Preparing Universities for the Coming Storm  

Few crises are as predictable as the one threatening to engulf the university sector as academic institutions find themselves increasingly under the spotlight. 

In a shift towards additional public accountability, the government has announced it plans to publish league tables ranking institutions by the proportion of students going on to graduate jobs or further study. One government source told The Times that “a hard rain” will fall on universities that approve executive pay increases while letting down students on outcomes. 

Yet even universities that currently deliver strong value for money are not immune from reputational shocks. From student controversies and free speech disputes to structural changes and major incidents, no university is crisis-proof.  

So how can universities strengthen their resilience?  

Consider the types of crises that might affect the university 

There are many risks – from tragedies involving students or staff, to restructures, student activism, free speech issues and course or campus closures. Effective crisis management starts with understanding and anticipating what could go wrong, before it does. 

Preparation is key 

Every institution needs a clear, practical crisis manual with response protocols including spokesperson hierarchies, key message templates and media handling processes. 

However, a manual alone isn’t enough. Scenarios should be regularly stress-tested in workshop exercises to ensure everyone understands their role. Planning should involve risk, legal and governance, not just the comms department. 

Consider where flashpoints may arise, and run regular scenario-based workshops that reflect real sector-specific challenges which could include: 

• A media exposé on the gender or ethnicity pay gap 

• Viral allegations of censorship linked to a speaker invitation or cancellation 

• Scrutiny from pressure groups around investments 

Clarify roles and responsibilities 

The Vice Chancellor should lead the operational response, advised by the comms director. They should be supported by a small, trusted team, which may include a legal adviser. 

The Chair of the Board should usually only provide oversight, not quotes – unless there is a governance crisis or an issue involving the Vice Chancellor personally. The communications team should control the timing, tone and technical execution. 

How to stay ahead of reputational risk 

A new law designed to protect free speech is coming into force in August, which will cover everything from protests to teaching and debates.  

Review policies now to ensure they are in line with the new laws. But be aware of the risk of a potential clash between controversial speakers and the need to ensure inclusivity and protection for marginalised groups.  

Ensure that staff make clear on their social media accounts that their views are their own, especially if they state their affiliation with the university or share research publicly.  

Proactive monitoring is crucial. Compile and maintain a list of departments, staff or topics with elevated profiles or sensitivities, like the Israel-Gaza war, for example, to ensure you have early sight of posts that may be controversial. 

Consider a vulnerabilities audit to identify risks or blind spots such as pay disparities, past grievances, or academic outcomes gaps. 

Deciding when (and how) to respond 

Some issues are highly visible and demand a public and swift response. Use a simple test: if it is wrong, loud and viral, you likely need to respond. 

For other issues it is worth carrying out a ‘risk vs amplification’ test. Will staying quiet help de-escalate the situation, or look evasive or complicit?  

It is okay to ignore some requests, especially those currently affecting the sector at large, like financial challenges and restructuring. Placing your head above the parapet may mean you become the focus, as seen recently in coverage about Vice Chancellor salaries. Those who took the time to explain themselves attracted the most attention.   

An initial question about diversity policies could be the opening gambit of a broader, hostile story. Respond calmly, narrowly and avoid unnecessary comment. 

Timing and tone 

 In a crisis, how you speak matters as much as what you say. Don’t rush to comment – wait long enough to verify facts, but not so long that you seem evasive or allow others to define the narrative. If there is a need to respond, statements should be calm, accountable and human – never defensive or overly legalistic. 

It’s okay to limit replies when you are still verifying facts or legal processes are live. Use statements like “we’re aware and assessing the situation” to acknowledge the issue. 

Avoiding self-inflicted reputational wounds 

Many crises escalate not because of the issue itself, but because of how it’s handled. Common missteps include giving unnecessary interviews; issuing cold statements (especially where students or staff are affected); overpromising only to under-deliver and allowing; trying to supress or spin legitimate concerns and allowing internal divisions to leak externally.