How we’re trying to address sexual harassment within our college campuses
I heard a rumour once, in my first year of college. About a girl from the humanities section who was sexually harassed by another student. Apparently she came early for a morning class and a boy walked into the classroom behind her, locking the door. The teacher hadn’t come yet, there were no other students around.
The rumour died out before any other information was leaked, so I never found out what happened. But it got me thinking. Did she file a complaint? Was the boy made to leave college? Did college have rules in place about how early or how late students could stay on campus? Rules about whom to go to when things go wrong, about derogatory remarks, about over-friendly faculty, about empty classrooms?
I found some of the answers later that year, at an event we organised through TSO at the Alternative Law Forum in August. Keen to learn more about the laws applicable to our colleges and to us as students, we had asked lawyer Darshana Mitra to take us through the UGC’s guidelines. About 30 students showed up for the session.
That was the day we learnt about this thing they call the ICC.
An Internal Complaints Committee. An Anti Sexual Harassment Committee. A cell. A body. An association. Call it what you will, we were just stunned by the news that our colleges were actually supposed to have a system in place to deal with and address sexual harassment. None of us knew whether such systems existed in our colleges. Handbooks were whipped out, college websites checked, questions asked on class WhatsApp groups.
As it turned out, at Joseph’s there was one in place. Their numbers were up on the website and the committee was constituted as per the guidelines Darshana read out for us. At Christ, there was committee but the student members whose names were listed, had long since graduated. At Mount’s, the external member was missing. CMS Jain brilliantly claimed to have a women’s cell but when students later went to check, they found that the office had been locked and abandoned for over a year.
While in Delhi students were questioning and protesting against the working of the ICC and the kind of people elected to it, we were still stuck with more basic questions like do we even have ICCs in place?
At first we just went around asking friends and teachers. Then, we approached SICHREM and they advised us to collect some data before filing a complaint to either the UGC or the Karnataka Women’s Commission. So we put together a questionnaire. Since we were dealing with a highly sensitive subject, we needed all the advice we could get. While Darshana supported us all the way through, for the questionnaire in particular we also approached Nisha Susan (the editor/founder of TheLadiesFinger). She was very encouraging and made edits that took us a long way.
It was around this time that the #metoo campaign really gained momentum and the infamous List exploded into our world. Soon after, we heard that Maraa (a media arts collective based in Bangalore) had sent out a call to all those interested in taking the movement further. It was an open meeting and a diverse group of lawyers, professors, activists and filmmakers all turned up. We were the only students there though, apart from Rajeshwari who was working with Maraa at the time. The meeting was an eye-opener. Everyone had so many opinions on the functioning of ICCs that by the end of it we began to wonder why we were putting so much effort into fighting for an ICC when ICCs all over India had done more harm than good.
I guess it was a “something’s better than nothing” approach that pushed us to continue. We began to work closely with Maraa as they (Rajeshwari and Nihal in particular) helped us distribute the questionnaire. Maraa also began to develop a project called Radio In A Purse that we actively engaged with. Collecting anonymous stories in audio format through WhatsApp contacts and Radio In A Purse group sessions, they then released a SoundCloud series which they now regularly update. The coolest thing about RIP is that it gets students to speak freely about the harassment they face not just on dark streets or in crowded buses but also within so-called “safe spaces”. Students spoke of their experiences with approaching the management and unfortunately, most of it was horrible. One principal even told a student that she got what she deserved for hanging out so late at night.
It was like an extended version of the #metoo campaign with stories just pouring in. The project wasn’t allowed into college campuses though. We tried, but the authorities were quite adamant about it. Publicising their project became difficult too.
So we focused again on the questionnaire and managed to collect about 230 responses. It wasn’t much but it more or less confirmed what we’d gathered. That most students, while aware of their college ICC, are largely in the dark when it comes to details. UGC mandates that colleges ICCs have “democratically elected” student representatives, but few students knew about this. They also didn’t seem to know that they could contact individual members of the committee.
It was hard to generalise though, since each college had its own particular kind of problem and we soon realised that we’d have to work to address these individually — in a college specific way.
First things first, at Joseph’s I met the college Public Relations Officer and asked him if I could try and put together a group of student volunteers to organise something related to the college ICC and sexual harassment. He put me in touch with the ICC members and our college’s Gender Sensitisation Cell (yes, we have one). I met those members and asked them for permission too. We fixed a date to meet.
I sent out a WhatsApp message next: something along the lines of “Any of you are interested in working on issues related to sexual harassment in college, contact me” and before the night was up, my inbox was flooded with messages.
More than 20 students attended the meeting the next day and every single one had questions to ask. “Ma’am who’s on the ICC?”, “Ma’am can we contact any ICC member or do we have to contact the head?”, “Ma’am how are the student members chosen?”. We were told that a message had been sent out asking for students to volunteer for the position, but not one of us had received this message. Later ma’am called me aside and asked if something happened. “So many questions” she remarked, “some recent incident happened in your class?”
But at least she was approachable. Open. Willing to help. She was amazed at our enthusiasm. The group decided to go through with two ideas — an awareness campaign and a workshop. The workshop (which Angarika and Nihal from Maraa agreed to facilitate for us) could be held in collaboration with the Psychology Association and when we approached them, they were super keen to be involved too. (Note: this wouldn’t have been possible at Christ where the Gender Studies Committees and what not are only allowed to organise “academic” events.)
The awareness campaign was a little more tricky. We decided to ask if we could use the General English hours to address all first and second years, and brief them about the ICC. We’d need permission from both the English department and our Principal. We’d need to print out exactly what we were going to say and get it signed by three different people.
There was a lot of bureaucracy involved. All in the all, the permission process took us about a month. I fell sick the week our workshop and briefing was scheduled, and lying at home I worried that people would forget or simply be too lazy to do their work without me yelling and reminding them all the time. But the volunteers didn’t need any reminding. That was the most important part of what little we managed to do, that and the fact that our college allowed for it to happen. Hopefully this means we’ll be able to do more next year.
Meanwhile, at CMS Jain, the students wrote a letter. Addressed to the principal (since it couldn’t be addressed to the non-existent ICC or dysfunctional Grievance cell) it referred to the UGC guidelines and asked why there wasn’t an ICC in place. The student who signed the letter got a call a few days later from the Dean of student grievances, thanking him for “bringing it to their notice” and a meeting was scheduled to discuss the composition of a committee. The student, who is a third year with less than a month left of college, was asked to be the student representative on the committee. A few weeks later, he was called again, this time to the office. While it was clear that they’d put some sort of system in place by next semester, it was made equally clear that the student would have his degree withheld if he were to be “immature” about it and “tarnish” the reputation of the college. What’s more, the idea of having elected student representatives, was an absolute no-no.
A similar letter was written by students at Christ law college. It’s been three weeks and they haven’t got any form of response.
This week, we finally submitted the letter of complaint to the UGC. The report (including UGC guidelines and our recommendations) was attached, along with the data analysis from the questionnaire. We wanted to submit copies to NAAC and the Karnataka Women’s Commission as well but wow, were they welcoming. At NAAC the student who went to submit the letter was made to wait for hours, after which she was told that they only accepted complaints by post. What’s more, no acknowledgement would be given. If we didn’t get a reply, we’d simply have to write again after 30 days and then wait 30 more before going any further.
Interestingly (or rather, depressingly), once they heard that colleges like Christ were named in the complaint, they completely lost what little interest they had. What is the point of NAAC if they’re so hostile to students? Do they only care about the number of flowerpots and freshly painted walls a college has?
Although at KWC they were a little less intimidating, we were faced with a similar situation. “Wait perpetually, lose some more of your precious attendance, and when ma’am gets back from her programme, which could be today, tomorrow or next month, then we’ll listen” seemed to be the general slogan.
There’s one last thing. While going through the UGC guidelines we came across a report that specifies what kind of workshops and training programmes colleges have to organise to prevent discrimination and harassment within their campuses. It’s called the SAKSHAM report and it’s simply fantastic. It lays out everything we need from sexual minority sensitisation workshops to training programmes for not just students but also security staff and faculty. While some of us come from colleges where pro-LGBTQ classes and gender workshops are regularly organised for students, others come from colleges that openly encourage homophobia and gender discrimination. If colleges were made to follow this SAKSHAM report, we wouldn’t have to face these problems anymore.
It’s all there on paper.
The legal stuff is so much in place that it will blow your mind.
What’s wrong is implementation. The fact that members of the ICC rarely interact with students, that external NGO members never visit the campus, that student representative are not elected through democratic process as the UGC mandates for it to be.
Implementation and the fact that colleges genuinely strive to make it impossible for students to even voice problems. Just last week a group of students attempted to approach their college Principal about an extremely homophobic seminar that they were forced to attend. They had no formal complaint, no wish to make a big racket, they simply wanted to talk. His response was typical — “these small matters don’t concern me. Take it to the appropriate authorities” and when they tried to reason that it wasn’t a small matter? “Who admitted you into this college? I did. I get to decide what is small.”
They’ve been chasing after “appropriate authorities” for the past two weeks now.
Active student participation is what they’re fighting for in Delhi, and ICC or not, that’s what we want too. If UGC can’t implement their own guidelines, then we will.
