Then second-year student Annie (name changed for privacy) joined the UW Chemistry Club (Chem Club) in fall 2022 looking for a community of like minded people. While initially finding the club welcoming, she said she soon found herself in an environment characterized by bullying, harassment, and a lack of accountability – which allegedly culminated in her getting sexually assaulted in the club room.
She said a fellow club member harassed her under the guise of friendship. He consistently invaded her personal space, often under the pretence of support or camaraderie. Annie recounted, “He couldn’t stop touching me, like he followed me around. If I was on a couch, he would be next to me on the couch, and he would keep squeezing closer until we were almost on top of each other. Or if I was sleeping, or pretending to be asleep, then he would just lie down on top of me, or try to touch me in an inconspicuous way.”
Annie reported the behaviour to club executives and distanced herself from the perpetrator, however, he continued to frequent the club space. She explained that the club’s environment enabled such behaviour, with some members even defending or downplaying the perpetrator’s actions. In a Reddit post, she shared: “When talking about the other assault case in the other club, someone who currently holds a lot of power in this club jokingly refers to it as ‘lore.’ Some people said that was a pretty insensitive way of referring to an actual sexual assault. He straight up refused them asking for him to rephrase it, then doubled down and continued to exclusively call it ‘lore,’ in front of MANY club members.”
Further contributing to a toxic environment, small annoyances would often escalate into group bullying sessions: “If somebody was annoyed at a person, they would go into the Chem Club room and say, ‘Oh, this person is pissing me off.’ And then it would become a group activity.”
Despite victims and club members raising these issues, the club environment continued to foster toxic behaviour, leaving Annie and other club members feeling unsafe. The post went viral, prompting a response from a Reddit user who introduced themselves as the then-president of the club, Farjad Raza, acknowledging the severity of the situation and promising changes.
The winter 2023 term saw the convening of a tribunal by the Science Society (SciSoc) to address various complaints within the Chem Club. This tribunal was authorized and conducted by SciSoc, which is responsible for overseeing student clubs within the Faculty of Science. Specifically, the tribunal was validated under its policy 109 – student misconduct. Former SciSoc president Asrith Mannem explained the tribunal was formed in response to a series of complaints about misconduct, including physical assault and theft, in Chem Club that had been accumulating since mid 2022.
Policy 109 outlines the procedures for addressing misconduct allegations within the SciSoc and its affiliated clubs. “Misconduct” encompasses a range of behaviors, including discrimination, harassment, sexual harassment, and actions contributing to a hostile or intimidating environment. The policy mandates that any reported incidents must be brought to the Board of Directors, who then form a tribunal to conduct a thorough investigation.
The tribunal consisted of the Vice President of Student Life (VPSL) and three members from different SciSoc clubs, ensuring impartiality in the proceedings. The tribunal members were tasked with interviewing the complainants and the accused, gathering detailed accounts of the incidents.
According to Mannem, the tribunal process began in November 2023, shortly after the complaints were formally brought to the attention of the SciSoc executive team. The initial meeting with the faculty, specifically with Ben Smith, the student engagement coordinator, was held to discuss the severity of the complaints and to decide on the next steps. This was followed by a more in-depth investigation where specific incidents, including bullying, physical assault, and other accusations later made in the notorious Reddit post about the sexual assault, were scrutinized.
The tribunal’s scope, however, did not cover sexual assault allegations directly. These were deemed too severe for SciSoc to handle and were referred to the Faculty of Science and the Sexual Violence Prevention & Response Office (SVPRO). As there were multiple other misconduct complaints extending beyond just the sexual assault case, the tribunal’s decisions included banning certain individuals from holding executive positions, prohibiting them from entering the club space, and mandating equity, diversity, and inclusion training. Mannem noted that despite these measures, the tribunal’s impact was limited due to procedural challenges and the tribunal’s lack of authority to impose more significant disciplinary actions, like university-wide suspensions.
Annie expressed frustration with the tribunal’s limited scope and the faculty’s overall response. She felt that the university’s actions were inadequate and that the toxic culture within the Chem Club persisted despite the tribunal’s efforts. The tribunal’s inability to address the assault allegations directly, coupled with procedural errors that led to appeals and delays, left many students feeling that justice was not fully served.
Other stakeholders echoed Annie’s frustrations. Mannem admitted that the executive team lacked the necessary training to handle such serious allegations effectively. “When I came into this position, I did not expect to be in charge of a tribunal and an appeals process. There was no proper training provided on how to handle such serious allegations, which should have been second nature given the gravity of the situation.”
Additionally, the investigation faced significant procedural challenges. For instance, an appeal on the decision was granted to one of the defendants due to a procedural error involving the absence of the Vice President Student Life (VPSL) during an interview. Mannem acknowledged that while the procedural integrity of the tribunal was essential, the lack of comprehensive training and resources hampered their effectiveness.
Annie noted a lack of transparency with the tribunal process and the limited consequences for the perpetrators. “They made some mistakes, like not anonymizing us properly,” she said. “During a Zoom call, they accidentally let everyone know it was us who had complained. And even though penalties were given, the toxic culture persisted. The punishments felt like a slap on the wrist, and those responsible were still part of the club environment, which made it feel like nothing had changed.”
Rebecca Elming, director of media relations and issues management, sent Imprint a statement encouraging those impacted by sexual violence to use available support services such as SVPRO and counselling services. Elming said, “The university does not normally comment on individual matters in order to protect the privacy of our community members. The Faculty of Science, and the university as a whole, place the utmost importance on the safety of all shared spaces on our campus. If members of our community experience sexual violence, or are impacted by something they read online, we encourage them to make use of the supports available, including the sexual violence prevention & response office, counselling services, or students can reach out to faculty-specific supports such as their associate dean (undergraduate studies) or academic advisors.”
When pressed further on what the university’s policy regarding sexual harassment allegations, Elming pointed to policy 42 – Prevention of and Response to Sexual Violence. This policy outlines the university’s commitment to creating a safe and inclusive environment, detailing the roles and responsibilities of the university and its community members in preventing and responding to sexual violence. Policy 42, established on January 1, 2017, and revised on February 1, 2022, emphasizes awareness, education, training, services, and support as key components of the university’s framework.
The policy mandates the provision of Sexual Violence Resource Coordinators (SVRCs) to support students affected by sexual violence. These coordinators are responsible for offering guidance, making referrals to counselling and medical services, discussing potential next steps, and navigating university procedures. SVRCs ensure that students are informed about the level of confidentiality that can be expected and advise individuals to maintain confidentiality in accordance with the response protocol and procedures. Additionally, policy 42 highlights the importance of a fair and timely process, ensuring that investigations are conducted by those trained to respond to sexual violence and that students are treated with compassion, dignity, and respect.
The policy’s scope includes incidents of sexual violence where the respondent is a UW student, occurring on university premises or during university events. It also encompasses incidents that may adversely affect a complainant’s course of learning, teaching, work, or living at the university. The policy underscores the university’s commitment to maintaining confidentiality, providing interim measures, and supporting the diverse needs of the university community.
However, Annie and other victims reported feeling unsupported throughout the investigation. Despite the involvement of SVPRO and other support services, Annie found the process lacking transparency and felt that key concerns were not adequately addressed by the committees. While she appreciated the counselling support provided by SVPRO, noting it was beneficial throughout the term, her overall experience was neutral. She admitted that she did not fully pursue all the available supports, which contributed to her neutral overall experience with SVPRO.
Imprint contacted the faculty of science multiple times in person and via email, and their representatives declined to comment.
The current SciSoc executive team, including president Cooper Pickering, emphasized the confidentiality of tribunal processes and the limitations of their involvement in the sexual assault allegations, which were handled exclusively by the faculty of science. Pickering noted, “Although I was part of the Science Society Board of Directors last fall, what happened regarding the tribunal is confidential. The sexual assault allegations were handled by the faculty of science exclusively.”
This separation of responsibilities created a fragmented response that left students confused and frustrated about where to seek justice and support. The lack of transparency in the investigation process and the perceived leniency towards the accused undermined the victims’ trust in the university’s commitment to their safety.
Chem Club and SciSoc were student run clubs affiliated under Waterloo Undergraduate Student Association (WUSA). WUSA acknowledged the allegations of sexual assault relating to the SciSoc but clarified that the university had jurisdiction over the complaint and investigation. “Please note that the tribunal run last year was for different allegations,” said WUSA in a statement. “There is a gap in communications between the much more minor issues addressed by the tribunal, the results of which WUSA is aware, and the much more major issues addressed by the university, which WUSA has not been privy to.”
WUSA emphasized the importance of student safety and the need for substantial changes within the club and society system. “We have been working to make substantial changes within the club and society system, particularly focused on designated reporting and mandatory sexual violence prevention training,” WUSA said. “We urge any students who have experienced or witnessed misconduct or any other inappropriate behaviour in a society, club, student service, or any other WUSA-affiliated space to contact us immediately.”
For Annie, the Chem Club, which once was a source of great joy and community, became a source of torment. An on campus site that was meant to be a sanctuary became a space for bullying, harassment and assault; a clear violation of university policy yet no remedy was offered. The alleged perpetrator of the sexual assault was not suspended, and there were reports of him being allowed back into club spaces.
Annie’s story highlights the urgent need for comprehensive reform in how university clubs and societies handle allegations of harassment and assault. While the university has policies in place, their implementation and effectiveness have come under scrutiny. The disconnect between the different bodies responsible for addressing these issues has left many victims feeling unsupported and unsafe.
