Media Release UTSSA Condemns Academic Restructure as Harmful, Unjustified, and Lacking Consultation
Over 80 student representatives from across the University of Technology Sydney (UTS), including elected members of UTS Council and Academic Board, faculty board representatives, and leaders of the UTS Students’ Association, ActivateUTS, and more than 20 student societies, have issued a joint submission opposing the University’s Academic Change Proposal.
The submission strongly criticises the proposed restructure as a sweeping set of cuts that would reduce academic choice, erode educational quality, and fundamentally alter the nature of a UTS education.
The proposal would see:
● Over 100 courses and 1,000 subjects discontinued.
● A 31% reduction in the UTS subject catalogue.
● The elimination of degrees such as Public Health, Education, and International Studies.
● Mergers of distinct faculties including UTS Law, Business and the Transdisciplinary School into a new “Faculty of Business and Law.”
● The loss of electives focused on social impact, sustainability, and critical interdisciplinary learning.
“This is not simplification, it’s consolidation. And consolidation means loss: of academic identity, of staff expertise, and of student choice,” said Mia Campbell, President of the UTS Students’ Association (UTSSA). “This is not a restructure for students. It’s a restructure done to students.”
Students have raised five core concerns in the submission:
1. Loss of Choice: The proposed cuts remove unique and valuable learning opportunities, undermining student autonomy and specialisation. Degrees in critical areas such as Indigenous Studies, Education, and Public Health would disappear entirely.
2. Disciplinary Harm: By merging or dissolving academic units, the proposal would damage discipline integrity, weaken research capacity, and reduce the visibility of fields UTS has long championed, such as Social Justice, Creative Intelligence, and Environmental Sustainability.
3. Lack of Justification: The submission notes that many cuts are justified using vague criteria such as “strategic alignment” or “simplification,” without clear explanation. Even programs with strong enrolments and research success are being discontinued or merged without evidence of improved outcomes.
4. Lack of Consultation: Despite repeated claims that students were consulted, most elected representatives only learned the details of the restructure after it was announced. Major decisions appear to have been made behind closed doors, excluding both students and academic staff.
5. Student Impact: Although management insists current students will not be affected, the university’s own documents anticipate the opposite including larger classes, reduced student support, and limitations on subject access. Students in teach-out programs face unclear pathways and increased pressure to study full-time or transfer degrees.
“This process has been rushed, top-down, and fundamentally disconnected from the reality of student learning,” said Keira Murphy, Faculty Board Representative for TD School. “The idea that students are unaffected is simply false.”
The joint submission also questions the financial rationale for the changes. UTS’s own forecasts show that financial surplus can be achieved by 2029 even without these cuts yet senior management is proceeding with one of the most drastic restructures in the university’s history.
“The risk is not just to students now, but to the future of UTS as a university with purpose and principle,” said Sreekar Edulapalli, UTS Council Postgraduate Representative. “This proposal would gut the university’s social mission in favour of short-term metrics and corporate mimicry.”
The submission makes the following demands:
1. That the current Academic Change Proposal be paused immediately.
2. That genuine consultation with students and staff be undertaken before further changes.
3. That UTS commit to protecting disciplinary integrity and diversity of learning.
4. That all proposals be accompanied by transparent, evidence-based rationale.
5. That the university engage in open dialogue with the students it claims to represent.
“This is not about resisting change,” Campbell said. “It’s about demanding that change be done with integrity, with consultation, and with a vision for what public universities should stand for.”
