The recent email from our Provost and Chief Operating Officer adopts a self-congratulatory tone to reflect on the outcomes of the recent consultations to close the Department of Humanities and shrink the provision of Criminology, Politics and Sociology — the two Departments have ‘the required staffing levels’; ‘no selection processes [are] needed’; colleagues and Faculties have been given ‘surety’ and ‘clarity’. 

These statements are disingenuous, as are the suggestions that our Senior Leadership Team (SLT) are ‘committed to having a genuine dialogue’. If the SLT were truly ‘mindful of the impact of change’ and of ‘those going through a period of uncertainty’, we would have seen

• open dialogue and meaningful consultation with us on formative proposals
• discussions with students whose provisions were planned for closure
• diligent modelling of viable proposals and clear communications
• financial accountability and equitable sharing of these cuts in the SLT
• adherence to and respect for local agreements or policies

The University has failed on all these counts; it has continuously ignored agreed procedures as well as employment and trade union law — and the new consultation for the Students’ Directorate shows the same behaviour.

• Campus unions did not scrutinise the proposals before collective consultation began
• Student voice is absent from this consultation, despite it removing the university’s enrichment strategies and impacting our Access and Participation Plans
• Staff support for Future Skills is cut despite it ostensibly being a ‘key brand message’

In the Vice-Chancellor meeting in April 2025, when core SLT members were asked about Level 6 Apply modules, for instance, they seemed unsure what they would contain and how they would be taught. The Academic Framework and the Toolkits covering these areas, moreover, remain incomplete.

• If Future Skills is a ‘key aspect of students’ education’, then why are the teams supporting its development being cut?
• How can a proposal to reduce around 30 positions enable ‘modifications to boost the support we offer our academic colleagues’?
• More importantly, when will the University consult with UCU on the Future Skills Agenda and the nature of its (future or past) ‘co-delivery’?

These new organisational changes, like the earlier ones, are unclear, inconsistent and poorly planned reactions to financial difficulties whose impacts on Kingston are overinflated. We had a £7 million surplus in 2023/24, our cash balance is over £100 million, and the University’s reserves are in excess of £400 million. 

While some of the staff at Kingston – particularly those in the SLT – may be proud of the ‘work to reposition the University for future success’, we believe SLT have lost sight of our staff, our students and our vision.

We all deserve better. Vote YES in the upcoming ballot to begin rebuilding this University, with the staff and students at its heart.