The Lithuanian National Union of Students (LSS) is proud of its members and their achievements, and we would like to share them and encourage the exchange of good practices within the community. Today, the President of the Kaunas University of Technology Students’ Association (KTU SA), Justas Čėsna, shares his and the organization’s greatest achievements as well as insights into student engagement in representation.
How would you define your goals as president during your terms? How did the objectives of your first term differ from those of your second?
I had clear strategic guidelines, goals, and ambitions. During my first term, the aim was the classic “bringing in fresh winds” and fostering stronger collaboration among people. I really wanted to connect and unite them, to create a stronger organizational sense of community. Since we have faculty-level student associations, this sense of unity is usually felt within faculties, but I wanted that shared identity and cohesion to be felt across the entire organization.
I believe we largely succeeded—it was great to see so many people participating in LSS events, initiatives, and especially LSS campfire gatherings. That mutual unity became particularly evident when we faced challenging situations with events or conferences. The goal of making the organization unified and purpose-driven, even in unexpected situations, was achieved.
The second term was dedicated to turning inward toward the organization itself. I wanted to focus on our people—understand what was happening internally, what problems existed, and what challenges we faced with such a large membership and wide range of activities. The question was how to guide people, how to ensure synchronized action, and what pressures they were experiencing.
We introduced many internal changes—for example, we adopted the KTU SA Code of Ethics, which is a major step forward in ensuring mutual respect. The goal of focusing on our members has been partially achieved, and whether it is fully realized will become clear at the end of the term. In short, the difference between the terms was this: one focused on uniting the organization, the other on understanding and strengthening each representative.
How much influence does the student association actually have within the KTU structure?
I can confidently say that the student association has significant influence. I tried to think of spaces where students are not heard or are excluded, but I couldn’t identify any. In many discussions related to student representation, lobbying is often mentioned—that decisions are shaped before meetings through agreements and shared positions. KTU students, especially association members, are often included in these processes even before formal meetings.
It seems there is no change or position adopted without student input. More often, the challenge is that students struggle to keep up with the pace of change. For example, the university conducts surveys about feedback systems and still asks us whether everything is working well or needs adjustment.
The same applied to the development of KTU’s strategy. Students were involved from the very beginning—from providing feedback on the previous strategy and its visibility to students, to participating in working groups until the final approval. Everywhere, students are visible and welcomed. I believe the willingness to stay close to decision-making and maintain mutual understanding has reached a very high level.
Most importantly, not only must we be proactive (and we are), but the university itself wants us to be active and engaged—from study program committees to Senate members who are student representatives.
What were the biggest challenges for KTU SA in being treated as an equal partner within the university?
Historically, as I’ve heard from former KTU SA presidents, the organization had to fight for its place. Students had to prove they were responsible and proactive, advocating not just for the sake of it, but to improve the university. Sometimes decisions were unpopular at the moment, but over time proved necessary.
That long-standing effort paid off—it built the trust we have today. We often joke with the Vice-Rector for Studies that we are colleagues. Many decisions are made jointly, and often nothing happens without our opinion. This is the result of years of work by multiple terms, presidents, offices, and faculty associations in building trust with university administration.
How are students who are not part of the student association encouraged to participate in decision-making?
There is no magic formula—the main tool remains surveys. However, we distribute them through class representatives. To receive an additional point in scholarship evaluations, class representatives must share academic information with their peers, ensuring full reach. Whether a student reads the information is their responsibility—we do everything we can on our side.
Another method is live feedback meetings organized by faculty-level student associations with class representatives. During these meetings, associations present their activity plans and reports, followed by open discussions.
From personal experience, this strongly engages students. Every student can be seen as a representative—just on a smaller scale, within their academic group. These meetings help students see what the association does for them and realize they can influence change themselves. Through direct contact, information flows more freely, and students gradually become more vocal and active in advocating for issues. Since we have a cooperative university environment, major confrontations are rare—most matters are resolved through constructive dialogue.
Were there moments when the student voice was not heard?
During my term, there were no major decisions made unilaterally by the university. One long-standing issue, however, concerned dormitories on Vydūnas Avenue. Discussions about their reconstruction began during a previous president’s term. While not in critical condition, these dormitories are in worse overall shape than others.
For years, we pushed to include their renovation in the university strategy. Although the strategy does not explicitly name those dormitories, it now includes a clear commitment to reconstruct dormitory spaces, prioritizing the Vydūnas Avenue complex. No specific timeline is given, but there is an agreement that renovation will take place.
This issue is not fully resolved, but there is a shared understanding and commitment despite financial complexities.
What concrete changes at the university would you consider the greatest achievements of KTU SA during your terms?
One example is the planned increase in dormitory fees. Last spring, the university approached us first to discuss the proposal. We tried to prevent the increase or reduce it. While we initially lost that battle, we later negotiated solutions.
We agreed that dormitory prices would not increase for approximately three years—effectively stabilizing costs for an entire cohort of students living in university housing. This agreement was formalized in writing, with the university committing not to raise prices unless force majeure circumstances occur. In return, we committed to organizing an annual sustainability initiative aligned with our priorities.
Another important change is the introduction of feedback-focused lectures within the “Introduction to Specialization” module. First-year students now receive sessions led by students on ethical feedback, academic integrity, and potential consequences of misconduct. After successful implementation in one faculty, the idea was expanded university-wide and is now also delivered to master’s students.
Additionally, we reached an agreement that students traveling to protests in Vilnius would have their absence from lectures justified if they participated—reflecting the university’s respect for civic engagement and individual opinion.
