All the headlines about the big cuts at the University of Nottingham over the past couple of weeks only underline that while jobs are being slashed across the higher education sector, some job losses are more newsworthy than others.

But while cuts in the Russell Group are devastating, it is those quietly taking place lower down the university pyramid that will do the most damage to the widening participation agenda that we are all supposed to be signed up to.

Among the universities that have done the most to offer non-traditional students the benefits of a higher education is London Metropolitan University. And I’m one of 120 academic staff who are being made redundant at the end of July: approximately 20 per cent of the teaching complement.

Management across the sector like to depict all these redundancies as the unavoidable consequences of forces beyond their control. London Met’s is no exception, blaming the pincer movement of lower student numbers and reduction of government funding. And there’s some truth in this. But it doesn’t explain how, until recently, London Met was boasting about its robust financial management, having recovered from serious financial trouble in the past. A year ago, it produced a YouTube video in which the new vice-chancellor said “the story of London Met’s financial sustainability is a lesson for the whole sector”.

ߣߣ��Ƶ

We also see London Met spending lots of money on things of dubious value to students or staff, like new cafes and foyers. And it was recently reported that the university is entering a building and maintenance contract with a private contractor, . The unspecified nature of this contract poses further questions about whether London Met is pursuing a “buildings first” rather than a “teaching first” philosophy.

Following a 90 per cent vote in favour of industrial action, UCU members at London Met have been taking strike action since 15 April. Since 5 May, we have also been operating a marking and assessment boycott (MAB). We’re determined to fight for our jobs but also for the future of an institution rooted in its local community, attracting multi-ethnic students, many from working-class, “non-traditional” academic backgrounds.

ߣߣ��Ƶ

I’m relatively new to working in academia, but in some ways, I represent the type of person London Met built its reputation on. I’m a “first-gen” scholar, who completed a PhD at London Met in my late 40s. Many of my students have a similar background, but although “lifelong learning” is supposed to be the future, the situation at London Met again raises doubts about how realistic this aspiration is.

I have over 30 years’ work experience in the housing field, a subject that has seldom been of more interest or relevance. My in-person lectures regularly attract classes of 50 students, and I frequently get feedback saying how much they appreciate their personal quality and the fact that I teach with a long practical and academic background in my field. But now London Met is “outsourcing” its housing content to the private company that already shares the delivery of my course – none of whose employees have ever been introduced to me.

I see this as emblematic of what’s happening in the sector as a whole: universities using a short-term cash crunch to make long-term structural changes, including greater reliance on private providers and subcontractors. What we’re seeing is a form of “hire and rehire” by stealth.

But the rehiring will not prevent those who survive the cull from facing increased workloads. Our union recently asked London Met management about this; the answer seemed to be “use AI”.

ߣߣ��Ƶ

Another London Met colleague losing his job told me he has been virtually ignored by university management during his four years working there. He’s treated like a teaching drone, with no interest or awareness of the wider contribution he could make. As a mid-career academic, he feels very pessimistic about finding another job commensurate with his knowledge and experience unless he’s willing to take a salary cut, or possibly leave the country.

There is a wider context to this. I recently spent time supporting a picket line of teachers at a sixth-form college in Tower Hamlets, owned by a private equity company. The teachers were demanding union recognition and pay and conditions matching those of other teachers. Next door was an outpost of De Montfort University. Next door to that, an annex of Nottingham Trent. These three neighbours on Commercial Road (no pun intended) graphically illustrate what’s happening to the whole education system: corporate marketisation, with students as customers, colleges as retail outlets and teachers as shelf stackers of knowledge. AI will only accelerate these corrosive forces.

The shifting narrative around the value of higher education indicates the fundamental challenge facing our sector. The for more emphasis on workplace training, but this ignores the state of the wider economy. As the of young people not in education, employment or training (“Neets”) confirms, the jobs and apprenticeships some want to replace a university education just aren’t there.

Going to university may not be for everyone, but the opportunity to go should be, and places like London Met have played a vital role in providing non-elitist options. We’re now in an existential battle for an education system that values staff and students alike, working together to advance knowledge and understanding as the only route to a better society.

ߣߣ��Ƶ

 is a senior lecturer in community development and leadership at London Metropolitan University.