When working to promote and implement effective responses to gender-based violence, change agents come across all sorts of resistances… This blog series aims to provide support by reframing arguments commonly encountered and help navigate challenging conversations with clarity, confidence and purpose. Drawing on the principles of strategic framing, this resource provides a better understanding and anticipation of common forms of resistance, as well as evidence-based, values-aligned messaging.
Have you ever come across an institution resisting the need to address gender-based violence because they already have a policy in place?
UniSAFE’s policy mapping found that although the majority of institutions report having policies addressing gender-based violence, few have comprehensive implementation frameworks. Many lack dedicated staff, victim/survivor support systems, clear reporting lines and consistent monitoring. In some cases, staff and students were unaware that a policy even existed.
Moreover, the presence of a policy does not necessarily shift institutional culture. Victims/survivors may still feel unsafe to report if they believe the policy will not be enforced, if outcomes are unclear, or if retaliation is likely.
“A policy on paper doesn’t stop violence.
Practice, trust and enforcement do.”
A zero-tolerance policy must be visible, accessible and actively upheld by institutional leadership. Otherwise, it risks creating false reassurance while failing those most at risk. The presence of a policy should be seen as just one piece of the puzzle. Institutions can reframe their messaging to focus on continuous improvement and full-cycle implementation from awareness-raising to outcome tracking.
- “Zero tolerance means zero silence, zero ambiguity and zero impunity.”
- “Having a policy is not the finish line, it’s the start.”
- “Policies must be lived, not just written.”
Change agents can support institutional integrity by pushing for active policy implementation, not just policy existence. This means advocating for adequate resources, clear responsibilities, routine monitoring and training at all levels. They can also facilitate communication strategies that explain what ‘zero tolerance’ looks like in practice, helping bridge the gap between policy language and lived experience. Their role is essential in turning formal commitments into everyday accountability.
Understanding the Resistance
A (zero-tolerance) policy is a necessary starting point, but it is not an end in itself. Policy alone does not equal protection. Without proper implementation, monitoring and a culture that supports disclosure, such policies risk becoming symbolic gestures rather than meaningful safeguards. A zero-tolerance stance must translate into trusted reporting mechanisms, survivor-centred responses, and accountability at every level of the institution. This response often reflects a belief that procedural boxes have been checked and further action is unnecessary. It may also be used to deflect critique or maintain institutional reputation. In some cases, the term ‘zero tolerance’ is adopted for its rhetorical power, without adequate investment in enforcement or follow-through.
Communicating with different stakeholders
- To leadership: Stress that policy effectiveness is a reputational matter, not just policy compliance, and must be demonstrable.
- To faculty/staff: Clarify how the policy applies to their roles and what support they can access when dealing with disclosures.
- To students: Emphasise that the policy is more than words — it protects them, and there are trusted pathways to use it.
