Even for those familiar with bleak times, this has been a particularly bad few weeks in UK higher education.

Confirmed job losses at the University of Essex were followed by further bad news from Hertfordshire and Nottingham. In each, cuts and redundancies extend across multiple faculties and subject areas, making clear—as has long been evident—that this is a crisis for the future provision and purpose of post-18 education. As these latest announcements show, very few institutions—be they from the Russell Group or a Pre- or Post-92—are now immune from the shockwaves that follow a decade of rampant marketisation and political neglect.

For historians, the chaos wrought over this decade is especially evident in the case of Hertfordshire. In the 2014 REF, UoH History was ranked first for impact and fifth overall for research excellence in this unit of assessment. This outstanding performance, seen in previous and subsequent assessments, was and remains a model of excellent scholarship, grant capture and impact. Now, a decade on—after the lifting of caps on student numbers, managerial boosterism, and years of pervasive political hostility towards the humanities within HE—Hertfordshire seeks to close its undergraduate History programmes alongside those in Philosophy, English Language and Linguistics, English Literature and Creative Writing.

In late 2023, Councillors from the Royal Historical Society spent a day with Hertfordshire’s historians. We saw at first hand the quality, creativity and distinctiveness of the teaching, research and engagement being undertaken. It was clear that Hertfordshire historians continue to pioneer forms of creative public and community-based history and maintain their reputation as leaders in this field. We were told by a (now departed) senior manager that UoH History and its historians were ‘a portfolio the university will guard very carefully’.

The closing of programmes in History, and the wider humanities, is a squandering of distinctive scholarly assets for which Hertfordshire, rightly, has received praise and funding over the past decade. Everyone appreciates that numerous UK universities face financial difficulty. Yet, according to its new Vice Chancellor, Hertfordshire is in ‘a stable financial position’, with cuts to History and the humanities ‘not being taken in response to an immediate financial crisis, but as part of a responsible approach to maintain a strong, focused and sustainable academic portfolio’.

The impact of proposed programme closures is extensive: for staff; for partners with whom they work in the region; for the local economy; and, of course, for current and potential students. The ‘East of England’, the HESA region in which UoH sits, already has few degree opportunities for those wishing to study History. The negative regional effect of cuts and course losses at East Anglia and now Essex, will be exacerbated if Hertfordshire ends its undergraduate programmes. It’s not just about loss of subject choices. In addition to its reputation for quality scholarship and engagement, Hertfordshire History stands out in government data as a department teaching local first generation students who go on to earn salaries above the median for graduates in our discipline.

Each university action is local and specific—be it Essex, Hertfordshire, Nottingham or one of the other institutions with which the Society is in contact. But we’ve now had years of such actions, and the consequences are cumulative and huge. A thousand cuts result in a skilled, expert profession being diminished and demoralised by job losses and repeated restructures. They lead to a diminished student experience, as degree options are dropped or programmes closed where cold spots emerge. They mean the erosion of historical knowledge, understanding and judgement when there’s urgent need for context, civic understanding and humanity.

History, as taught and researched in our universities, is fundamental to this. We need to be clearer and more vocal about the consequences of these losses. Governments in Scotland and Wales have finally realised that a viable, meaningful higher education sector needs greater oversight and control, and cannot be left wholly to the market. Now Westminster needs to wake up to this need for joined-up thinking, if we are to limit the number of future Essexes, Hertfordshires and Nottinghams—to name just three. UK universities are a precious commodity. Ten years of dropping this commodity to see where the pieces land is not an education policy worthy of the name. It is neglect bordering on vandalism.

 

The President, Officers and Councillors of the Royal Historical Society