The name, Lawrence Liang, until this month, evoked attention in the academic circles for being a distinguished scholar and one of the more dominant voices in the multi-faceted discourse on intellectual property rights.
However, March 9, 2018, Liang’s name joined the long list of men in academia who are being called out in the open for their alleged sexual misconduct in university spaces. Liang was found guilty of sexually harassing a female researcher by the Committee for the Prevention of Sexual Harassment at Ambedkar University, Delhi and has been asked to step down from his post of Dean of School of Law, Governance and Citizenship.
Interestingly, Liang’s name also featured in a crowdsourced list of Indian men in academia who were anonymously accused by women for sexually harassing them. The fact that Liang was found guilty by the Internal Inquiry Committee at Ambedkar University, months after being accused on Raya Sarkar’s list, would serve as a shot in the arm for those championing the philosophy behind the list which drew criticism from various sections of the media and academia for naming and shaming without ensuring answerability on the part of the complainant.
According to me, the apprehensions regarding the list were valid, for it tilted the balance unduly in favour of the prosecutor while the defendant was left pondering about the details of the charge that was levelled against them.
In the context of academia, a workspace where a person’s reputation, earned after years of hard work can be dented heavily with just an anonymous allegation. Of the 70-plus names that were featured on Raya Sarkar’s list, Liang has been found guilty of sexual harassment by due process. It is worrying though that the guilty and the accused have been placed on the same plane.
However, upon hearing the rebuttals of those who have been defending Sarkar’s list, we must realise how the discourse on sexual harassment is a vicious circle with no singular solution.
“We resort to naming and shaming our abusers anonymously because the due process and institutions which are meant to be used for seeking redressal against sexual harassment in universities have failed us time and again” was the most common response of those who have stood by the list.
It is a sorry state of affairs wherein the predatory nature of men in academia has become the subject of muted whispers in the campus but rarely does anyone approach the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) of their college.
Recently, a certain Abhay Kumar, professor of Political Science in Delhi University’s Daulat Ram College was accused by several students of sexually harassing them. Soon after the complaint was filed, protests broke out in the college and what came to light was the severe lack of confidence among the students over the Internal Complaints Committee of their college which, in the words of one of the protesting students, existed but ‘only on paper’.
In the case of both Abhay Kumar and Lawrence Liang, it took one of the victims to file a complaint for others to come out and recount the ordeals they had suffered at the behest of their perpetrator. What is disheartening is the fact that these sexual predators went about their business for years on an end before one of their victims chose to instil their faith in the redressal mechanism.
This is also a dismal commentary on the working of the Internal Complaints Committees (IIC) in Delhi University and other such redressal mechanisms for cases of sexual harassment in other universities. In Delhi University itself, out of the 90 colleges under its ambit, only 77 have an IIC.
Now considering that Daulat Ram College is one of those 77 colleges with an IIC, then one can expect the number of colleges in DU with a functioning ICC, commanding a certain amount of confidence among students for being fair and unbiased, to drop further. Academics who have been a part of the ICC of their respective institutions have often recounted how a major part of the committee’s work would involve sensitising the accused to what constitutes harassment while complaints were often buried under layers of bureaucracy.
For victims of harassment, sexual or otherwise, very few things would be as disconcerting as the fact that their perpetrators are seldom brought to book. Moreover, seeing them repent for their acts remains a dream for they often occupy the upper echelons of their respective industries, and continue to misuse their leverage over their associates with impunity.
Thus, in retrospect, Raya Sarkar’s initiative needs to be lauded for triggering an exhaustive discourse on sexual harassment at places of learning. The present scenario beckons the authorities to focus on sensitising students and faculty towards sexual harassment and laying to rest, their varied notions on what constitutes sexual harassment.
The recent spate of revelations which has shown scant regard for reputations while finding seasoned academics guilty of sexual misconduct by following the due process is a pleasant departure from the deplorable status quo.
As indicated by these recent revelations where the redressal systems have come good, there is a reason to believe that positing more faith in our redressal systems will reap the desired results. The system can be strengthened by keeping its wheels moving and ensuring the momentum it has gained over the past couple of months in its tirade against sexual harassment isn’t lost for the familiar complacency to take over.
_