Written by Amy O’Donoghue
LSE Consent.Ed facilitators have alleged that the programme is deeply flawed, following a harassment incident and perceived general organisational failures. The programme, which runs at the beginning of every academic year and is mandatory for all LSE students, aims to educate students on sexual misconduct and violence.
A session had to be ended early after two undergraduate facilitators were unable to get their postgraduate participants to stop using aggressive language towards them and making inappropriate jokes and comments, such as “so you expect us to never go home with a drunk girl?” and asking “uncomfortably specific questions” about the law. One facilitator reported abusive language being used towards her by participants.
An anonymous source told the Beaver that incidents like this were not uncommon in her experience running Consent.Ed. She stated that rape jokes are made in sessions every year, but there’s ‘nothing you can do.’ Part of the problem, in her view, lies in the lack of mechanisms to ensure people engage with Consent.Ed fully and respectfully. The aforementioned students whose session had to end due to their behaviour had to do another session in order to pass, but there is no protocol for failing the workshop beyond being required to repeat it. “It feels like they’re just trying to tick boxes instead of actually getting the message across,” the facilitator said. “There is no interest in discipline.” It seemed to her that LSE would rather “sweep under the rug” any instances of Consent.Ed’s failures. LSESU disputed this, highlighting that this was the first time a session had to be ended in this way and that an internal review of the way Consent.Ed operated was underway. They stated that “the students concerned were required to repeat the session and were retrained, led by full-time LSESU staff with the Senior Manager from the Department present.”
Another facilitator echoed a similar sentiment to her peer, arguing “the actual organisation of the sessions isn’t really conducive to productive, orderly conversations.” As academic departments are each individually responsible for making sure their own students complete Consent.Ed, she attributes partial blame to them for the poor organisation, which impedes teaching – due to regularly double-booking or overbooking sessions, many of her lessons were overcrowded, sometimes with nearly 40 people trying to fit in a classroom and people on the floor. She described it as extremely difficult to “have serious conversations about sensitive topics” in such conditions, and said she thinks it “sends a specific message to participants: that organising these sessions is an afterthought.”
Among the sources the Beaver spoke to, there was a consensus that the training and leadership support for session facilitators is inadequate. There is only one training session provided, although LSESU highlighted that this is a “five-hour, in-depth session which covers disciplinary processes, how to handle difficult sessions, and what to do when a session cannot continue”. Most of the recruits are female, whilst classes can be almost entirely male depending on the composition of the programme. Facilitators may also be decades younger than the people they are trying to teach, as it is possible for undergraduates to be assigned postgraduate groups for training. LSESU noted that they have recruited “20 additional postgraduate facilitators” this year, making it rarer for undergraduates to lead postgraduate groups, although this was still the case with the group involved in the incident.
According to the facilitator targeted, she was informed afterwards by a member of departmental staff that the group who initially failed due to their behaviour were meant to have additional members of staff at their session, as their specific programme is very male-dominated. There were no additional staff in attendance. LSE denies that there was an oversight, claiming it is not standard practice for extra staff to be present.
To one facilitator, it appears that LSE is ‘just trying to get the cheapest labour possible’ without being interested in the wellbeing of supervisors. She observed that they ‘aren’t treated as equal to LSE staff’, citing the incident in which the session had to end as an example – something which would be unlikely to happen to a regular class. LSESU responded that they “do not accept this claim” and that “the concerns of our facilitators are addressed robustly and in a timely fashion.”
When asked for comment, LSESU told the Beaver:
“The LSE Students’ Union takes the concerns raised seriously, in particular, those about the wellbeing of our student facilitators. We are grateful to the facilitators who spoke up and we welcome the opportunity to clarify the events that took place and what happened as a result.
A session was ended early after student participants behaved in a way that was unacceptable and disrespectful to the facilitators. Staff from both LSESU and LSE’s EDI team attended and stopped the session as soon as they could. The facilitators were debriefed and offered ongoing care and support. This is still a resource that is currently open to them. Relevant senior departmental staff were informed and a conduct warning was sent to every student who had been in the session.
Consent.Ed is peer-led by design, because sensitive topics are easier to navigate this way and research has shown time and time again that it is the best method of delivery. In the three years we have run the programme, this is the first incident of this kind that we have experienced. It is a moment for us to learn from and we are sorry that it came at the expense of the wellbeing of some of our student facilitators. As part of the wider review of the programme, we are reviewing what should happen if a session like this occurs again.
Consent.Ed is something we are proud of, and we will continue to invest in it year after year as part of our effort to minimise harm on campus. The programme has received consistently positive feedback since it became mandatory in 2024, with more than 200 sessions delivered to over 7,000 students in the first three weeks of this term. Behaviour like that described in the article is unacceptable and we will continue to act on it. There are clear routes for facilitators who have concerns about their role or their experience to feed these back to us. We welcome those conversations and recognise them as a means to improve the course and their facilitating experience.
Anyone who has experienced or witnessed sexual harassment can contact a trained Safe Contact, use the Report + Support system, or self-refer to the Independent Sexual Violence Support Service.”
LSE Media Relations added:
“Both LSE and the LSE Students’ Union are committed to ensuring our campus is a safe and supportive community for everyone. Our Consent Ed programme is grounded in evidence, research and specialist advice and provides students with clear guidance on consent, respect and the standards of behaviour expected within our community. We expect students participating in the programme to engage with it respectfully.”
