'Prevention' for who? Why intersectionality is necessary for tackling sexual harassment and misconduct

In recent months, there have been two key enhancements made to workers and students’ rights when it comes to tackling sexual harassment and misconduct in workplaces and in educational settings. These are noted as the following:

• Worker Protection (Amendment of Equality Act 2010) Act 2023 which came into effect on 26 October 2024
• Condition E6: Harassment and sexual misconduct which comes into effect 1st August 2025.

These new regulatory and legislative changes will enforce an instrumental pivot for organisations, higher education providers and society, to actively showcase how organisations are demonstrating due regard to such acts. Interestingly, these contexts appear to be underpinned by what I will refer to as the PLAIT principles:

• Prevention - taking preventative steps in tackling sexual harassment and misconduct.
• Learning - promoting learning and a single source of information on policy, practice and guidance.
• Accountability - demonstrating clear lines of accountability and those responsible for enacting the duty.
• Integrity - evidencing a culture of integrity in conduct and managing arising issues.
• Transparency - developing clear and concise information and guidance to support and promote awareness and engagement with policies.

In particular, I want to highlight the principle of ‘prevention’ which marks a critical shift in tackling inequalities, oppression, and harm. This is something I noticed from the regulation and legislation. Both the regulator and legislative conditions require organisations to actively prevent sexual harassment and misconduct. For example, the Act specifically states that,

“an employer (A) must take reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment of ?employees of A in the course of their employment.”

The E6 condition similarly states,

“Taking steps that could make a significant and credible difference would lead to a reduction in the prevalence of harassment and/or sexual misconduct and would protect a provider’s students from their impact”

So what does this 'prevention' mean?

Well, it’s clear there is a mandated step-change to not just having good processes and practices for when things go wrong, but actively demonstrating work to prevent sexual harassment and misconduct across the whole organisation or institution.

What I like about the language, is it becomes a lever for change, and one that is hugely welcome. Work becomes more evidence informed, and where inclusive and safeguarding cultures can come to life more swiftly.

We know that this needs to change, particularly as we know that sexual harassment and misconduct are still rife in organisations and higher education. The Office for National Statistics’ analysis of harassment using questions from the Crime Survey (England and Wales) found that,

“one in ten people aged 16 and over had experienced a form of harassment in the previous 12 months, with the findings particularly striking for younger women and men”.

In Miles’ (2023) publication titled “Sexual violence in UK higher education”. Miles states that,

“In the last five years, a growing body of research has emerged that shows sexual violence is widespread in the UK university context. This is an issue that threatens the safety and wellbeing of students in the UK and worldwide […] Many students and staff end up suspending their studies/career or even altogether quitting their job or dropping out of their degree (Revolt, 2018, AVA & NUS, 2022, NUS, 2018)”

Given the scale of the problem, it is clear there needs to be a much bolder and stronger stance on eradicating sexual harassment and misconduct by organisations and institutions.

You can probably sense there is a big ‘but’ coming. My concern is that legislation and regulation continue to disregard ‘intersectionality’. Now, we look at the legislation, there is the insertion of Section 14 of the Equality Act 2010 which says “discrimination prohibited by the Act to include direct discrimination because of a combination of two protected characteristics (“dual discrimination”)”. This seems like it is covered, but it really isn't in practice. There are several problems with this but let me lead with three:

• Problem 1: There is no guidance or explanation of ways in which organisations and institutions could implement this into policy and practice (e.g. Bourne, 2020)
• Problem 2: There is a limit to the number of protected characteristics you could refer to under this section (e.g. Mos-Shogbamimu, 2018)
• Problem 3: Even if a person claimed dual discrimination, this could inadvertently take them to two different legislative and regulatory pathways and outcomes, or in fact dismiss a claim based on one of the two protected characteristics (Edwin Coe LLP, 2024)

This poses issues with regards to how we tackle sexual harassment and misconduct in a way that no one falls through the cracks. The problem at the core is, as usual a framing problem, recognising the unique experiences of communities experience intersecting inequalities.

There is evidence to show that sexual harassment and misconduct is not a siloed issue. Recent research from the Trade Union Congress, surveying 115 Black women, found they were experiencing both sexual and racial harassment at the same time (Ferguson, 2024). The Fawcett Society’s Broken Ladders report, found that that 75% of women of colour having experienced one or more forms of racism at work.

There is limited but emerging evidence shedding further light on the women students of colour and their experiences in educational environments. As such, experts are calling for more insight and evidence on this area (e.g. Bull & Page, 2021). Whilst reports continue to be published, I call to action, that there needs to be a more extensive and widespread scale of interrogative research in this area to influence strategic social policy and practice directions. Yet, I appreciate this might be a tall order and one that takes time to do well.

What can be done now to take an intersectional approach?

There are multiple ways in which organisations and institutions can start to integrate intersectionality into meeting the legislative and regulatory conditions, here's a few ideas to get you started.

1. Acknowledge and utilise intersectionality in the design and development of policy and interventions to ensure that your initiatives capture all people in the process. You can draw on evidence and literature highlighting the issues of those experiencing misconduct and harassment through an intersectionality lens - there is lots of it, you just need some time to search and synthesise.
2. Centre the voices of people, particularly women of colour, experiencing intersecting inequalities to ensure that policies and accompanying guidance meet the needs of those who can often be most marginalised and silenced. Draw on the intersectionality wheel, and think about the group that may be most invisible in your system. Start by enabling and empowering their sustainable participation alongside your policy and practices to help scale an inclusive and safer culture to prevent sexual harassment and misconduct.
3. Develop mechanisms for reporting, monitoring, effectiveness, accountability and learning to guide the impact of what is being designed and delivered. Draw on the PLAIT principles to maintain high fidelity of your policies and activities.

These are just some considerations, and whilst organisations and higher education providers work to address these legal and regulatory contexts, let’s keep sharing and promoting collective actions and learning to address these structural issues.

By employing intersectionality, we might just be able to close the gaps for everyone, using a whole community approach to change.

In the words of Dr Lilla Watson:

“‘If you have come to help me you are wasting your time. If you have come because your liberation is bound up with mine, then let us work together’.”

?

?