CRISIS AFTER CRISIS
No-one will doubt that Higher Education is undergoing one of its historic, but it has to be acknowledged, repeated crises. With a drop in international students by some 16% and with approximately 40% of HEIs (Higher Education Institutions) thought to be likely to go into deficit in 2025-2026, university management teams are cutting universities to the bone. Departments supposedly under review face rapid closure or down-sizing, staff in academic support roles have had their positions slashed and whole programmes are disappearing.
In the past, here at SFEU we have highlighted how the (literally) bankrupt funding model is at the root of such problems. Increasing fees for students is not the route, however, to resolving funding issues as such a move merely compounds the instability facing the sector and its dependency on short-term measures that will not provide the necessary foundations for sustainability. It also affects working-class students more acutely and those from under-privileged backgrounds. At the heart of the issue, moreover, is the fundamental question that hovers over university teaching and research: what and who are these institutions for? The current funding model and philosophy, if we can call it that, is one led by neo-liberalism and the market approach. Crisis will follow after crisis because such developments are hard-baked into this kind of business model.
The response by workers across the country to threats to their jobs and conditions has, as in other scenarios such as the move to cut our pensions, been solid and an example of solidarity. But with little or no national strategy, we are left trying to hold the fort at our own places of work while doing the best we can to sign petitions and support colleagues on picket lines elsewhere. This lack of overall strategy by the reformist unions has resulted in a piece-meal and ultimately demoralising campaign, which only hints at the inevitable defeat and loss of jobs. The time has come for a national response and this can only be a national strike that halts the decline in the sector. We doubt that the UCU leadership will call for such a move but not to do so is a derogation of duty and an abandonment of the hope that jobs can be saved and that the industry can be put on another footing. The approach by the UCU and other campus unions has, nevertheless, been predictable. While Herculean attempts are made by individual workers and groups of workers at HEIs under threat, the very model of the current “business as usual” trade unionism is the source of workers viewing the cuts as unavoidable. Similar hopes were placed on the Labour government, hopes that have been repeatedly defrauded.
We need an independent form of trade unionism that is prepared to take bold steps in a coordinated manner to defend jobs and the sector. This should refuse part measures and advocate for a national strike to stop the rot before it is too late.