AN independent inquiry into allegations of sexism at a Scottish university has highlighted the possibility of criminal behaviour in its student union.
The findings, to be published today, say comments on the internet about Glasgow University Union (GUU) referred to "sexual assaults being carried out in the form of groping, touching or forcing sexual advances".
The report adds: "There was some suggestion such sexualised behaviour from some student members had become normalised with some of the female students accepting the behaviour as part of membership of GUU."
It was set up earlier this year after allegations of sexist heckling were made by two females who took part in a debate organised by the GUU in March.
The two women - from the universities of Cambridge and Edinburgh - said they were met with boos and calls of "shame" as they spoke about how religion affected women's rights.
The women claimed at the time the interruptions were "misogynistic" and that they were also met with comments about their appearance and choice of clothes.
Two students were eventually cleared of accusations they subjected the women debaters to sexist abuse, but the GUU decided to hold an independent inquiry into its culture.
The inquiry was led by SNP MSP Sandra White, Consultant Haematologist at Forth Valley NHS Dr Roderick Neilson and Glasgow University law professor Noreen Burrows.
Their report highlights the "remarkable" global public outcry following the events, stating: "Condemnation of the union has been widespread from students on campus to alumni in Australia and Africa and from our fellow student bodies and the university.
"Regardless of any facts, the public perception of the union is one where there is a pervading discriminatory culture."
The report goes on to refer to information posted by students on websites about "sexist and misogynistic behaviour" on the part of some student members of the GUU - some of whom have held office.
This "inappropriate behaviour" within the premises of GUU had created "an intimidating, uncomfortable or unwelcoming atmosphere".
As a result the inquiry team has recommended GUU provides every student with information regarding harassment, including a definition of harassment, an explanation of the kind of behaviour which is not tolerated and the possible legal consequences of inappropriate behaviour.
It states: "It should take immediate steps to ensure that staff members, members of the union or visitors to the union are not subject to harassment or bullying."
Overall, the inquiry recommends a root-and-branch review of the running of GUU with a modernised constitution, a better mix of people on the board of management and a proper student complaints procedure.
In addition, it calls for a new code of discipline with specific sanctions where behaviour is inappropriate.
In reference to debates, the report noted the rules had already been changed to ensure anyone guilty of offensive or discriminatory language or conduct could be evicted from the chamber.
GUU president Gavin Tulloch, who was appointed after the allegations first surfaced, welcomed the report. He said: "We are grateful to the members of the commission for giving their time to review the culture of the union and for their recommendations to effect changes, which we have either already implemented or are in the process of implementing.
"All of us involved with the day-to-day management of the GUU are determined to do everything that we can to make the union as open, safe and welcoming an environment as possible for all students and guests.
"We would like to be clear - our union does not and will not tolerate prejudice, however it is manifested. The recommendations of this report will help us to achieve that."
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article