Year: 2026

Email sent to members on Monday 13th July 2026.

As part of our campaign to defend jobs and working conditions at the University of Nottingham, we will be sending regular emails, authored by different UCU members, examining key elements of management’s restructuring plans. Today we discuss management’s mantra that ‘doing nothing is not an option’. Feel free to share this post with non-UCU members in your area.

Doing Nothing Is Not An Option

It’s remarkable how a power structure will remain wedded to its way of doing things even when all evidence points to it not working. At present the University Executive Board is – from an observer’s perspective at least – doing just that. They (or maybe their parasites consultants?) have invested so much psychic energy into the plans for Future Nottingham 2 that over time it has become increasingly difficult for them to admit that there are fundamental problems or listen to reasoned advice about its various flaws. UEB spent months and months pushing back the release of FN2 plans because they were not ready. The delay heightened the commitment to the plan, so when they did unveil it, including a new academic structure and swinging FTE reductions, they had already sunk costs into this specific pathway, the One and Only route to surplus (the end goal). The One Plan also has a specific timeline to give it (seemingly) exogenous pressure. Budging on any fundamentals is thus hard to do when one is emotionally invested in the correctness of one’s approach, and when there is a limited amount of time to execute it. The welter of negative media attention, the response from dumbfounded staff members – all of this just demonstrates the ultimate correctness of the One Plan and its Vision. Those who display such “resistance to change” (as staff have been repeatedly characterized) are simply unwilling to accept the “difficult decisions” and brute necessity of 1991-style shock therapy. Because of this commitment, alternatives cannot be evaluated on their own merits, but instead for compatibility against the One Plan. Requests for more data will be heard as retreading old ground or attempts to slow the process since the One Plan – by virtue of being the One Plan – is intrinsically well-evidenced and time-sensitive. And so on.

This is set against a backdrop of increasing authoritarianism in the university’s governance structure. It was always there, because it has been set up this way for a long time. Greenaway’s dictatorial format gave way to West, who seemingly attempted to respond to staff desires for greater democracy in governance, but turned out more a matter of change in style than actual substance. Norman and her team are simply using the tools that were already baked into the organisational structure, exploiting the withered mechanisms of oversight and scrutiny, and constructing circular self-dealing architectures of governance (aka ‘marking your own homework’). But the key legitimacy problem for this style of authoritarian and unaccountable university governance is the bare facts of the track record. And the track record is horrible. It gave us the Castle Meadow Campus debacle. It channeled surplus into top-down pet projects (“Beacons of Excellence”) rather than building up reserves. It gave us bad IT procurement processes like Unicore and Campus Solutions that never bothered starting with actual staff needs. It gave us the deleterious restructures of Project Transform. It gave us many millions of pounds in Estates backlogs and attendant failings for the Biomedical Services Unit, various roof collapses, emergency repairs to University Park’s Precambrian district heating system, etc. And it gave us interminable negotiations over the Malaysia Campus. The fruits of UoN’s existing governance structure are rotten.

UEB is a fan of the phrase “doing nothing is not an option”. Staff have now heard or read it countless times. What this device does is to position any criticisms of the One Plan as advocating “doing nothing” (e.g., “the data doesn’t justify this plan”, to which one responds “well, we can’t do nothing!”). But there isa matter at UoN for which “doing nothing is not an option”. And that is doing nothing to change the governance of the university. We’ve extensively stress-tested centralized and authoritarian style management structures, and they have led us to spiral out of control. Doing nothing really isn’t an option here. Instead, we need some radical shifts in governance principles: we need more decentralization and devolution of power, and we need more participatory democracy. This option has not been tried. And the risk assessment for such a change: things can hardly go much worse, now can they?

       On behalf of the Branch Committee

Email sent to members on Monday 6th July 2026.

As part of our campaign to defend jobs and working conditions at the University of Nottingham, we will be sending regular emails, authored by different UCU members, examining key elements of management’s restructuring plans. Today we elaborate on the tunnel vision driving current restructuring plans. Feel free to share this post with non-UCU members in your area.

Tunnel vision all the way!

Management had a golden opportunity to bring the current industrial dispute to a close providing space for completing all the necessary marking in time for graduation. Our financial counterproposal has demonstrated how the necessary savings can be obtained without redundancies. And even if management was not convinced by every detail of the proposal, the more than 300 applications for voluntary redundancy could, even should have given management the confidence to rule out compulsory redundancies and guarantee some degree level provision in those areas currently earmarked for full closure. And yet, management chose not to do this. Instead, they made two paltry offers, which were both soundly rejected by UCU members. And not only this, management even inflamed the situation further by deducting pay for weekends.

It is very clear that management is neither concerned about students’ interests nor is it worried about the impact on UoN’s reputation. It is driven by a tunnel vision, focusing on the implementation of its ill-conceived Future Nottingham plans. There is no support for management’s plans, not from staff, nor from students, nor from local councillors and MPs. Senate overwhelmingly voted twice against them, reports in the media are scathing. And yet, management proceeds regardless.

This is not the first time that such a tunnel vision has underpinned management decision-making. In Senate meeting after Senate meeting, elected members of Senate had pointed out the folly of acquiring Castle Meadow Campus (CMC). And again and again, management, of which many are still in key positions in UoN, brushed aside concerns arguing that CMC would be an investment into the future of the university. I still remember well the moment when David Park, the Dean of the Business School, boldly stepped to the microphone in Senate, declaring that the Business School was delighted about the opportunities CMC offered for its expansion. If the rooms were not suitable for teaching, then the Business School would simply need to adjust its way of teaching.

UCU too warned management against the acquisition and redevelopment of CMC. As late as the Autumn of 2024, we were still told that we would be given a special tour of the premisses so that we could understand its potential. Over the course of 2025, CMC was suddenly less and less mentioned, our guided tour never took place. Eventually, it became clear that CMC was being prepared for sale in parts or whole. Management’s tunnel vision had resulted in the loss of £65 million.

Future Nottingham, driven by the same tunnel vision, will also result in disaster. The damage this time, however, is likely to be much bigger, undermining the future of UoN as a whole. This is why our struggle against Future Nottingham is not only about defending jobs of our members or securing the interests of students. It is after all also about ensuring a future for our university. We must hold the line!

                                      On behalf of the Branch Committee