A student approaches the Internal Committee (IC) of a college and says, "The professor is giving special favour to another student." It sounds like a PoSH complaint, but is it really one? Not always. This is one of the cases that can leave an IC in a tricky position. Within colleges and universities, students may come to the IC and say that teachers are giving another student marks, more research opportunities, and leniency on attendance, extension, recommendations, or even attention. It may be unfair conduct that could raise issues of academic favouritism or professional misconduct, but unfair treatment is not always a case of sexual harassment. Therefore, the task of the Internal Committee is to identify what the student is really complaining about.

The words are not enough

A student may claim that a professor is "favouring" another student. The IC is not supposed to resolve this problem on the student's assertion only. It should just ask a question - What happened?

If the allegation is that the student was given extra marks or was allowed to submit the assignment after the deadline, then the issue may be that the academic is not following fair academic conduct.

If the allegations are that the professor gave extra marks, research opportunities and recommendations in exchange for sexual attention, then it is a totally different issue. It is about the quid pro quo harassment. The main difference lies in the facts.

One should not confuse intimacy with harassment

Another common case involves professors and students who seem to be in an overly close relationship. They may write to each other often and work on projects together and even meet outside the class. It may seem that another student is being given preferential treatment. This is, however, not enough for a sexual harassment charge. An IC cannot act on rumour or assumption. Its investigation should be on the real facts and the evidence available to it. However, the Committee cannot just throw away a complaint just because the student didn't use the right legal terms. A student may describe a situation as "special favour" but the facts may reveal pressure, unwanted sexual advances or demands for sexual attention. This is why the facts are more important than what label the complaint may have.

The IC should also know the limits of its authority

An IC is not a general grievance body for all sorts of problems on university campus. If the problem is about academic favouritism, exams, attendance, marks or the allocation of research opportunities, the issue may need to be taken to the Dean, Head of Department, examination authority, student grievance committee or other relevant body as laid out by the rules of the university. However, the student should not be dumped back. If the IC finds out that the matter is not within its jurisdiction, it should guide the student to the relevant authority.

What if there is a sexual element?

Suppose that an allegation is a professor told a student her marks, research opportunity or recommendation will improve if she agreed to meet him, or ask for her attention as a condition. This does not sound like a case of academic favouritism but a sexually motivated case of quid pro quo harassment. The IC would need to investigate the allegation properly. It would look at messages, emails, witnesses, the context of the alleged conversation and the academic benefit that may have been claimed to be connected to the harassment. The dynamic of power is important too. A professor has the power to determine a student's grades, research opportunities, letters of recommendation and academic progress. This is why such complaints are so sensitive.

The dangers of rushing judgment

There are dangers on both sides. If every complaint of academic favouritism is treated as a sexual harassment, the IC may go beyond its jurisdiction. Similarly, if every complaint is brushed away as jealousy between students, a real case of sexual harassment may go unaddressed. The answer lies in investigating the facts. The IC cannot assume the professor is guilty or that the student is jealous or competitive.

It should ask the following questions:

1. What happened?

2. Who was involved?

3. What was given or done?

4. Was anything expected or asked in return?

5. Is there a sexual or gender issue?

6. What evidence is there?

7. And which authority has jurisdiction?

A simple principle for HEIs

This difference is a big deal: Academic favouritism is not in itself a case of sexual harassment and just because a professor and a student are close does not make it a case of sexual harassment.

However, when one asks for sexual attention in exchange for academic benefits, it may be a serious PoSH issue. The IC is not here to judge every dispute between a teacher and a student. Equally it is not here to reject complaints that are not presented using perfect legal terms. It is the job of the IC to understand the complaint, identify the issue, stay within the limits of its authority and make sure the issue is referred to the right authority. Within a university, a question of most importance is sometimes not "Is this a PoSH complaint?" but "What exactly happened and who is legally responsible for it?"

(The author, a well-recognised lawyer and campaigner for female rights, has authored “Breaking the Silence: A Handbook on the PoSH Act”. She also holds a POCSO Train-the-Certificate.)