The London School of Economics (LSE) have just provided another classic example of failure to deal with harassment. The outcome has been — predictably enough — the demoralization of the victims and the exoneration of the aggressor, who is now free to exact revenge. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
The story is a familiar one, documented here <\/a>in the LSE student newspaper by Amadea Hofmann. Five formal complaints and nine informal allegations against a single academic were brought to the attention of the senior management team at the LSE. The LSE launched an investigation in October 2021. The accused individual was suspended with pay, although the suspension seems to have been at best partial. <\/p>\n\n\n\n A catalogue of errors then followed. They are common failings in almost all investigations run by Universities.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 1 Poor Minutes of Meetings<\/mark><\/strong>: This is serious because minutes have evidentiary value. It is standard practice in UK Universities for minutes to be taken by hand by a member of the Human Resources team. HR proudly announce that the minutes are then a “non-verbatim record”, as though this is a very special achievement. The minutes are usually routed through the University’s legal department before the complainants get a copy to approve. The lawyers are interested in minimising the legal liability of the University, so anything problematic may well be downplayed or even missing. Doctored minutes are also known, in which fallacious statements are inserted. The solution is obvious. All such meetings pertaining to Grievances should be recorded for the safety of all involved. <\/p>\n\n\n\n 2. Failing to Interview Witnesses<\/strong>: This is often accomplished by the Terms of Reference. Any University investigation has very well-defined Terms of Reference. They are normally highly restrictive, perhaps confining attention to very specific events within a narrow time-frame. Relevant events or witnesses are then not considered if they fall outside the Terms of Reference or outside the prescribed dates. This is serious, as it often means patterns of abusive behaviour, perhaps extending over long timeframes with other victims, cannot be examined and taken into account. Again, the intention is to minimise any chance of being able to substantiate the case against a senior academic. The solution is obvious. Follow the evidence wherever it goes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 3. Inordinate Timeframes<\/strong>: Everything proceeds very slowly, so the investigation takes years. In the case of the LSE, it took roughly 2 years. Such timescales are not unusual. This has two effects. First, the victims are gradually worn down by the very slow progress. They are required to maintain confidentiality over this prolonged time period with consequences for their mental health. Second, many violations of employment law or claims for negligence have strict time limits at the Employment Tribunals or Courts. Thus, lengthy delays ensures that the University legal department can eventually argue everything is out of time, if matters ever come to trial. But, normally the victims are too demoralized once the University has finished with them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 4 Incompetent Investigators<\/strong>: Sometimes, as in the LSE case, it is an academic staff member or HR business manager who investigates despite lack of training or expertise, especially if victims have been traumatized. There is also of course an obvious conflict of interest. Sometimes, the University hires a professional investigator or barrister. Even here, the University may have briefed the investigator and given a steer as to the desired outcome. It is all too easy for the investigator to conclude that the evidence is not strong enough and so the claims cannot be substantiated, which is what the University prefers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n