For years, as an expert in employability, I’ve recommended that students engage with their SU to develop community and a sense of belonging, network, have fun, learn new things, and develop their skills.
Volunteering in an SU society can be viewed as experiencing the workplace in microcosm – students learn how to manage other people, lead teams, manage finances, organise events, and undertake the assessment of risk.
These are the sort of skills that employers routinely want to see evidenced in job applications and at interview, and they mirror activities in the workplace that give students the opportunity to develop and test skills they may not have had the chance to engage with before.
It’s important for student development that they can access these opportunities – to develop their skills, learn what they’re competent to undertake, where they need more training, and when to stop and ask for help. Having the opportunity to develop in the context of the SU is an important aspect of being at university for many students.
As careers practitioners, we encourage students to step out of their comfort zones, push their boundaries, and experience discomfort. Typically, these are experiences that encourage growth, although we should be cautious about expecting students to engage with too many things, as this may lead to a negative impact on their mental health.
What is the difference between good risk – where learning takes place, where students reflect on their strengths, values, and motivations, where they learn useful things about themselves that can aid their decision-making – and bad risk, where catastrophe may occur?
We should be encouraging students to take risks, make mistakes, and learn from failure, but this must be within the boundaries of safety measures.
My son Jack
In June 2024, my son Jack had just completed the second year of his neuroscience degree at a prestigious Russell Group university, exploring city life away from rural Devon, and he loved it.
He had made a wide circle of friends at university and loved wild swimming on a Sunday morning, finding green spaces in the city and doing CrossFit. He wanted to study medicine and ultimately had the ambition of becoming a neurosurgeon.
Jack died on 4 June 2024. He was on a Wild Swimming Society trip with the SU. On 4 June, three swimmers entered the water on an outgoing tide and got into difficulty in a rip current. Jack and his friend went into the water to save them.
Having saved the first two, Jack returned for the third swimmer and then could not get onto his back to float. His body was found a fortnight later. All three of the students that Jack helped survived – there could easily have been five fatalities that evening.
It transpired that there were multiple points of failure – no evidence of a site-specific risk assessment, no training for sea swimming, no consideration of tide timetables, no safety equipment, and no on-site safety briefing.
The young women who got into difficulty were swimming outside of the official swims organised by the Society. They were not at all prepared for swimming in that location or those sea conditions – they simply should not have been there.
My son should not have been put in a position where entering the water on another’s behalf even crossed his mind.
The legal gap
The relationship between universities and their SUs is complex – they’re separate legal entities but intrinsically intertwined. A student can only be a member of the SU if they’re registered as a student, and universities use the activities of their SU to market the university to prospective students.
Most people working outside of the higher education (HE) sector wouldn’t recognise the distinction between the two. Neither the university nor the SU has a statutory duty of care to students under UK law.
Students don’t have the same legal standing as employees, where an employer has a duty of care to its employees because there’s a contractual relationship in which the employee has significant control over the employee’s working environment, hours, and duties.
The Department for Education (DfE) has no ambition to change this – as confirmed in a letter from Baroness Jacqui Smith, minister for skills, to Mel Stride MP. Universities do have contractual relationships with students, but this is only recognised in relation to the exchange of educational services.
The competency problem
The activities we recommend students participate in through the SU to develop their employability deserve the same scrutiny we’d apply to sustainable procurement.
The entire supply chain of the product or service being procured must minimise harm to the environment, support social and ethical standards, and deliver long-term value for money.
SUs can’t continue to operate without consideration of the competency of student leaders to lead and deliver activities, assess and manage risks, know how to respond appropriately in emergency situations, have the appropriate technical advice to undertake their chosen activity, and make certain that safety-critical equipment is both available and fit for purpose.
Following Jack’s death, I initiated the development of what is now called the Student groups outdoor pursuits safety programme. This has been developed by Organised Fun with the participation of sixteen SUs, along with the National Union of Students (NUS), NGBS, BUCS, and other charitable organisations. The full report of recommendations can be found online.
It covers a range of adventure activities commonly supported by SUs, including caving, canoeing, and kayaking – and students have died while participating in these activities under the auspices of various SUs in the past eighteen months.
The report sets out principles that can and should be adopted by SUs, aimed at providing assurance to all parties that good practice is being upheld and that more deaths don’t occur.
More than a tick-box
This isn’t a tick-box exercise. It’s essential that students understand why these issues are important, and there needs to be real culture change within SUs – incidents currently appear to be woefully under-reported.
Risk assessments, as they’re known in the adventure activities space, mustn’t be seen as inconsequential, boring paperwork, and each year’s incoming committee must understand why they exist and why they should be reviewed. Risk assessment paperwork must be fit for purpose and designed for this specific type of activity, not based on a generic institutional template.
Understanding the importance of training, development of competence, risk assessments, and safe operations are crucial considerations for all employers under their duty of care to employees.
The activities that students are undertaking through the SU are clear employability development and preparation for the workplace, and those engaging with implementing the recommendations from this report will have been involved in best practice.
Where does our duty of care as careers professionals end, and where does it become the responsibility of others? My suggestion would be that if you know something is inherently risky or outright dangerous, don’t recommend it.
Better still, check to see if your SU is implementing the recommendations of the Adventure activities safety report. If they’re not, lobby them to do so. A university and its SU, taken together, must be fully involved in keeping all students safe.
