Key Takeaways
- Goldsmiths, University of London staff have launched an indefinite strike after a third round of restructuring threatens to cut more than a fifth of the workforce.
- The strike began with a marking and assessment boycott in April 2024, met with a lockout that withdrew pay from participants, prompting the UCU to call an indefinite walkout from June 8.
- Previous restructuring programmes (Recovery 2020‑21 and Transformation 2023‑24) delivered promised savings but resulted in massive job losses, departmental cuts, and increased reliance on costly private consultants.
- An FOI request revealed that Goldsmiths spent over £14 million on consultants, legal fees and recruitment agencies since 2019, including £2.7 million to KPMG, while senior managers retain inflated salaries.
- The crisis at Goldsmiths mirrors a wider UK higher‑education emergency: dozens of universities face deficits, potential insolvency, and widespread redundancies, especially in arts and humanities.
- Marketisation policies introduced since the late 1990s—rising tuition fees, removal of student number caps, and reliance on international student income—have intensified competition and forced institutions to prioritise financial metrics over educational value.
- The government has refused to intervene, framing possible closures as “market exit,” while the UCU argues that a nationally coordinated campaign linking pay, job security and public funding is essential to reverse the trend.
- Saving Goldsmiths and the broader sector will require sustained pressure on university councils, government and private financiers, alongside maximum solidarity with striking staff.
Background of the Strike
Staff at Goldsmiths, University of London – one of the UK’s leading institutions for arts, humanities and social sciences – have embarked on an indefinite strike. The action originated from a marking and assessment boycott launched by the University and College Union (UCU) branch on 27 April 2024, intended to pressure management to abandon a restructuring plan that would slash teaching and administrative posts. In response, the university imposed a lockout, deducting 100 % of pay from anyone participating in the boycott and declaring any work performed as voluntary. Because the lockout effectively withdrew wages, the UCU declared an indefinite strike from 8 June, arguing that it is logical not to work when an employer refuses to pay. The strike now seeks to safeguard jobs, preserve degree programmes, and defend the university’s reputation for radical, critical education.
History of Restructuring at Goldsmiths
The current unrest is the latest chapter in a series of restructuring efforts that have repeatedly weakened the institution. Five years ago, management introduced the “Recovery Programme” after the pandemic, projecting £7.6 million in recurrent savings. It targeted 52 posts, especially in History, English and Creative Writing, but UCU action reduced the cuts to 17 jobs. The subsequent “Transformation Programme” (2023‑24) aimed for another round of mass redundancies, ultimately eliminating 62 positions and claiming £16 million in savings, while abolishing or downsizing 11 of the 18 academic departments. Each restructure was marketed as a remedy for financial distress, yet each left Goldsmiths weaker, eroding support services and destabilising academic life. The newest initiative, dubbed “Future Goldsmiths,” promises £22 million in savings and threatens to cut more than a fifth of the workforce, a prospect staff view as a potential death spiral for the university.
Financial Mismanagement and Consultant Spend
Behind the restructuring narrative lies a pattern of questionable financial decisions. Management secured revolving credit facilities from Lloyds and NatWest banks, pledging £60 million of collateral and committing to deep staff‑cost cuts. Simultaneously, they commissioned the accountancy firm KPMG to advise on centralising administration and to quantify the value of academic programmes—an endeavour unlikely to prioritise public education or the arts. An FOI request by UCU revealed that, since 2019, Goldsmiths has spent over £14 million on private consultants, legal fees and recruitment agencies, with £2.7 million going to KPMG alone. These expenditures contrast sharply with the claim that savings are needed, especially as senior managers continue to receive salaries far above the sector average— the interim vice chancellor, for example, earns £240,000 annually. The union argues that the money spent on external advisors could have been retained to protect jobs and sustain teaching quality.
Impact on Staff and Departments
The human cost of these reforms is stark. Departments historically central to Goldsmiths’ identity—History, English and Creative Writing—have borne the brunt of proposed cuts, threatening the loss of specialised expertise and diminishing the breadth of courses offered to students. Administrative centralisation has left students and staff with reduced support services, increasing workloads on remaining employees and undermining the day‑to‑day functioning of the university. Promotions have been frozen, budgets for teaching assistants slashed, and casualisation has risen, pushing many workers into precarious contracts. The cumulative effect is a campus where morale is low, the sense of community is fraying, and the ability to deliver the critical, creative education for which Goldsmiths is renowned is increasingly compromised.
Broader UK University Crisis
Goldsmiths’ predicament is not isolated; it reflects a sector‑wide emergency. Across the UK, universities are announcing deficit forecasts and potential insolvencies. Nottingham recently warned 2,700 staff members of redundancy risks, prompting 61 days of strike action. Sussex has proposed 200 redundancies, Essex closed its Southend campus with 400 planned cuts, and Sheffield Hallam aims to save £26 million through 130 job losses. The Office for Students estimates that 119 institutions will run deficits in 2025‑26, and MPs warn that up to 24 universities could face insolvency or closure within a year. Even universities not presently under acute financial strain are trimming arts and humanities programmes, dismissing their cultural worth because they do not translate directly into high‑salary careers, thereby limiting access for working‑class students.
Marketisation and Policy Roots
The underlying driver of this turmoil is the marketisation of UK higher education, a trajectory set in motion by policy changes dating back to the late 1990s. Means‑tested tuition fees were introduced in 1998, variable fees rose to £3,000 by 2006, and after the 2010 Browne Review the cap was lifted to £9,000 from 2012. The expectation was that student fees would replace direct government funding, turning universities into competitors in a market for learners. The removal of student number controls in 2015 intensified this competition, benefitting elite institutions while leaving many others scrambling for enrolments. Changes to post‑study work visas under recent Conservative governments have further reduced the flow of international students—whose tuition revenues are vital for many institutions’ budgets. Consequently, universities have been forced to chase short‑term financial fixes, often at the expense of academic integrity and equitable access.
Government Inaction and UCU Response
Despite the looming crisis, the government has signalled no intention to intervene, framing potential closures as “market exit”—a term coined by the Office for Students. This stance ignores the broader societal role of universities as spaces for critical debate, democratic engagement, and the cultivation of ideas that can challenge state policies, including those related to national security and warfare. The UCU contends that a nationally coordinated response is essential: staff facing redundancies across the sector must unite to contest government priorities, defend public funding, and challenge the prevailing narrative that higher education is a disposable commodity. A central component of this strategy must be an unapologetic campaign around pay, noting that higher‑education workers have suffered an effective ≈ 25 % real‑terms pay cut since the 2008 financial crisis, while casualisation remains pervasive. By linking local struggles—such as the Goldsmiths strike—to a national demand for proper investment and fair remuneration, the union aims to shift the policy agenda from austerity to reinvestment.
Path Forward and Solidarity
Rescuing Goldsmiths and restoring the viability of UK higher education will require sustained pressure on multiple fronts. University councils, which often contain senior figures from finance and management, must be reminded of their fiduciary duty to preserve educational mission over short‑term financial engineering. The government must reconsider its reluctance to fund the sector, recognizing that direct public investment is both an economic stimulus and a cornerstone of a democratic society. Simultaneously, striking staff at Goldsmiths need maximum solidarity—through picket lines, public statements, fundraising, and political lobbying—to continue defending jobs, safeguarding degree programmes, and upholding the institution’s vision of radical, critical education. The struggle at Goldsmiths is therefore a microcosm of a larger fight: to reclaim higher education as a public good, to end the destructive cycle of market‑driven restructuring, and to ensure that universities remain places where knowledge, creativity, and dissent can flourish for the benefit of all.