies?
If all of the above is considered, there will be multiple opportunities per year for a student to receive some form of consent education, and this is most likely without universities having to create anything entirely from scratch.
The conversation around consent should be ongoing, but this could help provide a clear framework for embedding this education through an institution more effectively than just a one-off delivery.
