UNIVERSITY RESPONSES TO FORCED MARRIAGE AND VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

1. UNIVERSITY RESPONSES TO FORCED MARRIAGE AND VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN RENATE KLEIN & MARILYN FREEMAN LONDON METROPOLITAN UNIVERSITY SRHE SEMINAR 8 MAY 2014

2. Case Examples • Student is exploited by relatives on whose financial support she depends • Student is physically abused by father of her child • Parents/family support student’s studies on condition that she get married to man of family’s choice when studies completed • Student has experienced abuse in childhood, and in multiple abusive relationships as adult • Student is physically abused in context of FM Freeman & Klein, 2012

3. WHY should universities BOTHER? • Extent of problem • Disproportionate impact on female students • Legal duty to end discrimination • Improve access & participation

4. prevalence National Union of Students, 2010

5. Prevalence Stenning et al., 2012

6. Forced marriage unit CASE LOADS • 2012 1485 cases • 82% female, 18% male • 71% 16-25 years old • 2013 1302 cases • 82% female, 18% male • 73% 16-25 years old www.gov.uk/forced-marriage

7. impacts Feltes et al., 2012

8. DO universities know? Stenning et al., 2012

9. Reasons for low formal reporting • Violation seen as “normal” • Fear not to be believed • Fear that authorities will ridicule or dismiss • Fear that authorities will take inappropriate action • Not wanting to upset friends/family • Unwilling to bring charges against family Klein, 2012

10. Red flags in academia • Failing academically • Failing a paper or exam • Sudden change in habits, not attending classes anymore or attending too much • Absence from classes • Requesting leave from classes to go home for an “arranged” marriage • Family or relationship “problems” • Crisis point

11. How do Universities respond? Research Methodology: Semi-structured interviews • 24 staff at 9 different PSE institutions • 6 staff at 6 different NGOs • 5 police officers from 5 different PDs Keyword searches on websites • 16 HE websites, 40 FE websites Freeman & Klein, 2013

12. Key findings • Response is up to individual staff members • Most highly motivated, well-meaning • Some well informed, specialist VAW training • Many without specialist VAW training • No systematic, institutional response • Problematic assumptions • About disclosure • About “generic” interventions Freeman & Klein, 2013

13. Problematic assumptions about Disclosure • No disclosure means no problem? • Student will say things in a way staff member expects? • Distinction between arranged and forced marriage is clear? • Somebody else at university is first port of call? Klein, 2012; Ullman, 2010

14. Problematic assumptions about interventions • Talking to parents helps? • Generic counseling skills are sufficient? • One-stop complaint processes are helpful? • Non-specialist policies (e.g., anti-bullying) are sufficient?

15. Comprehensive response • Core responsibility for cultural transformation at institution • Specialist institutional policy with adequate staff training • Awareness campaign: campus culture and resources • Statement and action against abuse-conducive contexts • Information about specialist resources • Opportunities for disclosure (being clear on confidentiality) • Supporting students’ informed decisions • Participation in multi-agency working • Periodical impact evaluation

16. Presenter contact • renate.klein@londonmet.ac.uk