Sexual harassment is the norm at university. Singapore student Monica Baey has sent us a wake-up call

An incident in which a National University of Singapore student was filmed while taking a shower on campus – and the subsequent backlash over the authority’s handling of the matter – goes to show just what a challenge Asian universities face in tackling sexual harassment.

The unfortunate student, Monica Baey, felt so let down by the university’s lack of victim support that she took to social media to publicise the incident. Much like the #metoo movement, this digital intervention helped to start a discussion about sexual harassment on Asian campuses and what could be done about a problem that is often swept under the carpet.

The problem is global in nature, and there have been well-publicised cases everywhere from the United States to Britain to India to now, Singapore.

NUS to overhaul handling of sex harassment cases after peeping Tom incident

Recognising this more than a year before the case featuring Baey, between January and May 2018 the Centre for Culture-centred Approach to Research and Evaluation (CARE), then housed at the National University of Singapore, worked on building a framework to address sexual harassment. Here are some of the things we learned:

First, sexual harassment is a cultural problem. It is often normalised in university systems, frameworks, and processes. The normative rules and roles within universities legitimise sexual harassment. From “checking out” people visually, to sexually loaded comments, to propositioning and more egregious forms of harassment such as inappropriate touching and sexual violence, sexual harassment often reflects the culture within the organisation. Normative ideas such as “boys will be boys” work to legitimise sexual harassment.

Second, cultures of sexual harassment are embedded in how universities are organised, the ways in which expectations are set up, and the frameworks for addressing misconduct. When universities lack explicit resources, frameworks, and pathways for addressing sexual harassment, the problem perpetuates itself in various layers of the organisation, in various forms, and often without consequences.

Third, sexual harassment is an exercise of power. It reflects power dynamics within the university structure. Forms of harassment are tied to the ways in which power is distributed in the organisation, who holds power, and who has access to power. Structures within universities often uphold and perpetuate harassment because of the self-protecting tendency of power. This also translates into the targets of sexual harassment, who are often at the receiving end of an unequal relationship, struggling against powerful forces in the university. The consequences for speaking up can be severe, from being shamed, to being disciplined and punished for speaking up.

Singapore student Monica Baey wants firm action from NUS after man who filmed her in hostel shower goes ‘scot-free’

Fourth, sexual harassment is often marked by “communicative erasure”. From the absence of policies explicitly addressing the problem, to the absence of language for defining and categorising sexual harassment, to the absence of communicative structures within the university for addressing it, the targets of sexual harassment often feel unheard. This is exacerbated by dominant cultural norms that stigmatise talk on sexual harassment.

These four points suggest that any solution to sexual harassment on university campuses needs first to recognise the problem with the culture, and second to change the culture by engaging communities that have experienced sexual harassment or are likely to be the targets of sexual harassment.

The culture of sexual harassment can be addressed by educating students, staff and faculty; by implementing policies that are clear and provide for no-retaliation and by disciplinary processes that have clear outcomes.

Transparency and the participation of the various groups across the university community are key elements in changing the culture. This is particularly important in transforming entrenched power structures in the university.

A tale of two #MeToos in Hong Kong and Singapore athletics

Universities ought to have explicit resources for addressing sexual harassment, including developing a clearly identified, accessible, and independently governed unit for addressing sexual harassment. To ensure accountability and freedom, such a unit should be explicitly represented by elected faculty, staff, and students on a rotating basis through a transparent election process. The committee must be staffed by professionals equipped to address sexual harassment and its members should receive regular training.

Also key to changing the culture is developing links to outside organisations, such as gender-based civil society groups.

Universities should develop clear standards of communication. This includes clearly defining sexual violence as well as building two-way communication processes. The processes and frameworks for addressing sexual harassment must be communicated clearly to all members of the university.

The voices of students, staff, and faculty are key, and dedicated resources need to be created for listening to these voices. Also, developing clear messages around the definition and forms of sexual violence is vital to transforming the culture.

The consequences for sexual predators should be clearly specified, communicated, and upheld. Similarly, the consequences for decision-makers for failing to follow due process of investigation should be articulated and implemented. This is particularly salient in holding administrators in universities accountable.

It is not adequate to develop non-retaliatory policies. Protecting those who report sexual harassment is key, and this involves being aware of the networks of power in the university. Sexual harassment is embedded in such networks, which sustain it throughout the university culture.

Therefore, it is critical to protect the identities of those who experience sexual harassment, while at the same time making transparent the decision-making processes.

MeToo to KuToo: how Japanese women called time on high heels in the workplace

It is also essential to support victims of sexual harassment, ensuring they have access to counselling, peer support, and other resources for coping with the trauma.

Finally, and most importantly, universities must develop a witnessing culture. Programmes in which it is made mandatory for bystanders to report sexual harassment have been found effective. Such programmes relieve victims of the sole responsibility for reporting sexual harassment and put the responsibility on all members of the university.

The #metoo movement has arrived in Asia. With it, comes the lesson that gender justice is a universal call. The democratisation of digital spaces has opened up opportunities for articulating experiences of sexual harassment that traditionally universities have silenced. The incident is a wake-up call for universities across Asia to take seriously a problem that is often normalised in university cultures.

Mohan J. Dutta is the Director of the Centre for Culture-centred Approach to Research and Evaluation (CARE)