Consent Education for University Students:
what works, what doesn't and why

Rupert James Alison reflects on his experience delivering sexual consent trainings for thousands of university students, with reference to his background as a Wheel of Consent facilitator, and the framework of ‘Safe Uncertainty’. This is an approach to Relationships and Sex Education (RSE) in schools being pioneered by Dr. Emily Setty and her colleagues at Reimagining RSE. Emily is co-author of this blog.

Rupert James Alison

Dr. Emily Setty

Consent Education for University Students:

what works, what doesn't and why

(15 minute read)

When universities get in touch to ask me to deliver consent workshops for their students, they often tell me they were dissatisfied with their previous providers – for reasons I will outline shortly.

In recent years, some English universities have been offering consent training to their students whilst others have not. The recent ‘E6’ directive from the Office for Students (OfS) states that going forward, all universities in England must now provide such education. One of the drivers for this is research showing persistently high rates of sexual misconduct within higher education.

However, the directive does not specify how consent training should be delivered, or who should deliver it, leaving institutions to adopt a variety of approaches. These have included using online ‘click-through’ training modules, peer-led sessions with undergraduate volunteers (sometimes supported by college tutors), or bringing in outside specialists, such as my own organisation, the Art of Consent. Some of these approaches have been well-received by students, while others have led to mixed or negative feedback.

Criticisms of student consent trainings include:

Presenters lacking sensitivity - for example, by starting a workshop with graphic descriptions of rape or sexual assault.

Heteronormative assumptions that exclude LGBTQ+ and asexual students from the conversation.

An oversimplified attitude that ‘men are perpetrators and women are victims’, which alienates many young men (and some young women) and reduces meaningful engagement.

A primary focus on the legal definition of consent, with insufficient attention paid to the emotional, relational and nuanced dynamics which affect real-life sexual experience.

A limited view of consent as relevant only during sexual activity, rather than depicting it as a broader life skill which shapes all our interactions.

The assertion that consent must always be verbal, despite the fact that people communicate non-verbally in many areas of life—including during sex.

Over reliance on simplistic slogans or analogies such as “Consent is as Simple as Tea” or “Yes Means Yes.” It can be useful to include these in a broader discussion, especially when students are encouraged to critique them. However, relying on them entirely can feel unrealistic and patronising to young people navigating the complex realities of their sexual lives.

Being talked at, rather than encouraging dialogue and discussion.

The new OfS guidance specifies that all student consent training should be "designed and delivered by persons with credible and demonstrable expertise". While such “expertise” remains undefined, this may be an acknowledgment that some well intentioned but inexperienced presenters have not always brought the broad knowledge base or relational sensitivity needed to navigate these emotionally intense topics well.

Experience, of course, can be gained with time, and some people are naturally skilled in this work, even with minimal training. Yet what remains striking is the absence of any clear, overarching principles or evidence-informed guidelines to help universities determine which approaches genuinely support students - and which do not.

We see this as an essential question to address if consent education for university students is to become more than just a compliance-driven, “tick-box” exercise.

The Wheel of Consent

My own background facilitating Wheel of Consent workshops has been invaluable for this, as it has given me many years’ experience of working with adults of all ages who want to improve their consent skills. For those unfamiliar with it, the Wheel of Consent is a practice developed by Dr. Betty Martin at the School of Consent. It supports people to notice and clarify their desires, needs and boundaries, and identify their own personal habits and blind-spots around consent. The full workshop takes place over two to three days and combines theory, practical exercises, and guided reflection.

In my experience, people choose to invest time and money in this kind of training only if it offers genuine value, meaning, and - ideally - a degree of enjoyment. They don’t want to just be talked at for three days! Instead, people seek meaningful engagement and the sense that what they are learning and practising will make a real difference in their lives. For this to be possible, participants need to feel they are in a “safe enough” environment; one that supports them in navigating moments of vulnerability in which they can take the kinds of risks through which meaningful learning often occurs.

This is the approach Wheel of Consent facilitators are trained in, and it’s the same approach I bring to consent workshops in universities - even though students haven’t necessarily chosen to attend, they aren’t themselves paying for the training, and the curriculum is different! But when I put together a team of eight facilitators to deliver consent training for a large university last year, I chose people who were experienced in the Wheel of Consent, because I felt this was an excellent preparation for working with students.

Of course, most potential student consent educators won’t have a background in the Wheel of Consent, and this led me to wonder which other frameworks might provide an effective framework for delivering consent workshops to students.

I've been delighted to discover some valuable and highly relevant work emerging from the field of Relationships and Sex Education (RSE) in UK schools. Dr. Emily Setty (of Surrey University) and her colleagues are developing a program called ‘Re-Imagining RSE’, which is where I first encountered the concept of ‘Safe Uncertainty’.

Safe Uncertainty

Safe Uncertainty was originally developed by Barry Mason in the 1990s as an approach to systemic family therapy, and has since been adapted across a range of therapeutic practices. In the specific context of sexual consent education for young people, Dr. Emily Setty says:

“Safe uncertainty… reframes RSE not simply as a space to acquire knowledge or avoid harm, but as a developmental process through which students can explore the meanings, goals and values they attach to intimacy, sex and relationships.”

She adds that:

“It often involves ambiguity, ambivalence and contradiction. Young people may know how to communicate consent, for example, but feel unable to say no in practice.”

This awareness is also fundamental to the Wheel of Consent, which is why it is a practice, not just a theoretical model of consent.

We can think of “safety” and “uncertainty” contrasting with “unsafety” and “certainty,” which in combination make four quadrants. In general terms, these quadrants can be described as follows:

* In practice, the ‘safety’ in Safe Uncertainty is best understood as 'safe enough', which reflects the principle that underpins trauma-informed and relational practice: that safety is not objective or absolute, but is subjective and can potentially be co-created in various ways, including through dialogue and building trust.

The purpose of this framing is not that students need to be taught each of these quadrants. Rather, it points towards a style of facilitation which has been shown to be effective - Safe Uncertainty - while also helping identify commonly used but less effective approaches (the other three quadrants.)

Applying this framework to the different methods of consent education used in universities, we can see the following:

UNSAFE UNCERTAINTY -

Approach:

Sex and sexual harm are messy and complicated; it is not felt to be safe, realistic or appropriate to address them in our universities.

UNSAFE CERTAINTY -

Approach:

Sex is still seen as messy and complicated, but now there’s an attempt to control or define it with one clear and certain rule or explanation for the problem.

An example of such a rule is ‘abstinence only’ sex education. The underlying idea is that if no one has any sex, then no one’s consent will be violated, and no one will get any STIs or unwanted pregnancies.

Banning smartphones for teenagers could also be seen as an example.

Meanwhile, asserting a sole reason for sexual harm could be blaming it all on ‘toxic masculinity’, without enquiring into the multiple underlying causes of boys' behaviours.

Comment:

For many decades, this was the default situation in universities across the UK, Europe and the USA. It resulted in poor consent practices and high rates of sexual harm, most of which went unreported and, in some cases, were even tolerated as “just the way things are.”

Comment:

In ‘abstinence-only’ programs, students are given no information about sex or sexual consent, which is both irresponsible and ineffective. (There is plenty of evidence that abstinence-only sex education makes unintended outcomes more, not less, likely.)

Nevertheless, authorities may feel they’ve ‘done their part’ and if any consent violations occur, they can place the responsibility on students for not adhering to the “one, simple rule.” Abstinence-only ‘education’ has been widespread in universities across the USA, and continues to be implemented in many places today.

Similarly, blaming all instances of harm on ‘toxic masculinity’ can reinforce rigid gender stereotypes and create defensiveness, anxiety and hostility, especially on a gendered/ heteronormative level. This is very unlikely to lead to meaningful change.

SAFE CERTAINTY -

Approach:

Sexual consent is said to be simple, certain and straightforward, and provided everyone follows the rules and checklists exactly, nothing bad will happen. We see this in consent models like ‘Consent is Simple as Tea’, and ‘Enthusiastic Consent’.

Everyone is assumed to be a rational agent who always knows exactly what they want and don’t want, and can communicate it without difficulty at all times. There is also a ‘zero tolerance policy’ for those who don’t follow the rules and checklists exactly.

SAFE UNCERTAINTY -

Approach:

Educators work to co-create a boundaried and ‘safe enough’ space in which to facilitate discussions about the uncertainties and nuances inherent in relationships and sexuality.

The focus is on engaging and listening rather than telling, and asking useful questions to reflect on, rather than providing fixed answers.

Comment:

This approach is an improvement on the previous two. It clarifies the legal definition of consent, and provides some guidance around how to achieve it in practice.

However, only offering simplistic solutions can feel unrealistic and patronising to young people navigating the nuances and complexities of their sexuality. They may ignore them, or else feel unable to apply them in practice, even if they endorse the general principles on an abstract level.

Many of the earlier kinds of student consent training and the current online ‘click-through’ training modules are mainly of this type.

Comment:

Rather than retreating into certainty and compliance, students are supported to engage with relational and ethical complexity.

This kind of consent education requires an interactive setting, typically in-person rather than online. Students have the opportunity to share and hear each other’s perspectives, and to ask and reflect on questions with guidance and support from a trained facilitator.

It’s clear from our experience, and that of many other consent educators that Safe Uncertainty is by far the most effective model for delivering consent education to young people - just as it is for adults of all ages.

To give some examples of what Safe Uncertainty can look like in practice, we have created two lists below. The first illustrates how we work to create Safety, and the second shows how we support Uncertainty, in our consent workshops with young people. In practice these two qualities are interconnected – a feeling of safety is what enables creative engagement with uncertainty – but it can be helpful to bring specific awareness to each in turn.

Some of the ways we create Safety in our workshops:

Beginning by reflecting on the ways we all navigate consent in everyday interactions - with friends, family and others – and only then moving onto sexual consent

Intentionally making space for the experiences of people who are queer, neurodivergent, asexual, etc., rather than assuming heteronormativity or neuro-normativity.

Having facilitators who are of different genders.

Using slides that feature insights and photos of other consent educators with different backgrounds, ethnicities, genders, sexualities, ages, etc. This both increases representation and also emphasises that we’re not just presenting ‘what we think’.

Being relaxed and at ease talking about sex.

Facilitating dialogue and a conversational style, welcoming questions and differing opinions, rather than students being ‘talked at’.

Incorporating humour in places, where appropriate, to create a more relaxed learning environment.

Acknowledging that difficult feelings can arise with this topic, and inviting people to practice self-care, including leaving the room if necessary. (It’s almost certain that some participants will have experienced sexual harm.)

Where possible, ensuring the presence of a university well-being supporter in or near the room, who is available to provide emotional support if required.

Asking students to complete brief feedback forms at the end of each session, allowing us to address any issues and continually improve the workshop.

Ensuring an appropriate venue and group size. Around 30-40 people is ideal, though sessions can accommodate up to 100 if necessary.

Offering multiple ways for students to engage with the group, to increase the likelihood that each person can participate in a way that feels comfortable for them, while never requiring anyone to interact with others if they prefer not to. For example:
- Asking the whole group to respond to questions with a physical gesture to indicate an answer of yes, no, or ‘it depends’ (e.g. thumbs up, thumbs down, or wavy hand).
- Asking students who want to contribute verbally to raise a hand and speak to the group
- Inviting people to turn to one or two people sitting near them to discuss a topic for a couple of minutes, and making it clear this is optional

Some of the ways we support Uncertainty in our workshops:

As facilitators, acknowledging we don’t have all the answers and being genuinely open to learning from what the students have to say.

Highlighting how understandings of sexual consent have evolved over time and are still evolving now.

Exploring the differences between the legal requirements of consent and the more complex, often ambiguous realities people encounter when navigating sexual consent.

Throughout the session, encouraging students to reflect together on a range of open-ended questions which often don’t have a single ‘right’ answer.

Examples of such questions include:

Does everyone always find it easy to say ‘no’ in social situations? And in sexual situations? If not, what implications does that have?

How do we consent to something we’ve never experienced before?

What can we do to create situations in which people feel safe to say no, whether during sex, or at any other time?

Can meaningful consent be given when there is a big power imbalance? If so, how? If not, what implications does this have?

If someone has verbally consented to sex, but their body language seems to be saying no, have they consented to sex?

How do alcohol and drugs impact our capacity to consent? How can we recognise if someone else is too drunk to consent sex, or if we ourselves are?

What is sex? What is ‘good’ sex? Does everyone agree on that?

What is a 'default sexual script?' Why is heterosexual sex often presented solely as penis-in-vagina sex?

Can sex be consensual but not necessarily pleasurable? What happens if we agree to something but then don’t enjoy it?

What did you find helpful about the ‘Simple as Tea’ consent video? What are its limitations?

Given everything we have discussed in the past hour, how would you define consent? Is it a communication? A feeling? Or something else? Who is responsible for figuring it out?

How can consent contribute to better sex and relationships, beyond simply preventing harm or avoiding trouble?

Could we all, collectively, improve our consent skills to build a culture of consent at this university? Are there any steps you personally would like to take toward that?

After workshops, we provide students with a ‘consent conversations card’ (either as a physical handout, or as a pdf) with further questions and resources to encourage ongoing reflections and conversations about consent.

This reflects our principle that, just like sexual consent itself, consent education should be ongoing – not just a one-off ‘tick box’ exercise!

Feedback from Students:

Here is some feedback from university students following recent Art of Consent sessions:

“I liked the freedom to share ideas without judgment”

"I discovered that open and comfortable conversation about sex is possible"

"I loved that it didn’t assume a heteronormative or neurotypical standpoint"

"It was interactive and the questions made me think"

"A relaxed and fun atmosphere whilst also tackling serious issues"

"This is the first open conversation about sex I've ever had"

“The language was appropriate to our age group and was informative and didn’t feel condescending”

"I loved that it was a conversation, rather than being talked at"

Meanwhile, Emily Setty and her colleagues at Reimagining RSE say of the Safe Uncertainty approach:

“When a teacher says: ‘I don't know, what do you think?’, it opens space for dialogue, reflexivity and growth… Rather than treating students as passive recipients of knowledge or potential victims in need of protection, [this] approach recognises them as active participants in shaping their own relational lives and ethical orientations.”

They also… “caution against workbook-style or checklist approaches that reduce RSE to recall and compliance. Instead, assessment should focus on relational understanding, ethical deliberation and the ability to engage with ambiguity.”

Conclusion

It’s a welcome and much-needed step forward that universities in England are now required to provide some form of consent education for their students. Given that this is a recent development, it’s also understandable that some universities may feel uncertain about which kinds of training are most effective for their students.

Some previous approaches have not worked well for a variety of reasons, including inexperienced facilitators, insensitive content delivery, or a ‘Safe Certainty’ teaching style which focuses on rules, checklists and the transfer of information, rather than supporting deeper engagement and collaborative discussion. Unfortunately, poorly delivered in-person trainings during the early years of consent education for students may have made some universities wary of continuing with an in-person approach.

Requiring only that students complete an online ‘click-through’ training module is another example of a ‘Safe Certainty’ approach. Universities may choose this method for reasons of cost or convenience, or perhaps because click-through modules can work well enough for other, less sensitive and relational topics.

Some universities may not be aware of the rich potential of consent education which goes beyond mere compliance and can instead make a genuine difference in students’ lives - programs which can also improve the safety, well-being, and flourishing of the university community as a whole.

To make a difference, consent training for university students needs to be engaging, interactive and relational. Safe Uncertainty provides a clear framework for how to achieve this meaningfully and effectively with young people.

Rupert James Alison, Art of Consent

Dr. Emily Setty, Re-imagining RSE

December 2025

Reflections by Helena de Felice,

Wheel of Consent facilitator

"Most consent education focuses on information, attempting to change values and attitudes by presenting content and information, hoping that this will change behaviour: We “know” what consent is. We “know” that “getting consent” is “good.” But sometimes this “knowing” shuts down curiosity and care.

Developing consent skills requires offering a safe-enough environment to explore parts of ourselves that we haven’t previously tended to.

Developing consent skills requires bringing care and compassion for moments and situations that are complex and nuanced. Consent skills are relational."

Consent Education for University Students: what works, what doesn't and why

Consent Education for University Students:

what works, what doesn't and why

(15 minute read)

Subscribe here to receive our occasional newsletter:

Consent Education for University Students:
what works, what doesn't and why