Staff-Student Relationships: Should They Ever Be Allowed?

Written by Chris East, Co-Founder and Safegaurding Consulant.

Staff-Student Relationships: Should They Ever Be Allowed?

Or is a total ban the only way to keep students safe?

It’s a question that raises eyebrows, divides opinion, and forces institutions to confront some uncomfortable realities. But in 2025, this debate is no longer theoretical - the Office for Students (OfS) has made it clear that it’s a matter of compliance.

Under the new E6 Condition, universities and colleges must demonstrate how they’re protecting students from harassment and sexual misconduct. This includes the risks associated with intimate relationships between staff and students.

The OfS states that a blanket ban on such relationships "could make a significant and credible difference in protecting students" and that simply disapproving of them isn’t enough.

So what are institutions doing in response?

In my recent safeguarding work with higher education providers, I’ve seen three distinct approaches in play. Each comes with pros, cons, and real-world implications.

1. The Notify and Manage Approach

 

What it is: Staff are required to disclose any intimate relationship with a student. Once disclosed, the organisation conducts a risk assessment and puts measures in place, such as moving the staff member from any position of influence over the student.

Why some institutions choose this: It allows for adult autonomy while actively managing risks. It's seen as more balanced and less paternalistic.

Challenges:

• It relies on self-reporting. If a staff member doesn’t disclose the relationship, there’s no way to manage it.

• Students may feel pressure not to raise concerns for fear of affecting the staff member’s job.

Real example: At one institution I worked with, a relationship had been disclosed and managed effectively, the staff member was removed from assessment duties and the student was offered an independent mentor. While the process was well-intentioned, the student later reported that their peers still assumed favouritism, which impacted their experience.

2. The Zero-Tolerance Ban

What it is: Intimate relationships between staff and students are completely prohibited. Some policies apply to all students; others focus specifically on students whom staff may supervise, assess, or support.

Why some institutions choose this:

• It removes ambiguity.

• It protects against abuse of power, both real and perceived.

• It demonstrates a strong safeguarding stance.

What the OfS says: The OfS has indicated that a blanket ban on intimate relationships between staff and students can be a “significant and credible” way to protect students.

While it stops short of requiring this approach, it clearly recognises a ban as a valid and proportionate step under the new Condition E6.

Common pushback:

• “These are adults. They can consent.”

• “A ban will just drive relationships underground.”

• “It feels like overreach into personal lives.”

But here's the issue: Consent doesn’t remove power dynamics. When a staff member holds influence over a student’s academic progress, the line between consensual and coercive can become blurred.

Research snapshot: Recent OfS data indicates that around 1 in 5 students have experienced unwanted sexual behaviour, with most incidents occurring within higher education settings. While not all of these cases involve staff, the findings highlight how power imbalances such as those in staff–student relationships can create conditions where harm is more likely to occur.

3. The Blind Eye Approach

What it is: There’s no formal policy. Relationships between staff and students may occur without disclosure, oversight, or guidance. Institutions may adopt an unspoken “don’t ask, don’t tell” stance.

Why it happens:

• Policy development feels politically sensitive.

• Leadership is unsure how to enforce rules.

• It’s seen as a low priority until a serious incident occurs.

Why it’s problematic:

• It leaves staff and students vulnerable.

• It does not meet the expectations under E6.4 or E6.6.

• It makes managing risk or supporting people virtually impossible.

Real impact: I’ve supported an institution where a student-staff relationship was only discovered after a formal complaint. Because there was no policy in place, there were no grounds to act quickly and no safeguards had been implemented. Both individuals suffered reputational damage, and the institution faced significant scrutiny.

So Where Does That Leave Us?

There’s no one-size-fits-all answer and each approach brings difficult trade-offs. However, we believe one approach significantly protects not only the student but also the staff member and institution. 

What’s clear from the OfS guidance is this:

• A vague statement of disapproval won’t cut it.

• There must be clarity, transparency, and accountability.

• Institutions must be able to demonstrate how their approach protects students.

It’s also important to listen to students. Their experiences, whether positive or painful,  should guide our decisions. And while policies are crucial, culture matters just as much. How relationships, power, and boundaries are talked about day to day often shapes whether students feel safe to speak up.

Final Reflection

This is a sensitive and often polarising issue, but that’s no reason to avoid it.

Wherever your institution sits, it’s worth asking:

• Are our current policies fit for purpose?

• Do they genuinely protect students and staff?

• Have we reviewed our position in light of E6?

If you're navigating this conversation in your role, or unsure where to start, I’d be happy to share insights or explore options.

It's just too much of an important topic to get wrong.