Previous page

Table of Contents

Next page

Fly-sheets reprinted

The following fly-sheets etc., are reprinted in accordance with the Council's Notice on Discussions and Fly-sheets (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 119).

Report of the Council on the structure of academic offices in the University, promotions procedures, and related matters

Votes are to be taken by ballot on Graces 1, 2, and 3 of 17 June 1998 and on the amendments of these Graces that have been proposed. These Graces are for the approval of the recommendations contained in the Report, dated 27 April 1998, of the Council on the structure of academic offices in the University, promotions procedures, and related matters.

The Council's Report was published on 30 April (Reporter, 1997-98, p. 575). It was discussed on 12 May (ibid., p. 658), and the Council published a Notice in response dated 8 June (ibid., p. 786). This Notice announced a number of modifications of the original recommendations of the Report; it also invited members of the Regent House to submit amendments of the Graces, and a further Notice, dated 27 July, was subsequently published giving details of the amendments submitted (ibid., p. 986).

Members of the Regent House are now invited to vote on the following proposals:

Grace 1

This Grace is for the approval of Recommendation I of the Report, which reads as follows:

I.  That a panel be established to consider Dr Evans's application for promotion in the light of the contemporary Cambridge context, and to make a recommendation accordingly to the General Board before the end of the Lent Term 1999.

Two amendments of this Grace were proposed, which in the Vice-Chancellor's opinion were substantially similar in their intended effect. Regulation 11(b) of the regulations for Graces of the Regent House (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 116) provides that in such a situation the Vice-Chancellor may select one of the two amendments proposed for submission to the Regent House. In accordance with this provision, the Vice-Chancellor has selected the following as the amendment to be voted on:

Amendment A

That Recommendation I be amended by adding the following proviso:

provided that, until further order, the Council undertake to establish a similarly constituted panel to consider the case of any applicant for promotion to a personal Readership or Professorship who has failed to gain such promotion and who, having exhausted the regular appeal procedures, is not satisfied with the outcome, such a panel to make recommendations to the General Board in respect of the person concerned in the light of the Cambridge context for the time being obtaining.

This amendment is proposed by the following members of the Regent House:

GRACE 2

This Grace is concerned with Recommendations II and IV of the Council's Report, which deal with detailed arrangements for the panel proposed in Grace 1. They read as follows:

II. That the panel comprise (a) an external chairman to be appointed by the Council with the agreement of Dr Evans, and (b) four other members, in a range of subjects, qualified by experience and personal attainment, such four members to be appointed by the Council and to include at least two chosen from a list of at least four names proposed by Dr Evans and also to include at least one external member proposed by the Council.

IV. That Dr Evans be deemed to have withdrawn her current application and be invited to resubmit it to the panel in accordance with the instructions contained in the General Board's booklet 'Procedure for the consideration of the establishment of personal Professorships and Readerships with effect from 1 October 1998' (the 'Yellow Book'); that the panel evaluate her application against the criteria for promotion required to be used by the General Board's Committee on personal Professorships and Readerships and in the light of reports from referees, two such referees to be nominated by Dr Evans and not more than three to be nominated by the panel; that a positive recommendation for promotion to either a Professorship or a Readership should require Dr Evans's application to be evaluated as meeting at least the relevant minimum level of attainment of successful candidates in either the 1997 or the 1998 promotions round, whichever is the lower; that the panel should have access to the papers considered by the General Board's Committee in respect of successful candidates in the 1997 and 1998 promotions rounds and borderline unsuccessful candidates in the same rounds, and at their own discretion should choose individual comparators from the successful candidates for the purpose of making their evaluation.

One amendment of this Grace has been proposed, as follows:

Amendment B

That Recommendation II be amended so as to read:

II. That any panel or panels established in accordance with Grace 1 be set up in the terms proposed by the Rt Hon. Sir Brian Neill, as an experienced Lord Justice of Appeal, namely with a Chairman of academic standing, preferably from the University of Oxford, with members acceptable to the University and to the person under consideration, and that the precise form of procedure to be adopted by such a panel be for the panel to determine.

This amendment is proposed by the following members of the Regent House:

Grace 3

This Grace is concerned with Recommendations V and VI of the Council's Report, which relate to the establishment of a Syndicate. They read as follows:

V. That a Syndicate be established to consider, in the light of the needs of the University for the recruitment and retention of academic staff and in the light of the Report, dated 3 June 1998, of the General Board on these matters (see Reporter, 1997-98, p. 804), the structure of academic offices in the University and their scales of stipends, and procedures for promotion; that the Syndicate have power to seek evidence from members of the Regent House and/or from expert witnesses of its own choosing as the Syndicate shall determine; and that the Syndicate be required to report to the University in the first instance not later than the end of the Lent Term 1999.

VI. That the membership of the Syndicate be as follows, individual members to be appointed by Grace:

One amendment of this Grace has been proposed, as follows:

Amendment C

That Recommendation VI be amended so as to read:

This amendment is proposed by the following members of the Regent House:

Grace 4

This Grace, which is for the approval of Recommendation VII of the Council's Report, relates to the detailed form of the proposals contained in Grace 3. The latter was put forward by the Council in preference to a similar Grace which had been initiated by members of the Regent House. The Council's reasons for doing this were explained in paragraph 7 of their Report (Reporter, 1997-98, p. 575), and the Regent House is invited to give formal approval to the Council's action. The Grace reads as follows:

VII.  That approval be given to the Council's decision to submit a Grace to the Regent House for the approval of Recommendations V and VI above, in place of the Grace set out in Annex 2 to the Council's Report (see Reporter, 1997-98, p. 578).

No amendment of this Grace has been proposed.

The ballot on these Graces and the amendments will be conducted by post. Ballot papers are enclosed. Members of the Regent House are asked to record their votes and to return their ballot papers in the envelope provided so as to arrive not later than 5 p.m. on Friday, 6 November 1998. Ballot papers received after that time will be invalid.

In accordance with arrangements approved by the Council, fly-sheets relating to this ballot are appended.

Proposal for the establishment of a Syndicate (Grace 3)

There is widespread dissatisfaction in the University about the career prospects it offers its academic staff, and about the ways in which it allocates resources for rewarding them. The career expectations of University teaching officers are still unsatisfactory. Salary scales are depressed by comparison with other universities in the UK. A high proportion of the members of the Regent House are College teaching officers or short-term contract research staff. We need to be able to offer them recognition and reward, too, within a proper career structure.

Setting up a Syndicate when there is a major area of concern in the University is an old Cambridge tradition. It was a series of Syndicates over fifty years which eventually got women admitted to full membership of the University.

The issues at present before us are large and complex and need to be looked at as a whole. A Syndicate can consider the various claims on our resources against one another: those of the good teachers; those of the outstanding researchers; those of the careful administrators; those of the all-rounders; those of the women and ethnic minorities and the disabled and other categories whose members still find it difficult to make their way among us; those of individuals we cannot persuade to come here unless we pay them special salaries against the claims to better pay and career-prospects of the long-serving staff we already have.

Problems of patronage and prejudice are still rife in the University, and the method of appointment to committees taking decisions which affect the career prospects of academic staff need scrutiny.

There is a great deal of waste of human and financial resources at present, and administrative burdens run at an unacceptable level. We are spending more and more on running ourselves and the resulting climate is a disincentive not an incentive to academic staff to produce good scholarship and to put teaching in the forefront of their activities.

A Syndicate proposes. The Regent House disposes. The Syndicate is not a substitute for our own decision-making process. But a Syndicate can give everyone an opportunity to voice concerns and to make positive suggestions. It can take an overview. It can bring in independent evidence, views from outside the University about what constitutes a fair system of rewards for our highly distinguished academic staff by comparison with those on offer elsewhere.

To this end it is especially important that its membership be as independent as possible. We encourage members of the Regent House to vote in favour of the amendment of Grace 3 (Amendment C), which will increase the independence of the membership of the Syndicate.

Proposals for the establishment of a panel (Grace 1) and for the composition of the panel (Grace 2)

Graces 1 and 2 of 17 June 1998 (Reporter, 1997-98, p. 823; see also p. 787) propose the establishment of a special panel to consider the personal promotion to Professor or Reader of a member of the Council, Dr G. R. Evans. Grace 2 would require the chairman and two of the panel's four other members to be people nominated or approved by Dr Evans, thus giving her a veto on a majority of its members. The amendment of Grace 2 proposed by, among others, Dr Evans herself, extends her powers even further by suggesting that all members should be approved by her. The amendment of Grace 1 proposes that such panels should be set up for all those who are dissatisfied with the outcome of promotions.

All these proposals and amendments seem to us to be wholly inappropriate. The competition for Readerships and Professorships in Cambridge is intense. The Promotions Committee has the unenviable task of deciding, in any one year, who should be promoted. We believe that they carry out this task with integrity, assessing all candidates against the same criteria which are laid down by the General Board. Furthermore, they are required to declare any personal or professional interest that might bias them for or against any applicant. To set up special panels to reconsider the case of dissatisfied candidates containing members approved by them seems to us to totally undermine the whole process, which strives as far as is humanly possible for the equitable treatment of all candidates. No one allows particular students to vet their examiners, or particular applicants for jobs to nominate or vet members or chairs of Appointments Committees or of Boards of Electors. Why, therefore, should individuals be given the right to set up panels of their own choosing to consider their case for promotion?

We recognise that the issue of promotions is a vexed one and that, given the competitive nature of the process and the calibre of individuals in Cambridge, there will be individuals who will be disappointed by the outcome. We do not believe, however, that the situation will be helped by a proliferation of special panels or a further extension of the appeal procedures over and above those already in place.

We believe that approval of these Graces, amended or unamended, would seriously damage the University's reputation for impartial consideration of all applications for personal promotion. We therefore urge all members of the Regent House to vote against the amendment of Grace 1 (Amendment A), against the amendment of Grace 2 (Amendment B), and against the unamended Graces themselves, by voting for option (c) in the ballot on both these Graces.

Proposal for the establishment of a Syndicate (Grace 3)

Grace 3 of 17 June 1998 (Reporter, 1997-98, p. 823; see also p. 787) proposes that 'a Syndicate be established to consider … the structure of academic offices in the University and their scales of stipends, and procedures for promotion; … and that the Syndicate be required to report to the University in the first instance not later than the end of the Lent Term 1999'. The amendment proposes that the Council's recommendation for the membership of the Syndicate should be made more precise.

We have no objection in principle to the establishment of such a Syndicate. Our concern is with the danger of delay in implementing proposals based on the General Board's Report on the recruitment, reward, and retention of academic and academic-related officers (Reporter, 1997-98, p. 804). When the Syndicate was first proposed, it was expected to report by the end of the Michaelmas Term 1998 (ibid., p. 576). Now the date has slipped to the end of the Lent Term 1999, and it is easy to suppose that the Syndicate might have difficulty in meeting this deadline. This might not matter if the University were not subject to any external constraints, but that is not the case.

The next Research Assessment Exercise will be in 2001 and the University's preparations should by now be gathering pace, as the General Board's recent Notice makes clear. If posts are to be filled by October 2000 they will have to be advertised by December 1999 at the latest and the terms of employment for Lecturers, Senior Lecturers, and Professors will have to be settled by the end of the academical year 1998-99. If there is first to be a Syndicate, however, its Report would have to be followed by a Discussion, after which Graces would have to be put to the Regent House; there might then be a request for a ballot, which would lead to further delay before any proposal could be approved. Such a procedure would almost certainly extend into the Michaelmas Term of 1999. Meanwhile the University would be disadvantaged in the competition for resources from the next RAE, since the inducements for Lecturers to remain here or for new Lecturers and Professors to fill either actual or proleptic vacancies would not be competitive with offers from other institutions.

There has already been prolonged consultation over the proposed restructuring. The General Board's original Notice was followed by a full Report (Reporter, 1997-98, p. 804); there have been several Discussions, and the General Board's latest Notice (see the Reporter of 21 October 1998) has responded to points that were raised. The only outstanding issue is that of the relationship between University and College teaching, which cannot be tackled until the conclusion of negotiations over College fees. We believe it would be a mistake to set up a Syndicate at this juncture. The time has now come for action rather than for further prolonged deliberation. We urge members of the Regent House to reject Grace 3 both in its original and in its amended form, and to vote for option (c) in the postal ballot on that Grace.

Proposal for the establishment of a panel (Grace 1)

Some of us are of opinion that the substantive motion is devoid of merit. Others of our number may take the contrary view. We are, however, united in regarding as unfair and unreasonable the proposal that the privilege of a special panel be reserved to a single named individual.

Proposal for the establishment of a Syndicate (Grace 3)

The Council have recommended the establishment of a Syndicate to consider the structure of academic offices in the University and their scales of stipends, and procedures for promotion. Independently, seventy-six members of the Regent House initiated a Grace proposing a very similar Syndicate (since subsumed into the Council's own proposal). That there is concern about the recruitment, reward, and retention of academic and academic-related officers at all levels was illustrated in the Discussion of 7 July 1998, where the pay and conditions of Professors, Readers, older Lecturers, younger Lecturers, and unestablished staff were touched upon.

If the deliberations of the Syndicate are to be widely accepted, we believe that it would be advantageous if the membership of the Syndicate were guaranteed to include a cross-section of University officers. The establishment of classes (c) and (d), as proposed in Amendment C, ensures this.

• The membership of classes (c) and (d) of the proposed Syndicate is similar to classes (b) and (c) of the Council, except that in the case of the Syndicate the restriction in class (d) is to holders of University offices, rather than to the whole of the Regent House; the restriction reflects the terms of reference of the Syndicate to consider the structure of academic offices in the University.
• The ratio of the size of classes (c) and (d) approximately reflects the ratio of senior to junior posts as of June 1998 (at that date the establishment of posts supported by the University Education Fund was: Professors 20%, Readers 16%, University Lecturers, University Assistant Lecturers, and Assistant Directors of Research 64%).
• The total membership of classes (c) and (d) is five, while that of classes (a), (b), and (e) is up to six. Hence, dependent on the nominations of the Council, it is possible for a majority of the Syndicate to be disinterested parties.

We urge members of the Regent House to support Amendment C by voting for option (b) in the ballot on Grace 3.

Report of the Council on the wearing of academical dress on 'scarlet' days

Votes are to be taken by ballot on Grace 1 of 29 July 1998 and the amendments thereof. As announced by the Vice-Chancellor in his Notice dated 2 October 1998 (Reporter, 1998-99, p. 4), three proposals have been submitted for the amendment of this Grace. The Grace reads as follows:

That the recommendations contained in paragraph 7 of the Report, dated 2 February 1998, of the Council on the wearing of academical dress on 'scarlet' days, as amended by the Council's Notice dated 27 April 1998, be approved.

The Council's Report was published on 11 February 1998 (Reporter, 1997-98, p. 386). It was discussed on 3 March (ibid., p. 496); the Council published a Notice in response dated 27 April (ibid., p. 566), and a further Notice dated 27 July (ibid., p. 951).

The recommendations of the Report, as amended by the Notice of 27 April, are as follows:

That the general regulations for academical dress (Statutes and Ordinances, 1998, p. 184) be amended as follows:

Regulation 1.

By replacing the words 'their proper academical dress' by the words 'the academical dress appropriate to their status in this University'.

Regulation 2.

By inserting after the word 'degrees' the words 'of this University'.

By renumbering Regulations 4-7 as 5-8 and by inserting the following as regulation 4:

4. Notwithstanding the foregoing regulations, on the occasions specified in Regulation 3 any member of the University who holds a degree of another university or degree-awarding institution may wear the academical dress appropriate to that degree; save that this provision shall not apply to the Chancellor, the Vice-Chancellor, the High Steward, the Deputy High Steward, the Commissary, the Proctors, the Registrary, or the Esquire Bedells, or to a deputy for any of those officers, or to any person presenting or being presented for a degree of the University.

If these recommendations are implemented, the relevant sections of the regulations for academical dress will read as follows:

1. Members of the University in statu pupillari shall be required to wear the academical dress appropriate to their status in this University when attending University ceremonies in the University Church or in the Senate-House, and at all other times at which the Vice-Chancellor may by public notice direct that academical dress be worn.

2. Members of the University not in statu pupillari shall wear the academical dress appropriate to their respective degrees of this University in the University Church, the Senate-House, and the Schools, and generally on public occasions and at official meetings, and on all other occasions on which the Vice-Chancellor may by public notice request that academical dress be worn.

3. The Doctors in the several Faculties shall wear their festal gowns in public on Christmas Day, Easter Day, Ascension Day, Whitsunday, Trinity Sunday, All Saints' Day, on the day appointed for the Commemoration of Benefactors, on the days of General Admission to Degrees, and on all other occasions on which the Vice-Chancellor may by public notice request that festal gowns be worn.

4. Notwithstanding the foregoing regulations, on the occasions specified in Regulation 3 any member of the University who holds a degree of another university or degree-awarding institution may wear the academical dress appropriate to that degree; save that this provision shall not apply to the Chancellor, the Vice-Chancellor, the High Steward, the Deputy High Steward, the Commissary, the Proctors, the Registrary, or the Esquire Bedells, or to a deputy for any of those officers, or to any person presenting or being presented for a degree of the University.

Three proposals have been submitted for the amendment of these recommendations, all of which relate to the wording of proposed Regulation 4. They are as follows (in each case bold type is used to indicate the substance of the amendment):

Amendment 1

It is proposed that Regulation 4 be amended so as to read:

4. Notwithstanding the foregoing regulations, on the occasions specified in Regulation 3 any member of the Regent House who holds a doctorate of another university or degree-awarding institution may wear a very close approximation (to be settled in detail by the Council at a later date) to the festal gown of a Doctor of Philosophy of this University; save that this provision shall not apply to the Chancellor, the Vice-Chancellor, the High Steward, the Deputy High Steward, the Commissary, the Proctors, the Registrary, or the Esquire Bedells, or to a deputy for any of those officers, or to any person presenting or being presented for a degree of the University.

This amendment is proposed by the following members of the Regent House:

Amendment 2

It is proposed that Regulation 4 be amended so as to read:

4. Notwithstanding the foregoing regulations, on the occasions specified in Regulation 3 any member of the University who does not hold a doctorate of the University but who holds a doctorate of another university or degree-awarding institution may wear the academical dress appropriate to that degree; save that this provision shall not apply to the Chancellor, the Vice-Chancellor, the High Steward, the Deputy High Steward, the Commissary, the Proctors, the Registrary, or the Esquire Bedells, or to a deputy for any of those officers, or to any person presenting or being presented for a degree of the University.

This amendment is proposed by the following members of the Regent House:

Amendment 3

It is proposed that Regulation 4 be amended by adding the following proviso at the end of the regulation:

nor shall it apply to any member of the Regent House attending a Congregation of the Regent House.

This amendment is proposed by the following members of the Regent House:

Voting is now requested on two issues:

1. Voting on the Council's proposals and Amendments 1 and 2

You are invited to vote on the following alternatives:

These four alternatives are mutually exclusive, and voters are invited to rank them in order of preference, in accordance with the procedure defined in the Single Transferable Vote regulations.

2. Voting on Amendment 3

Amendment 3 is compatible with any of the other proposals; this amendment has therefore been made the subject of a separate vote, which will take effect only if one of alternatives (a)-(c) above is approved.

The ballot on this Grace and the amendments will be conducted by post. A ballot paper is enclosed. Members of the Regent House are asked to record their votes and to return their ballot papers in the envelope provided so as to arrive not later than 5 p.m. on Friday, 6 November 1998. Ballot papers received after that time will be invalid.

In accordance with arrangements approved by the Council, fly-sheets relating to this ballot are appended.

Report of the Council on the wearing of academical dress on 'scarlet' days

As the Council state in this Report, there is a fairly common perception among members of the Regent House that degrees from universities other than Cambridge are not 'recognised' by the University. This perception is strongly reinforced by the tradition of allowing only academic dress related to Cambridge degrees to be worn on 'scarlet' days. This practice brings sharply into focus the differences between those who received doctorates from the University of Cambridge (including those who are 'incorporated' from Oxford and Trinity College, Dublin) and those whose doctorates are from elsewhere, who are only entitled to wear an M.A. gown. We believe that it is no longer acceptable to make this distinction. Cambridge is an international university which recruits graduates from universities world wide, and we believe that doctorates from other universities should be accorded the same status and recognition as those from Cambridge. We would therefore support the Council's proposal that festal dress worn on 'scarlet' days should be the academic dress appropriate to an individual's place of graduation, a practice already followed by many Colleges for their own festive events. For non-Cambridge graduates who do not have a doctorate and do not choose to take the Cambridge M.A., academic dress relating to their highest degree should be worn.

The amendments that have been proposed we also find unacceptable. That non-Cambridge doctors should have their own gown which is similar to, but not the same as, the one for Cambridge (proposed in Amendment 1) simply perpetuates the myth that the University does not recognise the degrees of other universities. Nor do we see any reason why recognition should be confined to doctorates, as suggested by Amendment 2. Amendment 3 is, of course, a not very subtle attempt to defeat the purpose of the original Grace, since Congregations of the Regent House are the main reason for days being declared 'scarlet'. There would simply be no point in passing the Grace if it were amended by Amendment 3.

We therefore urge you to support the abolition of a practice that many members of the Regent House find offensive by voting in favour of the unamended Grace, i.e. by voting for option (a) in the ballot.

Report of the Council on the wearing of academical dress on 'scarlet' days

Grace 1 of 29 July 1998: Amendment 1

The purpose of the proposed Amendment 1 is to permit any member of the Regent House who holds a doctoral degree of any university to wear a Cambridge gown, with scarlet, on `scarlet' days. In our view, this would offer at least as thorough recognition of other universities' doctorates as is implied by the Council's own proposals - and in contrast to the Council's proposals it would preserve some unity in dress (which some would value on aesthetic grounds) as a signal of corporate unity among members of the Regent House on special occasions.

We emphasise that the words 'this University' in line 4 of the proposed Regulation 4 mean Cambridge: the gown to be worn would be a Cambridge gown, distinguishable only by experts from the festal Ph.D. gown. We envisage that the basic black gown and the scarlet facing strips would be exactly the same as for the Cambridge Ph.D.; the only difference (to be settled later on expert advice) would lie in the presence or amount of strings or doctor's lace (the black material sown on the black sleeves).

Neither the Council's original proposal nor the other proposed amendments offer any improvement on the present rules for those who hold a doctorate of one of the several institutions which do not have academical dress of their own; and any necessary hiring of gowns of a remote institution may well be inconvenient. It should be simple to attach the proposed scarlet to the black Cambridge gown which those concerned may in any case wear on ordinary occasions.

The new gown would signify not a particular degree, but rather membership of the Regent House with doctoral status, that status having been achieved elsewhere. The amendment is restricted to members of the Regent House, since degrees of other universities may well have been considered in making the appointment leading to that membership (and so to the dress now proposed); and to those with doctorates, since those without may already wear the M.A. gown. There would be no need to keep lists of those invited to wear the new gown - decisions on wearing it would be left to the individuals concerned.

We are not convinced by the Council's recent notice about allowing variegated academical dress to symbolise our membership of the worldwide academic community. This may be appropriate at feasts and garden parties, but we wish to retain a sense of Cambridge unity, aesthetic and corporate, on formal (but festive) University occasions. In particular, we feel that Honorary graduands should be formally received into a Cambridge academic community distinguishable by its dress, rather than merely into another branch of a worldwide community of which they are probably already part.

We therefore urge those who wish to have only Cambridge gowns worn on formal University occasions, but also wish to offer recognition to members of the Regent House with doctorates from elsewhere, to prefer Amendment 1 to all the other alternatives, i.e. to vote for option (b) in the ballot.

Report of the Council on the wearing of academical dress on 'scarlet' days

The Council's proposals on the wearing of 'foreign' academical dress on scarlet days threaten the character of our University ceremonies, and of our corporate self-image, and we urge members of the Regent House to reject them. As the Council have conceded, their recommendations have nothing to do with the recognition of 'foreign' doctorates, or with the relative merits of different universities. They are founded upon a new conception of academical dress, which it is hoped does not command general support. Academical dress represents tradition, a sense of discipline which reflects good morale, and, above all, a sense of community and of pride in a common endeavour. Wearing the dress of other institutions on formal occasions tends to weaken this sense of common identity, and is both unnecessary and undesirable.

The Council have advanced two reasons for throwing aside our immemorial traditions. The first, in effect, is that some members of the University who are entitled to wear colourful robes in other universities want to be allowed to show them off here. This is patently discreditable. Our ceremonies are not, or should not be, mere fancy dress parades. Even if the principle were accepted, it seems unlikely that our Doctors of Philosophy would wish to be upstaged by those of another place wearing full scarlet. After much deliberation, the Council managed to invent a second reason in their Notice of 27 July: 'The Council believe that the exclusiveness implicit in this attitude is damaging to the University', and that wearing the dress of other universities in Cambridge 'would signify their membership not only of this University but of the worldwide academic community of which the University of Cambridge is a part'. This is self-evidently wrong. Wearing the academical dress of another university cannot possibly signify membership of this University. Nor can a congregation of the Regent House sensibly be likened to a world conference of representatives from other universities. At such a conference one might indeed expect to see colour and diversity. But in their own domestic assemblies, Cambridge dons should wear the academical habits of their own University. This is not an 'exclusive' practice, because every don is entitled to wear Cambridge academical dress - a privilege which is not enjoyed in most other universities. It is, on the contrary, inclusive. Our uniform habit is a symbol of belonging, and of that partial surrender of self which commitment requires. Wearing the dress of other institutions is a declaration of otherness, an indulgence of self-centredness, and a signal of uncertainty about our corporate worth. How can it conceivably be 'damaging to the University' for its members to wear Cambridge academical dress at Cambridge University ceremonies, and why do the Council provide no evidence to support this bizarre assertion?

Whatever the colour or form of our ancient congregation dress, it is an inheritance of inestimable moral value which should not be cast aside to satisfy individual vanity. We urge the Regent House to reject the recommendations, whether or not they are amended in any of the ways proposed, and to vote for option (d) in the ballot.

Report of the Council on the wearing of academical dress on 'scarlet' days

Grace 1 of 29 July 1998: Amendment 2

The purpose of this Amendment is to ensure that the proposed change does not go further than the Council intend. The reasoning of the Council is predicated upon a sense of 'offence' allegedly felt by some members of the Regent House whose only doctorates are from other universities. This reasoning does not extend to holders of Cambridge doctorates, who should continue to be bound by Cambridge dress regulations.

Report of the Council on the wearing of academical dress on 'scarlet' days

Grace 1 of 29 July 1998: Amendment 3

The purpose of this Amendment is to preserve the special position of congregations as assemblies of members of the Regent House. The Council have recognised this to some extent by excepting some of the officers of the University from the proposed change. But the distinction is illogical. All members of the Regent House are voting members of the academical legislature and from time immemorial have worn congregation dress when assembling for that purpose. All of them are entitled to wear Cambridge academical dress, which symbolises their common and equal membership of the University legislature, and (whatever may come to be tolerated in other situations) should obviously wear this traditional dress at congregations. Members of the Regent House do not attend congregations simply in their own right, as distinguished graduates, nor as representatives of a world-wide community, but as members of the legislative body of this University.

Report of the Council on the wearing of academical dress on 'scarlet' days

Members of the Regent House are understandably puzzled about Council thinking on the wearing of academical dress on scarlet days. In their Notice of 27 July (Reporter, 1997-98, p. 951) they assert that the current regulations cause 'resentment' and, as a trial run of the current proposals, we witnessed the spectacle of a member of Council openly flouting the regulations by up-staging the Honorary Graduands at the Honorary Degree Congregation in June.

Close reading of the Council's earlier Notice (Reporter, 1997-98, p. 566) surely turns puzzlement into astonishment. Few readers would guess that, at the Discussion on 3 March (ibid., p. 496), speaker after speaker after speaker spoke against the Council proposals and there was scarcely a word in support. Even fewer would appreciate that the same proposals were rejected outright by the Senate-House Syndicate, which is the proper body for considering such matters.

The Council proposals will have an effect exactly contrary to that intended. The relatively drab appearance of the Cambridge Ph.D. gown, even in its festal form, will give the impression that the University regards Cambridge doctorates as inferior to non-Cambridge doctorates. Replacing one kind of perceived offence by another hardly constitutes progress.

We urge members of the Regent House to reject the proposals to allow polychromatic gowns on scarlet days by voting against the Grace, i.e. by voting for option (d) in the forthcoming ballot.

Previous page

Table of Contents

Next page

Cambridge University Reporter, 18 November 1998
Copyright © 1998 The Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of the University of Cambridge.