In academic spaces, silencing is more than just the absence of speech—it is a form of isolation, dismissal, and exclusion. Those who experience discrimination often find themselves navigating systems designed to discourage them from speaking out, seeking support, or advocating for change. Silencing can be both explicit and systemic: it manifests through direct dismissal, institutional gaslighting, exclusion from networks, and slow complaint processes that wear down individuals over time.
While universities often prioritize protecting their reputation, silencing can also occur even with the best intentions—many in leadership positions are simply overwhelmed by these issues, navigating unclear guidelines and procedures, or lacking the necessary training and knowledge to respond effectively
This post explores strategies for unsilencing, offering practical tools to document incidents, build support networks, and share experiences in ways that challenge marginalization.
Understanding Silencing in Academia
Silencing in academia is not just about keeping quiet—it is a mechanism of exclusion that systematically discourages individuals from speaking out. It can manifest in different ways, from outright dismissal to bureaucratic slowdowns that wear people down. (see Ahmed 2021)
Direct Dismissal & Self-Questioning
One common form of silencing is direct dismissal, where concerns are ignored, invalidated, or framed as overreactions:
- “That’s not really discrimination.”
- “Well, they’re also at fault.”
- “This isn’t severe enough to take action.”
When complaints are brushed off in this way, individuals often start questioning themselves: “Did I misunderstand? Am I overreacting?” This uncertainty is part of how silencing works—it isolates individuals and discourages them from pursuing complaints.
Institutional Gaslighting: Changing Rules & Moving Goalposts
Beyond outright dismissal, institutions often shift the rules to make it harder for individuals to seek justice. This happens when:
- A university initially states that discrimination cases should go through a specific office—only for the process to suddenly change once a complaint is filed.
- A complainant is told they need specific evidence, but when they provide it, additional, previously unmentioned proof is demanded.
- Complaints are bounced between departments, each claiming it’s “not within their jurisdiction”, effectively stalling the process.
- Rules are applied strictly to those raising concerns—but leniently for others, reinforcing power imbalances
Lack of Networks & Access to Information
Another major barrier is exclusion from decision-making spaces and networks. Many students and researchers are unaware of their options simply because:
- Information about complaints procedures is buried in inaccessible documents or not publicly available.
- The right contacts are found only by chance, making it easier for some and much harder for others to access help.
- Knowledge of previous cases is not systematically shared—if it is shared at all, it’s done informally, creating further opacity.
This lack of transparency means that only those with access to inside networks know how to navigate the system effectively.
Bureaucratic Obstacles & Never-Ending Delays
Even when people try to follow institutional procedures, they often encounter slow, inaccessible, and frustrating complaint processes:
- Complaints remain “under review” indefinitely, with no timeline for resolution.
- Complainants are expected to provide excessive evidence, often requiring testimonies from colleagues who fear retaliation.
- Discrimination cases are dismissed outright unless they meet an impossibly high standard of proof—sometimes requiring a written admission of discrimination.
- Complainants must go through their direct supervisor or department head to report issues, making it unsafe to file complaints against those in power
- Cases are not handled confidentially, exposing complainants to professional or social retaliation.
In many instances, institutions push for informal mediation rather than serious disciplinary action, shifting the burden onto the complainant to “resolve” the issue rather than addressing systemic problems. And even when cases are officially “resolved”, discriminatory individuals and structures often remain intact, with no enforcement mechanisms in place to track institutional reforms.
Why Not Just “Let It Go” and Move On?
Of course, agency is a personal choice, and sometimes stepping away is the healthiest option. But it’s important to recognize that this is never just about an individual case—it’s about repetitive patterns that remain intact if no one challenges them.
Speaking up is difficult, but it is also an act of resistance. Institutions rely on people giving up, on the exhaustion of advocacy. This is why pushing back—documenting, sharing experiences, and demanding accountability—isn’t just about personal justice. It’s about shifting these patterns so that future students and researchers don’t face the same barriers.
Breaking silencing is not just a personal act; it is a collective responsibility.
Strategies for Unsilencing
Breaking the cycle of silencing requires intentional action and collective effort. Here are key methods for unsilencing:
1. Be prepared
When entering academia—or any professional environment—consider getting legal insurance before you even start your position. Waiting until you’ve experienced discrimination might be too late—many insurance policies have waiting periods and do not provide immediate coverage, often taking months before full protection kicks in. The same applies to union membership: in many cases, you are only eligible for legal representation after a six-month period. Planning ahead ensures that you have the necessary support in place when you need it most.
When experiencing discrimination and/or harassment
✔️ Write down every incident immediately – Include details like location, time, what was said or done, and any witnesses. Even if you are unsure about reporting, having a record protects you if the behavior escalates.
✔️ Preserve evidence – Keep screenshots of inappropriate messages, emails, or unwanted advances. Do not delete messages, even if they make you uncomfortable.
✔️ Tell a trusted person – Even if you’re not ready to report, confiding in someone you trust creates a witness to your experiences. ✔️ Know your reporting options – Some institutions push for informal mediation, which may not be in your best interest. Ask whether anonymous, external, or formal procedures exist. ✔️ Check your institution’s definition of harassment – Universities often have narrow definitions of sexual harassment, requiring a pattern rather than one incident. Know how they define it before filing a report. ✔️Never meet with the offender(s) alone. Always have witnesses present—these can be trusted peers, representatives from the equal opportunity office, or union representatives. Having a witness provides both support and accountability, reducing the risk of misrepresentation, intimidation, or further harm.
For Cases of Bossing/Mobbing (Workplace Harassment by Superiors or Peers)
✔️ Document your work thoroughly – Save emails, meeting notes, and task assignments. Keep proof of your professional contributions so that your work cannot be misrepresented.
✔️ Make student evaluations a habit – If your teaching or supervision is under attack, having formal student evaluations provides objective proof of your quality as an educator and can help counter any attempts to undermine your professional reputation.
✔️ Keep track of inconsistencies – If rules, expectations, or feedback constantly shift (moving goalposts), document how standards applied to you differ from those applied to others. ✔️ Copy multiple people in emails – If reaching out for help, avoid one-on-one conversations. Copy in ombuds offices, unions, or legal advisors to create accountability.
Intellectual Plagiarism
Unlike text plagiarism, intellectual plagiarism—the uncredited appropriation of ideas, concepts, or research frameworks—is often harder to prove but just as damaging. To protect your work, be mindful of the information you share, especially in early research stages. When collaborating with others, establish clear agreements beforehand about what happens if the project is not completed jointly. Always document contributions in detail and formalize agreements in writing. Additionally, consider publishing your ideas as early as possible—whether in academic blogs, journals, books, or research platforms (e.g. OSF, Zenodo, arXiv, HAL archives)—to create a verifiable record of when you first presented your concept. Having a public or timestamped record strengthens your claim to authorship and prevents disputes over intellectual ownership later. Unfortunately, academic guidelines on this issue are weak, and institutional support in such cases is minimal. (see, e.g. Anonymous Academic 2017) In many cases, the only option is filing a lawsuit for damages or recognition.
2. Ensuring Witnesses & Advocacy
Silencing thrives in isolation. Having witnesses can shift power dynamics by making it harder for institutions to ignore issues. This can include:
✔️ Asking trusted colleagues to observe meetings
✔️ Bringing a support person when filing complaints
✔️ Engaging external organizations to amplify concerns
3. Documenting Incidents
Keeping detailed records of incidents can help identify patterns and establish credibility when seeking action. Consider:
✔️ Writing down dates, times, and descriptions of events
✔️ Saving emails, messages or screenshots that demonstrate exclusion or mistreatment
✔️ Maintaining a private log to track recurring issues
Additionally, it is crucial to consider your counterpart when presenting documented incidents. Not every detail needs to —or should—be shared in every context; tailoring matters:
✔️ Choosing what incidents are relevant to which recipients – What is persuasive for an ombuds office might be different from what HR considers relevant, or from what resonates in a public essay or legal complaint.
✔️ Framing incidents strategically – Presenting patterns rather than isolated events strengthens credibility, particularly when institutions tend to dismiss single complaints as misunderstandings.
By tailoring how incidents are documented and communicated, you increase the likelihood of being taken seriously while protecting yourself from unnecessary exposure or retaliation.
⚠️ Always demand in writing that your report remains confidential and is not shared with anyone unless you explicitly give consent. Universities often operate under vague confidentiality policies, but without clear agreements, sensitive complaints can circulate beyond the complainant’s control—potentially leading to retaliation or informal blacklisting.
✔️ Keep track of shifting processes – If the institution changes procedures midway through your complaint, demand clarification in writing and document every procedural change.
4. Learning Institutional Language & Policies
Universities often use specific terminology in their policies and official statements—familiarizing yourself with this language can strengthen your position when addressing discrimination or exclusion. This includes:
✔️ Understanding key terms – Concepts like duty of care, harassment, acts of racism, discrimination, mobbing, and bossing are often defined in institutional brochures and policies. Using these terms accurately helps ensure your concerns align with existing frameworks. Also, adapting terminology to match university policies can make it harder for institutions to dismiss concerns.
✔️ Citing official documents – Referring to university guidelines when raising an issue shows that you are well-informed about both your rights and the institution’s obligations.
✔️ Identifying relevant offices – Knowing the names of official support structures, such as the equal opportunity office, workers’ council, or psychological counseling service for sexual harassment and workplace bullying, can make it easier to navigate the system and demand accountability.
Being informed about institutional wording and concrete points of contact not only helps in structuring complaints effectively but also signals that you are engaging with the system on its own terms—making it harder for administrators to dismiss or downplay concerns.
Institutions often want to appear proactive about inclusion, but behind the scenes, their main goal is to keep issues low-profile—or deny their existence entirely. This is why those who raise concerns are often treated as the problem, rather than the systemic discrimination itself. Understanding this dynamic, and recognizing one’s role within the institution, is crucial for navigating the complaint process effectively. This includes staying composed and avoiding displays of anger, as frustration—no matter how justified—can be used to discredit complaints and weaken one’s position.
Institutions typically expect strict adherence to formal reporting hierarchies but in some cases, doing the opposite can be the better strategy. Escalating concerns externally—through advocacy groups, legal advisors, or external ombuds offices—can sometimes lead to faster and more effective action than navigating an internal bureaucracy that is designed to stall. However, it is still advisable to formally report the issue within the institution, so they cannot later claim, “Oh, but we have never heard of any complaint!” (and therefore justify inaction). Always demand that your case is properly documented within the system. Additionally, while institutional processes are often frustrating, you may also encounter individuals who genuinely care and are willing to support you—connecting with them can make a significant difference. Understanding when to work within the system and when to bypass it is a key part of navigating institutional barriers.
When Facing Bureaucratic Delays & Retaliation
✔️ Set deadlines for responses – Bureaucracies often delay complaints to exhaust complainants. In emails, set a clear deadline: “I expect a response by [date].”
✔️ Document ignored requests – If an institution does not respond or delays indefinitely, make a record of every email sent and every unanswered request. These patterns matter. ✔️ Be mindful of power imbalances – If filing a complaint against someone higher up, understand that HR is there to protect the institution, not you. Consider outside advocacy when necessary.
5. Protecting Yourself While Speaking Out
Even with strong documentation, speaking out comes with risks. Here’s how to strategically protect yourself while pushing back against silencing:
✔️ Avoid informal “off-the-record” conversations – Always ask for written confirmation of any decisions made. If someone promises something verbally, follow up with an email: “As discussed in our meeting today, I understand that…”
✔️ Do not sign documents under pressure – If an institution asks you to sign a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) or settlement, consult an external advisor before agreeing.
✔️ Be cautious with mediation offers – Some institutions pressure complainants into mediation rather than real action. This often benefits the institution, not the complainant.
✔️ Prepare for retaliation – If you fear professional consequences, keep a record of your academic achievements, publications, and student evaluations to counteract any future discrediting attempts.
✔️ Seek collective action when possible – If others have experienced the same issue, joining forces can make complaints harder to dismiss. Universities are more likely to ignore one complaint than multiple voices raising the same concerns.
6. Connecting with Support Networks
No one should navigate institutional barriers alone. Seeking allies strengthens one’s ability to push back against silencing. Useful networks include:
- Ombuds Offices – University-affiliated but independent mediators
- Unions & Advocacy Groups – Formal organizations that offer legal and institutional support
- External Advocacy Groups & Broader Unions – Organizations outside the university, such as anti-discrimination watchdogs, human rights organizations, or academic unions. These external groups are often more accessible and willing to share informal but crucial information. They also increase pressure on university institutions to act and add a level of professionalism and credibility to your case, making it harder for institutions to dismiss.
- Legal Support Services – When institutional responses fail, legal consultation may be necessary.
By tapping into both internal and external networks, you can gain broader support, access critical information, and strengthen your position in institutional disputes.
7. Sharing Your Story
Storytelling is a powerful form of resistance. Writing about experiences—whether in blog posts, op-eds, essays, or autoethnographic research—can validate others facing similar challenges and create a historical record of institutional failures.
However, this is hardly ever done in academic spaces—most stories of discrimination and exclusion appear in media reports rather than scholarly work. Yet, we have examples that show that personal experiences, often dismissed as “anecdotal,” can be leveraged for systemic critique. Academic writing does not have to exclude lived experience—it can be a tool to challenge existing power structures and reshape discourse on discrimination in academia.
However, as Tatjana Hofmann (2025) notes:
“It is painful to tell your story. It is a luxury. You have to be able to afford it. […] Trauma knows no time. The mental work of writing around it requires a hell of a lot of breaks.”
That said, sharing one’s story is a deeply personal decision. Whether through public writing, anonymous contributions, or private discussions, the key is to choose a medium that feels right for you while ensuring your safety and well-being.
Challenges of Unsilencing
Even when individuals take steps to unsilence themselves, psychological, social, and structural barriers persist:
- Fear of Retaliation – Many hesitate to speak out due to potential career consequences
- Exhaustion from Advocacy – Fighting for change can be emotionally draining
- Bureaucracy & Lack of Transparency – Institutional procedures often obstruct progress
Risk of Exposure vs. Impact of Storytelling
Speaking up comes with risks. There is this phenomenon in which those who report discrimination become stigmatized themselves. The more someone speaks out, the more they are perceived as “part of the problem,”making them less welcome in professional circles:
- “Oh, didn’t she/he/they have that issue with you-know-whom?”
- “Let’s better not invite her/him/them—she’s/he’s/they’re always talking about these things.”
However: Doing nothing has never protected anyone. While staying silent may feel like the safer option in the short term, it ultimately allows exclusionary structures to remain intact. The role of community and persistence is key—supporting one another, sharing knowledge, and holding institutions accountable are what truly create lasting change.
Call to Action: How Can We Support Each Other?
Breaking silencing requires collective action. Some key ways to foster a culture of unsilencing include:
✔️ Creating spaces for shared experiences – Formal and informal platforms where people can safely discuss their challenges. However, ‘safe spaces’ should not be taken for granted. To protect participants, it’s advisable to establish clear expectations around confidentiality—such as a mutual agreement, or code of conduct, that discussions remain within the group. When discussing particularly sensitive issues, avoid details that could identify individuals or specific situations.
✔️ Forming synergies – Check within your faculty and across other departments to see if platforms, initiatives, or advocacy groups already exist. Connecting with them can provide valuable resources, strengthen collective efforts, and prevent individuals from having to start from scratch. ✔️ Providing institutional pressure – Holding universities accountable through collective demands.
Sharing information on…
- Points of Contact – Identifying relevant offices and support structures within and beyond the institution.
- Supportive Individuals – Specific people who have proven to be helpful in navigating institutional barriers.
- Resources & Literature – Guides, research, and practical tools on discrimination, complaint procedures, and legal rights.
- Writing & Framing Strategies – Techniques for structuring reports, using institutional language effectively, and framing cases in ways that demand action.
- Understanding Complaint Processes – What to expect when filing a complaint, what will be required from you, and what realistic outcomes look like.
- Recognized vs. Unrecognized Forms of Discrimination – A clear overview of which forms of discrimination and harassment institutions officially acknowledge—and which they tend to dismiss.
- Single Cases & Collective Memory – Since institutions rarely document cases transparently, consider setting up a shared archive to ensure complaints do not disappear into oblivion. Keeping a record—whether anonymized or collectively maintained—prevents cases from being erased from institutional memory and strengthens advocacy efforts over time.
There is no one-size-fits-all solution, but when we document, witness, and connect, we begin to shift power.
Have You Experienced Silencing?
If you have encountered silencing in academia, what strategies have helped you challenge it? What barriers have you faced?
Let’s continue the conversation and support each other in dismantling exclusionary practices.
References and additional literature
Abuzahra, Amani (2023). Ein Ort namens Wut. Die emotionale Landkarte der Marginalisierten und was Rassismus mit Gefühlen macht. (A Place Called Anger: The Emotional Map of the Marginalized and What Racism Does to Feelings). Vienna: Kremayr & Scheriau.
Ahmed, Sara (2021): Complaint! Durham, NC: Duke University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv1v7zdh2.
Alpagu, Faime (2024): Diversity in White: An Autoethnographic Case Study of Experienced Diversity and (Un‐)Silencing. Social Inclusion, 12, Article 7780.https://doi.org/10.17645/si.7780.
Anonymous Academic (2016, July 8): I reported plagiarism in a PhD, but my university ignored it. Retrieved from The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/2016/jul/08/i-reported-plagiarism-in-a-phd-but-my-university-ignored-it.
Anonymous Academic (2017, Oct 27): Plagiarism is rife in academia, so why is it rarely acknowledged? Retrieved from The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/2017/oct/27/plagiarism-is-rife-in-academia-so-why-is-it-rarely-acknowledged.
Bhopal, K. (2017, May 31). A nearly all-white diversity panel? When will universities start taking race seriously. Retrieved from The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/2017/may/31/a-clash-of-personalities-why-universities-mustnt-ignore-race.
Bhopal, K. (2023). ‘We can talk the talk, but we’re not allowed to walk the walk’: the role of equality and diversity staff in higher education institutions in England. Higher Education 85, 325-339.
Hofmann, Tatjana (2025): Travelling with Geopoetics: A Revue on Migration Management. In: Hausbacher, Eva/Parente-Čapková, Viola/Rosenholm, Arja and Marja Anneli Sorvari (eds.): Out of the USSR. Travelling Women – Travelling Memories. Media and Cultural Memory, Vol. 44. Berlin: De Gruyter. Forthcoming: 4 August 2025.
📩 Want to explore this topic further? Check out the Recommended Reads section for more insights.