The Warwick case is widely referred to as the “rape chat” case. It sounds relatively innocuous on first hearing, but actually refers to a serious case of sexual misconduct including making threats to rape. Many student societies or courses now have large Facebook or WhatsApp chat groups outside of formal university communication systems. The Warwick case involved a chat group with 11 male students, who sent extremely sexually explicit and violent (as well as racist) messages over a long period of time. Messages included references to gang rape and genital mutilation.

Many women in public and private life – women MPs perhaps most prominently – are living with threats of a sexually and/or violent nature on a regular, sometimes daily, basis. Rape threats on Twitter have become so frequent that they are almost background noise. In its weak response to the rape chat case, which saw the university ban the perpetrators from their studies for just one year, Warwick severely misjudged the severity of this form of sexual violence, provoking an outcry from within its own community and the wider public. Now that the vice-chancellor has publicly apologised, the reputational damage to the university is clear.

The case has some similarities to the Sussex University sexual assault case into which I led an inquiry in 2016. The women who were at the centre of the cases felt let down by the response of their universities, and in both instances the responses only improved once the cases received national media coverage. There were also ongoing communication failings. In each case, the harm caused by the poor university response ricocheted far beyond the original complainants – to other students, staff and alumni.

In the Warwick case, this ricochet of harm created a “legacy of mistrust”, according to the independent review by solicitor Dr Sharon Persaud. The review makes many sound recommendations. As Dr Persaud states, many of these are likely to be non-contentious, such as recommendations around specialist support for complainants, clear terms of reference for the student disciplinary review committee, and the incorporation of a code of conduct into the student contract. I very much welcome the recommendation to make external communications more authentic and survivor-centred.

In my opinion, one of the central mistakes in the Warwick case was to designate the director of press as the investigating officer. Dr Persaud’s recommendation that investigations should only be carried out by specialists, and that there should be rigorous training for investigators, is an important one. Disciplinary panels should also receive specialist training in partnership with statutory and voluntary sector organisations, such as the police, sexual assault referral centres, and rape crisis centres. Universities do not need to reinvent the wheel with much of this work – we have a wealth of expertise and experience in the specialist sexual violence sector which should be drawn upon as appropriate.

The one recommendation I find problematic is that all parties be asked to sign an agreement limiting disclosure of information. So far, I have not seen this approach benefit survivors. Instead, I have seen legal mechanisms used to further silence survivors and hinder their opportunities for counselling and other support. Given the role that speaking out publicly had in both the Sussex and the Warwick cases, this possibility should never be closed down. Breaking the silence must be encouraged, not discouraged.

The bravery of the complainants in both of these cases has fundamentally changed the way universities respond to sexual violence. The term “lessons have been learnt” is surely the most overused phrase in press releases about sexual violence. Our universities are among the best in the world – we need to be proactive, not reactive. And we need to build upon academic, practice-based and victim survivor-based knowledge to lead the lessons, not simply learn the lessons.