StudentSafe EuropeStudent protection in higher education

StudentSafe Europe · Student protection in higher education

Your education should never be the price of speaking up.

We work toward higher education systems in which students can exercise their rights, raise concerns and seek protection without putting their academic future at risk.

Read our mission Explore the StudentSafe Standard
What
Independent, non-profit civil society association
Seat
Zagreb, Croatia
Scope
European Higher Education Area
Statute
Adopted
Is not
A court, regulator, EU body or accreditation agency

Are you a student with a concern?

Before you use a complaint or appeal procedure, find out how it is meant to protect you, which questions to ask, and which independent bodies and qualified professionals can help.

We cannot receive complaints, investigate cases or give legal or psychological advice.

Information for students

Where academic power exists, safeguards should exist too.

  1. 01 Dependence

    The people who assess you may also supervise you.

    Grades, examinations and the thesis defence. Research direction, access to labs, data and time. A student can depend on one academic hierarchy for both.

  2. 02 More dependence

    They may write your references and decide whether you progress.

    References for jobs, grants and further study. Permission to continue, submit or graduate.

  3. 03 Almost everything

    Funding and a future can run through the same people.

    Scholarships, contracts and assistantships; networks, co-authorship and a career in the field. This describes how academic authority is structured, not how any individual behaves.

  4. 04 The risk

    So where does a concern go?

    If a complaint is heard inside the same hierarchy, by colleagues of the person it is about, its independence depends on goodwill, and the cost of speaking up stays with the student.

  5. 05 The safeguard

    Protection opens a route that does not run through them.

    An independent body to hear the complaint. Recusal for conflicts of interest. Protection for your studies while it runs. Binding deadlines. Written reasons. An appeal to another body. A remedy if harm was done.

    What the StudentSafe Standard checks Why academic power needs safeguards

A complaint mechanism is not protection if using it can cost you your academic future.

Students should be able to complain, appeal and report without unreasonable risk.

That is the mission our Statute sets: higher education in which using a right does not put a student’s grades, supervision, references, funding or future at stake.Statute, Art. 7

Our mission, values and objectives

Twelve questions we ask of published rules.

The StudentSafe Standard, version 0.1.1: a draft for consultation.

A publicly described methodology for analysing whether protection mechanisms exist in published rules, and what they contain. It examines institutions’ rules, never individual people.

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

What the published rules say.

First results for Croatia’s national framework and the University of Zagreb: a score from 0 to 3 for each safeguard, read from the published rules alone.

All 24 findings are provisional: they were prepared with AI assistance and none has yet been checked by an independent human reviewer. They may change.

Safeguard CroatiaNational frameworkUniversity of ZagrebInstitution’s own rules
S01Definition of abuse of academic authority
S02Explicit anti-retaliation protection
S03Independent complaint mechanism
S04Conflict-of-interest and recusal rules
S05Interim protective measures
S06Procedural deadlines
S07Written, reasoned decisions
S08Appeal or independent review
S09Proportionate consequences for misconduct
S10Remediation of academic harm
S11Professional-boundary and safeguarding training
S12Academic Authority Safeguarding Review

Scores describe the rules as published, not how they work in practice: 1 limited, 2 substantial, 3 strong. A 0 means nothing qualifying was found in the sources reviewed, which is not proof that it does not exist; a ? means the texts could not settle the question.

Read every finding with its passage, article and reasoning

A student’s protection should not depend on where they study.

We compare national and institutional rules across the European Higher Education Area, respecting the differences between legal systems. We do not rank. A country or university we have not yet researched is shown as not researched, never as lacking protection.

Our European approach
  • Not yet researched
  • Institution-level research available
  • Contains provisional findings, not yet verified by a human reviewer

Shading shows research progress, not performance.

Where to start.

A right a student cannot safely use is not yet a right.

How student protection works Collaborate with us