What the situation at Nottingham tells us about the national picture for Modern Languages and why the sector should pay attention

This blog was kindly written by Professor Pierre-Alexis Mével, Professor of Media Accessibility and Audiovisual Translation at the University of Nottingham.

At the time of writing, the University of Nottingham has delayed its decision on the future of Modern Languages, and indeed all alternative proposals submitted as part of Future Nottingham 2. The review of alternative proposals is ongoing, with outcomes now expected… sine die. In one sense, this delay is simply another step in a long and difficult process, though colleagues will feel especially distraught that the window to take voluntary redundancy closes before the outcomes of alternative proposals will be known. The delay also offers a moment to reflect on what this case reveals about the wider landscape for Modern Languages, and for SHAPE subjects more broadly, with threats of cuts across UK higher education now fully becoming very real, like at the University of Exeter, with no doubt more to follow suit.

Because what is happening at Nottingham is most definitely not an isolated event. It is a case study in a national pattern of fragility, regional inequality and strategic misalignment between institutional pressures and the country’s long‑term skills needs.

Unprecedented mobilisation

The first thing the Nottingham case makes visible is the sheer scale of mobilisation around Modern Languages. Over recent months, support has come from every corner of the sector: more than 950 colleagues working in languages across UK higher education, nearly 400 secondary teachers, national bodies including the University Council for Languages (UCFL), the Society for French Studies, the Association of University Languages Centres (AULC), the Association of British and Irish Lusitanists (ABIL), the Chartered Institute of Linguists (CIOL) and the Institute of Translation and Interpreting (ITI), and interventions from MPs and members of the House of Lords via the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Modern Languages. Alumni, employers, students and members of the public have also contributed thousands of testimonials and over 21,000 petition signatures on the campaign website. This portfolio of evidence of support was submitted to the University of Nottingham’s Executive Board, Council and Senate as well as to the Future Nottingham Strategy and Steering Committee.

Mobilisation on this scale is rare, and the support has been heartwarming. There are two ways of looking at it: either this is simply an echo chamber or Modern Languages are widely recognised as strategically significant, academically, civically, economically and culturally. The sheer scale of the response suggests it is the latter and mirrors a deep concern that regional access to languages is eroding  and that the consequences of losing provision extend far beyond any single institution and have ramifications on social mobility.

Cold spots and regional inequality

The British Academy’s recent report, Cold Spots: Mapping Inequality in SHAPE Provision in UK Higher Education, provides a clear national context for understanding this concern. The report identifies growing disparities in SHAPE provision across the UK, with Modern Languages among the most vulnerable disciplines. It highlights the emergence of ‘subject cold spots’, (so Languages, like at Nottingham, are not the only target), that is, regions where entire subjects become unavailable to students, leaving communities without access to key areas of knowledge and skills.

Languages are very exposed here: the report shows that provision is already uneven, with significant gaps emerging in parts of the Midlands, the North and the devolved nations. Following the closure of Modern Languages programmes at Leicester from September 2026, if Modern Languages were to disappear from Nottingham, the greater East Midlands would become one of the largest language cold spots in the country. In practice, this would mean that a region of over five million people would lose access to university‑level language education. This is a loss for schools, employers, cultural organisations and civic life, the long‑term consequences of which are difficult to fully comprehend.

The case of Nottingham therefore illustrates, in real time, the dynamics described in the British Academy’s analysis: narrowing regional opportunity that is shrinking student choice, and the risk that important knowledge and skills that may simply become sacrificed on the altar of profitability, and a general sense that universities have lost sight of their civic mission, amidst decades of adverse government policies forecast to continue for the foreseeable future.

A misalignment between market pressures and national needs

The fragility of Modern Languages comes as a consequence of declining demand. However, the BA report highlights that this is a structural issue shaped by the marketised environment in which universities now operate. SHAPE subjects tend to be teaching‑intensive, lower‑margin and more vulnerable to fluctuations in recruitment. As far as Modern Languages are concerned, student recruitment pipelines have been broken since the National Curriculum dropped languages after Year 9.  In a financially strained sector (though even this point is largely contested, particularly at Exeter), these pressures can lead institutions to make decisions that are rational at the local level but damaging in aggregate.

The problem is that this market logic is misaligned with national skills needs. The Russell Group’s recent report on skills shortages highlights the importance of languages, intercultural competence and communication for the UK’s global competitiveness. For anyone who has so much as a passing understanding of languages, this is not exactly a surprise. Employers consistently report difficulty recruiting graduates with language skills. Government departments, from the Foreign Office to the Home Office, rely on linguistic expertise for diplomacy and intelligence. Schools depend on a pipeline of trained language teachers, yet provision continues to contract, triggering a feedback loop: fewer university programmes mean fewer teachers mean fewer school options mean fewer pupils taking languages at GCSE and A Level mean further decline in university provision.

The Nottingham case therefore raises a broader question: how can the UK maintain national capacity in strategically important subjects when institutional incentives (finances, but also a pervasive and disconcerting sense for university managers that language programmes are ‘complex’) pull in the opposite direction?

Languages (still) matter

We note from the reports cited above that the importance of Modern Languages is often framed in terms of employability, but the stakes are wider. Yes, languages underpin diplomacy, trade, security, but also, and perhaps less palpably, cultural understanding and community cohesion. They support childhood learning, global engagement and the fight against misinformation. They are part of the UK’s intellectual infrastructure.

The Nottingham case makes these stakes visible. It shows how quickly regional capacity can erode, and there is a compelling case that once lost, it is very difficult to rebuild.

Governance and the need for coordinated stewardship

The alternative proposal submitted by the Department of Modern Languages and Cultures at Nottingham is detailed, evidence‑based and aligned with national policy concerns, as all supporters pointed out in their letters to the University. The delay in the final decision is perceived locally with varying levels of cynicism, to put it mildly. A more charitable outlook can perhaps recognise the complexity of weighing these proposals against institutional pressures.

In the end, the case highlights a broader governance challenge: universities are being asked to make decisions with national consequences, but without a national framework to support them. The British Academy is clear that the sector cannot solve this alone and that coordinated stewardship is needed, a shift from reactive decision‑making to proactive policy that protects regional access and national capability. Is anyone listening?

A moment of national significance

Whatever the final decision at Nottingham, the case has already illuminated something essential: the future of Modern Languages and other disciplines cannot – rather should not – be left to institutional market forces. The stakes are too high and the consequences too far‑reaching to be left in the hands of small groups of people whose (growing) salaries depend on short- to mid-term survival.

These warnings should be heeded, as all the people who have rallied behind the Department of Modern Languages and Cultures show, and yet they aren’t, and there is a growing sense that the demise of UK universities is the result of a failure of reason and common sense. Ultimately, there is a very strong risk that the case of Modern Languages at Nottingham will become just anecdotal evidence of the decline of UK Higher Education.