The slow death of Goldsmiths is a warning to British universities

Published 15 June 2026 · education

The crisis at the London university known for arts, humanities and social sciences shows how marketisation has pushed UK higher education to the brink. Staff

The crisis at the London university known for arts, humanities and social sciences shows how marketisation has pushed UK higher education to the brink. Staff at Goldsmiths, University of London – one of the United Kingdom’s most celebrated universities for arts, humanities and social sciences – are on strike again. This time, it is indefinite. They are responding to yet another round of restructuring meant to generate 22 million pounds ($29.5m) in savings, mainly through mass redundancies, putting more than a fifth of the workforce at risk. This is the third restructure in five years proposed by Goldsmiths’ management. Each restructure has been more disastrous for the institution than the last. The initial action called by the University and College Union (UCU) branch at Goldsmiths in response to the latest “restructuring” attempt was a marking and assessment boycott. It began on April 27 to put pressure on the university to find alternatives to cutting its most important assets: the teaching staff who impart the critical and creative education that Goldsmiths is known for, and the administrative staff who provide indispensable support for it. In response, the management imposed a lockout – 100 percent pay deductions for those participating in the marking and assessment boycott. They reminded staff that they do not accept partial performance, and that any work done would be considered voluntary. UCU called the indefinite strike from June 8. All things considered, it seems logical not to work if your employer is not paying you. The current chaos at Goldsmiths has a history. Five years ago, management imposed a restructuring programme that was going to put the university back into a solid financial position, or so they said. They called it the Recovery Programme, coming after the pandemic, and it led to 7.6 million pounds ($10.2m) in recurrent savings. It came at a huge cost. They wanted 52 jobs axed, especially targeting the departments of History and English and Creative Writing. Goldsmiths UCU brought that figure down to 17, through strike action, a marking and assessment boycott and public campaigning. Management signed covenants with Lloyds and NatWest banks, allowing them access to a small revolving credit facility in return for 60 million pounds ($80.3m) of collateral and obligations to make deep cuts, including staff costs. They reduced and centralised administration, leaving students and staff with little in the way of support.

More than that, they commissioned the accountancy firm KPMG to advise on centralising administration and quantifying the value of academic programmes. Surely they forgot that neither banks nor management consultants are interested in public education, the arts and humanities, or even sustainable finances. KPMG is interested in making money in a lucrative sector. An FOI (Freedom of Information) request made by the union recently revealed that management spent more than 14 million pounds ($18.7m) on private consultants, legal fees and recruitment agencies since 2019, including 2.7 million pounds ($3.6m) to KPMG. Staff having barely recovered from the first restructure, management imposed a second in 2023-24 – the Transformation Programme – involving another round of mass redundancies. More than 130 jobs and 11 out of 18 academic departments were targeted. They ultimately made 62 redundancies and 16 million pounds ($21.4m) in savings. Goldsmiths was indeed transformed. The dysfunction made it unrecognisable. The pattern is clear: each restructure was sold as a solution to the crisis, and each left the institution weaker. With literally nothing left to cut, this third restructure, which they call Future Goldsmiths, could send the institution into a death spiral. Striking staff are blamed by the interim vice chancellor, himself on a salary of 240,000 pounds ($321,130), for “not facing up to the harsh financial realities” of the university or the sector. Promotions have been cancelled, and budgets for teaching assistants have been slashed. Yet the finances and the arguments for restructuring simply do not add up. Nobody has been told where the almost 24 million pounds ($32.1m) in savings from the previous restructures went. It is unclear why senior managers responsible for so much mismanagement are still paid inflated salaries. And it is undoubtedly the case that they could have made different decisions, bucked the trend. Nobody forced them to go to the banks, or spend millions on consultants who, unsurprisingly, turned out not to have the best interests of students, staff or public education at heart. Nobody asked for new software that cost millions and was really only meant to replace administrative staff. Goldsmiths’ Council, ostensibly its democratic governing body, is packed with executives from the world of finance and management. And while it’s true that all universities are operating in a context of underfunding, wilfully wasting money can only end badly.