During my second year of doctoral program, a postdoc working in a neighbouring lab sexually harassed me on multiple occasions. I didn’t know what to do or who to contact for help. At this University, there was no staff or student training on sexual harassment, no information on who to contact or what to do to report this kind of situation. After 2 months, I found someone to consult with. The supervisors got involved and I thought the situation would be resolved. However, the harasser continued. Until one day, his behaviour escalated to aggression towards me. So, the student ombudsman got involved, interviewed us both along with our supervisors. His supervisor confirmed that he committed the aggressive act against me. But when the ombudsman asked him to affirm that I was safe in the shared lab space, he refused. So, they sent the case over to the institute’s prefekt. The prefekt and study director interviewed all of us again. During my interview, the study director asked me why I didn’t defend myself. This question is the first indication of how outdated the University’s training on handling sexual harassment cases is. It shows complete disregard for the victim’s trauma, lack of empathy and tact. When women file reports, they are always judged whereas men are given the benefit of the doubt. Did the study director ask the harasser why he did it? Of course not. After a month of simply interviewing each party, they decided that because the stories don’t match the harasser was innocent. One month waiting, getting harassed still, with them constantly ignoring my reports of his continued harassment and then, they just say: since this is word against word, he is innocent! Word against word is also an outdated view on sexual harassment, a crime which in many cases does not yield physical evidence. To interview 4 people and decide that the harasser is innocent shows a lack of training, protocols, tact, and outdated views on sexual harassment. They did provide some rules that they claimed were meant to be for my protection yet the harasser’s supervisor immediately declared he will not follow them. The administration didn’t even respond to such declaration, they simply closed the case. They didn’t meet with me first to let me know what happened during the interview stage or investigation, they didn’t give me a chance for appeal, they didn’t discuss with me if those supposed rules would be to me benefit, they didn’t give me options for me to decide how to protect my safety and well-being. Nothing. Case closed, who cares about the victim and her safety. Who cares that during that month waiting I was still getting harassed and sending them reports of harassment. Since I requested the documents of the investigation, I read the harasser’s interview and realized that his story changed from what he told the ombudsman to what he told the prefekt. I brought this up with the prefekt. And logically, you would expect that they would take this seriously, they would interview the ombudsman, they would check the ombudsman’s report, they would reopen the investigation, right? But no, they simply refused to reopen the investigation and refused to dig into why he changed his story. Also, his supervisor confirmed his aggressive act against me to the ombudsman. Yet, he is innocent and there are no consequences for his actions. Because of the prefekt’s refusal to investigate the case properly and thoroughly, I decided that the best course of action for me was to transfer to a new lab in a new institute, away from the harasser that continued hurting me and the administration that was enabling it. Yet, the administration told me I should stay where I was. The University has a duty to help students transfer if they choose so, no questions asked. I had a genuine safety concern. Yet, they wanted me to remain in the place where I was allowed to be harassed by a postdoc that they continuously defended and protected. Further still, they refused to meet with me to discuss how to transfer. But I am stubborn and will do what is right for me, so I found a lab by myself. Now they had no choice but to perform their duties and make the transfer official. Why was the administration allowed to close the case without proper investigation? Why were they allowed to ignore my reports, refuse meetings, refuse to provide information about lab transfer? I started to question what are the University’s protocols in these situations. Since there is no University-wide staff and student training on sexual harassment, there is no disclosure on the University’s rules, views, protocols for this crime. What are the University protocols? No clue. What exactly entails an investigation? It cannot just be interviews, right? I don’t know. Every single University office I have been to for help and guidance: work environment, employee ombudsman, doctoral program vice dean, faculty dean, university rektor – they all claim the same thing: we did all we could. But what exactly is that? I don’t know. They won’t say anything. They just protect each other and who cares about the victim. Finally, after a year, I got an answer from the student ombudsman about what are the University’s protocols. Get ready for this. Seat down for the horror. There are no protocols. The University only provides guidelines that the prefekt can choose not to follow. Surely there must at least be a regulator, someone who monitors the prefekt’s decisions, right? Technically, you should be able to take your case from the institute’s prefekt to the faculty dean. However, both the old and the new dean have refused to meet with me. And, after their refusal, have resorted to simply ignoring all my emails and reports. So, when my supervisor seized my ISP, for example, the dean simply ignored it. Since the deans refused to talk to me at all, I went to the next level of administration – the University’s rektor. And the rektor gave the same robotic answer: we did all we could, go back to the dean. I am telling the rektor that the dean is ignoring me, yet she just keeps sending the case back to the dean. On and on, a cycle of bureaucracy. And that is when it hit me, the prefekt has absolute power. The dean and rektor will not intervene and monitor her actions. She has absolute power to decide that the harasser is innocent, that the supervisor is allowed to seize my ISP, to call my new supervisor to threaten me. And no one will stop her. No one will question her decisions to ignore evidence and refuse to investigate. On the contrary, it seems that the University would rather support the prefekt than investigate these reports thoroughly. Because it sounds bad that the University, from a supposedly developed, progressive, and gender equalitarian country, would have issues with harassment and discrimination. After all, my case is not unique. When I reached out to the student union for guidance, I was made aware of 2 other cases the doctoral union was also reporting, from the same institute. These 3 cases of sexual harassment and / or gender-based discrimination, mine included, were all against Spanish-speaking, international, female students. When I brought this up with the prefekt, she told me that for 6 years this institute has not had any case of sexual harassment. 6 years. What about all 3 of our cases? Since they have defended the harasser so much, does that mean that my case was not formally reported? I don’t know. How disappointing. No one can judge the University for the individual actions of its employees. But we can judge the University’s inaction in handling all these infractions. For those going through similar situations, know that it is difficult. I won’t sugarcoat it, the struggle is long and enduring. It is one of the most challenging experiences I have been through. I did question the point of continuing on when it is clear that I am not wanted, that I am not heard, and that my words have no meaning as long as they don’t conform to the status quo. Particularly since I didn’t have the grace of support and have faced it alone. But in that solitude, I saw myself in my full splendour. I have integrity, I stand up for what is right, it took me a bit but I spoke up for myself. I don’t need to take from others to succeed. I am genuinely myself with all I meet. I didn’t compromise who I am because of the workplace, lab group, toxicity. I was always clear about who I am and where I stand. And I genuinely cared for these people: 1. I am the one who was welcoming when the harasser joined the lab corridor – by his own admission. 2. I am the one who defended the supervisor from gossip and judgement, I stood there for her when she was struggling, I tried to take care of the lab, I called out when her decisions were not ideal or ethical. 3. I supported my mentor and came up with multiple projects that would have expanded on his work and promoted his career. 4. I even helped colleagues with immigration services, medical services, and other administrative tasks. I provided them with scholarship and career resources to help them find work opportunities for themselves, their friends, and their life partners. Whereas all that these people have accomplished is to show their true character. They tried to take my dignity, tried to disregard my safety, and have continued to harass and discriminate me. Regardless of all that they have tried, and I am sure they will continue to try once the story is released, they cannot take who I am from me. And I am so relieved to know that I am nothing like them. Instead, this experience has shown me how strong I truly am. I am filled with inner fortitude. How empowering! True, this enlightenment did come at a high cost, and I cannot attest to your safety and well-being. But I can say this, if you need strength, I will give you mine. You are not alone. (Full story is available at {~Link~})