Responsibility and other dangerous ideas: who cares, who can, and who should in higher education

Universities are increasingly expected to assume greater responsibility for student mental health, with recent debates in the UK questioning whether institutions should hold a statutory duty of care. This paper critically examines what such responsibility might mean, who within the university is positioned to enact it, and the potential consequences of formalising responsibility through regulation. We distinguish between three overlapping forms of responsibility: a moral drive to care, grounded in empathy and relational connection; a legal duty to do no harm, which remains narrow and reactive; and a preventative responsibility, focused on building safe and supportive environments. Drawing on existing policy and research, we highlight the uneven distribution of responsibility across frontline staff, particularly academics, who often lack adequate training, recognition, and institutional support. We argue that regulation risks displacing authentic care, exacerbating inequalities, and contributing to burnout, while doing little to address structural conditions. Finally, we consider whether increased institutional responsibility serves students’ best interests, warning that it may undermine opportunities for students to develop autonomy and agency. We conclude that rather than expanding regulation, universities should prioritise time, resources, and authentic relationships that enable both staff and students to share responsibility for community wellbeing.