Law No. 30/XVII/1st, recently approved by the Assembly of the Republic and submitted for promulgation, introduces significant changes to the Legal Framework for Higher Education Institutions. For Roberto Martins, researcher at CESAM/DBIO-UA and member of the current General Council, what is at stake is not merely a technical revision, nor simply the strengthening of institutional autonomy, the flexibilisation of merger, integration and association processes between institutions, or changes to the election of the Rector and the role of the General Council. What is truly at stake is the way Higher Education Institutions think about themselves, how they represent their communities, and how they ensure that the decisions shaping their future reflect the real diversity of those who work, teach and conduct research within them. However, the “new” RJIES comes with several “buts”… This is precisely why it is important to look closely at a particularly sensitive dimension of this legislation: the new regime governing participation in institutional governing bodies.
The new law provides that, in the General Council, representatives of teaching staff and researchers must be “career teaching staff and researchers”, elected exclusively by the body of career teaching staff and researchers of the institution (Article 81). In turn, for the election of the Rector, Article 86 restricts the electorate to career teaching staff and researchers, while also reserving eligibility for the position to career teaching staff and researchers — which, in this case, appears fully justified. In both cases, however, there is a tacit, unjustified and deeply limiting obstacle to electoral participation and representation for teaching staff and researchers in precarious employment situations.
At the University of Aveiro, as in many other institutions across the country, a very significant part of academic activity is carried out by lecturers and researchers on precarious contracts. Together with their career colleagues, these professionals teach, supervise, conduct research, support students, take part in projects and contribute to securing funding that is essential to the day-to-day functioning of this and other institutions. Even so, they will be excluded from the election of the Rector and, in the case of the General Council, cannot even be included among the representatives of that body, under the terms defined by the new law.
This exclusion is not a mere regulatory detail. It is a choice with institutional and symbolic meaning: it conveys the idea that there are people who perform essential functions within the university, yet do not have a full place in defining its direction. Governance that fails to include those who sustain teaching and research on a daily basis risks becoming less representative, less legitimate and less capable of understanding the concrete reality of the institution. The need to revise the RJIES is not being denied. On the contrary, such a revision had long been expected and includes relevant solutions in several areas. But a reform that aims to be modern, inclusive and lasting cannot ignore the structural reality of academic work in Portugal, long marked by persistent forms of precariousness.
It is true that, in the case of Scientific Councils, the law adopts a broader formulation than that foreseen for the General Council and for the election of the Rector. Article 102 allows, under certain conditions, the participation of other teaching staff and researchers working full-time and meeting specific requirements, in addition to career teaching staff and researchers. Even so, many lecturers, language instructors and researchers with very short-term contracts, including fellowship holders, will in practice remain outside these mechanisms of representation.
This problem does not concern only one university, nor only one professional category. It concerns the democratic quality of higher education institutions and the way they recognise those who work within them. When excellence, innovation, dedication and commitment are demanded of professionals who then see their voice diminished at decisive moments in institutional life, a contradiction emerges that is difficult to justify. The law itself states, as a matter of principle, that the State must ensure the participation of teaching staff and researchers in the management of higher education institutions, and that institutions must ensure the participation of teaching staff, researchers and students in their governance. However, Articles 81, 86 and 102 establish solutions that restrict such participation unequally, excluding precisely a relevant part of those who ensure everyday academic life.
This is why now is the time to reflect responsibly and to act. It is still within our power to widely publicise this problem and to raise awareness with His Excellency the President of the Republic, urging him not to promulgate the legislation as it stands, for example through the official contact form of the Presidency of the Republic (https://www.presidencia.pt/contactos/formulario-de-contacto) . Indeed, the President of the Republic still has the possibility of returning the legislation to the Assembly of the Republic for reconsideration. Making this appeal does not mean rejecting the reform of the RJIES; on the contrary, it means wanting it to be fairer, more representative and more consistent with the reality of Portuguese higher education.
Universities do not become stronger when they silence part of their community. They become stronger when they recognise, listen to and include all those who make them exist.
On the contrary, when the University loses voices, it also loses its future.
Original news in: radioria.pt, 18 May 2026.