Safe Spaces: To Expose or to Silence?

Education has always been seen as a space that fosters knowledge, character, and human values. Schools and universities should be safe places for everyone to learn, develop, and express opinions without fear. However, behind this image lies a recurring and difficult-to-resolve problem: all forms of sexual violence, particularly verbal harassment committed by individuals, whether educators or students. Verbal harassment is often considered a mild form of violence because it leaves no physical scars. In fact, degrading words, sexually nuanced comments, offensive jokes, insults about appearance or body, and verbal intimidation can leave prolonged psychological impacts on victims. Many victims experience a loss of self-confidence, anxiety, difficulty concentrating on their studies, and even trauma that affects their social and academic lives. This issue is not merely an assumption. Based on data published by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Research, and Technology through the 2025 National Survey of Student Life Experiences, sexual violence remains a problem found particularly in higher education environments. Additionally, the National Commission on Violence Against Women consistently records that educational institutions are still one of the spaces where various forms of gender-based violence, including verbal harassment, occur. These facts show that this is not an isolated case, but rather indicates that verbal harassment remains a persistent problem in educational settings. The question then arises: why do such cases keep recurring? One frequently highlighted cause is the tendency of some institutions to prioritise image over victim protection. When allegations of harassment arise, the focus that should be on victim recovery shifts to concerns about damage to the institution’s reputation, declining public trust, and the impact on accreditation or institutional quality. As a result, the handling process often proceeds slowly, lacks transparency, or even stops without clarity. In fact, maintaining the good name of an institution should not be done by ignoring justice. Delaying sanctions against perpetrators to preserve image only creates the impression that victim safety can be sacrificed for institutional interests. Under these conditions, victims must remain in the same environment as the perpetrator, where they are still in an academic relationship involving the perpetrator. This situation causes the sense of security that victims should have to slowly disappear. Many victims ultimately choose to remain silent, not because they consider the incident trivial, but because they are not confident that their report will result in real protection and follow-up. Fear of social pressure, the possibility of being blamed, and concerns that the perpetrator will remain free to carry on with their activities are reasons why many cases never reach the complaints desk. Protracted handling processes also worsen the situation. The longer a decision is postponed, the longer the victim must live in anxiety. Victims are forced to carry out academic activities while continuing to meet the person who is the source of their trauma. This can even hinder the learning process, affect mental health, and cause victims to choose to withdraw from campus activities. Even more concerning is that some people still hold misguided views towards victims. Assumptions often arise that victims ‘meet certain criteria’, such as their way of dressing, personality, or manner of interacting. In reality, harassment never chooses its victims based on specific characteristics. Anyone can become a victim regardless of gender, age, background, academic achievement, or position in the educational environment. Views that blame or doubt victims are a major obstacle to creating a safe educational environment. When victims feel their experiences will be questioned or trivialised, the courage to report becomes even smaller. Consequently, perpetrators have a greater opportunity to repeat their actions against others. At this point, a question arises that needs collective attention. For whom exactly is the concept of a safe space in the educational environment built? Is the safe space truly intended for students, educators, and all campus members seeking justice? Or, without realising it, has a safe space been created for perpetrators who are retained under the pretext of protecting the institution’s good name? This question is important to answer because a safe space is not just a slogan on a banner or in an academic guideline. A safe space must be realised through the courage to make decisions that favour victim protection and rule enforcement. An institution does not lose its integrity when it imposes firm sanctions on perpetrators proven to have committed violations. On the contrary, such firmness demonstrates that the institution is committed to the values of justice, responsibility, and respect for the human rights of every individual. In the long term, transparency and firmness will build stronger public trust than covering up problems. The public will ultimately judge that the institution has a working mechanism and provides no room for anyone to commit violence. This issue does not lie in the number of perpetrators, but in the impact of allowing it to happen. One perpetrator who is retained without sanctions can create many victims because the environment that should be a safe space has turned into a place that perpetuates violence.