By Ruaidhrí Gillen Lynch.

In Gair Rhydd’s last edition, we spoke to Cardiff University’s President and Vice-Chancellor, Wendy Larner.

The interview covered many topics, including university finance changes, the “enormous success” of the Kazakhstan campus, proposed cost-cutting measures, and the university executives’ de facto bible – Vision 2035 – which VC Larner repeatedly referenced as the document detailing the university’s direction.

I spoke with staff whose picture of the university’s internal workings was painted in far darker hues, and the executive board’s bible, supposedly “our future, together”, was hardly known to students.

This article is, therefore, a response to VC Larner’s account of how our university has been run and will be run.

“Collaboration is my preferred way of doing things.”

In the interview, VC Larner paints herself as a collaborative force who values staff input, but that isn’t what Gair Rhydd was told.

In anonymous discussions with academic staff, we heard a story of a complete lack of communication and transparency, and of top-down decision-making in which staff are informed of decisions after the fact.

In the worst cases, we heard that staff discovered they were at risk of losing their jobs through online media rather than from the university.

How can VC Larner expect students and staff to believe that collaboration is her “preferred way of doing things” when contrary evidence is slapping campus in the face?

Perhaps the answer lies in her careful wording, emphasising a preference for collaboration rather than a recognition of its necessity. Readers will remember the confusion and stress of department cuts, structural changes, and course drops.

However, in the interview, VC Larner didn’t know what we meant by cost-cutting measures, preferring to call mass firings and shrinkages restructuring.

During that time, when VC Larner and the rest of the executive board seemed to think cutting nursing courses was a good idea, staff reported that no coherent justification was provided.

Cutting staff while opening a campus in Kazakhstan might show where the executive board’s priorities lie, even if VC Larner denies such an emphasis in her interview.

Staff told Gair Rhydd that the consultation systems which do exist, exist as checkbox exercises, where the university asks for input without taking it into account; they are “backwards legitimisation, not forward planning”.

One academic described this culture of top-down leadership as “trickling down to colleges, giving individuals the ability to treat schools as their own personal theocracies”.

Another said that staff believed VC Larner doesn’t have the knowledge to decide what is or isn’t academically valid.

All we need to prove the university is not being run collaboratively is that staff were willing to articulate these opinions to Gair Rhydd.

They want what is best for the university, so if they genuinely felt their voices were being heard, they wouldn’t feel the need to vocalise them through the media.

According to Nation Cymru (which VC Larner said reported “fake news”), VC Larner’s response was to threateningly email staff, warning them away from speaking to the media.

“The initiative in Kazakhstan is an enormous success”

The interview and Vision 2035 share an enormous emphasis on making Cardiff University a transnational institution. A great title – but what it means exactly is unclear.

That many universities are expanding through projects abroad does not make the decision to open Cardiff University Kazakhstan any less puzzling. It is a country with deep human rights issues, casting doubt on its alignment with purported university values like inclusivity.

Gair Rhydd has previously reported on the unjust arrest, imprisonment, and abuse of a young Kazakhstani and the arcane laws which enabled it. When asked about this, VC Larner spoke about Kazakh culture.

Needless to say, this raises serious questions about the university’s values and ethics.

University Finances

In the interview, VC Larner rejected accusations of cost-cutting, claiming that while other universities are trying to do more with less, Cardiff University is taking a different approach, which is implied to be a more realistic one.

No one can deny that there are financial issues; we have been running a deficit, and Larner herself suggested we will continue to do so for some time. Consequently, many departments are valued by how much money they bring in, not how core they are to the university.

According to a School of Law and Politics staff member, the department’s low overheads relative to its income have enabled it to avoid cuts, which have resulted in courses being oversubscribed. In effect, Law and Politics has become a “cash cow”.

Staff say this oversubscription means they cannot give students the attention they deserve, undermining the integrity and quality of the education. Let that sink in: more money is such a priority that it will be had, even if it means worse education from a third-level institution.

Ignoring VC Larner’s £290,000 salary and the executive board’s extensive spending on the university card (visible online), the core question becomes whether we are an academic institution or a business first.

Of course, a university must be both in today’s climate, but being an educational institution requires integrity. The artist and philosopher are no less valuable than the lawyer or mathematician, especially not in a university, where unrestricted knowledge acquisition is a core purpose.

So, is that integrity present? Do university leaders share the same values and priorities as the rest of the university?

Given the attempt to remove vital courses like nursing, other proposals only prevented by union pressure, and the decision to open a campus in a country that is not uncontroversial, it is sadly all too easy to answer these questions with a no.

If VC Larner can’t even give a clear answer on whether she, as the leader of this financially strained university, is justified in being paid £290,000, ought she to be its leader?

Staff at her previous university in New Zealand might argue no, having been in touch with Cardiff’s UCU to offer solidarity and share information on her track record, as reported by Nation Cymru.

Vision 2035

For a document VC Larner portrays as a good, clear, and authoritative source on the university’s direction, it is remarkably good at using flowery language while being thin on actual policy. The document’s most shocking aspect is its indirectness.

It does, however, give a Labour-esque set of numbered priorities, delivery strategies, and other categorisations that say little in themselves. Past the “our mission” and “our vision” sections are the “strategic priorities”, which are the first points of substance.

The first priority concerns actions that engender trust and respect among students and staff. VC Larner and the executive board cannot expect such an environment to flourish while job and course cuts appear ever-looming and staff and students feel completely unheard.

The second strategic priority speaks about nurturing homegrown talent, which should be a top priority for Wales’ premier university.

However, in the same document, there is a much greater emphasis on attracting global talent.

While Welsh and Welsh-speaking students told Gair Rhydd of a net positive experience of nurturing from the university, some pointed out simple issues, such as the lack of some forms being in Welsh, as failures of its commitment to bilingualism.

Perhaps actually being a Welsh university ought to be prioritised before being a global one.

The third strategic priority speaks of “co-creating” alongside staff and students.

Again, the top-down approach staff describe is hardly reflective of this priority, nor is it so for students, if protests asking for their voices to be heard receive no support but rather pressure and removal, as with the injunction used against the encampment protesting university ties to weapons companies.

After the strategic priorities are four categories for “how we get there”. The first of these is about delivering efficiently: “We will do things once.”

Except, it wasn’t only once the university had to tear down and rebuild a wall in the John Percival building because it failed to comply with fire regulations, though perhaps this £1 million error doesn’t count.

There will be an “organisational approach to simplify functions”. This has manifested as the mass centralisation of control, including timetabling, which in itself was such a disaster that some students were scheduled to attend lectures in toilets.

It also speaks about “delivering estates rationalisation [and] commercialisation”, which hopefully will include a look at whether VC Larner, with a salary of £290,000, ought to be living on a university property estimated to be worth £1 million, paying only bills and tax.

The second point on “how we get there” speaks of “working collaboratively” with staff and students to “codesign” the future of student processes (an empty promise based on VC Larner’s track record).

Vision 2035 then circles back to speak about “empowering” staff and students with a culture of trust, transparency, and accountability, but again, if there were ever a time it could be said this is not the case, it’s today.

Staff and students don’t feel listened to, and the higher-ups seem to be taking an aggressive approach, exemplified by Larner’s threatening email to staff.

Most importantly, they discuss a new approach to diversifying recruitment to attract the best staff and students.

Is this a signal of a future where Cardiff University focuses more on profitable international students than on the homegrown talent they emphasise as a priority? Only time will tell.

As I read through Vision 2035 and became increasingly frustrated by its lack of specificity, I hoped the delivery section would explicitly tell us something.

It does not.

It simply describes three “timelines” with little detail about, ironically, how it would actually be delivered.

The details of how this vague vision will be delivered will be laid out in transformation roadmaps, and the executive board will have complete oversight of the whole transformation programme, in line with the theme of centralisation and top-down leadership.

Besides its contents, what is telling of the irrelevance of Vision 2035’s flowery language is how few know much about it.

Gair Rhydd attempted to obtain a physical copy like the one VC Larner brought to the interview and took away with her, but when asking staff in the Centre for Student Life and the main building, no one knew what Vision 2035 was, let alone where we could find a physical copy.

Furthermore, Gair Rhydd’s own polling of students on campus found not one student who could confidently say what Vision 2035 is, let alone what it says.

As one academic put it: “Larner is banking on students not caring enough.”

If we, as students, genuinely care about the direction the university is taking and if our voices are to be heard, we must stand with academic staff, stay informed, and be loud.

Another academic stressed the importance of Gair Rhydd getting the following message to students:

“Staff across the university, both professional and academic, are committed to the well-being (both pastoral and educational) of students, though their ability to action positive changes in the face of increasing centralisation as well as broader job insecurity and institutional structures may be strained”.

Fellow students, stand alongside staff and stay informed.