Two Corpus Christi undergraduates were stalked by a fellow student for over two years, despite frequent appeals to college authorities. The college procedure led to a confusing and frustrating process for the victims.
Mary and Sophie* were in their first year at Corpus Christi College, Oxford when a fellow student, Joe*, began giving them unwanted attention. By Trinity term of 2019, the situation had escalated. He made frequent advances, left many letters in their pidges and offered mysterious gifts, persistently following, messaging and staring at them. At times, he prevented them from leaving the college library by blocking them in the pews. He continued to confront and corner the women, attempting to see them multiple times each day and refusing to leave when asked. After the women appealed to the college for support, the Dean of Corpus Christi told Joe to cease contact with both women.
Over the summer and into Michaelmas of 2019, Joe continued to interact with both women, in person and online. Following continued conversations with Corpus administration, Joe was banned from the college site for two weeks at the end of Michaelmas and warned again to stop contacting Mary and Sophie. In Hilary term 2020, the ban was lifted and Joe resumed contact with the women. Reports of him persistently following Mary and Sophie around the college library ultimately spurred Corpus to hold a harassment panel.
One university, many procedures
Following Mary’s official harassment complaint, the Corpus Disciplinary Committee held a panel to discuss Joe’s behaviour and recommend further actions. Neither Mary nor Sophie were informed of the precise timings of the panel. Mary only discovered the panel had occurred when she wrote to the Dean with concerns about Joe discussing her harassment complaint publicly, even though she had been told to keep this matter strictly confidential. The Dean responded by stating that he could not control Joe’s actions, the panel had happened the day before and the outcome had not been determined yet.
The two women were eventually notified in person that the Committee had banned the accused from the Corpus campus and activities “indefinitely”. If Joe ever contacted them again, he could no longer remain a member of the university. Mary and Sophie were not given the verdict in writing. Corpus policy at the time, as detailed in the 2021 non-academic disciplinary procedure (NADP), stated that a “verbal report” is all that needed to be given to the student who brought forward the complaint. The University of Oxford Harassment Policy by contrast and the majority of Oxford colleges stipulate that the outcome of investigations and disciplinary panels should be provided to the reporter and the accused, including in some cases in writing.
The central University Policy includes a detailed procedure for dealing with harassment issues between students. Last updated in March 2019, the procedure stresses the importance of a timely process, continued communication and support for the accuser and the accused. The procedure also suggests strict penalties for non-compliance with penalties imposed under this procedure.
However, Oxford colleges are not required to follow the exact University policy. Instead, the University encourages the resolution and punishment of harassment cases “under appropriate college procedures while reflecting the principles of this Policy”. A university spokesperson told Cherwell that the University “has no role in advising colleges on complaint handling procedures”. The University as a whole addresses reports of sexual misconduct under Statute XI and the Student Disciplinary Procedure, and is also undertaking a review this academic year “to identify scope to improve its processes”.
Whilst many Oxford colleges have similar procedures dedicated solely to issues of harassment, Corpus Christi is amongst the minority of colleges which group all non-academic disciplinary offences under one common procedure. The college has guidelines for the treatment of harassment cases, but ultimately formal action is taken under the standard complaints procedure and NADP. The Corpus NADP, contained in the Junior Members Handbook at the time, states that a student can be summoned to the panel for offences ranging from “contravention of the College’s Information Technology Regulations” and interference with fire alarms to criminal conduct and violence.
“Appropriate action has been taken”
In Michaelmas 2020, Mary and Sophie complained to the college again. Joe was still involved in college football and had begun to harass Sophie’s boyfriend. In a subsequent meeting with the Dean and Dean of Welfare, the two women were told that Joe’s activities were not in violation of the rules, as football occurred off Corpus’ campus and Joe was targeting Sophie’s boyfriend, not Sophie herself. Mary and Sophie added in the meeting that the disciplinary verdict they had been verbally informed of barred Joe from participating in any college activities.
However, Mary told Cherwell that since “we had nothing in writing when questioned on this, [the Deans] just said that we misunderstood and that was never said”. The women were frustrated by this lack of clarity and believed that “the point of the harassment panel outcome was to not just separate us, but also to provide punishment”. No action was taken by Corpus against Joe at that point. The women heard nothing from Joe for months during pandemic lockdowns.
When Joe resumed contact with Mary in the autumn of 2021, following her through the streets of Oxford, she notified Corpus Christi, worried about his behaviour. Mary had since moved colleges, as she had been “feeling unsafe at Corpus”, due to the continued harassment and the college’s handling of the case. The Corpus Dean initially recommended she utilise the resources of the welfare team at her new college. Mary sent multiple emails, pleading to hear what steps had been taken, as she believed Joe had clearly breached the disciplinary panel’s ruling. After over a week of emails, the Corpus Dean responded to Mary. He stated that Joe had been “dealt with under the college disciplinary process” and “appropriate action” had been taken. When Mary pushed for clarification, Corpus officials informed her that Joe had been warned that further contact with her or Sophie was banned and repeat offences could lead to him being sent back to the Disciplinary Committee, effectively returning to the beginning of the disciplinary process.
Mary told Cherwell that this experience was frustrating. This new warning negated “the whole point of the harassment panel in the first place”. She reiterated that she and Sophie were under the impression that “if he contacted us again that was it – no more warning, he was kicked out”.
Following the Dean’s response, Mary wrote to the Corpus Academic Registrar to obtain the results of the Hilary 2020 disciplinary panel in writing. In the November 2021 email she wrote that without the “exact terms” of the disciplinary findings, she couldn’t be sure of what behaviour “constitutes a breach”. The Academic Registrar quickly responded with some of the outcomes from the panel, which included that the accused could not “make any contact by whatever means with either of the female students” nor be in the same “non-teaching environment, room or social space with either female student”. The college did not specify restrictions in teaching settings and Sophie had to talk to instructors herself to ensure that she could be separated from Joe in teaching spaces. The Academic Registrar added that the Dean had “reminded” Joe of these stipulations and stated that further breaches would send him back to the Disciplinary Committee. This email was the first time in nearly two years that either Mary or Sophie had received any part of the terms of the panel in writing. Mary wrote in a reply to the Academic Registrar that she was “utterly dejected” that the terms of this panel had not been maintained.
Those invited to the Scholar’s Dinner
A few days later, Corpus held a Scholar’s Dinner to celebrate all leavers who had achieved a First in Finals. Mary was amongst this group, but due to “space issues” linked to COVID-19 pandemic restrictions, was uninvited from the dinner about a week beforehand. The college later told the women that “no invitations were revoked”. Mary had also been told that since she had switched colleges it was “no longer appropriate” for the Corpus to “enter into correspondence” with her about the dinner since it was a “College event”.
She and Sophie learned from friends in attendance at the dinner, however, that Joe was present, despite his college site ban being extended, as per the Academic Registrar’s most recent email. A friend at the event immediately expressed their discomfort to the Dean at the event but was told that this was not an appropriate time to have this discussion. When Sophie’s boyfriend wrote to the Vice-Principal that he was uncomfortable to have been at the same event as Joe, given his past actions, the Vice-Principal responded that this was a “large gathering” with “varying levels of personal relations between attendees”. He insisted that this was “after all an academic function”.
Sophie wrote in an email that night that she was “alarmed” and alleged the college displayed “apathy” towards vulnerable members. She and Mary persistently emailed Corpus to request to speak to the Dean regarding these infringements of the Disciplinary Committee. The women were informed that college administration was discussing the matter and would be in touch soon, as “the number and tone of emails exchanged on this subject over the last week suggests that there is a need for further clarification and closure on this matter.”
Sophie, who was still a member of Corpus Christi College, was informed that she should not contact the Dean without communication from him first, despite having effectively “no one else to turn to”. She also later received an email stating that her tone to the Dean had been unacceptable, as he has “worked hard to ensure that the disciplinary procedure has been followed and all students are treated fairly”.
Help beyond the college
Concerned that college and university measures were not substantive, Mary filed an official criminal complaint against Joe in late 2021. It was however dropped due to an administrative error on the police’s side which led the force to suspend the investigation to the 6-month time limit between filing and ruling. Moreover, Joe’s contact within the statutory time limit for stalking offences of 6 months was sporadic. Police have since apologised to Mary for the delay and errors made in the handling of the case. An inspector added that the initial instances of stalking in 2019/20 “could have been considered and investigated as a stalking/harassment offence,”, however since these actions were not reported within six months, they could not be prosecuted. Sophie and Mary were advised that if they had been directed to the police sooner, the case could have likely been dealt with within the six-month limit for evidence.
Mary states that before she switched colleges, she was not made aware of the harassment supports that existed outside of the collegiate system, including the Oxford Student Sexual Harassment Support Service, nor was she encouraged to speak to the police by Corpus Christi. Sophie told Cherwell that they were “given the impression that the college procedure would give a similar result to a police report, like a no-contact order” and had thus not wanted to endure the further emotional upheaval and lengthy process of a criminal filing. Mary added that her new college’s disciplinary proceedings encourage severe cases of sexual harassment and assault to be referred to the police.
Indeed, details of individual college harassment procedures vary greatly. In Trinity 2022, the Conference of Colleges provided colleges with a Non-Academic Discipline Procedure Template which “had been tested as to compliance with law, regulatory obligations/guidance and good practice”. This new model allowed “for colleges to adopt/adapt to their own particular constitutional arrangements and circumstances as they see fit.” Implementation was thus varied.
The majority of colleges have a specific procedure for dealing with harassment complaints and ensure written communication with all relevant parties, with over a dozen including nearly identical procedures specific to harassment investigations and discipline between students. These colleges also included stipulations that the complainant can directly appeal the case if they are not satisfied with its treatment. Only Corpus and five other Oxford colleges admitting undergraduates do not require both the complainant and the accused to be informed in writing of the verdict of their NADP or dedicated harassment proceedings.
A not-so-new NADP
In Hillary 2022, Mary and Sophie sent a formal complaint to Corpus describing their displeasure with Corpus’ conduct and the NADP as it stood at the time. The Corpus President answered them in April, acknowledging “the distress that [their] experiences in relation to this case caused, both at the time and since the complaint and hearing”. The President added that issues concerning sexual harassment were “under active review in committees and bodies of the University, Conference of Colleges, and individual Colleges,” and that it “is obviously important to keep procedures and good practice up to date”.
She concluded that Corpus Christi Oxford was revising their own NADP and thanked them for Mary and Sophie’s own “valuable input and perspective”. In particular, she highlighted their concern for complainant support and “communication of the outcome of a complaint and any associated investigation to the complainant(s), in particular the details of any penalty imposed”.
Two months after the Corpus President’s official reply, however, a “leaver’s drinks” was held at Corpus and Joe was invited. Sophie was informed of his presence with 2 hours’ notice “as a courtesy”, despite the existence of the continuing college ban.
Since 2022, the Corpus administration has revised aspects of its NADP and Harassment Procedure. The new procedure for 2023-24 puts greater emphasis on involving police authorities early in the process and notes that “[i]n deciding whether to do so, the Dean should take into account the wishes of the reporter.” The procedure also includes new ways to appeal disciplinary proceedings and breaches and provides means for the reporter to complain about the proceedings.
Whilst the Corpus Christi NADP no longer stipulates that reporters can only receive word of the completion of disciplinary proceedings verbally, they are still not guaranteed to receive the verdict in writing. Now 2023-2024 Corpus Handbook policy states that in cases of major breaches of discipline “the reporter will be informed of the completion of the proceedings, and any outcomes that the Vice-President deems it necessary for them to know”.
Mary had hoped for a substantial reform of Corpus procedures and is thoroughly discouraged by her experience: “it sickens me that Corpus can treat victims like this and I wouldn’t want anyone to go through what I did”. She adds that “the stalking was a horrific thing to go through alone, but the way we were dismissed by college authority whose job it is to safeguard us for these issues had an immense impact on me, leaving more lasting emotional trauma than the stalking by the end of it all”.
Corpus Christi College has not responded to Cherwell’s requests for comment.
*names have been changed for privacy
