Over the last year governance within Welsh universities has come under increasing scrutiny as their leaders have struggled to cope with the profound changes facing the sector.
The disappointing response from many - characterised by opaque decision-making, public relations disasters, and questionable financial stewardship - seems symptomatic of deeper failures in accountability.
While higher education remains critical to our economic and cultural future, the systems meant to safeguard it are struggling to keep pace.
As we’ve all seen in the press over recent weeks, an erosion of transparency lies at the heart of the sector’s accountability crisis. Universities are funded through a mix of public grants, subsidised student loans, and charitable status, yet they often operate with the secrecy of private corporations. Time and again, we’ve seen limited publication of minutes relating to ongoing crises, with decisions increasingly made behind closed doors and this lack of visibility is completely unacceptable for institutions that claim to serve the public good.
The situation is worsened by what appears to be a growing culture of fear within some institutions with evidence of university staff being threatened with disciplinary action or dismissal for criticising senior management.
Whistleblowers, union leaders, and academics who question strategic decisions or leadership performance are frequently sidelined. Several cases have emerged in which staff who raised concerns over restructuring or student welfare have reported being marginalised or pressured into silence, particularly when criticism is aired publicly or online.
This is wholly unacceptable, and the concept of academic freedom must not stop at research topics or lecture content. Instead, it must extend to a university’s internal culture, allowing staff and students to question, challenge, and engage in open debate about how their institution is run. When those who care deeply about the future of their university are silenced or punished, the institution loses one of its most valuable resources namely honest feedback from those who study and work there and who really care about its future.
The structure of university governance itself is often part of the problem and many have noted how many of those governing bodies tasked with oversight are populated by individuals either too closely aligned with executive leadership or too distant from the day-to-day realities of teaching and research. Staff and student voices are often underrepresented or ignored entirely and instead of functioning as critical friends, these boards can become passive enablers who rubber-stamp decisions with little challenge or independent judgment.
Those serving on university governing bodies must realise that accountability is not simply about financial compliance and is instead a duty to students, staff, and the wider community. That means publishing board minutes, involving a broader cross-section of the university community in strategic planning, and strengthening external regulation.
Much of the financial turmoil now facing Welsh universities could have been avoided had governing bodies done their job properly. The buck ultimately stops with them and their role is not simply to support vice-chancellors, but to hold them to account, something which many have clearly failed to do. Instead of challenging flawed business models, unsustainable growth plans, or risky international ventures, too many boards have allowed senior management teams to pursue short-term strategies that have now left institutions vulnerable.
If there is to be meaningful reform, it must start with a wholesale reassessment of how governing bodies are appointed, how they operate, and whether they are truly fit for purpose.
And this raises a fundamental question namely where has the Welsh Government been during this crisis and why has there been no serious intervention in what appears to be a widespread failure of governance? The argument that universities are ‘independent institutions’ no longer holds water when they are funded, either directly or indirectly, by the public purse. If student finance, research grants, and capital funding all flow from government, why is there so little evidence of serious scrutiny or intervention, especially when the consequences affect students, staff, and the long-term health of our communities?
Another convenient excuse for inaction is that responsibility for oversight now rests with MEDR, the body responsible for post-16 education in Wales. While MEDR was established to bring coherence and strategic direction to the sector, there is little evidence it is actively interrogating decisions made by university leadership or intervening when governance failures arise. If universities are to remain publicly funded institutions, oversight can’t be passive or politically convenient and must be assertive, transparent, and rooted in the public interest not
This prompts another uncomfortable but necessary question namely is the relationship between Medr (the new Welsh Government sponsored body overseeing post 16 education in Wales) and the university sector in Wales too cosy?
When warning signs about the financial health of several institutions are ignored, the public has every right to question whether the regulator is doing enough or whether it has become too closely aligned with those it is meant to oversee. Anyone who has served on boards in either the public or private sector knows that effective governance demands independence, scrutiny, and constructive tension. Without that, the risks to transparency, quality, and public trust will only deepen.
Finally, there is a whiff of hypocrisy surrounding institutions that claim to be civic universities yet offer little evidence of meaningful engagement with local communities, staff, students or, more importantly, of placing integrity above image. At a time when universities face financial pressures, demographic shifts, and global uncertainty, public trust is their most valuable asset, but it is not something that institutions can arrogantly demand and must be earned through transparency, accountability, and a genuine willingness to change the leadership and governance of higher education.
