The tragic demise of Fairuz Sadaf Abantika, a student from Jagannath University (JnU), who committed suicide after facing repeated bullying and harassment, is a wakeup call for all. Fairuz was brave enough to report her experience to the committee in her university, but after negligence from the authorities, she eventually succumbed to continuous bullying and harassment from her peers. Why are anti-harassment committees not functional in universities? Why do authorities not take such complaints related to sexual harassment and bullying seriously?
High court guidelines
In 2022, the High Court (HC) of Bangladesh asked the government to submit a report providing the names of the institutions that had formed a committee against sexual harassment at the educational institutions and workplaces complying with a court order. Despite seeking explanation regarding the absence of functionality of such anti-harassment committees as a follow up of its groundbreaking 2009 guideline, little to no progress has been made. In addition, gaps in the existing laws are often causing survivors to be re-victimized and subject to further harassment, which was also the case for the deceased Fairuz.
In the HC directive issued in 2009, guidelines were given for all workplaces and educational institutions aimed at filling in the legislative vacuum and to create awareness on the different forms of sexual harassment and the consequences of sexual offenses. However, in case of the complaints process, much of the directives are overlooked and often not prioritized. The directive mentions that the identity of the complainant and also of the accused will not be disclosed until the allegation is proved, but in most cases the confidentiality is not maintained, which was also the case for the JnU student Fairuz. Under the directive, safety and security of the complainant must be ensured by the concerned authority, but in Fairuz’s case, she was brutally harassed, teased and bullied by her peers after she reported her complaint and the authorities did not bat an eye to ensure her safety in the university premises.
A five member committee has been referred to in the HC Directive which has been adopted in the Labour Rules in September 2022, removing the inclusion of external members in the committee. However, the only reference to labour law on this matter can be found in Section 332 as the Labour Rules added rule 361A without reference to any law. The only section of law found closest to the rule was Section 332 of the labour law on conduct towards female employees. Other than a short definition, no other mention is found on harassment:
“Section 332 -- Conduct towards female employees: Where any female is employed in any work of the establishment, irrespective of her rank or status, no one of that establishment shall behave with the female employee which may seem to be indecent or repugnant to the modesty or honor of the female employee.”
Sexual harassment can happen to anyone irrespective of gender. This section which is being speculated as the relevant section of labour law to refer to is an anomaly. The section does not specify a disciplinary process and the Labour Rules came in before the labour law was amended. Rules are made by the executive on the basis of laws passed by the parliament. In this case, the wheel has come before the cart.
The Labour Rule now removes externals from the complaints committee. However, the HC directed externals in the committee for ensuring transparency and credibility. Since the rules came before the labour law, many private sector organizations are treating harassment cases as misconduct, although there is no particular definition of harassment under misconduct. As the law continues to be vague, the vacuum still exists and the HC guidelines should be adhered to till such legislation is in place. A complaint process should be clearly defined in the labour law or Labour Rules. Since labour laws are not applicable for all places, institutions may adopt similar provisions in their own disciplinary rules.
A good anti-harassment committee guided by HC and international best practises should consist of:
Prevention
All people associated with the university to be sensitized to forms of harassment and abuse. Mass sensitization on what constitutes harassment and what can and cannot be done.
Reporting
Proper channels to report complaints. A hotline/helpline number, mail account with proper communication on how to report.
Response
Once a complaint is reported, the step of a swift and just response is key. The following is a recommended approach:
- Establish a survivor centric approach. Assess risk and take a survivor centric approach. What are the immediate needs of the complainant eg psychosocial support, safety, protection from retaliation etc.
- Confidentiality should be maintained at all times for the protection of complainants and the alleged and information should only be disclosed on a need-to-know basis for the purpose of investigation
- Due process rights ought to be maintained. This includes the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. The complainant has a set of rights including the right to know the process and estimated time within which the matter would be resolved, the alleged also has a set of rights which includes an opportunity of hearing and responding within seven days to the allegations against him/her.
- Mediation. Minor grievances can go to Persons of Trust nominated by the university to mediate. Ensure Persons of Trust are oriented on mediation.
- Conduct a full inquiry/investigation. Serious grievances must be fully investigated/inquired. Investigations are to be conducted by investigation/inquiry officers. Not more than two investigation officers should interview a complainant and the officers need to be neutral and impartial in conducting investigations. It is preferred to have one male and one female for gender balance.
- Preliminary fact finding. A preliminary fact finding may take place to see if there is sufficient cause.
- If there is sufficient cause then allegations may be drawn up and the provided cause should be issued to the alleged in order to respond to the allegations in question with evidence in person or in writing within seven days
- Evidence. The inquiry officers will speak with the complainant, alleged, and any other witnesses, gather all direct and circumstantial evidence and prepare a final report based on findings and evidence.
- Maintain a standard of proof. Evidence would be weighed to a balance of probabilities.
- Reports should be submitted to the disciplinary committee and its subcommittee consisting of minimum five senior members in the university to hear the facts and evidence. Evidence may be direct, circumstantial, or indirect. Disciplinary committee will recommend the decision.
- Approval. Based on the evidence, the recommended decision of the disciplinary committee and its subcommittee to be sent to the syndicate for approval.
Learning
Finally, whatever is learned from individual cases and risk assessments should provide the basis of improving policies and processes.
Ragging
Other than sexual harassment, recurring ragging in the campuses is another burning issue that is hampering the mental health and overall wellbeing of the students. Over the years, ragging has become part of the culture, not only in universities but also in other educational institutions. In 2020, the HC also directed for anti-ragging committees in all educational institutions, but are they actually functioning? The process to be followed when sexual harassment or bullying complaint is lodged; complaints are to be assessed upon receiving and filtered based on severity, minor grievances to be mediated by Persons of Trust in universities and serious offenses to go for investigation. The irony is that in case of Fairuz, the complaint was never even forwarded to the VC of JnU for further action, which led to compromised safety of the student and eventually compelled her to commit suicide, out of fear and frustration.
Along with reforms made in the laws, mass sensitization is required to break patriarchal mindsets and ensure empathy towards survivors. Fairuz was subject to victim blaming and unfortunately, along with students, some of the teachers were also perpetuating this abuse towards her. The deafening silence from the authorities in case of Fairuz speaks volumes about the lack of functionality of such anti-harassment committees and it is high time civil society, legal practitioners and duty bearers became more vocal about such issues and actively advocated for amendments in the laws under sexual harassment.
Jenefa Jabbar is a Barrister and the Director of Social Compliance and Safeguarding at BRAC.
