Europe’s campuses become civic fault lines

Figure 1. Number of recorded student protest actions by country, 16 March–16 May 2026.

Introduction

Fault lines become most visible when accumulated pressure produces movement. Across Europe, higher education campuses are increasingly becoming such fault lines: places where pressures originating far beyond the university itself meet questions of institutional governance, student rights and democratic participation.

Between 16 March and 16 May 2026, ESU’s Student Protest Monitoring recorded 54 protest actions across 22 countries. This is the highest number recorded in a single monitoring window so far. The mobilisation was geographically broad, but its causes were also increasingly interconnected. Students mobilised over university governance and funding, access to education and living conditions, democratic accountability, academic and civic freedoms, and conflicts and human rights crises beyond Europe’s borders.

A defining feature of this period was the convergence of several issue areas. In the Netherlands, international solidarity repeatedly intersected with university governance and institutional decision-making. In Belgium, students mobilised against funding cuts, tuition increases and reforms affecting access to higher education, while campuses also became sites of Palestine solidarity action. In Italy and Serbia, student mobilisation remained closely connected to wider questions of democratic governance and public accountability.

These protests point to strain in relations between students, institutions and public authorities, particularly where wider political conflicts intersect with higher education and where established channels of representation and dialogue have not prevented disputes from escalating into protest action. 

What we mapped

This report summarises student protests and related actions recorded in ESU’s monitoring database that were active within the reporting window (16 March 2026 to 16 May 2026). In total, we tracked 54 distinct student protests across the European Higher Education Area.

The actions were recorded across 22 countries: Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Czech Republic, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Italy, Kosovo, Lithuania, the Netherlands, North Macedonia, Portugal, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Sweden, Türkiye, Ukraine and the United Kingdom. Compared with the previous monitoring report, which contained 31 actions across 13 countries, this represents a substantial increase in both the number and geographical spread of recorded mobilisation. The previous report already described student mobilisation as accelerating across a continent under pressure and this period indicates that this upward trend continued.

Alongside recording protest activity, this report aims to identify recurring patterns in scale, issues raised, tactics, risks and outcomes.

Some key patterns:

Scale

Of the 54 recorded actions:

• 12 were nationwide, meaning they spread beyond a single campus or city
• 8 were large-scale actions (over 1000 participants)
• 19 were medium-scale actions (around 100 to 1000 participants)
• 14 were small actions (under  100 participants)

Figure 2. Distribution of recorded student protest actions by scale, 16 March–16 May 2026.

An important difference from earlier monitoring periods is that the increase is not driven only by large nationwide mobilisation. Medium and small actions accounted for 33 of the 54 recorded actions, indicating a strong campus- and city-level component to mobilisation during this period.

Figure 3. Dominant scale of recorded student protest actions by country, 16 March–16 May 2026.

Geography

• At least 14 of 54 actions involved multiple cities or campuses
• Examples include:
  • continued nationwide mobilisation in Serbia, building on the protest cycle that began in November 2024
  • ongoing student mobilisation across major cities in Türkiye
  • a long-running national protest cycle in Romania
  • demonstrations across approximately 50 Italian cities in May

At the same time, recorded activity was particularly dense in Belgium and the Netherlands, with ten actions recorded in each country. These include both education-policy mobilisation and multiple campus-based solidarity actions.

Figure 4. Number of recorded student protest actions by country, 16 March–16 May 2026.

Timeline

Of the 54 actions:

• 47 began within the reporting window
• 7 began earlier and continued into this period
• 8 were still active at the end of the reporting window on 16 May

Several protest cycles demonstrate particularly long persistence:

• student mobilisation in Serbia dates back to November 2024
• nationwide student mobilisation in the Netherlands and Türkiye began in early 2025
• protests over student support and education policy in Romania continued from September 2025
• protests against higher education reforms in Georgia continued from January 2026

What drove students to act

Unlike the previous period, where material conditions constituted the largest cluster, this window places university governance itself at the centre of student mobilisation.

Figure 5. Dominant thematic cause of student mobilisation by country, 16 March–16 May 2026.

Figure 6. Frequency of recorded causes of student mobilisation, 16 March–16 May 2026.

Out of 54 recorded actions:

Democracy and governance

Among recorded causes:

• 21 cases explicitly reference Political Governance/Democracy
• 4 add Corruption & Nepotism as a cause

Among related demands: 

• 8 called for Government Transparency
• 5 called for Resignation of Government Officials
• End of Authoritarian Practices is also noted in 7 actions
• 3 called for Snap or Free Elections

Democratic governance remained one of the strongest drivers. In Serbia, student actions continued to centre on accountability, transparency, corruption, media freedom and the treatment of protesters. In Italy, student organisations mobilised repeatedly around government policy, democratic governance, war and education. Actions in Slovakia, North Macedonia, Germany and Türkiye similarly demonstrate how student mobilisation continues to move beyond conventional higher education demands into wider debates over governance, rights and democracy.

Figure 7. Dominant thematic category of student protest demands by country, 16 March to 16 May 2026.

Higher Education Institutions and university governance

• 29 actions involved University Governance
• 21 actions were coded under Access & Safety in Education
• 11 demanded increased Higher Education Funding
• 6 demanded greater Transparency in Universities 

University governance was therefore the most frequently recorded individual cause during the reporting period. While the underlying disputes differed, many concerned institutional decision-making, transparency and accountability to students.

Examples include:

• student mobilisation around university funding and structural reforms in Belgium and Austria
• protests concerning university governance and leadership in Ukraine
• resistance to reforms affecting higher education in Georgia
• student actions around institutional policies towards Palestine solidarity movements in France, Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands
• student protests concerning housing, access, fees and university-level decision-making in Greece and other countries

Material conditions and access

• 20 protests involve Economic & Living Conditions
• 17 include Social Justice & Equity
• 21 involve Access & Safety in Education
• 11 demanded increased Higher Education Funding
• 4 called for the Abolition or Reduction of Fees
• 3 involved demands relating to Housing

Belgium was particularly prominent in this cluster, with repeated student mobilisation around tuition fees, funding and proposed reforms to higher education. Actions were also recorded around funding and access in Austria, Portugal, France, Greece and Sweden. The data continues to show what earlier reports already indicated: students rarely separate the affordability of studying from broader questions of fairness, access and public responsibility for higher education.

Human rights and international solidarity

• 23 actions include Human Rights & International Solidarity
• 15 cases involved Divestment from Conflict States
• 15 explicitly demanded International Solidarity
• 6 called for Peace and Solidarity
• 7 involved Demands for Human Rights Accountability

A particularly large share concerned Palestine, with actions taking place across universities in the Netherlands, Belgium, France, Germany and Croatia, among others. Many of these protests were simultaneously disputes about university governance. Students challenged investment policies, academic cooperation, disciplinary responses, institutional neutrality and decisions over whether protest or occupation would be permitted on campus.

Figure 8. Most frequently recorded specific student protest demand by country, 16 March to 16 May 2026.

How students mobilised

Student mobilisation during the reporting period remained predominantly physical, collective and public-facing.

Figure 9. Most frequently recorded distinctive protest tactic by country, 16 March to 16 May 2026.

Across the 54 recorded actions:

On the streets:

• Demonstrations appear in 50 of 54 cases
• Rallies in 37
• Marches in 24
• These figures indicate that public-space mobilisation remained the predominant form of protest during the reporting period.

Demonstrations were therefore present in approximately 92% of all recorded actions. Physical presence remained the predominant mode of mobilisation in the actions recorded during this period.

Disrupting “business as usual”

• Sit-ins in 10 actions
• Occupations in 8
• Strikes in 7
• Blockades in 6
• Boycotts in 2

Where the institution itself becomes the object of protest, students increasingly use the institution’s physical space as part of the mobilisation. Encampments, building occupations, sit-ins and university blockades therefore sit alongside conventional public demonstrations.

Hybrid tactics

• Online campaigns are recorded in 8 actions
• Petitions in 5
• Digital tools therefore complemented rather than replaced physical mobilisation.

Figure 10. Frequency of tactics used in recorded student protest actions, 16 March–16 May 2026.

This period shows a continued preference for public, visible mobilisation, complemented by disruptive campus tactics and pressure tactics, depending on risk levels and institutional openness. 

Figure 11. Distinctive protest tactic by country, 16 March–16 May 2026.

Risks students faced

The reporting period also recorded a range of risks associated with student mobilisation.

Figure 12. Dominant broad threat or risk category associated with student protest activity by country, 16 March to 16 May 2026.

Across the 54 recorded actions, the database identified risks ranging from state repression and policing to institutional retaliation, intimidation and online pressure.

Repression and policing

• Government Repression in 5 cases
• Police Violence in 9
• Arbitrary Arrests in 4
• Selective Enforcement in 3 
• Mobility restrictions in 4 
• Campus raids in 2

Students continued to experience direct state coercion particularly in politically sensitive protests and actions connected to wider democratic struggles. Cases in Serbia and Türkiye illustrate this pattern, although coercive policing was also recorded in other national contexts.

Figure 13. Frequency of threats and risks recorded in connection with student protests, 16 March–16 May 2026.

Physical risks

• Injuries reported in 4 cases
• Extremist Violence in 4 cases
• Counter-protests in 3 cases
• Students were exposed to harm during protests, with risks from non-state actors. Counter-protests often escalated tensions on the ground and increased risks of confrontation.

Intimidation, psychological pressure and online risks

• Stigmatisation in 6 cases
• Intimidation in 6 
• Media Manipulation in 4
• Psychological Harassment in 2 
• Online Harassment in 3 
• These forms of pressure matter because they can restrict participation without formally prohibiting a protest. 

Restrictions on civic space can also arise through measures short of arrest or formal prohibition. The prospect of disciplinary measures, online targeting, reputational attacks or consequences for one’s studies can itself produce a chilling effect. The current window therefore shows that the risks attached to student mobilisation operate on several levels at once: the street, the institution, the legal system and the information environment.

Taken together, the recorded risks indicate that participation in student mobilisation can carry physical, legal, academic, psychological and reputational consequences. The message from this is clear, choosing to stand up is still dangerous in today’s Europe.

Figure 14. Most frequently recorded specific threat or risk by country, 16 March to 16 May 2026.

Why ESU is watching

ESU monitors student protests because they provide evidence about both the condition of student rights and the responsiveness of higher education and democratic institutions. In this period, mobilisation reached more countries and more campuses than in any previous monitoring window. However, the data show that increased mobilisation was not consistently accompanied by resolution.

Within the 54 protests we tracked the database currently records:

• 12 cases of partial success 
• 2 cases of full success

At the same time:

• we see 12 cases with no response
• 1 case where negotiations are still ongoing
• 10 where the situation escalated
• 7 where repression is directly recorded
• 15 cases with an unclear outcome
• In addition, 8 actions were still ongoing on 16 May.

Figure 15. Dominant recorded outcome of student protest activity by country, 16 March–16 May 2026.

These categories can overlap, as a protest may, for example, achieve partial success while also escalating in another respect. The picture is therefore more mixed than in previous periods. Partial successes were recorded more frequently than in earlier periods, indicating that mobilisation was associated with tangible concessions in some cases. At the same time, escalation, repression and absence of response remain common. Overall, the coexistence of partial success, escalation, repression and non-response points to uneven institutional responsiveness to student demands.

Figure 16. Frequency of outcomes recorded for student protest actions, 16 March–16 May 2026.

Comparison with the full database up to the 16 of May 2026

ESU’s database records 106 actions across 32 countries in total, from 16 of September 2025 to 16 of May 2026. The current monitoring window contains 54, representing 51% of all recorded actions. 

Figure 17. Number of recorded student protest actions by country, 16 September 2025–16 May 2026.

Across that current cumulative dataset, the leading causes are:

• Social Justice & Equity: 44
• Access & Safety in Education: 43
• Economic & Living Conditions: 42
• University Governance: 42
• Human Rights & International Solidarity: 40
• Political Governance / Democracy: 39

Figure 18. Dominant thematic cause of recorded student protest activity by country, 16 September 2025–16 May 2026.

Demonstrations remain the most common tactic, appearing in 97 of 106 actions, or 92%. Student mobilisation therefore continues to combine education-specific concerns with wider questions of social justice, democratic governance, human rights and institutional accountability.

Figure 19. Dominant recorded outcome of student protest activity by country, 16 September 2025–16 May 2026.

This two-month period shows several notable shifts in the profile of recorded mobilisation compared with the cumulative dataset:

• University Governance was recorded in 53.7% of actions during the March to May window, compared with 39.6% across the cumulative database, an increase of 14.1 percentage points.
• Divestment from Conflict States was recorded as a demand in 27.8% of current-window actions, compared with 17.9% across the cumulative database, an increase of 9.9 percentage points. International Solidarity demands similarly increased from 22.6% to 27.8%, a difference of 5.1 percentage points, reflecting the prominence of Palestine solidarity and other international issues during the period.
• Security & Policing was recorded as a cause in 14.8% of current-window actions, compared with 11.3% across the cumulative database, an increase of 3.5 percentage points. This indicates a somewhat stronger intersection between student mobilisation and concerns related to policing, safety and civic freedoms.
• More disruptive tactics also became more prevalent. Sit-ins were recorded in 18.5% of current-window actions, compared with 10.4% cumulatively, an increase of 8.1 percentage points. Occupations increased from 10.4% to 14.8%, a difference of 4.4 percentage points, while blockades increased from 8.5% to 11.1%, a difference of 2.6 percentage points. Demonstrations nevertheless remained the predominant tactic.
• University Retaliation was recorded in 9.3% of current-window actions, compared with 5.7% across the cumulative database, an increase of 3.6 percentage points. This coincides with the increased prominence of university governance and campus-based mobilisation during the reporting period.
• Repression as an outcome was recorded in 13.0% of current-window actions, compared with 8.5% across the cumulative dataset, an increase of 4.5 percentage points. Escalation increased from 15.1% to 18.5%, a difference of 3.4 percentage points.
• At the same time, Partial Success was recorded in 22.2% of current-window actions, compared with 15.1% cumulatively, an increase of 7.1 percentage points. This indicates that tangible concessions were recorded more frequently during the period, although escalation and repression also remained present.

At the same time:

• Social Justice & Equity was recorded in 31.5% of current-window actions, compared with 41.5% across the cumulative database, a decrease of 10.0 percentage points. It remained a major driver, but was relatively less prominent than across the monitoring period as a whole.
• Government Transparency was recorded as a demand in 14.8% of current-window actions, compared with 24.5% cumulatively, a decrease of 9.7 percentage points. This points to a relative shift towards institutional governance, international solidarity and questions of rights and freedoms.
• Higher Education Funding Increase was recorded as a demand in 20.4% of current-window actions, compared with 24.5% across the cumulative database, a decrease of 4.2 percentage points. Funding and access nevertheless remained significant components of the protest landscape.

What comes next

The 54 actions recorded between March and May show that higher education is increasingly one of the places where Europe’s wider tensions become visible. The reporting period demonstrates significant intersections between international solidarity and institutional governance, economic pressures and access to higher education, and wider democratic concerns and campus decision-making.

A resilient higher education system is not defined by the absence of disagreement, but by its capacity to manage disagreement through democratic, transparent and accountable processes.

The findings therefore raise questions about the capacity and willingness of institutions and public authorities to address these pressures through established mechanisms of participation and dialogue. Where students repeatedly need to occupy, march, strike or blockade in order to be heard, the protest is not only telling us something about students, but even more about the institutions they are trying to change.