Extraordinary General Meeting – 25th Feb 2026

Motions received:

  1. No to PEP detriments and encroachment on academic freedom
  2. Branch Support for Test Case on Statute 18 and Race Discrimination
  3. Against Repression of UCL Palestine Solidarity Movement

Motion 1: No to PEP detriments and encroachment on academic freedom

UCL UCU notes

  1. The implementation of the PEP (Programme Excellence Project) at UCL was declared to AB, the Education Committee, and the university more widely as focusing on clarifying programmes and making accessing them more student friendly.
  2. At no point was the idea of PEP presented as a basis for closing or scaling down operational and intellectually viable modules by direction from Department and/or Faculty leadership, or as an appropriate mode of implementation.
  3. No indication was given that PEP would challenge the academic freedom of individual staff teaching viable modules and programmes.
  4. However, no safeguards were put on the project to prevent its implementation being used to attack academic freedom, promote ‘pet projects’, or threaten detriments and redundancies, according to the wishes of local managers.
    a) This has meant that in some departments staff are receiving notices out of the blue that their modules are in danger of being deleted, or scaled down, regardless of viability, student uptake, or academic importance, and without their genuine prior consultation as to how these modules fit in an academic offer, or as to the academic judgment of the relevant teaching teams and communities.
    b) In these cases, no alternative arrangements have been consulted with these colleagues in advance of threatening their modules, which goes against basic requirements for organisational change.
    c) In some cases, removal of modules will result in diminishing requirements for work of a particular kind, and could be used to threaten loss of FTE, detriment, or even redundancy.

UCL UCU believes  

  1. The structure of programmes and modules, within the requirements of certification with the OfS and within what is viable for UCL, is a matter of academic freedom, not managerial “shaping up”.
  2. The criteria for consulting on changes to modules or programmes must be transparent, rather than handed down from above by local, faculty, or UCL managers.
  3. Education in a university is a matter for staff engaged in instruction and the design of modules and programmes, it is not a matter simply to be decided by university mangers, locally or centrally. That is a basic requirement of academic freedom.
  4. The contractual position of staff engaged in teaching must not be varied or threatened based on management (e.g., departmental leadership, faculty leadership) decisions, but requires consultation, consent, and academic probity.
  5. Teaching teams on programmes should be directly consulted, and consent sought from individuals for making changes of academic import.

UCL UCU resolves

  1. To obtain, at minimum, a “no redundancies” commitment from UCL in relation to all PEP changes.
  2. To obtain a “no detriment” commitment from UCL in relation to all PEP changes.
  3. To launch a survey of members on how PEP is being implemented in departments across UCL to determine the extent to which active modules or staff are being threatened.
  4. To press the university senior leadership and local senior leadership to create academic committees that are consulted on programme changes, and that in turn consult and seek agreement and consent from individual instructors, for any changes to their modules (within what is viable) as a matter of academic freedom.
  5. To encourage our members on the Academic Board to raise this as a pressing matter of academic governance and academic freedom, and name and list the departments where module changes are being imposed without explicit criteria or despite concerns raised by academic staff.


Motion 2: Branch Support for Test Case on Statute 18 and Race Discrimination

UCL UCU notes:

  1. UCL has recently sought to ‘reform’ its Statute 18 disciplinary procedure. One of its main provisions is to permit academic staff to bring legal representation to disciplinary tribunals where dismissal is considered. UCL also engages lawyers, and the process becomes a quasi-court procedure.
  2. These cases rarely see the oversight of the UK courts. But a recent case brings UCL’s operation of this procedure in front of the Employment Tribunal court process.
  3.  In this case, a Black member of UCL staff was subject to a large number of untrue allegations by a collaborator. UCL sought to have him dismissed, and for his research, based on his PhD, to be taken away from him.
  4. After a 3-year Disciplinary Process, UCL struck out 16 of the 21 remaining allegations at the Tribunal, and 4 out of the 5 remaining allegations at the Appeal stage. 
  5. Despite striking out all charges of harassment and victimisation, UCL gave him a 2-year written warning, forced him to undertake punitive ’behavioural’ coaching and separate monthly ‘mentoring’ for 2 years. The member of staff, of otherwise excellent standing, has not been permitted to restart his research, and has been prevented from applying for academic promotion (Grade 10) for 2 years.
  6. In order to get justice, the member has submitted a claim at Employment Tribunal for race discrimination, harassment and victimisation by UCL. The branch committee agreed £10,000 donation to his legal costs at the internal Statute 18 Tribunal process, but the member has otherwise had to spend his own money, so far, in the region of £25,000.
  7. UCL has instructed a large legal team, and is seeking to have his claims struck out at an Open Preliminary Hearing on 5 May 2026.

UCL UCU resolves:

  1. To make a donation of up to £12,000 to the member’s continued legal representation for the Open Preliminary Hearing on 5 May 2026.
  2. To support and advertise the public campaign/crowdfunding to be launched for his Final Employment Tribunal Hearing (January 2028).


Motion 3: Against Repression of UCL Palestine Solidarity Movement

UCL UCU notes:

  1. On February 12, UCL allowed police onto campus to oversee a peaceful protest during the Student Day of Action for Palestine.
  2. Jamie Bradshaw, a UCL PhD student, university worker and branch member, was arrested by over 30 police officers, who were already on campus. After being held for 12 hours he was released with no charges. UCL has since suspended his degree and banned him from campus.
  3. UCL has refused to cut ties with arm companies and stop its complicity in the genocide of Palestinians despite persistent advocacy from both students and staff, including from this branch.

UCL UCU believes:

  1. This is a blatant attack on the democratic rights of students and staff to freedom of speech and to peacefully protest UCL’s complicity with an ongoing genocide.
  2. UCL called the police without any signs of trouble. Their aim was not to protect students but to intimidate and disperse a protest that harms UCL’s public image during its bicentenary. This is utter hypocrisy from a university that claims freedom of speech is vital for academic life.
  3. UCL is simultaneously carrying out attacks on staff jobs, wages, and workloads, which this branch is currently disputing. The heavy-handed method of inviting police onto campus for arrests could be applied to staff disputes and future action.

UCL UCU resolves:

  1. To condemn unequivocally UCL management’s repression of the Palestine movement and particularly the manner in which Jamie Bradshaw’s case has been treated.
  2. To distribute to its membership the petitions against the treatment of this case by UCL management and the Metropolitan police, with encouragement to sign.
  3. To encourage its membership to attend the protest against UCL’s treatment of this case on Monday March 2, and to send a speaker to the protest affirming the branch’s solidarity with this cause.
  4. In line with this branch’s established policy of supporting the Palestine movement, to issue an open letter to the Provost reiterating that UCL cannot claim to support free speech or ‘disruptive thinking’ if it restricts the right to protest.