Silence to Speech hero imagePhoto: Mart Production
Photo of Jawaria Ashraf

Jawaria Ashraf
PhD student – Policy, Organization & Leadership Studies, College of Education and Human Development, Temple University, United States

Photo of Soha Ali

Soha Ali
Master’s in Clinical Psychology, University of Karachi, Pakistan

Photo of Shereen Ali

Shereen Ali
MPhil in Mass Communication, University of Karachi, Pakistan

Silence to Speech: A Reflective Case Study of Gender Based Violence in Higher Education

Abstract

Gender-based violence (GBV) is a pervasive global issue in higher education. This issue is shaped and increased by power dynamics and cultural norms. This reflective case study examines a female student’s experience of harassment and subsequent academic retaliation in a public university in South Asia after reporting the abuse. The case highlights how rigid hierarchies and the absence of formal reporting of abuse and silent survivors perpetuate injustice. Compared with the students’ later experience in a private university, with strong accountability and support systems as compared to the public institution. This study explores the role of institutional culture in either enabling or challenging GBV. The analysis relates to survivors’ lived experiences to broader systemic failures, it is grounded in feminist social work, critical pedagogy, and political social work theories. Insights are compared with the Western university system, emphasizing the importance of formal reporting processes and gender-sensitive policies. It concludes with recommendations to foster equitable educational environments and survivor-centered policies.

Introduction

Gender-based violence (GBV) refers to any harmful act against a person’s will, based on socially ascribed gender differences. It includes threats, deprivation of liberty, which can occur in both public and private spheres (World Health Organization, 2024). However, GBV can affect all genders, but women and girls are impacted more due to systemic inequalities (Yount et al., 2017). It is a widespread global problem rooted in gender injustice and patriarchy. However, it is typically only revealed through the stigmatization of survivors, who are typically silenced or discredited (Kennedy & Prock, 2018).

In higher education, GBV continues to be underreported, misrecognized, and entangled with shame, particularly in institutions where power hierarchies remain rigid (David 2020; Burke et al, 2025). In the Western world, there is a growing body of research that is focused on violence against women in higher education and distinct challenges, including a lack of a formal grievance system, a lack of policy enforcement, and fear of retaliation. For instance, recent studies have shown that universities in Australia, the UK, and Europe’s campus-based sexual violence that can be a major problem (Australian Human Rights Commission 2017; Heywood et al. 2022).

The global literature on GBV and universities is primarily concerned with the prevalence of campus-based gender-based violence, sexual violence, and institutional response. Literature is concerned with recording the incidences of sexual and gender violence that take place mainly in campus environments and how these incidences are managed, responded to, and can be prevented (Heywood et al. 2022). Secondly, it reveals how violent experiences become apparent within higher education environments and how staff react to these revelations (Reilly & D'Amico, 2011). Shannon (2022) interviewed student survivors of sexual violence and harassment, exploring the power dynamics in situations of university sexual violence. It highlights how these dynamics tend to protect the 'more valuable' party involved. In Australia, the focus regarding student experiences of GBV in universities is on incidents of assault that occur on campus. On the other hand, an incident in New South Wales happened where explicit AI-generated images of female students and teachers underscore the digital nature of GBV (UNICEF, 2021).

This reflective case study is based on the experience of GBV within a large public university in South Asia, and it contrasts with a private university. Insights are taken between 2021-2024 and explore how the institution took actions and handled the situation. It underscores the urgent need for social work to engage with institutional power critically and to support transformative change in educational environments.

Methodology

The research is based on a reflective case study (Price, 2017) approach to understand the GBV within educational systems in the global south context. The case study is drawn from public and private education systems and constructed from anonymized, composite experiences. The study identified the institutional patterns, cultural norms, and responses related to GBV. The case study method aligns with qualitative research, particularly from those who emphasize lived experiences, realities, practices, and narrative inquiry as a legitimate source of insights (D’Cruz et al., 2007). The analysis is based on feminist social work, critical pedagogy, and political social work frameworks with a focus on power, gender, and institutional accountability. Full anonymization of details, avoidance of identifying information, and a commitment to portraying institutions’ cultures rather than individual cases. This balances the need for rich context-sensitive analysis with ethical integrity in scholarly dissemination.

Case

From 2019 to 2021, in a South Asian public university a female high-achieving undergraduate student and class representative reported ongoing harassment from a male professor. The professor was continuously sending obscene and inappropriate text messages which were documented by the student. Since there were no formal channels to register a complaint, she reported the abuse to the head of the department. The HOD briefly heard the case and promised to act but no official investigation was carried out. Subsequently, despite a sound academic record, the student was awarded the lowest pass grade in the professor's course. When enquired the professor ignored her and would not reconsider her work on the grounds of poor quality. With the unlimited authority professors enjoy over grading at public universities, the student did not wish to risk further retaliation and kept quiet. The professor continues to teach at the institution. Later, when she continued studying and joined a private university, she observed more open reporting systems, regular faculty audits, and a culture conscious of student welfare, highlighting disparities in governance and accountability.

The student's case illustrates the use of academic power against those who commit misconduct. Rather than as reward for achievement, grades thus become punishment for survivors who make themselves heard. Having no formal mechanisms for addressing gender-based violence within the public university, the student was relegated to using informal meetings, exposing her to retaliation. This is institutional silence's structural nature (Kelly, 1988). Rigid hierarchies in public universities discourage the open discourse of sensitive issues like sexual harassment, with the outcome of protecting offenders and promoting impunity (Connell, 2009). In contrast, students at a private university benefited from well-described complaint mechanisms and an enabling environment, which indicates that accountability mechanisms promote safety over institutional reputation (UN Women, 2021). In spite of her academic success, the victim remained silent out of shame and fear of retaliation that stigmatizes victims and more likely to silence them (Scheff, 2000).

Discussion

This study signals the political climate of social work practice insofar as it reveals how institutional hierarchical power systems facilitate GBV and silence the voice of survivors in higher learning institutions. The study is informed by feminist social work theory and political social work theory to describe how the requirement for social workers to exert strong, countervailing power interventions must arise in order to resist hierarchical power and institutional complicity. Specifically, the evidence indicates that the end of GBV demands responses at more than individual level; it demands courageous policy advocacy, institutional change by and for survivors, and persistent working through power. Social work must therefore reaffirm its freedom mandate through advocating for accountability, justice, and equity in schools, addressing the concerns raised in this thematic issue with courage.

Feminist social work theory provides one such critical framework from which to interpret how patriarchal power relations and norms are institutionalized, framing institutions themselves as perpetrators of silencing survivors (Dominelli, 2002). The grade backlash this student experienced is typical of what Ahmed (2021) refers to as "complaint as diversity work," wherein complaining about injustice is not simply discouraged but actually endorsed by means of punishment.

Critical pedagogy recognizes the university as a site of oppression rather than liberation, exclusion of student survivors, and enabling of faculty power (Freire, 1970). It is in alignment with political social work, centering the point that gendered violence calls for system change (Lane & Pritzker, 2018). This is really a call to move beyond rhetorical commitment to justice and to put survivor-justice policies, protections, and pedagogy into practice worldwide.

Conclusion

The study highlights systemic barriers students face in accessing justice at publicly funded higher education institutions. It reveals a disconnect between anti-harassment policies and actual practices, marked by institutional inaction and retaliation. To address these issues and drive meaningful change, several key recommendations are proposed:

  1. Establish formal, confidential reporting mechanisms for gender-based violence (GBV), supported by third-party monitoring to foster trust and transparency.
  2. Implement gender-sensitive leadership training for department chairs and faculty to enhance understanding of power dynamics and trauma-informed responses.
  3. Develop student-centered support services, including academic accommodations, legal assistance, and mental health counseling, to mitigate the impacts of GBV.
  4. Integrate feminist and critical pedagogies into curricula and governance, with a focus on gender, power, and institutional accountability.

These recommendations aim to transform universities into spaces of active justice and protection, where education is intertwined with security and equity.

References

  1. Burke, P. J., Coffey, J., Parker, J., Hardacre, S., Cocuzzoli, F., Shaw, J., & Haro, A. (2025). ‘It’s a lot of shame’: understanding the impact of gender-based violence on higher education access and participation. Teaching in Higher Education, 30(1), 116-131. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2023.2243449
  2. Connell, R. (2009). Gender (Vol. 14). Polity.
  3. Council of Europe, What is gender-based violence? Council of Europe. Retrieved May 24, 2025, from https://www.coe.int/en/web/gender-matters/what-is-gender-based-violence
  4. D’Cruz, H., Gillingham, P., & Melendez, S. (2007). Reflexivity, its meanings and relevance for social work: A critical review of the literature. British Journal of Social Work, 37(1), 73–90. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcl001
  5. Daniels, J. (2025, May 19). ‘They’re killing us’: Colombian model’s murder prompts anger over lack of state protection. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/may/19/colombian-model-maria-jose-estupinan-murder
  6. Davids, N. (2020). Reconceiving a world around our bodies: Universities, gender-based violence, and social justice. University Education, Controversy and Democratic Citizenship, 13-30. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-56985-3_2
  7. Dominelli, L. (2002). Values in social work: Contested entities with enduring qualities. Critical practice in social work, 15-27.
  8. Freire, P. (1970). The adult literacy process as cultural action for freedom. Harvard Educational Review, 40(2), 205-225.
  9. Holland, H. D. (2019). Gender-based public harassment: An intersectional approach to exploring frequency and effects of harassment experiences (Doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign).
  10. Kelly, R. L. (1988). The three sides of a biface. American Antiquity, 53(4), 717-734. https://doi.org/10.2307/281115
  11. Kennedy, A. C., & Prock, K. A. (2018). “I still feel like I am not normal”: A review of the role of stigma and stigmatization among female survivors of child sexual abuse, sexual assault, and intimate partner violence. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 19(5), 512-527. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838016673601
  12. Kenny, M. (2025, May 21). Our Watch report calls for strengthened education in schools to stamp out gendered violence. The Daily Telegraph.
  13. Lane, S. R., & Pritzker, S. (2018). Contexts for Political Social Work Practice. Political Social Work: Using Power to Create Social Change, 23-43. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68588-5_2
  14. Price, B. (2017). How to write a reflective practice case study. Primary Health Care, 27(9). doi: 10.7748/phc.2017.e1328
  15. Riessman, C. K. (2008). Narrative methods for the human sciences. SAGE Publications.
  16. Scheff, T. J. (2000). Shame and the social bond: A sociological theory. Sociological Theory, 18(1), 84-99. https://doi.org/10.1111/0735-2751.00089
  17. UNHCR. (2025). Gender-based violence. United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Retrieved May 24, 2025, from https://www.unhcr.org/what-we-do/protect-human-rights/protection/gender-based-violence
  18. UNICEF. (2021). Gender-based violence: What is it and how can we prevent it? Retrieved May 24, 2025, from https://www.unicef.org/serbia/sites/unicef.org.serbia/files/2021-02/Eng_GBV_web.pdf
  19. World Health Organization. (2024). Violence against women. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/violence-against-women
  20. Yount, K. M., Krause, K. H., & Miedema, S. S. (2017). Preventing gender-based violence victimization in adolescent girls in lower-income countries: Systematic review of reviews. Social Science & Medicine, 192, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2017.08.038