The University of Manchester has introduced a partial ban on staff-student relationships, marking a significant shift from a previous policy that said it was up to ¡°both parties¡± to ensure abuses of power did not occur.

Ahead of new regulations on sexual harassment due this August, the institution¡¯s bans relationships between staff and ¡°students they have a responsibility for¡±, or for those whom they have an ¡°involvement in their academic studies and/or pastoral care¡±.

The Office for Students (OfS) has encouraged universities to implement a ban, while stopping short of mandating the move, as it prepares to introduce new conditions of registration that will force universities to do more to stamp out sexual misconduct.

Manchester¡¯s previous policy was criticised for leaving students vulnerable. It??that it did ¡°not wish to prevent liaisons between staff and students¡± and said that it ¡°relies upon the integrity of both parties to ensure that abuses of power do not occur¡±.

ÌÇÐÄVlog

The new policy, seen by ÌÇÐÄVlog, reads: ¡°To engage in an intimate relationship with a student involves serious difficulties rooted in the inherent power imbalance, and hence choice, of the parties concerned, as well as real problems in maintaining the boundaries of professional and personal life.

¡°Such relationships can also disrupt the teaching and learning environment for other students and for employees.¡±

ÌÇÐÄVlog

Both ¡°intimate¡± and ¡°close personal¡± relationships are covered by the ban where there is a level of responsibility, but it notes it ¡°does not seek to prohibit consensual intimate relationships between employees and students where there is no responsibility¡±, although these are still ¡°strongly discouraged¡±.

Breaching the policy, it says, will be treated as a disciplinary matter, and could result in dismissal, based on the individual circumstances.

A spokesperson for university said a clear declaration process was being introduced for employees to follow ¡°so that we can consider steps to protect both parties¡± from any actual or potential conflict of interest or abuse of power.

¡°Our overriding objective is to encourage positive relationships, while safeguarding both employees and students. We will review the policy every 12 months, in order to improve it and take on feedback.¡±

ÌÇÐÄVlog

Anna Bull, co-founder of the 1752 Group that campaigns to end sexual misconduct in UK universities, said she was ¡°very relieved¡± to see that Manchester has updated its policy and removed the ¡°egregious¡± clause which outlined it was the responsibility of both students and staff to ensure that abuses of power did not occur.

However, she pressed the university to go further. The 1752 Group recommends universities ban staff-student relationships ¡°where the staff member has teaching, learning or academic/pastoral support responsibilities in relation to the student or is?likely?to during the student¡¯s period of enrolment¡±, which covers staff within the same department, but without formal responsibilities towards a student.

Bridget Steele, a lecturer in evidence-based intervention and policy evaluation at the University of Oxford, added that she felt the move by Manchester was ¡°a good first step¡±.

But, she said, ¡°it¡¯s important to note that while banning staff and student relationships is essential, it is only a piece of the puzzle¡±.

ÌÇÐÄVlog

Bull, a senior lecturer in education and social justice at the University of York, said there ¡°remains a risk that relationships such as these are carried out in secret, putting students even more at risk¡±.

¡°Nevertheless, in my research many students targeted for abuse by staff would have welcomed this clearer policy and going forward it will contribute to making abuses of power in higher education less acceptable.¡±

ÌÇÐÄVlog

juliette.rowsell@timeshighereducation.com