Skip to main contentCambridge University Reporter

No 6585

Wednesday 17 June 2020

Vol cl No 27

pp. 451–469

Report of Discussion

Tuesday, 9 June 2020

Following the suspension of Discussions in the Senate-House in response to government advice during the coronavirus pandemic, the Council agreed to permit Discussion remarks to instead be made by written submission (Reporter, 2019–20, 6584, p. 449).

Written submissions were received as follows:

Joint Report of the Council and the General Board, dated 18 March 2020, on the titles and structure of academic offices

(Reporter, 6582, 2019–20, p. 419).

Professor E. V. Ferran (Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Institutional and International Relations, Faculty of Law, and St Catharine’s College):

Vice-Chancellor, this report proposes changes to the titles of academic offices and the tiers within the academic career structure. Informal and formal consultation on a new titles scheme indicated growing dissatisfaction with the existing titles and concerns about comparability with the titles adopted by the University’s peer group nationally and globally which could hinder recruitment and/or retention of academic staff and handicap our academics in competing for research funding.

This Report proposes that the title of Professor at Grade 12 remains unchanged and that the offices of Reader at Grade 11 and University Senior Lecturer at Grade 10 are replaced by Professor at Grade 11 and Associate Professor at Grade 10. The Report also proposes that University Lecturer at Grade 9 is replaced by Associate Professor at Grade 9 for those UTOs who have passed probation and by Assistant Professor at Grade 9 for UTOs in probation. A majority of respondents agreed to this proposed structure in the consultations, commenting that these titles would aid national and international understanding of the University’s roles. If the recommended amendments to the titles and structure of academic offices set out on this Report are approved, academic staff already holding the offices of Reader, University Senior Lecturer and University Lecturer will be invited to transfer to the new offices; those who do not wish to do so will retain their existing offices until they leave University employment.

In terms of endowed academic offices supported by trust funds, if the Report’s recommendations are approved by the Regent House, the relevant provisions in Statutes and Ordinances affected by the changes will be reviewed.

If adopted, the impact of the new titles structure on under-represented groups will be monitored to help ensure that our recruitment and progression policies and practices are aligned with our institutional commitments to equality, diversity and inclusion.

While a majority of respondents supported the proposed academic titles and structure described, a minority was not in favour of these changes. The main concerns raised by the minority of respondents who disagreed with proposals were that the title of Assistant Professor could be misunderstood and that the full Professorship title might be devalued. Given the diversity of opinion and the importance of this matter to the academic community as a whole, the Council and the General Board felt it would be appropriate in these circumstances to call a ballot on this Report.

My personal opinion is that the time for change has come and that the structure set out in this Report is appropriate. I am not comfortable with maintaining the status quo in the face of growing evidence of its negative impact on valued colleagues. I do not feel that the new titles and offices would devalue my standing as a Grade 12 Professor. I am confident that the adoption of the title of Assistant Professor would not trigger a change in the University’s approach to academic probation. As I said in the Discussion last year on the Academic Career Pathway Scheme,1 there is no hidden agenda here: the University recruits outstanding academics that it wants to keep, will support these valued colleagues to reach the high standards that Cambridge sets, and publicly recognise their success in doing so; any other approach would be inconsistent with our values and would be in no-one’s interest.

Professor D. S. Abulafia (Faculty of History and Gonville and Caius College):

Vice-Chancellor, the proposed changes are not unexpected or undesirable. The re-naming of Readerships as Professorships (Grade 10) is a little cumbersome, but even if it does not sound an elegant solution it is a necessary one. However, in welcoming these changes I do want to alert the Regent House to the existence of a missing constituency, a very important one at least in the Humanities: College Teaching Officers, particularly those with tenure. As Chair of the History Faculty some years ago I did what little I could to involve them in Faculty teaching and general business; but I did not receive much encouragement from higher up in the University, despite the distinction of several CTOs who had simply not been in the right place at the right time to secure a Faculty post, had interests that were seen as tangential to the Faculty’s needs, or simply had been denied proper recognition for their growing distinction. The supervision system would break down without the CTOs, and not just in History, as I learned while serving on the Faculty Board of English a few years ago. Yet it was even suggested to me by an august figure in the University that if we needed so many supervisors for our 600-odd undergraduates we must be running far too many papers (rather than admitting too many students: that obviously could not be said).

The Honorary Professorships and (until now) Honorary Readerships have been few and far between. It was a battle more often lost than won to obtain any in my Faculty for CTOs – much easier in the Sciences, where external funds were to hand. We must see greater willingness to offer Honorary Professorships to CTOs by encouraging those who are eligible and of sufficient distinction to apply for them, in whatever Faculty. But that still leaves an important question hanging, one that turns on the title of Associate Professor: what do we do for CTOs who are not, or not yet, quite so eminent, especially those with tenure? Giving recognition to the more senior and permanent CTOs would be the right compliment to pay for people without whom several Triposes would collapse. We have already – I am glad to say – abandoned the onomatopoeic title NUTOs (non-University Teaching Officers) and replaced it with ‘CTOs’. Doing something for senior CTOs, such as offering the honorary title of Associate Professor to those who are keen to have it and can demonstrate their distinction in research and teaching, would be the next step towards greater recognition of their role in the collegiate University.

Professor G. R. Evans (Emeritus Professor of Medieval Theology and Intellectual History):

Vice-Chancellor, on 18 March, the day when this and today’s other Reports were published for Discussion, the Vice-Chancellor ‘announced in emails to all staff and students’ that ‘the University had suspended normal operations with effect from 5 p.m. on Friday, 20 March 2020’. The Reporter, as the University’s historic organ of record, did not formally publish this statement until its abbreviated issue of 16 April.1 That was the last Reporter to be published before the fragment which appeared on 27 May announcing this Discussion.

The adoption of the University Emergency Management Plan2 taken to justify this unprecedented suspension has facilitated an extraordinary abandonment of the norms of governance on which it is surely important to put something into the record at the first opportunity. ‘The University’ has since made other announcements. But ‘the University’ is the Regent House. Certainly Statute A III 8 allows the Regent House to delegate ‘to the Council or to another University body or authority to act on its behalf in such matters as it may from time to time determine’, but that requires a Grace and there has been no Grace. The Statutes have not heard of the University Emergency Management Plan. There are no Ordinances governing its adoption and application. The Reporter of 16 April merely states that ‘when normal business resumes, the Regent House will receive information about the decisions that have been taken during this period’. The Reporter of 27 May says only that ‘the Council expects to publish a Notice in mid June 2020 about the decisions made under delegated authority’.

Also delayed until 16 April was a mention in the Reporter of an act of delegation of its powers to the Vice-Chancellor by the Council which had taken place at its meeting of 16 March. I know from my own years on the Council that the publication schedule of the Reporter is designed to make it possible for a text approved at a Monday Council meeting to appear there two days later. Special Ordinance A (viii) under Statute A X  8 provides for delegation by a committee to ‘any University Officer’ or body ‘with or without restrictions or conditions, the exercise of any functions proper to the [delegating] body’. But the Council could not delegate powers it did not have. The General Board, it was also explained, had made delegations of its own powers ‘to the Vice-Chancellor and the chairs of its committees on 11 March 2020’.

There can be no excuse for not mentioning these ‘delegations’ formally to the Regent House in the Reporter of 18 March. The issue of 16 April gives no reference to the Statutes and Ordinances for authority for them, merely an assertion that ‘it is not currently possible to pursue the University’s usual governance processes’. The Regent House was not asked whether it was happy to set them aside, and in any case surely it could not discard at will Statutes carrying Privy Council approval?

Are decisions requiring Graces which have not been approved ‘decisions’ at all? We read that ‘examples of recent decisions taken include moving teaching online and alternative forms of assessment replacing examinations’. There is also the question (which I know has been raised) of the validity of degrees received with no meeting of Congregation. The Ordinances do not permit delegation to extend ‘to any resolution concerning the award of a degree, diploma, certificate, or other qualification’.

The Reports before us today would normally have been discussed on 28 April. The Reporter of 18 March stated (on the stated authority of the Vice-Chancellor) that ‘no Discussions are to take place, until further notice’. The Ordinance says ‘the Vice-Chancellor shall invite members of the Regent House to attend’ a Discussion.3 The present remarks will simply have been emailed to the Editor of the Reporter by 4 p.m. on 9 June.

Was this departure from a live meeting necessary? Since a previous Registrary instituted the practice the actual numbers present are recorded in the Report of each Discussion. It is obvious that there is always abundant room. Was the delay unavoidable? It could never have been impossible to hold a live Discussion in the vastness of the Senate-House with speakers safely ‘distanced’. That would have preserved the freedom for speakers to raise a hand when they judge it the right moment, thus giving order to the sequence for the purposes of publication, allowing rejoinder and spontaneous comment and permitting the presiding Deputy for the Vice-Chancellor to object if remarks drift into irrelevance.

Even had it been necessary, was the ‘decision’ to discuss by email constitutionally valid? The Reporter of 27 May announced that ‘the Council’ has agreed that ‘written submissions’ like this will be accepted for publication ‘until further notice’. That has been actively resisted in the past. It remains controversial and surely it could not have been agreed without reference to the Regent House? Discussions are conducted under an Ordinance, change to which requires Gracing. The Working Party to Review three areas of Governance announced in the Reporter of 10 May 20174 was to consider Discussions as one of the ‘areas’. In October 2017 the Twenty‑second Report of the Board of Scrutiny welcomed the idea of including Discussions in the Review but said it would be ‘concerned by a move to an online only forum as the nature of contributions and their impact might be very different’.5 There seems to have been little progress with inviting the Regent House to take a view or approve any change.

And what of the publication of Discussions? The Reporter’s role as the University’s organ of record is so essential that it comes first in the Ordinances, which require the Reporter be published ‘at least weekly during term’.6 The suspension of the Reporter has had the effect of making it impossible for the Regent House to legislate, and now that some Graces are recognised to be required there is to be only an ‘extraordinary issue’ on 24 June, publishing Reports for another email ‘Discussion’ on 7 July, and another on 29 July publishing ‘any Graces’. Today’s belated remarks will be published, but when? The ‘Calendar’ in the shrunken Reporter of 27 May does not say. And when are the remarks made on 7 July to be published and a Notice in response both to that one and to the present Discussion, which would be needed before or simultaneously with any Graces?

I turn now to the content of the Report on academic titles. The present proposals are of course a mere stage in a long story, going back decades in both Oxford and Cambridge. In a debate of Oxford’s Congregation in February 1995, several speakers stressed the importance of Oxford remaining a ‘community of equal scholars’ or a ‘scholarly community of equals’, ‘equal’ in their membership of a ‘republic of letters’.7 One speaker put it vividly:

Some, possibly many, members of the poor bloody infantry came here for what distinguished this place from other universities, including other highly prestigious universities. We came here, and stay here, partly for the absence of hierarchy, for the idea that we will be judged on what we do and not on our status.8

The debate that time had been prompted by proposals to increase the number of academic ‘promotions’, so as to create more Professors and as the Report we are discussing notes, Oxford has since moved in the direction Cambridge may now choose to go.

Having had more than my fair share of a say over academic promotions in this forum over many past years I will not add to that further now. It is all on the record. I see there is to a be a ballot which will settle something at least for now.

Dr P. J. Rogerson (Faculty of Law and Gonville and Caius College):

Vice-Chancellor, I am a Reader in the Faculty of Law and also Master of Gonville and Caius College. However I make these remarks in my personal capacity. First, I must declare an interest. I am a Reader who would benefit from the change of title to Professor if this Report is approved by Grace. However, I would not be in any better financial position than presently.

I commend this Joint Report and warmly recommend the changes proposed in it. In responses to the survey some 77% of respondents wanted change, many to what is proposed in this Report. I do not seek to detract from those who have undergone the arduous promotions exercise. They richly deserve their enhanced financial reward. Nevertheless, permitting all those with tenure to have the title of Assistant Professor, Associate Professor or Professor brings Cambridge academics into a more internationally recognisable structure. I cannot be the only Cambridge lecturer to have attended conferences wearing a badge ‘Dr X, Cambridge University’ and felt a speaker’s eye slide quickly to locate someone with a proper academic title. A title which is understood in many parts of the world, as well as in the UK, as a signifier of tenure and status. Maybe I should be less concerned about such things but I too would like to be recognised as of equivalent worth to my colleagues at Oxford and elsewhere.

Dr T. J. Roulet (Judge Business School and Girton College):

Vice-Chancellor, I write to support the proposition of a transition towards a three-tiered Academic Title system (assistant, associate, full professor). LSE, Imperial and Oxford have already adopted such system. One issue with our current Cambridge system is the lack of clarity regarding the posts of Lecturers, Senior Lecturers and Readers. Reader is a unique UK term, which is rarely understood outside the UK. Senior Lecturerships are considered as junior posts (and in some Faculties, teaching-oriented) in Cambridge, while they are considered as Associate Professorships in many Russell Group universities. In the US, the title of Lecturer is usually for adjunct academics who are not research active.

As a Senior Lecturer, in France, I end up being excluded from dissertation committees because my post is not understood by colleagues in France. All of those issues limit participation of Cambridge academics in relevant international communities.

An element that might be worth being discussed is how Faculties might be tempted to change their promotion process from grade 10 to 11 to make them more demanding. This would disadvantage Faculty members at grade 10 and below.

Dr K. A. Munir (Judge Business School and Homerton College):

Vice-Chancellor, there are a number of reasons why a change of titles to Professor, Associate Professor and Assistant Professor, for which a vast majority voted in the recent exercise, makes eminent sense. Below, I mention three out of many:

(a)Oxford and Imperial have already transitioned to this nomenclature long ago, and have been reaping handsome rewards for it in terms of recruiting top talent. A number of my colleagues, for instance, have gone over to Oxford simply because Oxford is able to offer them a ‘promotion’. On the other hand, I have yet to meet any who have come from Oxford to Cambridge.

(b)Lecturer and Senior Lecturer, outside the UK, and especially in America denote non-tenure track, casual teaching positions. The term ‘Reader’ is unfamiliar to anyone outside the UK. In an increasingly global world, where Cambridge itself is appointing more and more academics trained outside the UK, and where an increasing number of conferences, workshops and meetings occur in America and Asia, the existing terminology is a significant liability. Readers and Lecturers find themselves explaining their position too much of the time. They are also denied numerous opportunities (media appearances, editorial roles, etc.) simply because they are taken to be far more junior than they actually are. There is a widespread feeling that we should not hold on to British exceptionalism at such high cost.

(c)We are, especially in the current climate, often censured for our dearth of senior appointments from the BAME community – and rightly so. There are hardly any BAME people in the senior management of the University. Given that all research shows that ceteris paribus BAME people are less likely to rise up through the ranks in any organisation, and that a change in titles is likely to boost the number of BAME colleagues in senior positions, any opportunity to facilitate this ought to be welcomed with open arms. It will not only make the University look slightly more egalitarian but will also open up more opportunities for BAME colleagues to occupy other senior positions.

It seems that the way in which the titles consultation has proceeded has left a lot of people feeling disenfranchised and humiliated. Many junior colleagues were clearly told by senior colleagues that if such a change takes place they will not be respected in the organisation, and that their titles would be nothing but a ‘freebie’. A number of junior colleagues reported feeling humiliated by the process, and chose to remain silent rather than argue with senior colleagues representing their organisational units be it Schools or Faculties.

There are of course some kinks that will need to be ironed out. The question of salaries within a bracket is one of them. The question of workload for any junior colleagues promoted to Professorships might be another. However, there are a number of ways of resolving this and the experiences of Oxford and Imperial would be instructive in this regard.

Dr M. J. Rutter (Department of Physics):

Vice-Chancellor, this is not the first time I have submitted Discussion remarks by email, but the circumstances now are a little unusual.

It is welcome that the University is trying to maintain as much normality and openness as possible in its governance in these adverse conditions. With rumours of financial losses of many tens of millions of pounds across the collegiate University, with some staff already furloughed and others facing a very uncertain future, with face-to-face teaching suspended, examination halls locked, and most Departments still closed to their researchers, it is odd that the first item worthy of Discussion is the granting of honorifics to a category of staff enjoying secure tenure. But I have seen enough of the governance of this University to regard this as a reassuring sign that normality is being maintained.

It is also welcome that the Joint Report of the Council and the General Board on the titles and structure of academic offices be subject to a little more scrutiny, for in several areas it seems less than ideal.

The Report notes correctly that Cambridge’s use of academic titles is not universally followed internationally. It implies that things would be less confusing if we followed the international norm. This overlooks several points.

There is no international norm. There is an Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, Professor system, often referred to as the American system, and there is a Lecturer, Senior Lecturer, Reader, Professor system, often referred to as the British or Commonwealth system. But even within these two systems there are many variations. Warwick University uses Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, Reader, Professor, for instance.

The scope for confusion, at least within the academic community, is limited. A few moments with Google quickly reveals the ranking system of any major University, and Cambridge still is a major international University. Those who fail to recognise that academic ranking systems differ between different institutions show a degree of insularity incompatible with world-leading research, and we need not overly concern ourselves with their opinions.

Where will this pursuit of an international norm lead? Do we believe that the standard for gaining the title professor here should be equal to that in the least, or maybe the average, international University? Do we believe that the standard of a first-class degree here should be the same as it is in the least, or maybe the average, international University? Do we believe that the standard for admission as an undergraduate here should the same as in the least, or maybe the average, UK university? Our reputation has been built on it being otherwise.

Being a major international university, the need for us to follow slavishly the customs of younger institutions is slight. Nor is it clear that we advance by following lesser institutions. We should value cultural diversity, including our own. If we do not value our own culture and traditions, who will believe that we truly value anyone else’s? And I have always been quite content not to be American, even before recent events in Minneapolis.

I do not therefore accept that there is a particular need for the proposals in this Report. But it may still be the case that the proposals are an improvement on the status quo. Is this so?

I find the idea of suffixing a pay grade to the ranks of Associate Professor and Professor most bizarre. The division of the UK’s university pay spine into grades is decided independently by each institution, and we recently addressed the point that our division disadvantages postdocs compared to most other UK universities. Suffixing a Cambridge-specific grade band to a title will hardly aid the wider comprehension of our system.

The current probation system for University Lecturers is not ideal, and is often a source of stress for those suffering it. At least currently the process is fairly private, for it is not obvious which lecturers have, or have not, passed their probation. The suggested change of title from Assistant Professor to Associate Professor would make it very clear. It may be better to wait until the probation scheme is accepted as working smoothly before making this change, and I am not certain that this point has yet been reached.

There is an increasing use of fixed-term lectureships. I failed to find these mentioned in the Report. I assume that they must be considered to be Assistant Professors, being untenured, but clarity might be helpful. The use of the title professor by someone with a fairly junior fixed-term post would seem strange, but to deny the title would seem stranger.

The current use of the title professor in the University could be regarded as a little arbitrary, but so too is this proposal. This Report focuses on the issue for UTOs. It fails to mention that this University does not have any form of Research Professor, and that Directors of Research are denied the title, whatever their eminence. In some cases they would be strong candidates for the grant of the title Honorary Professor or Honorary Reader (Ordinance XI), were it not that their employment by the University excludes them from this process.

Currently Directors of Research are regarded as equal to Professors by our HERA pay grading system, but lack teaching responsibilities, tenure, and the title Professor. In the new scheme, even pre-probationary lecturers would have a title including the word ‘professor’. This further increases the division between UTOs and senior research-only staff, and it is disappointing that the Report fails to mention Directors of Research, Assistant Directors of Research, and Principal Research Associates, positions which seem particularly common in the Clinical School, but which occur more widely. They all write grants, and need international recognition, yet labour under titles not well understood even within Cambridge. Not only do they write grants, but, should their applications fail, their own, unestablished, posts may be in jeopardy. Their case for a better recognised title seems stronger than that of tenured Lecturers and Readers.

How the University chooses to style its UTOs is not a matter simply for UTOs, as the recent survey implied. Professor is one of those very rare job titles which is used in everyday life. It becomes one’s title on one’s passport, credit cards, and in correspondence. Minor modifiers such as ‘Assistant’ or ‘Associate’ tend to be dropped to avoid confusion. Currently the title is given to UTOs only, and only those at the highest rank. To give it to a much wider range of UTOs might cause resentment amongst those Research and Academic-Related staff on grades nine and above who would be denied even the title ‘Associate Professor (Grade 9),’ especially if they are also active in academic teaching as well as research, as many are. Must they take comfort in the words sometimes attributed to Solomon: “vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, vanity of vanities; all is vanity”? [Ecclesiastes 1:2]

Report of the Council, dated 16 March 2020, on updates to the University’s freedom of speech documentation

(Reporter, 6582, 2019–20, p. 425).

Professor G. R. Evans (Emeritus Professor of Medieval Theology and Intellectual History):

Vice-Chancellor, this is not a bad effort at resolving a major current difficulty but one is bound to notice that it mentions ‘academic freedom’ only once. The relationship of general freedom of speech to ‘academic freedom’ might bear further discussion in the present review. Perhaps worth considering in this connection is the ‘Statement of Freedoms’ Oxford created in the course of its review of its Statute XII.1

Dr A. M. Ahmed (Faculty of Philosophy and Gonville and Caius College):

Vice-Chancellor, staff at UK universities nowadays face managerial interference, loss of academic roles, disciplinary action and worse when trying to state a range of views. A UCU report in 2017 ranked the UK second-lowest for academic freedom among the (then) 28 EU states.1 The ‘Prevent’ Duty on Higher Education Institutions continues to impose heavy administrative burdens upon, and to encourage undue suspicion towards, the exercise of perfectly legitimate political speech.

The University must therefore do everything possible to protect free speech and academic freedom for its staff, students and visitors. This is in line with its own core value of freedom of expression.

I welcome the reaffirmation of that core value in the proposed free speech documentation.2 But the documentation as it stands is ineffective. It stands or falls on whether it protects the rights of staff, students and visitors to speak freely on any of those vitally important issues that are likely to provoke controversy or protest. These include animal rights, medical ethics, Israel and Palestine, religion, sexual ethics and sexuality. My main concern is that it fails this test.

I’ll divide my comments into three sections corresponding to the three aspects of the proposed documentation that I think could usefully be amended.

1. Respect and tolerance

1.1 What is currently proposed

The University’s Free Speech ‘Principles’ include the following:

The University of Cambridge...

4.expects its staff, students and visitors to be respectful of the differing opinions of others, in line with the University’s core value of freedom of expression;

5.expects its staff, students and visitors to be respectful of the diverse identities of others, in line with the University’s core value of freedom from discrimination;

The second paragraph of the proposed Statement reads in part as follows:

The University fosters an environment in which all of its staff and students can participate fully in University life, and feel able to question and test received wisdom, and to express new ideas and controversial or unpopular opinions within the law, without fear of disrespect or discrimination. In exercising their right to freedom of expression, the University expects its staff, students and visitors to be respectful of the differing opinions of others, in line with the University’s core value of freedom of expression. The University also expects its staff, students and visitors to be respectful of the diverse identities of others, in line with the University’s core value of freedom from discrimination.

I have indicated in italics the material which in my view merits reconsideration.

1.2 Concerns about it

(i) Respect implies appreciation or admiration (as per the Cambridge Dictionary).3 But there is no reason the University should expect anyone to appreciate or admire all opinions. A straightforward example: some people do not appreciate, admire or in any other way respect the opinions of racists about race or the teachings of some religions regarding homosexuality. Those people should be free to harbour and to express their disrespect for those opinions and teachings. Point 4 of the proposed ‘Principles’ rules that out. So too does the proposed Statement because of the occurrence of the word ‘disrespect’ in the first sentence, and of the word ‘respectful’ in the second sentence, of the material from its second paragraph quoted above.

The fact is that not all views are equally deserving of respect. The Oxford statement on free speech frankly admits this.4 Why cannot we? I propose that we replace the demand for respect in these places with a demand for tolerance. The Cambridge Dictionary defines tolerance as ‘willingness to accept behaviour and beliefs that are different from your own, although you might not agree with or approve of them’.5 I should have thought that that is all that freedom of expression requires.

(ii) The last sentence of the second paragraph of the proposed statement (as quoted above) mentions ‘the diverse identities of others’. These identities could encompass almost any political or religious identity from white nationalism through Catholicism and Communism to militant Islamism. Are we really supposed to respect all of these ‘identities’? Ridicule and parody – which are compatible with tolerance though not with respect – can be as effective as argument and analysis in getting people to question the value of these and other ‘identities’ in others or in themselves.

This part of the statement, and also the part discussed at point (i) above, are failing the principal test. ‘Respect’ being so positive in its connotations, and ‘identity’ so Protean in its, it would be easy to argue that anyone who criticised a political ideology or religion was showing disrespect towards somebody’s identity. But simply expressing such criticism is clearly compatible with tolerance, not only for the ideological belief itself but also for whatever practices or institutions are bound up with it.

1.3 Proposed amendments

(i) In view of 1.2(i), I propose the following amendments:

(a) Change the ‘Principles’ to read:

The University of Cambridge…

4.expects its staff, students and visitors to tolerate the differing opinions of others, in line with the University’s core value of freedom of expression;

(b) Change the first two sentences of the quoted material from the second paragraph of the Statement to read:

The University fosters an environment in which all of its staff and students can participate fully in University life, and feel able to question and test received wisdom, and to express new ideas and controversial or unpopular opinions within the law, without fear of intolerance or discrimination. In exercising their right to freedom of expression, the University expects its staff, students and visitors to be tolerant of the differing opinions of others, in line with the University’s core value of freedom of expression.

(ii) In view of 1.2(ii) I propose the following amendments:

(a) Change the ‘Principles’ to read:

The University of Cambridge…

5.expects its staff, students and visitors to tolerate the diverse identities of others, in line with the University’s core value of freedom from discrimination

(b) Change the last sentence of the second paragraph of the Statement to read:

The University also expects its staff, students and visitors to be tolerant of the diverse identities of others, in line with the University’s core value of freedom from discrimination.

2. Visiting speakers

2.1 What is currently proposed

The sixth paragraph of the proposed Statement reads as follows:

An active speaker programme is fundamental to the academic and other activities of the University and staff and students are encouraged to invite a wide range of speakers and to engage critically but courteously with them. This Statement and the Code provide the only mechanism by which the University can cancel or impose conditions on meetings or events where this action is deemed necessary as a result of the event’s subject matter and/or speaker(s). This is to ensure that the use of University premises is not inappropriately denied to any individual or body of persons on any ground connected with their beliefs or views or the policy or objectives of a body (with the exception of proscribed groups or organisations) of which they are a member. However, all speakers should anticipate that their views might be subject to robust debate, critique and challenge.

2.2 Concerns about it

As far as it goes this paragraph is clear and robust. But one other point deserves prominence. This is to do with the dis‑invitation of speakers. It is important that University societies, having decided to invite a speaker, should not then withdraw that invitation because of objections to the speaker’s views. Nothing could be more inimical to free debate than an atmosphere in which any group’s invitation to (say) pro-Israeli or to pro-Palestinian speakers was subject to reversal at the behest of a small but vehement opposing minority.

Not only does it matter in principle, it is already a legal requirement. Section 43 of the Education (No 2) Act 1986 places a legal duty on universities to take ‘reasonably practicable’ steps to ensure freedom of speech within the law for their members, students, employees and visiting speakers.6 The Equality and Human Rights Commission has published a helpful note on this and related legislation.7 For present purposes the EHRC guidance makes two relevant points: first, that the duty applies not only to premises owned by the University but also to Student Unions; and second, that invited speakers cannot be stopped from speaking except under very specific circumstances.

I believe that the Statement should make this important principle perfectly clear. The point is to reassure any student (or other) societies that are contemplating an invitation to a controversial speaker, that the University would support the event’s going ahead were the invitation to be accepted.

2.3 Proposed amendment

I therefore propose that Council simply incorporate the existing legal obligation into the Statement. This would mean changing the sixth paragraph to read as follows:

An active speaker programme is fundamental to the academic and other activities of the University and staff and students are encouraged to invite a wide range of speakers and to engage critically but courteously with them. This Statement and the Code provide the only mechanism by which the University can cancel or impose conditions on meetings or events where this action is deemed necessary as a result of the event’s subject matter and/or speaker(s). This is to ensure that the use of University or Student Union premises is not inappropriately denied to any individual or body of persons on any ground connected with their beliefs or views or the policy or objectives of a body (with the exception of proscribed groups or organisations) of which they are a member.

The University’s policy, in line with its duty under Section 43 of the Education (No 2) Act 1986, is that any speaker who has been invited to speak at a meeting or other event, on University premises or at the Student Union, must not be stopped from doing so unless: they are likely to express unlawful speech, or their attendance would lead the host organisation to breach other legal obligations, and no reasonably practicable steps can be taken to reduce these risks. However, all speakers should anticipate that their views might be subject to robust debate, critique and challenge.

The concluding block in italics is simply quoted (with minor changes) from the relevant section of the EHRC guidance on s. 43 of the 1986 Act. It therefore merely reaffirms our existing obligations. The point of doing so publicly (to repeat) is to reassure student groups and others that they should feel free to invite speakers whose views are controversial or unpopular.

3. Prevent

3.1 What is currently proposed

The final paragraph of the proposed Statement reads as follows:

The University will not unreasonably either refuse to allow events to be held on its premises or impose special conditions upon the running of those events. The lawful expression of controversial or unpopular views will not in itself constitute reasonable grounds for withholding permission for a meeting or event. Grounds for refusal, or the imposition of special conditions, would include, but are not limited to, a reasonable belief that the meeting or event is likely to:

include the expression of views that risk drawing people into terrorism or are the views of proscribed groups or organisations;

incite others to commit violent or otherwise unlawful acts;

include the expression of views that are unlawful because they are discriminatory or harassing;

pose a genuine risk to the welfare, health, or safety of members, students, or employees of the University, to visitors, or to the general public; or

give rise to a breach of the peace or pose an unacceptable security risk.

3.2 Concerns about it

I have four main concerns about the material in italics.

(i) It allows the University to prohibit events as often as it likes and for any reason at all, because of the inclusion of the phrase ‘are not limited to’ in the third sentence. The first sentence offers little protection because it is entirely unspecific about what grounds would be reasonable.

(ii) The first bullet point is clearly taken from Paragraph 11 of the Prevent Duty Guidance for HEIs.8 That paragraph was ruled illegal by the Court of Appeal in 2019, so there is at present no legal basis for including it here.9 Moreover, Prevent itself is currently under review; and although the future of that review is uncertain, the original reviewer (Lord Carlile) has made it clear that no recommendation is off the table, including scrapping the policy altogether.

(iii) The first bullet point uses language so vague that it could cover everything from activism for Palestinian rights to animal welfare campaigns. There already have been several disgraceful over-interpretations of the Guidance, including a recent episode at Cambridge in which the University interfered with an event on ‘BDS and the globalised struggle for Palestinian rights’.10

I appreciate that the Prevent Duty exists whether or not we explicitly incorporate it into our free speech policy. But keeping it there (a) signals that the University endorses a burden that many of us regard as threatening as well as onerous; and (b) risks discouraging students and others from inviting controversial speakers for fear of yet more interference.

(iv) It is likely to fail the principal test because the term ‘welfare’ in the fourth bullet point is both vague and capacious. As far as I can tell anything that you dislike, or dislike enough, might reasonably be said to threaten your ‘welfare’ in some sense.

3.3 Proposed amendment

Change the final paragraph of the Statement to read:

The University will not unreasonably either refuse to allow events to be held on its premises or impose special or unreasonable or onerous conditions upon the running of those events. The lawful expression of controversial or unpopular views will not in itself constitute reasonable grounds for withholding permission for a meeting or event.
The University may only restrict speaker events given a reasonable belief that such events are likely to involve speech that violates the law, that falsely defames a specific individual, that constitutes a genuine threat or harassment, that unjustifiably invades substantial privacy or confidentiality interests, or that is otherwise directly incompatible with the functioning of the University. In addition, the University may reasonably regulate speaker events to ensure that they do not disrupt the ordinary activities of the University.
These narrow exceptions to the general principle of freedom of expression are not intended ever to apply in a way that is inconsistent with the University’s commitment to the completely free and open discussion of ideas.

The proposed change solves the problems identified in 3.2 by removing the passages that create them. It also represents a restrictive as opposed to an open‑ended specification of the conditions under which the University may restrict an event. This makes it more transparent and useful than the existing version. The generic reference to legal obligations as opposed to any specific duty gives it the flexibility to accommodate statutory changes.

The proposed new text in this section is substantially the same as in the corresponding passage of the ‘Report of the Committee on Freedom of Expression at the University of Chicago’, commonly known as the ‘Chicago Statement’.11 More than 50 US universities have adopted the Statement including Columbia University, Johns Hopkins University, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and Princeton University.

Report of the General Board, dated 17 March 2020, on a University Senior Lecturer dual career pathway

(Reporter, 6582, 2019–20, p. 428).

Professor E. V. Ferran (Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Institutional and International Relations, Faculty of Law, and St Catharine’s College):

Vice-Chancellor, this Report addresses the long-standing problem that the current scoring methodology for progression to University Senior Lecturer level includes a cap on the research score. When this cap was introduced, it was felt that it would provide a progression route for University Teaching Officers whose particular strength was in teaching. Experience has exposed the unintentional side-effect that the cap can impede the progression of UTOs whose career trajectory more closely follows the standard weighting between research, teaching and general contribution.

Concerns to this effect were raised during consultations on the Academic Career Pathways model and also during a specific consultation exercise proposing a dual pathway which was carried out in Michaelmas Term 2019. The comments on the proposal to introduce a dual pathway at the USL level were overwhelmingly positive.

The Report therefore puts forward an alternative research-focused route to Grade 10 USL, so that academics will be able to apply through either a research-weighted route or a teaching-weighted route, with an appropriate scoring methodology applied when evaluating their application. As academic careers are not always linear it is proposed that in providing for two alternative routes it would be clearly stated that those who reached Grade 10 USL through the teaching-weighted route would remain eligible to apply for further promotion based on a research trajectory.

For the avoidance of doubt: should the Report on new academic titles and offices be adopted, the office of University Senior Lecturer would be replaced by that of Associate Professor at Grade 10.

Professor G. R. Evans (Emeritus Professor of Medieval Theology and Intellectual History):

Vice-Chancellor, ‘teaching-focused’ has become a term of art in UK universities, most often in contexts where – as I know from case-work – individuals appointed on teaching-and-research contracts have been presented with a choice between redundancy and accepting a ‘teaching-focused’ role. Under that new contract role their opportunity for research will be reduced to the sphere of ‘pedagogical scholarship’. The University of Edinburgh offers its own staff a description of that area of research limited to teaching:

The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning has been described as a revolution, a movement, a framework, a tool, even a paradigmatic change in higher education... We like to think of it as a process of intentional inquiry into one’s own learning, teaching and assessment practices with a view to enhancing those practices and improve the learning of our students.1

This is of course an entirely different thing from the choice which has traditionally been open to Cambridge’s teaching-and-research academics holding University Teaching Offices to choose to concentrate rather more on one or the other, according to preference, perhaps shifting the emphasis over the years.

However, reading the Vice-Chancellor’s email sent immediately before the late-May Bank Holiday2 one’s eye falls on a mention of ‘potential generalised redundancies’. That has caused widespread upset and it seems worth just drawing attention to the increasingly familiar connection being made elsewhere between academic redundancies (often presented as ‘capability’ or ‘performance’ dismissals), and pressure on individuals to move from teaching-and-research to ‘teaching-focused’ contracts. You never know what might happen while the University of Cambridge is being run under ‘emergency’ powers with missing Reporters and no end date for a return to the constitutional normal.