< Previous page ^ Table of Contents Next page >

Report of Discussion

Tuesday, 26 November 2002. A Discussion was held in the Senate-House of the following Report:

Annual Report of the General Board, dated 30 October 2002, on the establishment of personal Professorships and Readerships (p. 293).

Dr P. A. LINEHAN:

Mr Deputy Vice-Chancellor, on reading this Report, I was rather sharply reminded of the parting shot of a Spanish bishop I once got on the wrong side of, who, as we went our separate ways, graciously remarked that it had been 'almost a pleasure' - 'casi un placer' - to meet me.

For on reviewing the roll-call of Professors- and Readers-nominate, the distinction of whose achievement it is that keeps Cambridge where it rightly belongs in the estimation of the wider world, one's pleasure (mine certainly) is almost unalloyed. But, I'm sorry to have to say, only almost.

For even the General Board may nod at times - as some who are present here this afternoon have had regular occasion to remark at previous Discussions, though of course never without helpfully reminding us that almost as often as the Board do nod there is always a remedy readily available.

Let us suppose, therefore, Mr Deputy, that the Board were to appear not so much just to have nodded, or to have nodded off, on this occasion, but even to have fallen asleep on the job altogether. Let us even suppose they had been misdirected, to the extent of including in their list someone whose presence there seemed liable not only to raise fundamental questions about the seriousness of the University's commitment to the cause of learning and research, but even to make the University a laughing-stock.

Well, in circumstances such as these, would members of this House be reduced to mumping in corners? Democratic academics as they have been trained up to be, would they allow themselves - would we allow ourselves - to be taken liberties with? No, of course not. We wouldn't stand for it, would we? Just as we wouldn't stand for individual members of this House attempting to bounce us into decisions in advance of Discussions, taking such decisions for granted, even promoting them as faits accomplis in the newspaper press. We'd think it d****d impertinence, and expect the Council to exert themselves.

And, if the Council were to prove spineless, what else would we do? With no axe to grind other than in the interests of scholarship, presumably what we would do as to the main point would be to consider the case on its merits, look for quality (not allowing ourselves to be deluded merely by quantity), and proceed in accordance with the Statutes and Ordinances to question the wisdom (I had almost said the logic) of the Board's reasoning.

In conclusion, Mr Deputy, with the assurance of the availability of that remedy in mind, and in the same spirit as that of my Spanish bishop, may I therefore enquire whether it be the Council's intention to grace the recommendations in Part I of the Board's Report en bloc?

 

 

Dr D. R. J. LAMING:

Mr Deputy Vice-Chancellor, I congratulate those who have been promoted this year, especially Dr G. R. Evans. In respect of her published work Dr Evans has long deserved to be a Professor. She it was who initiated the revision of our promotion procedures in 1994 (Reporter, 1994-95, pp. 255-7), and she has been leading the press for reform ever since. So it is pleasing to see that she is at last promoted. But, otherwise, it is sad to see how little has actually been accomplished towards a fairer, less biased, procedure. To be sure, there has been a great increase in bureaucracy, and the administrative mechanics are more precisely laid down. But in the matter of how those are selected to whom promotion is offered, we are little further forward than we were in 1994.

Before the present reforms began, promotion depended on your Head of institution putting your curriculum vitae before the Faculty Promotions Committee. If your Head of institution chose not to do so, you were not promoted. The inequity in that procedure is obvious. Now officers make their own applications for promotion and, if one does not look at all closely at what follows, that might appear satisfactory. But your Head of institution sits on the Faculty Promotions Committee and success there is dependent on your Head arguing your case. If your Head chooses not to do so or, more likely, argues it with a calculated lack of enthusiasm, you do not get promoted. Heads of institutions have their own agendas. Even worse, your Head of institution gets to make out the Case for Promotion on your behalf, and the opportunities for massage there are limitless. So, applicants are about as dependent on the support of their Head of institution today as they were in 1994. The extent of that dependence was brought out by the calculations I quoted in my speech on 12 November (Reporter, 2002-03, pp. 328-30). We have scarcely moved forward at all. Promotion is still in effect a three-stage process, with an initial committee of one.

It is easy to see why progress has been derisory. The General Board, which has overseen all the revision of our promotions procedures, is chiefly the representative of Heads of institutions. It is not going to pass up a source of patronage, so useful in rewarding favoured subordinates and disciplining others. If a Head of institution is given to bullying or harassment, this is an easily defended, covert, way to do it.

The General Board will say, because it has said it before, 'the Regent House has decided, as the result of a ballot, how it wishes to proceed.' (Reporter, 1998-99, p. 466). So let us look at what actuates members of the Regent House. Many will argue that it will come to Buggins's turn sooner or later and protest is not worth the hassle. Some will reason that their chances of promotion, dependent on patronage, are actually better than if their work were to be critically examined. But the teaching officers we should really be concerned about are those who, instead of waiting for Buggins's turn, take appointment at some other university.

We are the most prestigious university in this country. Except for a certain amount of competition from Oxford, we have the first pick of each year's school leavers. In addition, we have many excellent graduate students coming to us from overseas. It is to be expected that more than a few of our intake will go on to make outstanding contributions in the development of their respective subjects. What we must ensure is that they make those contributions here in Cambridge. For the sake of our future reputation, we need to keep the brightest of our students here by appointing them to teaching offices and by promotion.

The General Board will probably say that that is what Heads of institutions do when they support the candidature of particular applicants - that the initial committee of one gets it right every time. Now members of appointments committees typically favour the applicant who would do the task as they would do it themselves. So, envisage the Electors to a Chair selecting a mediocre candidate to be Head of an institution, who then pilots applications from mediocre subordinates through the Faculty Promotions Committee. Irrespective of the merits and abilities of existing Heads of institutions, our promotion procedures need to be devised to cope with that contingency. At present, they are designed, instead, to protect the hypothetical mediocre Head of institution.

Our best students and staff are going to be innovative. What does a Head of institution do when he or she does not understand what a subordinate's work is about? Why, cover up that lack of understanding! When such a lack of understanding is coupled with the task of preparing a Case for Promotion, the outcome is disastrous - for the applicant, that is.

A dispassionate evaluation of the different applicants for promotion, free of the bias that results from personal acquaintance, can be achieved by contracting the evaluation out to committees of senior academics from other universities who do not know any of the applicants personally. They will conduct the evaluation with more objectivity than our own in-house team ever could. Since it will take a while to set up such committees, it will be necessary in the interim to appoint appeals committees to re-evaluate applications from scratch in cases where there are allegations of unfair or incompetent evaluation in Faculty Promotions Committees. If that leads to a repeated evaluation of every applicant's case, then that is the cost of the General Board's seeking to preserve the patronage enjoyed by Heads of institutions.

A Promotions Committee can only be fair and reliable to the extent that it is well informed. The individual applicant knows much more about his or her work than anyone else, and applicants should make out their own Cases for Promotion, with advice provided on how to do it. The procedure must recognize that a Head of institution may not understand a subordinate's work and is thereby unfitted for this task. For our most innovative staff, this will be the norm.

There is still the matter of quality of teaching. I recall one Head of institution who addressed the greater part of his discourse to the 144 square inches of floor beneath his feet. That was at a time when the University had no concern for the quality of the teaching provided for undergraduates. But imagine asking such a Head to report on the teaching of a subordinate. What would that report be worth? Evaluation of an applicant's teaching must also be obtained from outside the institution, and the contribution from inside restricted to factual matters only.

All this is designed to persuade our best and most promising students and staff to stay here and enhance this University with their personal reputations. For that to be achieved, there must be a concern for accuracy and fairness in the matter of promotion. If a Head of institution cannot manage his or her subordinates without the lever of patronage, that is one Head who should step aside.

 

 

Professor A. W. F. EDWARDS:

Mr Deputy Vice-Chancellor, I should like to make two points about this Report and then, since I do not expect to comment on this subject in a Discussion again, to finish with some general observations. First, however, let me congratulate the University on today's list.

Following normal practice, the Report mentions that the annual cost of the proposals is £775,000. This, however, is not the real cost, which may actually be a saving. For during or at the end of the academical year 2001-02 a number of ad hominem Professors and Readers will have resigned or retired, and the more junior, and cheaper, University offices which underlay them will have been revived (or not, as the case may be). It would be helpful to record the difference in expenditure as well as the additional expenditure, and I hope that in their reply the General Board will give this.

My second point concerns the possibility of a non-placet. My objections to using the old ad hominem procedure for the new promotions scheme have been as frequently voiced as they have been regularly ignored. This is not the moment to repeat them, but they include the point that promotions should not be subject to approval by the Regent House any more than elections or appointments to established University offices are.

In 1938 my teacher R. A. Fisher remarked 'The academic mind, as we know, is sometimes capable of assuming an aggressive attitude. The official mind, on the contrary, is and has to be, expert in the art of self-defence'. I think the University has made a mistake in allowing the official mind to dominate the academic mind in the matter of promotions, because it has led to a bureaucratic system inevitably weighted, as all bureaucratic systems are, in favour of conformity.

Many years ago the conversation in the Caius Senior Combination Room turned to a discussion of Cambridge's famous eccentrics. Charles Goodhart, Senior Tutor and a University Lecturer in the days before that distinguished office had been sacrificed, remarked in his loud voice 'You, Anthony, are one of Cambridge's modern eccentrics', to which I replied, faster than I can tell the story, 'Well, in that case the standard of eccentricity is now pretty low'.

Quite recently I was able to buy a copy of William Bateson's Inaugural Lecture when he was made Professor of Biology essentially ad hominem in 1908. He had the duty 'to promote by teaching and research the knowledge of Genetics,' a word he had himself coined. I was delighted to find it the source of a famous Bateson quotation 'Treasure your exceptions!'. 'Exceptions', he went on, 'are like the rough brickwork of a growing building which tells us that there is more to come and shows where the next construction is to be'.

Bateson would have experienced the difficulties under today's system with which some of us are familiar. Far too much of a controversialist. He once said 'The term controversial is conveniently used by those who are wrong to apply to the persons who disagree with them'.

I am sure his advice to the University would have been 'Treasure your eccentrics!'.

 

 

Professor R. P. GORDON:

Mr Deputy Vice-Chancellor, I warmly welcome the publication of the latest promotions list for several reasons of a personal nature. In particular, I am delighted that the by now ancient injustice in relation to Dr Gillian Evans is in the process of being remedied.

My awareness of the Evans case began when I was invited by Dr Evans to be an independent witness during her meetings with Sir David Williams, the previous Vice-Chancellor. This was followed by one session with our present Vice-Chancellor, whose body language at that meeting I recall as being utterly honest and offering no false hopes of an easy solution to the problem. I've often wished that he had the authority to knock a few heads together and achieve an early and just solution, as I am sure he would have done.

I've been unable to understand the problem with Dr Evans's applications for promotion. Though not in her subject area, I am not a million miles away, can appreciate 'level of discourse' in many a humanities production, can read reviews and can understand references. Reading some of the last-named has occasionally been an education in how intellectual inferiors can comment from assumed heights on academics with twice or thrice their ability.

This whole episode has been a blot on the recent history of the University. Dr Evans can testify that I have declined a number of times to support her nomination for this or that committee, partly because I was unhappy with the personalizing of some of her attacks on the processes which have delivered her such a monumental injustice until now. I have also on occasion invited her to explain her motives to me. None of this has antagonized her in the slightest, nor has it altered my own conviction about the case. In this institution above all we are supposed to look at things objectively. The private reactions of too many of my colleagues - male colleagues - in the University have greatly surprised me. If I were to express myself further on this I should probably be disqualified for simultaneously being sexist and ageist.

If anyone has a problem with elements in some of the Evans library, let them choose a half dozen of her books - the equivalent of a life's work for many of our worthy Professors - and then let them stop being so mean-minded and stop bringing the University into disrepute.

 

 

Dr A. W. E. BAINHAM

Mr Deputy Vice-Chancellor, this Report appears at a time when the General Board is proposing a new unified promotions procedure. As a lawyer, I read with interest the passage in the guidance appended to that Report in which the General Board acknowledges the importance of procedural fairness. Applicants, it says, must 'have the opportunity to be 'heard' fairly'; justice must be seen to be done.'1 But what exactly does 'justice' mean in the context of the Cambridge promotions procedures?

In July of this year, Mr Justice Scott Baker2 did not find it necessary to engage with this question because, in his view, the Cambridge promotions procedures did not involve the exercise of a public law function. They were not therefore susceptible to judicial review.

Mr Justice Sedley (as he then was), did not feel similarly inhibited in 1997. His rather clear opinion was that the giving of reasons for decisions was the key to fairness.

What he said was:

'…for unsuccessful candidates, as is now widely recognized, it is of great importance to know why they have failed. First and foremost it will tell them where to concentrate their efforts. Some candidates will have to come to terms with the fact that promotion is not for them. Occasionally, it may be, it will become apparent that the decision-makers have misapprehended or overlooked something relevant - a fault which will not necessarily make the decision reviewable but may well be open to correction on a future application. Above all, perhaps, the giving of reasons demonstrates that proper care has been taken over something of critical importance to the standing and career of each candidate'.3

In the light of this judicial guidance, we might reasonably have expected that the University would have concentrated its efforts on providing to unsuccessful candidates adequate reasons, proper feedback, and an effective appeals procedure.

In the intervening five years, however, the University has adopted instead procedures which are in breach of the spirit of this judgement. Unsuccessful candidates receive what amounts to a four or five line rejection. This is in standard form. It is usually no more than a statement of disagreement between the General Board's Committee and the relevant Faculty Promotions Committee about the evaluation for one or more of the criteria. No candidate receiving this would pick up so much as a clue about where to concentrate his or her efforts; those giving feedback are often as clueless as the candidate about why the application has failed; and there is no realistic opportunity thereafter to challenge the judgment of the General Board. This approach to the giving of reasons I have heard described as 'minimalist' but this, in my view, is distinctly over-generous. Mere statements of disagreement cannot amount to the giving of reasons at all.

Why is it then that the General Board has been so unwilling to disclose the basis of its decisions? The answer which is usually given to this question is that the University is acting on legal advice and is afraid of a multiplicity of law suits if it says more. I find this entirely plausible. It would not, after all, be the first time that a lawyer had advised a client with a less than convincing case to say nothing. But is this sound policy? Some may think that the University has not been conspicuously successful in avoiding law suits as things stand. But, more importantly, while current practice may just about comply with legal requirements, it relies on a distorted view of justice. Law and justice, as any philosopher will attest, are not synonymous. Yet they are closely, if not inextricably, linked. As Professor John Gardner has recently put it:

'The assumption generally remains unshakeable on all sides that justice is the correct aspiration for the law, so that a law or legal system which fails to be just is a law or legal system which fails in a respect fundamental to its worthiness as a legal system.'

And he goes on:

'In every impassioned denial that the law is just there lurks…an equally impassioned re-confirmation that just is what it ought to be.'4

The promotions procedures of the University of Cambridge are no exception in this respect. The academic community in Cambridge has every right to demand that whatever procedures the University adopts, they not only conform with minimum legal requirements, but that they are also just - and are seen to be just.

Where a decision, whether to promote or not to promote, is based entirely on an ethical commitment to merit, the University should have no fear in disclosing the basis of that decision. Where it is not based exclusively on merit it is susceptible to legal challenge and so it should be. That is why I view with some alarm the proposal in the same Report5 that 'the number of promotions that it will be possible to approve in a particular year may be influenced by the University's general financial situation.' Suppose the University were to lose millions as a result of, say, financial mismanagement. Would it be right that these losses be met in part by the denial of promotion to those who deserve it? I think not.

The so-called 'appeals procedure' is equally flawed and I can find little evidence in what is proposed for the new unified procedure that anything would change in this respect. Lawyers draw a distinction between 'appeal' and 'review'. What the University has established is in essence the latter. The only challenges which the procedure permits are those which relate to procedural irregularity or impropriety, including breaches of natural justice. But the lay understanding of the concept of an appeal is an opportunity to challenge the merits or basis of a decision itself. It is no surprise to me that under such a restrictive procedure there have been, as I understand it, only three successful appeals, all in the year of its introduction. Last year only two unsuccessful candidates even tried and no appellant has ever been granted an oral hearing. So much for the University's commitment to natural justice. This is not in reality an appeals process and the University should stop misrepresenting it as such.

In a system with insufficient accountability for decisions, suspicions of patronage, and prejudice (the twin evils identified by Professor Dumville, Dr Laming, and others) will thrive. The point is not that there is proof of, for example, patronage but that, in a system such as this, there can be an appearance of patronage. The University demands the highest standards in teaching and a five star performance in the research assessment exercise. How, I wonder, would the University of Cambridge fare in an 'ethical behaviour assessment exercise'?

The way forward for the University ought not to be one dominated by insecurity and fear of its decisions being questioned. And we should perhaps remind ourselves that it is not the object of the exercise to produce legally watertight decisions but rather to act fairly towards applicants. The University ought to have ambitions which extend beyond staying just about within the law. The General Board should produce a closely reasoned justification for all its decisions which will stand up to serious scrutiny in a meaningful appeals process. Only in that way can justice ever be seen to be done.

And with your permission, Mr Deputy Vice-Chancellor, I would like to add my own congratulations to Dr Evans, without whose interventions over the years, these imperfect procedures would be yet more deeply flawed.

1 Report of the General Board on the introduction of a single procedure for the consideration of applications for promotion to personal Professorships, Readerships, and University Senior Lectureships.

2 Dr Gillian Rosemary Evans v The University of Cambridge, Judgement 5 July 2002.

3 R v The University of Cambridge ex parte Gillian Rosemary Evans, Judgement 22 August 1997.

4 John Gardner, 'The Virtue of Justice and the Character of Law' (2000) 53 Current Legal Problems 1,2. Emphasis added.

5 Report of the General Board on the introduction of a single procedure for the consideration of applications for promotion to personal Professorships, Readerships, and University Senior Lectureships, Reporter, 18 October 2002 at paragraph 5.16.

 

 

Professor D. N. DUMVILLE:

Mr Deputy Vice-Chancellor, as usual on this occasion, it is a pleasure to congratulate those whose originality, hard work, and eminence in their fields of study have brought them this recognition. If the current proposals for 'reform' of the promotions procedure become practice, this will be the last substantial list. We should therefore celebrate these seventy promotions all the more enthusiastically. Last year I proposed that as a University we mark these occasions with pride, publishing at least the CVs of the successful candidates: there is still time for that to be done, when the General Board publishes the list with the new Professors' and Readers' chosen titles.

In view of what has been said already at this Discussion, I should like to refer to somewhat more of my remarks of last year. As last autumn, I have in the last weeks received representations from University Teaching Officers who feel that again there are recommendations for promotions in these lists which are unfair. If prima facia cases to this effect can be made, a ballot or ballots will be called. If it can be said that a candidate with a publication record of quite exceptional strength does not deserve promotion, the University had better decide what it thinks about candidates with lesser claims on our scholarly admiration.

 

 

Dr G. R. EVANS:

Mr Deputy Vice-Chancellor, a funny thing happened to me on the way to the Senate-House. There was a carnival in the King's Parade. At the risk of being irrelevant I really must describe to you some of the masked characters, for they seemed very preoccupied with today's debate and the process which has led up to it and whether it will all be different next year. It will be all right if I am just irreverent. That is not banned. Yet. The new hard copy of the Statutes and Ordinances already contains that rule which will let them cut me off in mid-sentence. It is on p.117. So they did not wait for the ballot after all.

We were told last year that we really must declare an interest, so that listeners and readers 'may properly evaluate the independence of [our] viewpoint' (Reporter, 21 November 2002, p.298). I am glad to do so, for then no one will imagine me to be independent in any way.

The Wobbly Legislator. The Wobbly Legislator was weaving his way down King's Parade in a costume which held the right-hand side of his body in a strait-jacket while his generous embonpoint bulged uncorseted on the left. Held in tightly by the corset were the rigid rules imposed on candidates for promotion, while his fatty deposits allowed generous room for the General Board to adapt them.

He was reading from a little chart in his hand. It said, 'the Chair of the Personnel Committee shall have authority, on behalf of the General Board, to make any reasonable change or adjustment to the procedure, interpret aspects of the guidance mentioned in the booklet where doubt arises as to its meaning, or take other action that may be necessary to ensure the fair and efficient management of this and any subsequent promotions exercise.' (proposed new Procedure 6.1).

He looked up to greet the Chairman of the Personnel Committee who was wearing a smiley mask with the legend 'Who needs Training?' He congratulated him on his forthcoming huge powers to make alterations at his personal discretion to suit the committees. 'There will be plenty to clarify in these new procedures', they both nodded happily. I saw them, heads bent over (4.1) 'No application or additional information from the applicant relating to the application will be accepted by the Faculty Promotions Committee after the deadline'. 'That has always been very heavily corseted,' said the Wobbly Legislator with interest. 'But changing the membership of the committees and allowing extra meetings, that always seems to accommodate itself in my comfortable paunch.'

'Of course' they agreed, 'it has been no problem for the last few years to leave it to the General Board to change the rules each year, or even in mid-year. But it will be so much easier for everyone when the Chairman of the Personnel Committee can just do it as he likes'. They were just saying that they did not see any need to tell candidates of the changes made in the middle of each process, when along came Professor Edwards, taking his constitutional in King's Parade between 2.00 and 4.00, as is required by the Microcosmographia Academica, edited by Gordon Johnson of Wolfson, p.109.

'Where is your mask?' they asked anxiously. 'Everyone discussing academic promotions has to wear a mask. Otherwise we cannot preserve Confidentiality.' Professor Edwards continued to look very much like himself. 'I am not going to make my speech for a fourth time,' he said, 'not in the middle of King's Parade anyway'.1 'The General Board cannot make this kind of Ordinance all by itself, and Ordinances cannot be half rigid and half wobbly anyway, or they would not fit neatly between the covers of the big blue book. I hoped I had got it understood that the General Board cannot just propose an appendix of 'guidance' to be graced. Calling people 'thick' is not my style, or I might be tempted to apply the term to the General Board. I expect other words will come to mind by the time I read my speech for the fifth time'.

Next there happened along a member of the Law Faculty who knew all about contracts. 'Good afternoon,' he said. 'I see you are discussing promotions. Excuse me while I just slip on my mask. You do realize that frightful woman has made the University accept in court that these procedures are contractual as well as Ordinances?'

'What difference does that make?' asked the Wobbly Legislator and the Chairman of the Personnel Committee. 'Well it might mean that you can't just keep changing them without the consent of the other party to the contract,' he said. 'You mean contracts are mutual? You mean the candidates would have some rights?' they cried, stepping back appalled. 'Well, they could have a legitimate expectation that the rules would stay the same as it said in the published version. It is all a bit complicated and expensive advice will have to be sought. But I must rush. We in the Law Faculty are busier than ever now the Chairman of last year's appeal committee has been whisked away to be a High Court judge,' and he vanished in a puff of forensic smoke, muttering, 'And the appeal committee he chaired last year assured her that it was all right for the reasons to be almost invisible to the naked eye, too, well, well, well. Just shows.'2

'Introducing a provision into Statute D to give the General Board the power to appoint to University Senior Lectureships when appointments result from a promotions exercise' (4.4), murmured Professor Edwards reflectively, strolling away to post a letter to the Clerk to the Privy Council.

The Salary Scaler. The next masked figure to emerge from the colourful and noisy crowd was the Salary Scaler. He was dressed in a Tudor style, with a serviceable twill outer garment, slashed to reveal rich silks and velvets peeping through. His mask was a mask of studied blankness. He wore a sandwich board. On one side were written in parallel the published salary scales for Professors and Readers and the Notice in the Reporter of 13 November, pp.288-9, giving the scales for senior administrators. On the other side of his sandwich board was written in invisible ink what the senior administrators were actually getting. 'Why is one side of your sandwich board blank?' asked a puzzled passing student. 'Because I think the new Readers and Professors proposed for promotion in the Report they are just discussing in the Senate-House might be a bit cross if they knew that the administrators who are supposed to be on a level with them are actually getting many tens of thousands a year more, quite a lot of them.' 'Are you going to show us?' asked the student. 'Oh no,' answered the Salary Scaler. 'Confidentiality is very important. I don't think the Registrary and his Team would like everyone to know what they are really getting.'

The Fairness Guru. The Fairness Guru came along next. He wore the mask of the White Rabbit in Alice. Round his long furry ears was wrapped a wet towel and he looked as though he had a bad headache. In his hand he had a 'great long list of arcane rules of mediaeval canon law'. He looked puzzled. 'I was told by someone who is now Master of a College not far from here that these were the rules of natural justice. But the Report on the new promotions procedures seems to think there are only two. '(i) No person may be a judge in his/her own cause (the rule against bias). (ii) The person must have the opportunity to be 'heard' fairly; justice must be seen to be done.'

'This is very worrying. It says that 'this applies to any procedure whether or not it is explicitly mentioned'. I wish that chap from the Law Faculty had not scuttled away. Does it apply to the Health and Safety Regulations or the code on the ethics of accepting benefactions?'

'I don't see how to be a Fairness Guru if there is going to be all this Confidentiality. It was much better under the old procedures when there was also transparency. Isn't the practice of just letting people declare an interest and having the committee say never mind then and letting him carry on (proposed new Procedure 2.1) going to mess up the first 'requirement'? Candidates must be allowed a right to object. Or have I got it wrong? And what use is it to rule out membership of committees at both stages or the appeal by the same person if that person is allowed to turn up again without restriction on any of these committees in future years, assessing the same candidate he rejected last time, possibly up to six last times? If a referee admits to close collaboration is that to be taken as an indication that he really knows the candidate's work (tick), or that he has done most of it himself (cross)?'

'And as for being 'heard' fairly (ii), how are we ever going to have that right while the University continues in breach of the Information Commissioner's guidelines, which now require that candidates for appointments have an opportunity to know of adverse comment and to respond to it before any decision is taken?'

'I can tell you I am extremely worried,' he said. 'It says that if candidates make a complaint of unequal treatment, it will 'be dealt with through the agreed procedures for complaints or grievances or the procedures for dealing with bullying and harassment, as appropriate'. How are we going to stop the Vice-Chancellor just writing as he always does to say that he is not going to consider any such complaint because there is an appeal procedure? Of course there always was a contractual right to have a grievance dealt with in a timely way under Statute U, and no one has ever taken much notice of that in the Old Schools. Still, I am the Fairness Guru and so I am one of the Good Guys, as everyone can see from my wet towel and my headache, and I don't see how this can be right.'

'There is also that promise of 'good management practice, through the development of codes of best practice, policies, and training'. No training for the committees is planned, I understand, despite the Vice-Chancellor's promise in October 2000 that it would henceforth be a 'requirement'. Oh dear. Oh Dear!' and he pattered away.

The Walrus. A Walrus arrived next. He did not need a mask because of his moustache. He had on the costume of a Courtier. He did not look best pleased. 'No one has taken me seriously as Pro-Vice-Chancellor,' he complained. 'When Dr Laming openly sent me his speech a year ago, naturally I saw no need to send him a copy of mine in advance in return. And he waited a whole year until a proper opportunity presented itself and then replied.' (Reporter, 20 November 2002).

'Tut-tut' chattered a flock of sparrows who had come to listen.

'And now I have been sent by that 86-year-old engineer Donald Welbourn a copy of a letter he has written to That Woman, dated yesterday. 'Many of us have not been elected to the chairs which we believed we deserved, but we accepted the judgement of others,' he says. Now that is puzzling because we have just 'judged' that she does deserve a chair: 'Being a man, I could not cry foul,' he says. To be honest, I rather thought it was fairness for everyone she has kept on about'.

'The worrying thing is the way he makes a link in writing between her raising concerns and his wish to stop her getting the Professorship even now. As a lawyer, I cannot help recognizing that that could be in breach of the Public Interest Disclosure Act. Mr Welbourn is quite horrid to her about her campaigning, for fairness for all, quite horrid. So horrid in fact that I think I won't read out his actual words'.

'I understand a letter of his was published by the Times Higher Education Supplement on 15 November and her reply on 22 November, but the really damaging attempt to punish her for raising concerns is that article in the Telegraph on 22 November, to which Mr Welbourn contributed. I do hope that anyone who read that will also read her speech published in the Reporter on 22 November 2000, I really do. And she does have six times as many citations as Mr Welbourn even on the Institute of Scientific Information citation list, let alone for the humanities and three Litt. Ds and D.Litts, two since 1983'.

'In that letter he has sent her, he says he is 'happy to be classed as ignorant in company with Dr John Blair of Oxford'. But Dr Blair has written a worried e-mail, now he knows that Mr Welbourn has got late medieval England mixed up with the end of the ancient world in Europe at large.

John Blair:

'I had no idea I was going to be quoted in the Telegraph in this fashion. The question was posed to me with reference to later medieval England, and it will, I think, be clear from the precise form of my reply that that is how I took it.

I am very happy to state publicly that I had never read Dr Evans's article and that I simply answered a question which I was asked. I don't, of course, want to contribute to an injustice.'

I see Mr Welbourn is not attacking any of the men's names on the list. Of course, Mr Welbourn was 32 when women got degrees in Cambridge in 1948 and he could have read those Discussions in which people said women did not need degrees which would allow them to make speeches. Men could do that for them'.

'It is very disturbing to find our work on the promotions committee being re-run by the newspapers like this. And to hear the lynch-mob forming as a consequence of newspaper reports about which candidates have no control, when newspapers do not understand about Graces. I really don't think we can expose those proposed for promotion every year to being voted on one by one by 3,000 people who have not read their books'.

'It is, after all, axiomatic that the promotions procedures are perfectly fair and the outcome is right. I think the best thing I can do is to read again some of my sentences from last year (Reporter, 21 November 2002, pp.297-98). 'Many of this year's successful candidates had applied in earlier years''.

'How true!' cried the chorus of sparrows perched on the Senate-House railings.

'It is important', continued the Walrus, in words he had used last year, 'to understand that the University will stand by its bargain of promoting those who satisfy its appropriately high criteria for promotion'.

'So there is a bargain to promote everyone on this list today,' cried the sparrows excitedly. 'They have satisfied the appropriately high criteria.'

'This was a wholly evidence-based exercise,' continued the Walrus. 'The members of the Committee were obliged to dismiss all other considerations and focus on what was before them. They need to be personally indifferent as to the outcomes for individual candidates…The most important qualities they brought to the process were their personal integrity, and their long experience in judging evidence of research strength: their ability to read academic references with an appropriately judicious eye, to find evidence in support of the criteria the referees and the Faculty Committees had been invited to address, and to weigh and evaluate what was before them.'

'Evidence based!' twittered the sparrows. 'Long experience!' 'Weigh and evaluate!'

'These are truly exceptional candidates, whose academic merits have been through a robust process of rigorous appraisal,' he finished. 'There now, I have put my seal of approval on this new list, and I am profoundly pleased to have been able to do so.'

And the sparrows were pleased too and they all settled companionably on his shoulders to show how much they approved.

1 Reporter, 20 November.

2 Decision of appeals committee stage B 2001.

 

 

Mr D. B. WELBOURN:

Mr Deputy Vice-Chancellor, had Dr Evans not mentioned my name I should not have spoken, but I would like to make a few general points first.

We are faced today with a muddle of problems. In two of them the University should take a lead:

(i) The University should get agreement with all universities to stop internal promotions, and to follow the German example, where no one can get promotion to a chair in the university in which he or she is teaching. This solves a multitude of problems.
(ii) The University should call an international conference to decide on who is entitled to call themselves Professors, Associate Professors, etc.

Turning to Dr Evans's remarks. She has stimulated me to carry out a little investigation in the University Library, and in particular in the Book Review Digest, which summarizes reviews in the major historical journals in both the USA and UK; and in the English Historical Review, the major professional journal here. The run from 1978 (which I believe was the date of Dr Evans' first book) to 2000 was examined.

In the Digest there appear to be only nine references in 22 years to the dozen or so books and editions she has published. This does not suggest the great international recognition which one would expect of a Cambridge Professor.

Only two of the reviews were in major historical journals. and all of them have doubts. For example. of her Augustine on Evil in 1984, Choice said: 'not a definitive work even about Augustine's teaching': the TLS said 'orderly but cannot be rated deeply perceptive'. Of Language and Logic of the Bible in 1987 America said 'the first question was whether this work goes beyond the insight of B. Smalley's book. It does not do so in awareness of methodological approaches which have become important'. The Journal of Religion said that 'its new slant highlights old prejudices and something of the full medieval context was lost'. On Problems of Authority in the Reformation Debates in 1994 the American Historical Review said it 'was a study in oecumenical theology with serious shortcomings in the way she approaches the historical part and doubted whether historians would find the work very useful'. The TLS said it 'was not clear that 'Authority' was the core issue she claimed'. The English Historical Review said it 'is not primarily an historical study. Dr Evans does not listen to her sources for what they are saying but for what she wants to hear,' I think we might generalize that one, '… her reading of them is open to question and this book cannot be read as reliable history'. On The Thought of Gregory the Great in 1989 the English Historical Review called it 'dense but clear'. 'There are some flaws: Arabic listed with Hebrew as a biblical language; emphasis on the fourth Council (Chalcedon) but no reference to the fifth; Gregory defending the Arian Bishop of Thebes, or Bishop named Adrian; the Exarch of Ravenna running the Western Roman empire; baptized infants who die suffer eternal torments'.

I need not continue. None of this suggests a careful, distinguished body of historical scholarship.

 

 

Dr G. R. EVANS:

Mr Deputy Vice-Chancellor, it might be more dignified not to reply. I think, however, I am entitled to say that Mr Welbourn has got the number of my books wholly wrong, the number of reviews of my books wholly wrong, has gone, quite evidently, carefully through such reviews as he fell upon looking at a limited number of sources, and pulled out every critical comment he can find. If there are no more critical comments than that in the range of reviews, the enormous range of reviews, of my published work since I began to publish books in 1974, I think I stand up quite fairly in comparison with others. I invite people please to read my speech printed on 22 November 2000 and I ask members of the Regent House before they seek to vote me out of my Chair to do the honest scholarly thing: to read all my books and all the reviews of my books and get a fairer and more balanced picture of the standing in which they are held than Mr Welbourn has chosen to give you this afternoon.

 

 

Dr D. R. DE LACEY:

Mr Deputy Vice-Chancellor, if the national press takes its cue from our own Press and Publications Office to announce as fait accompli events before they are graced, that may not be the fault of the candidates.

It is rather touching to learn through the national press that the Engineering Department includes those who read the popular theological writings of Dr Evans (letters, THES, 15 November 2002). In that context Mr Welbourn writes: 'those in the arts Faculties usually have little expertise in assessing the work of those in science and engineering, and vice versa'.

He then goes on to illustrate the latter part of his assertion with limpid clarity. He demonstrates an historical naïveté which would also be touching were it not so distressing (and, unhappily, so widespread). He seems to believe that 'the Middle Ages' is a uniquely English phenomenon, which began, hmmm, some time after the Norman conquest.

Mr Welbourn has also shown this afternoon the importance of two facts which Humanities scholars know only too well: the importance of the primary sources, and the danger of bias in reviewers.

As one who in a professional capacity has read some of the more technical writings of Dr Evans, and compared them with those of some who currently occupy chairs in the Divinity School, I come to a very different assessment of Dr Evans' work. If her elevation to a chair can help to dispell the deep darkness which covers parts of the Department of Engineering, then it is greatly to be welcomed.


< Previous page ^ Table of Contents Next page >

Cambridge University Reporter, 5 December 2002
Copyright © 2002 The Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of the University of Cambridge.