According to the legislation of North Rhine-Westphalia, higher education institutions are intended to be safe spaces for interaction between teaching staff and students, and to take active measures against hostility, discrimination and, in particular, the abuse of positions of power, as well as breaches of academic integrity. To this end, a new Part 10 has been added to the State Higher Education Act (HG) (Sections 84 et seq.), to which the Art Colleges Act also refers (Section 67a). The Higher Education Strengthening Act, which the State Parliament passed on 15 July 2026, was promulgated on 21 July 2026 (GV. NRW. p. 552) and came into force on 4 August 2026. Further new provisions relate, for example, to the digitalisation of higher education institutions, internationalisation and the reform of degree programmes and continuing education, as well as the organisation of self-governance.

The new powers and procedures for universities were the subject of heated debate both before and during the legislative process. It is claimed that they would infringe upon freedom of expression and academic freedom; critics fear that even the mere expression of suspicion could lead to professional and personal repercussions. This article provides an overview of the changes and the issues now facing universities and academic staff.

Ensuring safety, honesty and integrity

In future, higher education institutions will be obliged to ensure a safe and fair academic environment. The concept of a safe academic environment encompasses the protection of members and affiliates against unlawful unequal treatment on the grounds of any of the characteristics listed in Section 1 of the General Equal Treatment Act (AGG), as well as against direct infringements of physical integrity, sexual integrity, the general right of personality or other legal interests (Section 84(1) of the Higher Education Act). The concept of an environment of academic integrity, on the other hand, refers to the protection of the integrity of academic discourse (Section 84(4) of the Higher Education Act).

To ensure safety, higher education institutions must draw up a policy (Section 85 of the Higher Education Act) and establish additional reporting points within their constitutions to protect diversity and personal integrity. These contact persons receive complaints from members or affiliates of the higher education institutions regarding unlawful discrimination or violations of physical integrity, sexual integrity and self-determination, the general right of personality or other rights. Depending on the outcome of their assessment, they shall initiate further investigations by the higher education institution in what is known as an ‘integrity procedure’ or by law enforcement authorities.

The right to integrity (Section 86 of the Higher Education Act) addresses research misconduct, that is, breaches of good scientific practice (Section 4(4), first sentence, of the Higher Education Act) and of the provisions governing fair appointment procedures (Section 38(6) of the Higher Education Act). Whilst universities were previously only able to respond by withdrawing or revoking academic degrees and titles, the Act now provides them with a graduated range of integrity measures, ranging from a mere finding or (written) reprimand for the breach, through the obligation to correct or withdraw a publication, the withdrawal of the authority to issue instructions to staff, and the revocation of appointment offers or funding, to the withdrawal of the university degree or teaching qualification (para. 2).

The law on integrity (Section 87 of the Higher Education Act) applies exclusively to university lecturers. In addition to existing powers under service and disciplinary law, universities are to respond to culpable – i.e. intentional or negligent – breaches of duties under service law, for example by imposing contact and access bans, an order to conduct teaching exclusively online, the withdrawal of the authority to issue instructions to staff or the authority to teach and examine, and even the (temporary) loss of eligibility for election to self-governing bodies. If students breach the regulations on a safe university environment, universities respond by invoking disciplinary law (Section 51a). For other staff and members of the university, the powers and measures under civil service and employment law remain applicable.

In accordance with Section 88(1) of the Higher Education Act (HG), the procedural rules set out in the State Disciplinary Act apply in essence to both strands. The university must initiate proceedings where there are sufficient factual grounds. Proceedings relating to integrity, ethical conduct and disciplinary matters should, where possible, be combined; further provisions are designed to speed up the proceedings and reduce bureaucracy.

The legislature also grants the injured person (sections 90 et seq. HG) the right to information and protection vis-à-vis the university, including the appointment of legal counsel, and provides for university-specific powers to avert danger (Sections 98 to 100 HG): Accordingly, the university may order certain integrity measures even where there is merely a suspicion of a breach of integrity, if there is a concrete risk that a member or affiliate of the university will be significantly impeded in their studies or university-related activities – even without conducting an integrity procedure or proving the integrity breach.

The legislature’s reasoning and criticism from the academic community

Ever since the first draft bill was published at the end of September 2024, the Minister for Science’s proposal has been Ina Brandes heavily contested. The state government argued that universities lacked the appropriate tools to safeguard security and integrity. It claimed that disciplinary law had shortcomings in relation to university lecturers because they had no line managers and because demotion was not possible within the W pay scale.

In December 2024, constitutional law experts from all the country’s law faculties called on the Minister to withdraw the draft bill, as they considered it incompatible with academic freedom. They argued that existing higher education, disciplinary and employment law was sufficient; the absence of a line manager, they said, was a prerequisite for academic freedom. The proposed changes, they contended, would foster a culture of mutual suspicion. Furthermore, the criticism extended to doubts regarding the state’s legislative competence, the justiciability of the offences, and the possibility of ordering integrity measures on the basis of mere suspicion (Section 98(1) of the Higher Education Act). Finally, there were fears of additional administrative burdens and duplicated structures alongside the procedures for good scientific practice.

The state government countered that the universities were being provided with additional tools at their own request, but that no new offences were being created.

Implementation by universities

The Higher Education Strengthening Act merely provides a framework; it is the individual institutions that must fill in the details. This presents enormous challenges for higher education institutions in the state of North Rhine-Westphalia. It is doubtful whether the Act will contribute to strengthening the institutions’ capacity to act and make decisions: Higher education institutions are already facing major problems due to declining funding, rising staff and building maintenance costs, and the need to catch up on the digitalisation of teaching and research, all whilst grappling with a shortage of skilled workers.

The fact that the rectorates must develop strategies to take diversity into account and to protect members and affiliates of the university (Section 85(1) of the Higher Education Act) entails, first and foremost, a comprehensive strategic process to determine which values and standards of conduct should govern future collaboration within the university. The Act requires a substantive discussion with the groups of academic staff, technical and administrative staff, and students in the Senate, as well as with the representative for students with disabilities and, where applicable, with other persons specified in the university’s constitution. The rights of participation of, for example, the Staff Council, the representatives for people with severe disabilities and the Equal Opportunities Officer remain unaffected. Whether contact persons are appointed for specific tasks is governed by the university’s constitution in accordance with this concept (Section 85(2) of the Higher Education Act). In accordance with the transitional provision, university regulations must be amended without delay; any provisions of the Basic Statutes that conflict with this shall cease to have effect on 31 December 2026 (Section 116(2)(1) of the Higher Education Act). The existing regulations on good academic practice must also be adapted to the new code of integrity to ensure that no conflicting standards arise.

Nevertheless, higher education institutions must ensure that procedures are put in place at short notice to apply the new instruments of the law on academic integrity and ethics, as well as the safeguard and disciplinary procedures. The legislative process assumed, in abstract terms, that the detailed procedural requirements could be implemented in administrative practice and would result in a faster and simpler response from universities; there was no time for technical discussion or practical testing. It places an additional burden on higher education institutions to safeguard the procedural rights of the „aggrieved person“ and to bear the costs necessary for the appointment of legal representatives. At the very least, the Act enables universities to pool their responsibilities within joint institutions and sets out forms of cooperation for this purpose (Sections 89 and 95 of the Higher Education Act).

The measures that universities are permitted to impose in individual cases will only become clear in the coming years through numerous court proceedings, which will clarify the legal concepts, conditions for intervention and balancing criteria chosen by the legislature to ensure predictable and consistent administrative action. Ultimately, and only after several years, the constitutional courts will decide in which cases the new instruments will actually prevail over individual freedom of expression and academic freedom.