Investigating discriminatory abuse at university

Racist, homophobic and transphobic abuse at a university can engage several overlapping frameworks: the institution’s internal disciplinary and complaints procedures, its legal duties under the Equality Act 2010, the Office for Students (OfS) regulatory expectations, and potentially the criminal law. How the abuse should be investigated depends on who committed it (student, staff member, or visitor), the seriousness, and whether it may also be a criminal offence. What follows sets out the principles a fair and legally compliant investigation should follow.

Legal and regulatory framework:

Under the Equality Act 2010, race, sexual orientation and gender reassignment are protected characteristics. Harassment is defined as unwanted conduct related to a protected characteristic that has the purpose or effect of violating a person’s dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment. A university, as a service provider and as an employer, has legal duties not to permit such harassment and, under the Public Sector Equality Duty (section 149), to have due regard to eliminating discrimination and harassment and fostering good relations. This duty shapes how it should respond to reports.

Separately, from the start of the 2025 academic year, the OfS condition of registration E6 requires registered higher education providers in England to have adequate and effective policies dealing with harassment and sexual misconduct. The OfS statement of expectations anticipates that providers will investigate such complaints, often as a disciplinary matter, and will provide clear information about the investigatory and decision-making process, timescales, the range of possible outcomes, and any appeal route. Providers must also address how they deal with conduct that may simultaneously constitute a criminal offence.

Certain abuse may cross into criminal territory: racially or religiously aggravated offences, and offences with hostility based on sexual orientation or transgender identity, can attract enhanced sentencing. Threatening or grossly offensive communications may also be criminal. The university’s procedure should identify when a matter should be reported to the police and how internal and criminal processes interact.

How the investigation should be conducted:

1. Prompt acknowledgement and support. The report should be acknowledged quickly and the reporting person offered support (wellbeing, counselling, safety measures, adjustments). Support should not be conditional on the outcome of the investigation.

2. Triage and risk assessment. The university should assess the seriousness and any ongoing risk, and consider immediate protective or precautionary measures, such as interim separation of the parties, changes to timetabling, or suspension of the accused pending investigation. Precautionary measures should be proportionate and neutral, not treated as a punishment.

3. Choice of the correct procedure. The investigation should be routed through the appropriate policy: a student disciplinary procedure where the alleged perpetrator is a student, staff disciplinary procedures where it is a member of staff, and a distinct route for visitors or contractors. Where conduct may be criminal, the policy should explain whether and how the internal process runs alongside, or waits for, any police investigation.

4. Fair and impartial fact-finding. A properly appointed investigator should gather evidence, including witness statements, written communications, social media posts, CCTV, and any documentary material. The accused should be told, in sufficient detail, the allegations against them and be given a fair opportunity to respond. Both parties should be treated even-handedly.

5. The correct standard of proof. Internal disciplinary decisions are normally decided on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not), not the criminal standard of beyond reasonable doubt. This means the university can uphold a complaint even where there is no criminal conviction, or where the police take no action.

6. Applying the legal test correctly. The decision-maker should not simply accept the label placed on the conduct. They should identify the material facts and apply the statutory harassment test: was the conduct unwanted, was it related to race, sexual orientation or gender reassignment, and did it have the prohibited purpose or effect. In assessing effect, they should consider the perception of the person affected, the other circumstances, and whether it was reasonable for the conduct to have that effect. This guards against both under-reaction and over-reaction, and distinguishes serious abuse from, for example, robust but lawful disagreement.

7. Reasoned, proportionate outcome. If the allegation is upheld, sanctions should be proportionate to the seriousness, ranging from warnings and required training to suspension or expulsion for students, or the full range of employment sanctions up to dismissal for staff. Reasons should be recorded.

8. Confidentiality and data protection. Information should be handled sensitively and shared only on a need-to-know basis, consistent with data protection law. The reporting person cannot always be promised total confidentiality, because the accused must know enough to answer the case; this should be explained at the outset.

9. Timescales and communication. The OfS expects clear information about timescales and the factors that may affect them. Both parties should be kept reasonably informed of progress and told the outcome and their appeal rights.

10. Appeal and external review. There should be an internal appeal route. If a student complainant remains dissatisfied after exhausting internal procedures and receives a Completion of Procedures letter, they can complain to the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education (OIA), which reviews whether the university acted fairly and followed its own procedures.

Interaction with criminal proceedings:

The existence of a police investigation does not automatically prevent the university acting. Universities can and often do proceed with internal disciplinary action on the balance of probabilities even where there is no prosecution. However, the policy should address sensible coordination, for example avoiding steps that would prejudice a live criminal investigation, and should make clear that a decision by the police or CPS not to proceed does not bind the internal process.

Practical next steps if you are affected:

1. Preserve evidence. Keep messages, emails, screenshots, dates, times, locations and the names of any witnesses.

2. Report through the correct channel. Use the university’s harassment or student conduct reporting route (many now have online reporting tools), or raise it with a personal tutor, students’ union, or the relevant office.

3. Consider the police. Where the abuse involves threats, assault, or grossly offensive or menacing communications, it may be a criminal matter and can be reported to the police as well as the university.

4. Access support. Ask the university for wellbeing support and any protective measures you need while the matter is investigated.

5. Escalate if needed. If you are dissatisfied with how the university handles it, follow the internal appeal route, then consider the OIA. Where the conduct engages the Equality Act, you may also have separate legal avenues, and the Equality Advisory and Support Service can advise.

What may change the answer:

The precise procedure depends on your specific university’s policies, whether the perpetrator is a student, staff member or visitor, the seriousness of the conduct, and whether it may be criminal. If you tell me which university is involved and what happened, I can be more specific about the applicable procedure and options.