Previous page
Table of Contents
| Previous page |
Table of Contents |
Next page |
In their Notice dated 13 December 1999 (Reporter, p. 232) the Council stated that they had considered the remarks made at the Discussion of the General Board's Annual Report on 7 December (p. 293) and had referred them to the General Board. The Council also stated that, as the speakers in the Discussion did not oppose the recommendations of the Report, they would submit a Grace to the Regent House for the approval of the recommendations of the Report. That Grace (Grace 11, p. 291) has now been approved.
The General Board have considered the remarks made at the Discussion and have commented as follows:
The majority of the remarks made by the speakers refer to the cases of particular individuals, or roles of individuals in the procedure. The Board will not respond to these points in detail, but do wish to make it clear that in their view the 1999 exercise was conducted with propriety and fairness, and in accordance with the requirements of the scheme as laid down by the Regent House.
The Board wish to comment in particular on the following points.
| (i) | Dr Laming asserts that Faculty Promotions Committees are rife with bias because, he appears to believe, only candidates supported, or encouraged to apply, by their Head of Department or Chairman of Faculty Board, have any chance of promotion. The Board reject this assertion. It is true that Heads of Departments and Chairmen of Faculty Boards can (and surely should as part of their job) sometimes encourage someone to apply for promotion. But they are powerless to prevent someone from applying. And, once an application has reached a Faculty Board Promotions Committee, the Board believes that Dr Laming's argument ignores the fact that Promotions Committees are required to form a collective judgement on the merits of each candidate for promotion, on the basis of the documentation available. No single member of the Committee can ensure that the name of a manifestly weak candidate is put forward to the General Board's Committee, or prevent the Committee from putting forward a manifestly strong one. |
| (ii) | Dr Evans's remarks are mainly concerned with the constitutional matter of the convention governing the conduct of business at Discussions. The Board consider that the remarks lie outside the scope of the topic that was the subject of the Discussion, and accordingly, have no comments to make. |
| Previous page |
Table of Contents |
Next page |
Cambridge University Reporter, 1 March 2000
Copyright © 2000 The Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of the University of Cambridge.