The proposed cuts to the arts faculty do not enhance the student experience, they do not ensure quality of teaching and they are not in line with the core aims of the university. All courses are different, so a standardisation of class sizes and student to lecture ratios across the board is detrimental to students’ education. The implementation of project transform will only mean less support for students from departmental staff and year abroad staff. It will also mean losing the expertise of support staff id they are moved to other positions or made redundant.

The proposed cuts to the arts are a tremendous shame. I have been so happy at Nottingham so far and it is saddening to think that the vice-chancellor sees it fit to jeopardise teaching standards and moral in favour of infrastructure projects. I’d have previously strongly considered a masters at Nottingham. However, I must now assess my options. As much as it is kind of the vice-chancellor to refrain from closing the language faculty, numbers of students studying Spanish continue to rise nationally, so it is difficult to understand why there will be lay-offs in this department among others.

“I look forward to working with all of you as we create a sustainable, successful future.”

And what about those with no future at the university?

Making Language and Arts teachers redundant does NOT maintain quality, ensure sustainability or safeguard diciplines within the department. Languages are by their nature highly interactive and it is essential that a high proportion of staff to students is maintained in order to provide a productive learning environment. A university is a place for learning and the expansion of knowledge. This means you need people, namely teachers who can share their knowledge with students. The staff are more valuable to this university than even the biggest, prettiest most expensive building you can imagine. If you would have some respect for your staff and students and listen to them then you would not be making redundancies.

Dear Professor Sir David Greenaway,
I was devastated to read this blog tonight as we had really hoped that your vision for the University was less short-sighted than that of the management. The cuts to language departments make absolutely no sense, even in this difficult recruiting crisis. The language departments have managed to sustain themselves, sometimes with difficulty, but always with dedication through these difficult times. They have managed to provide a world-leading education for students who would be barred through inequality in education from studying languages at universities like Cambridge and Oxford. Languages are an area that is considered one of national importance, with the government dedicated to improving the number of British people speaking foreign languages. The language departments have already lost so many staff through non-replacements, so why should they have to cut more. Why should the language departments be cut to pay for Project Transform, for aerospace engineering, for food process technology, for new buildings? How much are other departments contributing when their courses cost so much more to run than arts and humanities degrees? What you have not said in your blog is that the language departments are being cut because they are not financially valuable to the University. They produce some of the top research in the country, and are one of the few schools to make it into the top 5 at Nottingham in their discipline, but research value is not important any more it seems. You claim to be dedicated to internationalisation, whilst cutting the departments who live, breath and exist to promote international cooperation and understanding. I am very sad this evening, I thought that you were a more worldly and understanding Vice Chancellor than this. It is no wonder that Nottingham continues to do badly in league tables. The University has lost sight of the central foundations on which it was created – knowledge, understanding and education.
Best wishes,
Laura

It is very disappointing to see the Vice Chancellor writing in defence of the proposed redundancies in the Faculty of Arts, and for several reasons.

Firstly, because the consultation period for this proposal is open until 22nd April. This post very much gives the impression that the redundancies are foregone conclusions.

Secondly, because the Vice Chancellor and PVC for Arts (Prof Jeremy Gregory), have received 28 open letters from academics who work in the field of Arts and Humanities, indicating the extent to which these proposals are short termist. Only two have received the responses they deserve.

Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, because these proposals will have a profoundly negative effect on the student experience. Whilst the Vice Chancellor has found time to articulate the rationale behind these redundancies in this very eloquent update, he has thus far declined to meet with students to discuss the very real concerns about these proposals. It is incredibly disappointing that the University would show such flagrant disregard of the opinions of its students, particularly when it claims to be making these decisions in their name.

I studied for my BA at Nottingham,I studied for my MA at Nottingham, and I am currently studying for a PhD at Nottingham, and if these proposals do go ahead, they are not in my name.

I have given almost ten years of my life to the University of Nottingham as an undergraduate, a masters student and now a PhD student in the faculty of arts. I have always been proud to be a member of this institution. Today I am ashamed. The disdain that the higher echelons of this university show towards the staff who work tirelessly to serve the student body and build and maintain the the international research reputation that the university is so proud of is sickening. I am ashamed to be a member of an institution that treats my peers, colleagues and friends as invaluable commodities, that pursues short sighted and isolationist policies in the name of profits and at the expense of those who make this university what it is. All those involved in this decision making process should be ashamed of themselves.

Incredibly disappointed to see this defense of devastating cuts to the CLAS. Disregarding the value of language education will be damaging on so many levels in the long term.

Nottingham is an internationally recognised university across all academic disciplines. This is a reputation to be rightly proud of and it should strive to continue to be at the forefront of education. With a global footprint, an international outlook, and a financial footing that is the envy of other institutions it could truly have been at the forefront of education. It could have chosen to make a real statement about its commitment to educational excellence and its support of outstanding research and teaching across all fields, because education is not measured by profit margins. It could have done this by choosing to support all university subjects, regardless of national trends, because it believed in the value of education. That would have been a real investment in the future of the university. However, by choosing to focus on selected areas – with a more clearly directly profitable outcome – the university is choosing not to commit to education. By actively choosing not to engage us, all of us, the people who make this university a place of education and not a sterile place of knowledge – its undergraduates, postgraduates, its part-time, casual and permanent staff – in an open dialogue about this review process the university has chosen not to honour its founding principles of putting the students at the heart of the institution, of valuing its staff and their research, and the pursuit of international excellence. That is neither a sustainable, nor a successful attitude.

Dear Prof. Greenaway,

I joined the University of Nottingham as an undergraduate student of Modern European Studies in 2006. I never imagined that I would be a part of Nottingham University for so long, but I never stopped wanting to learn, and staff in the departments of Russian and Slavonic Studies and Spanish and Latin American Studies encouraged me to push myself time and time again. Since then, I have gained a Postgraduate Diploma in Slovene with Distinction, worked as a professional translator and media analyst, passed an MA in Translation Studies with Slovene with a Distinction, and am now working on a PhD in Southeastern European Studies, teaching Spanish Translation and translating a novel. This may go some way towards explaining why I and so many of my fellow students and colleagues in the Faculty of Arts feel quite frankly crushed to read your disregard for our subject areas.

I’m afraid stating that ‘no departments are closing’ is of little consolation and certainly not a credible defence of these redundancies. The Arts Portfolio Review will result in the loss of Dutch, and puts other smaller languages at risk, such as Serbo/Croat and Slovene which make the University of Nottingham unique in its language offering. There is also an implication that students ought to be grateful for you keeping their departments open when in actual fact, the same level of all-round subject provision and quality of teaching is something which students ought to be able to take for granted, especially in today’s climate when they pay such a high price for their education. Despite claims made by management, a variety of academic and professional bodies have warned that it will be impossible to maintain Nottingham’s excellent record of language teaching and research if you proceed with these cuts. I am – we are – also saying to you, that despite your wish to believe that standards can be maintained with at least 12 fewer members of staff, this will not be the case. We are here on the ground, we see the work that takes place, and we are trying our best to convey this information to you. It’s a shame that no-one appears to be taking us seriously.

Imagine if Nottingham bucked the trend, decided it wanted to invest in its unique language offering and actively promoted this, as it does for its numerous projects in the sciences. Imagine being able to be one of the few remaining universities in the UK to be able to respond to the national need for more qualified linguists and cultural experts. These proposals show a profound lack of imagination and expose an ugly side of Nottingham which with these cuts is not placing education at the heart of its agenda.

The Arts Portfolio Review, which amounts to large-scale cuts to languages departments, may appear to be justified by the University’s internal strategy. However, as a postgraduate student with experience of teaching and learning with the School of Cultures, Languages and Area Studies, it is obvious to me any many others that this strategy is misguided, short-termist and will fundamentally damage then University’s reputation at home and abroad.

It makes no sense to implement such extensive cuts to one of only three subject-areas at Nottingham in the top five nationally for research quality (according to the recent REF).

Dear Prof. Sir Greenaway

The Arts Portfolio review is something that has faced strong opposition from both students and staff. Myself and many other people feel very strongly about the proposed redundancies that are set to take place as a cost cutting excercise for the university.

Not only is the arts portfolio review detrimental to the languages departments but also the the faculty of arts as a whole, it will decrease module options available to students, increase the staff student ratio (even though Prof. Gregory claims there will be no effect) and lower the unique factors of Nottingham (Dutch, Slovene/Serbian/Croatian).

This entire letter somewhat defends the review and yet again focuses on this idea of cost and rebuilding. The question that must be asked is do students want staff or buildings? Me? I want staff.

This entire process has gone against what the majority of the students want and even through our efforts we have still not been listened too, even with the support of various major language associations- of which only few have received responses.

i wholeheartedly disagree with this review and I urge Prof. Sir Greenaway to look into this further.

The cutting of staff in the languages department will do nothing whatsoever to enhance student experience, it will make it worse. The statement that all disciplines are being protected, meanwhile, is an outright lie, as the Dutch programme, one of only three in the UK and a factor which makes Nottingham stand out among languages faculties, is being cut. There is already a pitiful lack of Russian and Slavonics culture modules, and yet it is being proposed to cut some of the fantastic staff from a department which I have been proud to be a part of for the last four years. Frankly it is disrespectful to the kind of students Nottingham should be hoping to attract to assume that they are more interested in shiny new buildings than in the incredible teaching staff who are already here.

As the five various references to the “international” in this post exemplify, intercultural and linguistic knowledge has never been more important for the Higher Education sector, which now competes on a global stage for students and resources. The School of Cultures, Languages and Area Studies is the epicentre of such expertise at UoN. In addition, CLAS is one of only three REF units of assessment at Nottingham in the top five nationally for “research power”.

As such, the brutal cuts to staff in CLAS are not only short-sighted, but indicative of a ruling ideology that places profits, statistics and facilities over the pursuit of knowledge, learning and teaching as intrinsically valuable to global and social justice. I am deeply saddened by this proposed debasement of the excellent institution I joined 10 years ago.

I think the cuts to languages staff are shambolic and unnecessary and from a personal opinion selfish. the uni may look like a ferrari with the swanky new buildings but without a great staff structure will perform like a toyota all these changes seem to neglect the students wishes and take away value rather than add value to the university

Dear Professor Greenaway,
I have joined this university firstly in the capacity of a language teacher and during a year and a half I have taught Portuguese to some of the most hardworking and dedicated students I had the pleasure to teach. Every single one of them went into the job market with very important linguistic skills, which made them thribe in their professional lives. In fact, not very long ago, Nottingham was considered the best university for employability and I’m sure the collective effort of my colleagues in the language departments has contributed to that.
To suggest that cuts in staff across the arts and languages will somehow increase international visibility and potentiate sustainability is simply contradictory and quite frankly reveals the lack of appreciation for the magnificent work staff has developed throughout the years.
In fact, as an example, I can use my personal experience as a PhD graduate from the Spanish and Portuguese department. I have attracted international funding from the Portuguese government, via the research council FCT (Fundação Ciência e Tecnologia). My grant has completely financed by said institution which means that my PhD programme was of no cost to the University of Nottingham. If anything, it was pure profit.
A very significant reason for the attribution of that grant was the quality of staff and research at the department, since the evaluating panel gave it maximum marks – proof of the quality and competitiveness of our staff.
It is not hard to imagine that if the proposed cuts go ahead,examples like mine will not repeat themselves in the near future.
Yours,
Ricardo Rato Rodrigues

As a alumnus of arts and social sciences departments at Nottingham I have to add my voice to those deeply skeptical of your claims here about the cutback of languages staff. I saw so many fine staff and passionate students contribute to the life and culture of Nottingham in my time and the university. These programs need to stay open and well resourced at the very least, because they are of vast social and cultural importance to the university and beyond. Changing them on the whims of the market is blinkered. That other universities have closed their languages schools when you have not is not a mark in favour of the current strategy Nottingham has adopted. It’s akin to celebrating the fact that one has only burned down the kitchen, instead of the whole house.

This seems to be an undignified path to champion global investment for new programs without the cultural work of translation and debate that goes in to making ‘global’ status meaningful beyond the raw exchange of cash and resources. It saddens me to see a new generation of students coming into languages and arts programs at Nottingham may suffer as a result.

Dear Professor Sir David Greenaway,

I strongly disagree with the University’s proposals to cut back languages staff. As many others have said, we cannot be a truly ‘global’ university without the cultural awareness that our academic specialists provide.

More than anything, what angers me is that as a disabled student, you are cutting back on the people who helped me most to achieve my degree through a lot of difficulties. It wasn’t the disability department that supported me most – it was actually the administrative and academic staff in my department.

The University has forgotten the people it should be serving – staff and students. My time at Nottingham has been made special by staff here who interact with students on a day-to-day basis – compared to highly paid managers, these should be the very last people to go.

I never as a student asked for a £40 million sports centre, and having been here since 2009 I was never consulted on whether I wanted one. No sports centre needs to cost so much. We need to compete on academic performance, not structural buildings. From working as a student ambassador, I have seen first hand that it is the teaching that attracts students here, not the buildings.

If really you must have them, why doesn’t the University at least use the high flyers in the architecture and civil engineering departments to design the structures first? Paying them and giving them that work experience would save a lot of money compared to hiring a large firm to do the work – and they could then look back and say that they have literally helped ‘build’ the future of the university.

The University should be reducing its wasteful spending before even contemplating cutting academic and administrative staff. I have seen classrooms get ‘refurbished’ when there was nothing previously wrong with them – even the surveyor I bumped into taking measurements said that the money wasted on this was eye-watering. And then the fabric frizbees that the final year languages students were freely given this year – that’s not going to help me get a job after graduation. Who thought that was a good idea? That’s not considering all the other areas of wasteful spending I see on a daily basis.

The whole concept that cutting staff would make us more sustainable is a contradiction. The idea previously argued that staff would be naturally lost by leaving anyway or going off sick is wrong – otherwise the university wouldn’t be proposing the redundancies in the first place and would just let natural events take their course.

It’s sad to see that the corporate body of this University sees its staff as disposable cogs in a giant wheel, instead of what they really are: people. People who do an outstanding job and have a true passion for bringing the best out of everyone. People who have their bills to pay, and may now face unemployment and poverty when they thought that their career was on track.

This is a very sad time for the University. I hope you remember what higher education is actually all about and change course, before the damage done is irreversible.

There’s an expression for this in English (borrowed from the French proverb: Ne pas voir plus loin que le bout de son nez)

A meta-comment: As someone who teaches some of you (not in CLAS), I think it’s a heartbreaking irony that these student responses are so clearly expressed and immaculately reasoned. It’s these very skills in critical thinking that the cuts threaten. The commenters themselves show what we stand to lose. It’s a lot.