Content Note: This article contains discussion of sexual harassment and sexual assault

On Monday, an email from Professor Graham Virgo landed in the inboxes of all returning Cambridge students. In it, the Senior Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Education appeared at first glance to clarify the options available to those who have experienced sexual misconduct or harassment at Cambridge.

However, the email told students very little that wasn’t already publicly known. In July, Varsity revealed that at least two formal complaints of sexual assault and rape have been dismissed. The two complaints, filed separately, were stopped in their tracks because of a decision by one chair of the University’s Disciplinary Committee to exclude sexual misconduct from the official definition of harassment in disciplinary procedures.

The chair’s decision cannot be reversed, and the two women whose complaints have been dismissed cannot appeal within University systems.

Since then, the loophole in the disciplinary procedures has been covered in both the Guardian and the BBC. Lawyers and women’s groups have branded the change ‘unlawful’, and a Queens’ junior research fellow and barrister has called for an “independent inquiry” into the change.

Meanwhile, recent Cambridge graduate Dani Bradford announced in July that she is suing the University for its handling of her sexual misconduct complaint from several years ago.

Virgo’s email contains the most information the University has said about the loophole in the disciplinary procedures up until now, and marks the first time that senior Cambridge administration has addressed the issue in direct communication with the University community, although this year’s incoming students did not receive Virgo’s email.

So, what did the email get right?

The email drew attention to systems designed to address sexual harassment or assault at Cambridge, including the University’s anonymous reporting system, Breaking the Silence, and the Sexual Assault and Harassment Advisor, Amy O’Leary. O’Leary, who was hired after a search for an advisor in September 2017, provides support to those that have experienced sexual assault before or during their time at Cambridge.

What it did and didn’t say about the changes to the Disciplinary Procedures

Virgo said the reformed disciplinary procedures will be introduced on 1st October, although this is fairly old news: after two periods of student consultation and two Senate House discussions, a series of proposed changes to the existing Student Disciplinary Procedures were accepted in June.

The reformed disciplinary procedures will see the standard of proof changed from the criminal (where an allegation must be proved ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’) to the civil standard, also known as the balance of probabilities.

What does the email miss about the disciplinary loophole?

As Virgo mentioned, the reformed disciplinary procedures, including the ‘balance of probabilities’ standard, will only be used for incidences that occur after 1st October. This means that even if the complaint is filed after 1st October, the existing disciplinary procedures will be used if the incident in question occurred prior to this date.

However, because of the decision made by the Chair of the Disciplinary Committee in June, most sexual misconduct complaints concerning incidents which occurred before 1st October can no longer be taken forward. As a result, it is likely that cases of sexual misconduct which do not meet the criteria of the University’s restrictive definition of harassment will not lead to any disciplinary action against perpetrators. Virgo’s email is the first time the University has directly acknowledged the impact of the Chair’s decision.

The email references the loophole, but Virgo’s language clouds its significance. He wrote: “I wish to emphasise that the University continues to investigate all cases of sexual misconduct or any form of harassment which has been reported to us.”

In the context of campus sexual assault, the term ‘investigate’ carries weight. One might think of an ‘investigation’ into sexual misconduct as a lengthy process: the University gathers evidence, interviews those involved, and reaches a conclusion on the allegations, and any consequences they merit.

Virgo’s email uses the term “investigate” misleadingly. For one woman whose complaint was dismissed, this ‘investigation’, as Virgo describes it, consisted of a preliminary email exchange with the University Advocate. After sending the mandatory initial outline of the incident and request that a formal complaint process begin, their complaint was dropped completely. They were told their scheduled “investigative meeting” had been cancelled due to the chair's decision.

The sexual misconduct complaint itself never investigated, and no evidence was gathered. There were no consequences for the alleged perpetrator.

In later communications with Varsity, a University spokesperson said: “I can confirm that all cases are investigated to understand whether they can be taken forward under the regulations. Those that can be, are fully investigated.” This distinction – between complaints being “investigated” via email to determine their viability before being quickly dismissed, and incidents being “fully investigated” – was left ambiguous in Virgo’s email. This paints an unrealistic picture of what has been happening since students left for the summer. 

Can students with complaints dating from before 1st October still take them forward?

Virgo also spoke of the “considerable energy and emotional impact of a Committee hearing on complainants” as justification for why “it was decided that it would be unfair to encourage complainants with similar cases to go through a disciplinary process that was likely to end in another such decision”. But the students whose cases were dismissed this Summer were not discouraged from pursuing a formal complaint process — they were explicitly told their cases would not be taken forward to a hearing.

What’s more, a University spokesperson told Cambridgeshire Live in July that if a student wished to challenge the dismissal of their case, they could file a complaint with the Student Complaints Service or launch a judicial review. However, the students whose cases were dismissed were explicitly told that a complaint to the Students Complaints Service would not necessarily mean their case would be reopened. Meanwhile, a judicial review is often a lengthy and expensive legal process, which is unlikely to be a viable option for many students.