Version 0.1.1 · Draft for public consultation

StudentSafe Standard

Twelve safeguards that let students raise concerns without risking their education, each defined by published rules.

A research framework, not the campaign. The Standard is StudentSafe Europe’s independent draft for consultation, used to evaluate published rules. It is not a legal or regulatory standard and does not replace the ESG or national law. The reforms we want policymakers to adopt are set out separately in Our Demands.

The twelve safeguards at a glance

S01 Definition of abuse of academic authority Rules name misuse of academic authority as misconduct
S02 Explicit anti-retaliation protection People who report are protected from retaliation
S03 Independent complaint mechanism A body independent of the unit hears complaints
S04 Conflict-of-interest and recusal rules Conflicted decision-makers must step aside
S05 Interim protective measures Studies can be protected while a complaint runs
S06 Procedural deadlines Binding deadlines for handling complaints
S07 Written, reasoned decisions The complainant gets written reasons
S08 Appeal or independent review Outcomes can be challenged before another body
S09 Proportionate consequences for misconduct Defined, graduated consequences for staff
S10 Remediation of academic harm Tainted grades or supervision can be put right
S11 Professional-boundary and safeguarding training Staff with authority are trained on boundaries
S12 Academic Authority Safeguarding Review Conduct relevant to key roles is reviewed

Purpose

The StudentSafe Standard (formerly the ASE Safeguarding Standard) is an independent draft published for consultation by StudentSafe Europe under its Academic Safeguard Europe research programme. It is not an instrument of the European Union, the European Higher Education Area or any government or quality-assurance agency. It describes the published institutional safeguards that allow students to raise concerns about the conduct of people who hold academic authority over them, without risking their education.

Academic authority is the power to assess, supervise, admit, progress, examine, recommend or credit a student. It is necessary and, in the great majority of cases, exercised responsibly. The Standard exists because, when it is misused, the student often depends on the person or unit they would need to complain about.

The Standard does not assume that academic staff are dangerous. Good safeguards also protect staff by providing fair, predictable procedures.

What the Standard covers

Misuse of academic authority: using assessment, supervision, progression, references or research credit for improper purposes.
Retaliation: detriment to a student because they raised a concern, complained or acted as a witness.
Intimidation and harassment: in the context of academic authority.
Conflicts of interest: in assessment, supervision, complaint handling and appeals.
Procedural unfairness: in how concerns are received, investigated and decided.
Repair of academic harm: after a concern is upheld.

What the Standard does not cover

Individuals. The Standard is applied to national frameworks and institutions, never to named people.
Allegations. Whether a specific allegation is true is outside its scope.
Implementation in practice. The Standard assesses documented systems. A strong formal policy does not necessarily demonstrate effective implementation, and absence of publicly identified evidence does not necessarily demonstrate that no safeguard exists.
Research misconduct. Research misconduct such as plagiarism and fabrication falls outside the Standard, except where research-credit decisions are used against students.
General student welfare and staff-only employment procedures.

The twelve safeguards

Definition of abuse of academic authority. Rules must name misuse of authority over students as misconduct. Otherwise concerns fall between general ethics duties and nothing.
Explicit anti-retaliation protection. Students must be protected when they report, and the protection must include academic retaliation through grades, supervision and references.
Independent complaint mechanism. There must be a route to a body outside the line management of the person concerned.
Conflict-of-interest and recusal rules. Nobody should decide a matter in which they are involved, including an assessment of a student who has complained about them.
Interim protective measures. Practical steps, such as an alternative examiner or supervisor, should protect the student’s studies while a concern is handled, without presuming guilt.
Procedural deadlines. Binding timeframes prevent concerns from being outlasted.
Written, reasoned decisions. The complainant must be able to understand the outcome and challenge it.
Appeal or independent review. A different body should be able to review the outcome.
Proportionate consequences. Consequences must be graduated and defined, including the power to limit authority over affected students.
Remediation of academic harm. Tainted assessments must be repairable through re-assessment by a different examiner, annulment, extension or a change of supervisor.
Professional-boundary and safeguarding training. Training must cover the fair use of authority, professional boundaries and anti-retaliation duties.
Academic Authority Safeguarding Review. Professional conduct relevant to supervision and assessment should be considered when conferring substantial authority over students, and periodically afterwards.

A note on safeguard 12

An Academic Authority Safeguarding Review concerns professional conduct relevant to positions of authority:

supervisory boundaries;
conflict management;
assessment responsibilities;
anti-retaliation obligations;
the responsible exercise of authority.

It is not a psychiatric or medical evaluation. It never concerns:

mental or physical health;
political views, ideology or protected beliefs;
private personality traits unrelated to professional duties.

Levels

Each safeguard is assessed at one of four levels (0–3), or recorded as unable to assess (?) or not researched (NR). The observable criteria for every level are defined in the scoring rubric and shown below. The rubric file methodology/scoring-rubric.yml is authoritative.

Levels of application

National level: what legislation and national regulators provide directly or require of higher-education institutions.
Institution level: what an institution’s own published rules provide, including national rules that those rules expressly apply.

National and institutional results answer different questions and are never merged.

Versioning and consultation

Version 0.1.1 is a draft for consultation. Proposals for changes are submitted through the methodology proposal process and recorded in the public changelog. Every finding records the methodology version it was assessed under, so results under different versions are never silently mixed.

Rubric: criteria for each level

Every safeguard can also be recorded as Unable to assess or Not yet researched . Where two levels are plausible, the lower one is assigned.

S01

Definition of abuse of academic authority

Question: Do the rules define misuse of academic authority (assessment, supervision, admission, progression, references, research credit) as a form of misconduct?

S01 criteria for levels 0–3

Levels for Definition of abuse of academic authority
Level	Observable criteria
Score 3: Strong	An explicit definition or enumerated list covering misuse of assessment, supervisory and progression powers, in a binding instrument that links breaches to a disciplinary procedure.
Score 2: Substantial	Misuse of authority over students is expressly named as misconduct, or specific abuses (e.g. discriminatory assessment, harassment by teachers) are prohibited, but without a definition covering assessment, supervision and progression decisions together.
Score 1: Limited	Only general conduct or ethics duties (e.g. "act with integrity", "respect students") without identifying misuse of authority over students.
Score 0: Not identified	No provision identified that treats misuse of academic authority as misconduct.

Definition of abuse of academic authority across EU countries →

S02

Explicit anti-retaliation protection

Question: Are students who report concerns, complain or act as witnesses expressly protected against retaliation, including academic retaliation?

S02 criteria for levels 0–3

Levels for Explicit anti-retaliation protection
Level	Observable criteria
Score 3: Strong	Express prohibition covering student complainants and witnesses, expressly including academic retaliation, with retaliation itself treated as a disciplinary offence and a route to report it.
Score 2: Substantial	Retaliation against student complainants or witnesses is expressly prohibited, but academic forms of retaliation (grades, supervision, references) are not addressed, or no mechanism for reporting retaliation is specified.
Score 1: Limited	General whistleblower or anti-victimisation protection exists, but its application to students raising concerns about academic staff is unclear or indirect.
Score 0: Not identified	No anti-retaliation provision applicable to student complainants identified.

Explicit anti-retaliation protection across EU countries →

S03

Independent complaint mechanism

Question: Can a student complain to a body that is independent of the academic unit and of the person complained about?

S03 criteria for levels 0–3

Levels for Independent complaint mechanism
Level	Observable criteria
Score 3: Strong	A body or officer with documented independence (appointment and reporting rules), a defined mandate over staff–student conduct complaints, and access for students without prior approval from the unit concerned.
Score 2: Substantial	A complaint body or officer outside the academic unit exists (e.g. university-level ethics committee, student ombudsperson), but its independence, powers or scope are not fully set out.
Score 1: Limited	A complaint route exists, but it runs through the line management of the person complained about (e.g. head of department) with no independent alternative.
Score 0: Not identified	No complaint mechanism for students about staff conduct identified.

Independent complaint mechanism across EU countries →

S04

Conflict-of-interest and recusal rules

Question: Must people who decide on complaints, assessments or appeals step aside where they have a conflict of interest, including where they are the subject of the complaint?

S04 criteria for levels 0–3

Levels for Conflict-of-interest and recusal rules
Level	Observable criteria
Score 3: Strong	Recusal required for complaint, appeal and assessment decisions involving a conflict, with a procedure for a student to request recusal and a rule on who decides the request.
Score 2: Substantial	Recusal is required for complaint or appeal decisions, or for assessment, but not for both, or there is no procedure for a party to request recusal.
Score 1: Limited	General conflict-of-interest duty without application to complaint, assessment or appeal decisions.
Score 0: Not identified	No conflict-of-interest or recusal rule for relevant decisions identified.

Conflict-of-interest and recusal rules across EU countries →

S05

Interim protective measures

Question: While a complaint is being handled, can measures be taken to protect the student's education (e.g. change of examiner, supervisor, group)?

S05 criteria for levels 0–3

Levels for Interim protective measures
Level	Observable criteria
Score 3: Strong	Specific academic interim measures, a route for the student to request them, criteria for granting them, and an explicit statement that they do not presume guilt or disadvantage the student.
Score 2: Substantial	Specific interim measures are available (e.g. alternative examiner or supervisor), but without criteria, a request route for the student, or a timeframe.
Score 1: Limited	Interim measures are mentioned in general terms or at the discretion of management with no criteria.
Score 0: Not identified	No interim measures provision identified.

Interim protective measures across EU countries →

S06

Procedural deadlines

Question: Are there binding deadlines for acknowledging, investigating and deciding complaints?

S06 criteria for levels 0–3

Levels for Procedural deadlines
Level	Observable criteria
Score 3: Strong	Binding deadlines for acknowledgement or opening, and for decision, with a consequence or escalation route if they are missed.
Score 2: Substantial	A binding deadline exists for at least one stage (e.g. decision), but not for the whole procedure.
Score 1: Limited	Only a general duty to act "without delay" or "promptly".
Score 0: Not identified	No deadlines identified.

Procedural deadlines across EU countries →

S07

Written, reasoned decisions

Question: Does the complainant receive a written decision stating the reasons?

S07 criteria for levels 0–3

Levels for Written, reasoned decisions
Level	Observable criteria
Score 3: Strong	Written, reasoned decision delivered to the complainant, including the available review or appeal route.
Score 2: Substantial	Written decisions are required, but reasons are not required, or the complainant is not entitled to receive them.
Score 1: Limited	A decision is communicated, but there is no requirement that it be written or reasoned.
Score 0: Not identified	No provision on the form of decisions identified.

Written, reasoned decisions across EU countries →

S08

Appeal or independent review

Question: Can the complainant challenge the outcome before a different body?

S08 criteria for levels 0–3

Levels for Appeal or independent review
Level	Observable criteria
Score 3: Strong	Appeal to a different internal body and an accessible external route (ombudsperson, regulator or court), with grounds and deadlines set out.
Score 2: Substantial	Appeal to a different internal body, or to a specialised external body (e.g. national ombudsperson), but not both, or with restricted grounds.
Score 1: Limited	Review only by the same body that decided, or only general external remedies (e.g. courts) with no internal route.
Score 0: Not identified	No appeal or review route identified.

Appeal or independent review across EU countries →

S09

Proportionate consequences for misconduct

Question: Are there graduated, defined consequences for staff found to have misused academic authority?

S09 criteria for levels 0–3

Levels for Proportionate consequences for misconduct
Level	Observable criteria
Score 3: Strong	A graduated scale of consequences, criteria for proportionality, and power to restrict the staff member's authority over the affected students.
Score 2: Substantial	A disciplinary scale exists and applies to misconduct towards students, but without criteria for proportionality.
Score 1: Limited	Consequences exist only through general employment law, with no link to misconduct towards students.
Score 0: Not identified	No consequences for staff misconduct towards students identified.

Proportionate consequences for misconduct across EU countries →

S10

Remediation of academic harm

Question: Where misconduct affected a student's academic record, can the harm be repaired (e.g. re-assessment, annulment of a tainted grade, extension, new supervisor)?

S10 criteria for levels 0–3

Levels for Remediation of academic harm
Level	Observable criteria
Score 3: Strong	Listed remedies (re-assessment by a different examiner, annulment, extension, change of supervisor) that must be considered after a finding, with the student able to request them.
Score 2: Substantial	Specific remedies available after a misconduct finding, but at discretion and without listed options.
Score 1: Limited	General right to request re-examination or grade review, not linked to misconduct findings.
Score 0: Not identified	No remediation provision identified.

Remediation of academic harm across EU countries →

S11

Professional-boundary and safeguarding training

Question: Are staff with authority over students required to receive training on professional boundaries, harassment and fair use of authority?

S11 criteria for levels 0–3

Levels for Professional-boundary and safeguarding training
Level	Observable criteria
Score 3: Strong	Training required for all staff exercising assessment or supervisory authority, with defined content covering boundaries and anti-retaliation, and a frequency.
Score 2: Substantial	Training is required for some roles (e.g. doctoral supervisors), or required but without content or frequency specified.
Score 1: Limited	Training is recommended or offered, but not required.
Score 0: Not identified	No training provision identified.

Professional-boundary and safeguarding training across EU countries →

S12

Academic Authority Safeguarding Review

Question: Before or while holding roles with substantial authority over students (e.g. doctoral supervisor, programme head), is professional conduct relevant to that authority reviewed?

This concerns professional conduct relevant to positions of authority: supervisory boundaries, conflict management, assessment responsibilities, anti-retaliation obligations. It is not a psychiatric or medical evaluation and never concerns health, political views, protected beliefs or private traits unrelated to professional duties.

S12 criteria for levels 0–3

Levels for Academic Authority Safeguarding Review
Level	Observable criteria
Score 3: Strong	A defined procedure that reviews professional conduct relevant to supervision and assessment on appointment and periodically, with the ability to limit authority where conduct concerns are upheld.
Score 2: Substantial	Appointment or reappointment to authority roles considers professional conduct (e.g. prior upheld complaints, ethical record), but without a defined procedure.
Score 1: Limited	Appointment criteria for authority roles refer only to academic or research qualifications.
Score 0: Not identified	No review provision identified.

Academic Authority Safeguarding Review across EU countries →