UNIVERSITY RESPONSES TO FORCED MARRIAGE AND VIOLENCE AGAINST

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

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

WHY SHOULD UNIVERSITIES BOTHER? Extent of problem Disproportionate impact on female students Legal duty to end discrimination Improve access & participation

PREVALENCE National Union of Students, 2010

PREVALENCE Stenning et al. , 2012

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

IMPACTS HEALTH SOCIAL ACADEMIC • Depression • Eating disorders • Alcohol or drug use • Suicidal thoughts • Scared of leaving house • Loss of confidence • Difficulty trusting other people • Poor performance • Avoiding courses • Delay of progress • Disruption of studies Feltes et al. , 2012

DO UNIVERSITIES KNOW? Stenning et al. , 2012

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

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

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 - Freeman & Klein, 2013 16 HE websites, 40 FE websites

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

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

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?

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

PRESENTER CONTACT renate. klein@londonmet. ac. uk