Delia and Connor
Content Warning: These stories are about violence, abuse, neglect and exploitation and may include references to suicide or self-harming behaviours. They may contain graphic descriptions and strong language and may be distressing. Some narratives may be about First Nations people who have passed away. If you need support, please see Contact & support.
Delia has autism. Connor, her father, describes her as ‘highly intelligent and literate’, but she has mood swings and ‘difficulty controlling emotions, difficulty reading other people’s feelings, and is often very naïve’. Delia also has poor proprioception, so is often unaware where her arms and hands are. This means she can sometimes touch other people unknowingly.
Delia has an honours degree in history but has been unable to find any real work. She decided to continue her studies, hoping to improve her employment prospects. She has completed two degrees passing with credit and is enrolled in a third course at a different university.
Recently, two students who Delia considered good friends made a complaint that she touched them inappropriately. Connor considered this was probably due to her poor proprioception. They also complained she talked about inappropriate things.
‘We think [this] was her naïveté, encouraged by a teacher who asked the class to reveal something about themselves that others might find shocking. (Presumably students without autism know not to take teachers at their word.)’
Without so much as organising a meeting or giving Delia a chance to respond, the university asked her to leave and barred her from the campus. Connor said this was all conveyed orally. It took him a while to understand the details of the complaints, which were never shown to him. When Delia finally received a letter it claimed she was a risk to ‘the safety and wellbeing of students and staff’.
Connor complained to an independent authority who organised mediation. However, because the complaint was couched in terms of safety, the independent authority was powerless to act and suggested Delia request a hearing by the university board.
Connor said it took significant time and effort to make this happen and it did not take place until late in the next semester.
Just before the hearing, formal charges were laid. Delia was charged with ‘behaving in a manner that is indecent or offensive … likely to make others feel unsafe’ and ‘wilfully, recklessly or negligently engag[ing] in a course of action that causes or may cause... harm or arouses apprehension or fear’.
In Connor’s opinion these charges were false. No witnesses were called or questioned and the judges conferred with the complainants during the hearing. He believes his daughter was denied natural justice.
Ultimately the second charge was set aside, but the first was upheld. Delia was required to undergo an assessment by a forensic psychiatrist.
The psychiatrist found that Delia was not a risk to others, but there was potential risk from others to her. ‘He recommended that she be permitted to return to classes … under certain probationary conditions.’
The university then tried to hold another hearing and re-start the process. ‘I’m afraid I lost my temper and raised my voice,’ Connor said.
Eventually Delia was allowed to return, but the issue of her placement remains unresolved. Connor believes the university will try and prevent her from completing the course.
A students’ rights officer at the university told Connor they had seen similar cases. They said there seemed to be a policy to remove anyone with a cognitive disability who is seen by others as ‘abnormal and therefore frightening’.
Connor is disappointed and disgusted by the process. He complained to the university ombudsman who declined to consider the case.
Connor says Delia’s experience highlights how difficult it is for a person with disability to access education. He says it is important for institutions to provide a safe environment, but ‘it needs to be based on real evidence rather than fear of differentness’.
Disclaimer: This is the story of a person who shared their personal experience with the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability through a submission or private session. The names in this story are pseudonyms. The person who shared this experience was not a witness and their account is not evidence. They did not take an oath or affirmation before providing the story. Nothing in this story constitutes a finding of the Royal Commission. Any views expressed are those of the person who shared their experience, not of the Royal Commission.