#shameonyouwarwick

[smcbride]

Warwick Police haven't prosecuted anyone for these vile rape threats and Warwick uni are now letting (some of?) the perpetrators back in to study at the same university alongside those they discussed threatening to rape.

Would you be happy sending your child here?

Warwick students suspended over rape threats allowed to return earlyly*_

I read an article about weak men bonding over their hatred of the “other” women. How do we address this?

But if hundreds of parents and potential students write, then those boys could be chucked out for good

I really can’t see this happening. The university can’t make decisions about expelling individual students based on the demands of the public. They had their chance to deal with this during the disciplinary process, and it seems that between that and the appeal, their regulations and decisions were not sufficiently watertight to withstand legal challenge. They screwed up, in other words. They can’t reopen the process now, as there is is nothing in their policies and procedures that would allow it. What they can do is learn from this. It sounds like they’ve updated their code of conduct, and they will need to be much more careful to make decisions watertight in order to reduce the likelihood of appeals in future cases.

@GCAcademic I'm sure you are right. But it does no harm to speak out. And other unis will be tightening their policies and procedures in the light of this, especially if parents and prospective candidates start asking questions.

Am I right in believing that a cross panel of uni staff, including students union reps made the decision based on the evidence they were presented at the appeal.

Where does this whole the Uni caved in to legal threats come from? What does anyone know about that, I’d be interested to know?

I’m sure this shitstorm will make the Uni, and those reps on the appeal panel, reflect on their decision making. I also hope the men who made the comment have reflected, feel remorse or have reflected on their actions and will change their behaviour/attitudes. I know one of them posted something after being found out but I Sheraton’s he is the one that has gone and is not returning. If we don’t care whether they change then what does that say about us as a society. People do bad things and if there is no hope for rehabilitation and positive change then what’s the point of anything. Jesus people
go to prison and come out (hopefully changed for the better) and are given some chance for redemption.

There are two issues. The panel who decided, based on evidence, to allow some of the guys in question to return earlier and secondly our view about them , why they did what they did and whether there
can be some reparation.

I’m an ex Warwick student.

OneStep - agreed. The more noise people make about this, the better the odds that the university’s senior management might actually listen and reflect (not something university managers tend to be prone to).

They had their chance to deal with this during the disciplinary process, and it seems that between that and the appeal, their regulations and decisions were not sufficiently watertight to withstand legal challenge.

There is a huge gap between "would, in principle, fail to withstand challenge" and "has, in practice in this particular case, failed to withstand challenge". The university always had the option to say "fine, if you think we are in the wrong, bring a legal action". Warwick have deep pockets, and the self-immolation that would be involved in a privileged man showing that material in open court, and arguing it was OK in open court, would be sufficient to power Coventry.

One of the failings of universities is that they are reluctant to say "think we're in the wrong? See you in court". That leads to a very defensive, very fearful attitude towards problems like this. Yes, university statutes are usually inconsistent, particularly in pre-92s whose statutes have grown up over decades or centuries. Yes, university disciplinary processes are not always set up to deal with the full spectrum of issues. Yes, all too often there are attempts to mediate and resolve issues informally which then blow up in the university's face if it does become a formal process.

None of that stops the university from taking a decision to use the powers available to it and then saying "disagree? see you in court". Unless the initial decision were manifestly unreasonable ("Wednesday unreasonable" is I believe the legal term), the worst that is going to happen is that a court is going to impose a different outcome which is probably within the range the university considered in the first place. And the complainant would have to fight the action in open, reported, civil (balance of probabilities) court, which would in this case be extremely uncomfortable for them.

pumpkin. I don’t think anyone knows the full details. From what I can deduce, the decisions made at the original panel last summer may not have been watertight, in that some of the students were able to resort to an appeals process (a process which is usually only available if you can demonstrate that the university did not follow its own processes fairly or correctly). The students are highly privileged individuals, from what I can tell, so I imagine they turned up to the appeal with a lawyer in tow, as sometimes happens in such cases. I know from experience on similar panels that universities are terrified of facing legal action. Though I do think that, in some cases, it would be better to face it, even if your odds are not good, as the consequences of caving in in a situation like this can have terrible reputations damage.

Truly that may be the case. I wonder what they would have to see or hear happening, just how bad the "other" men's behaviour would have to get for them to challenge it and try to stop it. Being a spectator makes someone just as complicit in harming women and young girls.

Reflectant I’ve cross-posted with you, but you’ll see from the end of my previous, that I am agreement with what you’re saying. (reputations should be reputational in my last sentence)

so I imagine they turned up to the appeal with a lawyer in tow, as sometimes happens in such cases

My university does not permit students to be legally represented other than in Fitness to Practice cases (ie, med school) which don't apply here. I don't think we're unusual in that.

Looking at our regulations (not Warwick, but "that sort of place"), however, I see that we can suspend students for no longer than a year, but there is no time period stated for how long we can exclude students from specific buildings or facilities. I suspect that is the sort of inconsistency our Registry is looking at this morning in light of the Warwick case. A ten year ban from campus is essentially (for a traditional university with no distance-learning aspect to the programme the student is enrolled on) a ten year suspension, and if you can't suspend students for ten years under one regulation, it does seem inconsistent that you can effectively suspend them for ten years under the next paragraph in the same rules.

ou’ll see from the end of my previous, that I am agreement with what you’re saying

Quite. As a returner to university after being a reasonably senior manager in industry, I am horrified by how unwilling universities are to challenge things. That makes them very weak in the face of sociopaths who are willing to push things to the limit.

The Germans have a phrase for it: vorauseilender Gehorsam. Google translate does a reasonable job.

Can I really recommend you all read the link posted above, about one of the boys doing the same thing at school. And so, because it wasn't dealt with, thinking it was OK.

www.thebubble.org.uk/current-affairs/student-life/we-need-to-have-a-conversation-about-group-chats/

This school isn't a million miles away from us - and yes, it is co-ed all the way through now. I'll be talking next week to DDs school about whether they are doing enough in PHSE to deal with these kind of attitudes at the root.

I am told that some of the boys involved (not the main protagonists) are very shy, quiet types, described as "kind" and "gentle".

I cannot believe this though, if they were wouldn't they skulk off quietly and start another Uni, after apologising profusely? These arrogant 'men' appealed and are re-joining in the autumn knowing the girls are still there, they have no shame.

I would not allow my boys to attend either and I'll be remembering this for when they are (hopefully) choosing their courses in 14years time.
It may well have been out of control 'banter' but it is unacceptable and deplorable behavior. The response of the university in minimising it without a decent explanation is distasteful at best.

Watching on Victoria Derbyshire, I am disgusted.

The bloody Press Officer on the Appeals Panel? Unbelievable conflict of interest there.

That women should be questioned on their sexual history with the people who wrote the threats is like something from the Dark Ages.

twitter.com/vicderbyshire/status/1091273819795398656

Warwick university Press Director sat in on disciplinary hearings. Complainant was asked about her sexual history with the men involved.

I didn't see it until after 10am, so now off to see if iPlayer will let me rewind BBC News...

They should not be allowed back!! Disgusting!!

I see someone’s been told to f#k off on this group - charming.*

Yeah, I stand by what I said as well. I don't really give a shit if you think it's 'charming' or not.

Warwick university Press Director sat in on disciplinary hearings. Complainant was asked about her sexual history with the men involved.

While that is shocking, it doesn’t surprise me. Warwick has a reputation for being the most ruthless, corporate university in the sector. I dare say that’s one reason why certain employers seem to like it so much.

Jesus. Watching it now. Jesus. Top story on Victoria Derbyshire. She and her researchers are absolutely on the case.

For a start off, the "it was private" thing is blown of the water: one of the participants actively showed it to one of the complainants. Gang rape and murder threats to her face.

It's been said already but I'll say it again.

If this was a group of young Muslim men having 'banter' on a private group about bombing or driving a lorry into a particular place, there is no fucking way that it would be minimised in this way. No one would be saying 'oh well, they havent actually done anything have they' 'people just need to toughen up' 'they are just words'.

But because the subject of the messages is about raping women, it's fine.

I dare say that’s one reason why certain employers seem to like it so much.

Quite.

I'm writing as someone who was a Humanities student at an Oxbridge rejects' University, in the mid to late Seventies, when "Women's Lib" was hugely important and "The Women's Room" by Marilyn French made a massive impact on me. I was horrified and very surprised when my own child went to Exeter a few years ago and told me all about the "boys will be boys" behaviour and "bantz" she and her friends had to put up with, both on campus and in night-clubs (or whatever they are nowadays) - they became inured to these men talking about raping them if they refused their not very charming advances. As has been said by pp, it is apparently not unusual behaviour for some male students at universities nowadays, so it seems to me that nothing has changed for women's equality in the past 45 years. Actually, we had it better as female students in the Seventies, I think. It is utterly demoralising.

Beerflavourednipples - quite. You (and whoever the pp were who also posted this) make a very powerful point, I think.

I've just been reading a disussion on this on The Student Room forum (a site for prospective and current students with a slight Russell Group bias). I was shocked by the number of male students defending the Warwick kids, there was genuine bewilderment that they should face any sanctions at all for everyday 'bantz'...