Skip to main contentCambridge University Reporter

No 6591

Wednesday 14 October 2020

Vol cli No 3

pp. 42–66

Notices

Calendar

20 October, Tuesday. End of first quarter of Michaelmas Term.

24 October, Saturday. Congregation of the Regent House at 11 a.m. (degrees in absence only).

27 October, Tuesday. Discussion via videoconference at 2 p.m. (see below).

 1 November, Sunday. All Saints’ Day. Commemoration of Benefactors. Scarlet Day. Preacher before the University at 10.30 a.m., The Rev’d Canon Mark Oakley, Fellow and Dean of Chapel of St John’s College (see below).

Discussions (Tuesdays at 2 p.m.)

Congregations (Saturdays unless otherwise stated)

27 October

24 October, at 11 a.m. (degrees in absence only)

10 November

28 November, at 11 a.m. (degrees in absence only)

24 November

  8 December

 

Discussion on Tuesday, 27 October 2020

The Vice-Chancellor invites those qualified under the regulations for Discussions (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 105) to a Discussion via videoconference on Tuesday, 27 October 2020 at 2 p.m., for the discussion of:

1.Report of the Council, dated 5 October 2020, on the establishment of a Property Board (Reporter, 6590, 2020–21, p. 30).

Those wishing to join the Discussion by videoconference should email UniversityDraftsman@admin.cam.ac.uk from their University email account and providing their CRSid (if a member of the collegiate University) by 12 noon on the date of the Discussion to receive joining instructions. Alternatively, contributors may email remarks to contact@proctors.cam.ac.uk, copying Reporter.Editor@admin.cam.ac.uk, by no later than 10 a.m. on the day of the Discussion, for reading out by the Proctors,1 or ask someone else who is attending to read the remarks on their behalf.

Footnote

  • 1Any comments sent by email should please begin with the name and title of the contributor as they wish it to be read out and include at the start a note of any College or Departmental affiliations they have.

Commemoration of Benefactors

The Vice-Chancellor wishes to inform members of the University that following advice from the Vicar of the University Church and in accordance with Statute A X 6 and the procedures for permitted public worship, this service will be held at 10.30 a.m. on Sunday, 1 November.

The Revd Canon Mark Oakley, JN, will preach in place of Ms Sarah Teather, JN, who is now expected to preach in a later year. Canon Oakley will preach on ‘Daylight sanity and vigour: George Herbert, poetry and truth decay’.

Members of the University wishing to attend must reserve one of the limited number of seats by emailing ProctorsandMarshalsOffice@admin.cam.ac.uk by Friday, 23 October. A spouse or partner may accompany attendees provided they form a household together and that a booking for both is made. Anyone who is subsequently required to isolate, tests positive for Covid‑19, or develops any recognised symptoms, must not attend. Face‑coverings must be worn except by those unable to wear them and a seating plan for all will ensure two‑metre distancing.

An order of service will be emailed in advance to those registering and will be unavailable at the Church, as will the lavatories except in emergency. Arrival will be via the South Door, no processions will take place, and the directions of the seating-stewards must be followed on arrival and for departure. Latecomers cannot be admitted. University members are reminded that they should please wear gowns at University Sermons and are welcome to wear hoods if they wish.

Sunday, 1 November is a ‘scarlet day’ for Doctors.

The Council is being invited to submit a Grace to the Regent House authorising the substitution of a resident preacher and postponement if it be required.

Grace 2 of 28 September 2020 (University Statement on Freedom of Speech): Notice of proposed amendments

9 October 2020

The Vice-Chancellor gives notice that he has received three proposals for the amendment of Grace 2 of 28 September 2020 (Reporter, 6589, 2020–21, p. 10), signed by the members of the Regent House as noted in the Annex below. The Council will consider the amendments at the earliest opportunity.

The Grace at present reads as follows:

That Recommendation I in paragraph 6 of the Report of the Council, dated 16 March 2020, on updates to the University’s freedom of speech documentation (Reporter, 6582, 2019–20, p. 425) be approved.

Recommendation I reads as follows:

That approval be given to the revised University Statement on Freedom of Speech, as set out in Annex I to this Report.

Amendment 1

Proposed amendment 1 is as follows:1

The aim of this amendment is to make the University Statement on Freedom of Speech2 clearer and more liberal. ‘Respect’ as used here may be taken to imply admiration or approval. We should not be expected to respect all opinions or identities that the law permits, e.g. patently false views concerning vaccination or climate change. We should however permit them to exist. That is exactly what ‘tolerance’ means.

Amendment:

Change paragraph 2 of the University Statement on Freedom of Speech proposed in the Grace from:

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.

to:

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. 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.

Amendment 2

Proposed amendment 2 is as follows:1

The aim of this amendment to the University Statement on Freedom of Speech2 is to incorporate the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s 2019 Guidance on the Section 43 duty.3 It is important to be explicit about this, because the more clearly the University sets out that it will not tolerate this kind of censorship the less likely it is to happen, and the less likely it is that concerns about its happening will stop University societies from inviting controversial speakers.

Amendment:

Change paragraph 6 of the University Statement on Freedom of Speech proposed in the Grace from:

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.

to:

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.

   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.

Amendment 3

Proposed amendment 3 is as follows:1

This amendment to the University Statement on Freedom of Speech2 addresses the following concerns: (i) that the words ‘include, but are not limited to’ are overly permissive; (ii) that the first bullet point is quoted from a part of the Prevent duty that has been ruled illegal; (iii) that this language is in any case dangerously vague; (iv) that ‘welfare’ is vague and capacious. It addresses them by removing the material that causes these problems and replacing it with a clear, simple and liberal text from the ‘Chicago Statement’ that many US universities, including Columbia and Princeton, have already adopted.

Amendment:

Change paragraph 8 of the University Statement on Freedom of Speech proposed in the Grace from:

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.

to:

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.

Footnotes

Annex

The following 42 members of the Regent House have proposed amendment 1 to the Grace:

A. M. Ahmed

S. Hajna

A. F. Routh

M. A. R. Arbabzadah

W. J. Handley

L. Shmilovits

V. N. Bateman

H. E. M. Hunt

B. P. Simms

A. D. Bond

M. D. Hurley

B. D. Sloan

A. M. Bunyan

G. E. Jarvis

M. C. Smith

D. J. Butterfield

E. J. Jones

M. S. Smith

N. J. Butterfield

K.-T. Khaw

S. P. Tomaselli

C. E. Chambers

K.-C. Lin

M. J. Waithe

S. Conway Morris

A. J. Marr

J. I. Warren

R. Dervan

J. E. Morgan

E. Wickham

G. J. W. Dumbreck

A. Nickerson

P. J. Williams

M. P. Eisner

J. T. W. Orr

A. D. Yates

D. O. Erdos

R. A. W. Rex

J. A. Zeitler

J. Grower

P. Robinson

A. Zsák

The following 38 members of the Regent House have proposed amendment 2 to the Grace:

A. M. Ahmed

S. Hajna

A. F. Routh

M. A. R. Arbabzadah

W. J. Handley

L. Shmilovits

V. N. Bateman

H. E. M. Hunt

B. P. Simms

A. D. Bond

M. D. Hurley

M. C. Smith

A. M. Bunyan

E. J. Jones

M. S. Smith

D. J. Butterfield

K.-T. Khaw

M. J. Waithe

S. Conway Morris

K.-C. Lin

J. I. Warren

R. Dervan

A. J. Marr

E. Wickham

G. J. W. Dumbreck

J. E. Morgan

P. J. Williams

M. P. Eisner

A. Nickerson

A. D. Yates

D. O. Erdos

J. T. W. Orr

J. A. Zeitler

J. W. Fawcett

R. A. W. Rex

A. Zsák

J. Grower

P. Robinson

The following 38 members of the Regent House have proposed amendment 3 to the Grace:

A. M. Ahmed

S. Hajna

A. F. Routh

M. A. R. Arbabzadah

W. J. Handley

L. Shmilovits

V. N. Bateman

H. E. M. Hunt

B. P. Simms

A. D. Bond

M. D. Hurley

M. C. Smith

A. M. Bunyan

G. E. Jarvis

M. S. Smith

D. J. Butterfield

E. J. Jones

M. J. Waithe

C. E. Chambers

K.-C. Lin

J. I. Warren

S. Conway Morris

A. J. Marr

E. Wickham

R. Dervan

J. E. Morgan

P. J. Williams

G. J. W. Dumbreck

A. Nickerson

A. D. Yates

M. P. Eisner

J. T. W. Orr

J. A. Zeitler

D. O. Erdos

R. A. W. Rex

A. Zsák

J. Grower

P. Robinson

Election of a member of the Council’s Finance Committee in class (b)

14 October 2020

A vacancy will arise on the Council’s Finance Committee for a member of the Regent House, elected by representatives of the Colleges, to serve for three years from 1 January 2021.

The election is conducted in accordance with the Single Transferable Vote regulations. Voting is by postal ballot.

Nominations should be made in writing to the Head of the Governance and Compliance Division and must include a statement by the person nominated that he or she is willing to serve on the Finance Committee. Nominations should be supported by the signatures of two members of the Regent House. Nominations and statements should be made by 12 noon on Friday, 30 October 2020. Please send them as a scan/photograph by email to HdGCDEA@admin.cam.ac.uk; an email from the nominee received from a University email account, copied to the University email accounts of the proposer and seconder of the nomination will also be accepted.

If a ballot is necessary, papers will be dispatched by Wednesday, 4 November 2020, for return by 12 noon on Monday, 16 November 2020.

Stipends of the holders of clinical academic offices and payment for clinical responsibility

With effect from 1 April 2020

Agreement has been reached on the salary arrangements for clinical academic staff with effect from 1 April 2020. Following a recent meeting of the Board of the Universities and Colleges Employers Association, the Clinical Academic Staff Salaries Committee has agreed to translate the award of the Doctors’ and Dentists’ Review Body into the salaries of clinical academic staff. The increase, from 1 April 2020, is 2.8% on the scale points for Consultants. The pay award will be backdated to 1 April 2020 for clinical consultants.

The uplift for junior doctors remains at 2%, as already implemented, and approved by General Board, in line with their four-year pay deal (Reporter, 6583, 2019–20, p. 436). However, some amendments are required to some of the scale points as instructed by UCEA. The amendments will take effect from 1 April 2020 and the scales are given below.

The values of National Clinical Excellence Awards (CEAs) and Local CEAs under the previous scheme, discretionary points and distinction awards remain unchanged.

In accordance with the principle that the remuneration of clinical academic staff in Cambridge should be broadly comparable with that of equivalent staff in other UK medical schools, the General Board has agreed to approve revised stipends and scales of stipends for clinical appointments in Cambridge.

The figures currently shown in Schedule II to the Ordinance on stipends (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 702) are replaced with effect from 1 April 2020 or 1 October 2020 as indicated below:

Junior Doctor Pay Scales:

Effective 1 April 2020
Nodal point 4 £49,036, Specialist Register 4 £38,920, Speciality Register 3 £38,920, Speciality Register 11 £60,960

Effective 1 October 2020
Nodal point 5 £52,036

New (2003) Consultant contract:

If the integrated job plan and the honorary Consultant contract agreed with the NHS covers not less than ten Programmed Activities a week, the annual pensionable payment for clinical responsibility will amount to the difference between the officer’s prime stipend and her or his notional place on the NHS full-time Consultant salary scale.

That scale is:
With effect from 1 April 2020: £82,096, £84,667, £87,238, £89,809, £92,372, £98,477, £104,584, £110,683.

The offices of Clinical Sub‑Dean in the Faculty of Clinical Medicine, Director and Assistant Director of Studies in General Practice are part‑time and stipends are determined by local agreement, with reference to the appropriate full-time Consultant salary.

Retrospectivity concerning the LL.M. Degree

The Registrary gives notice that, under Regulation 9(b) for Supplicats (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 174), the following holder of the LL.B. Degree, who satisfied the Examiners for the LL.B. Examination before 1 October 1982, has now been redesignated as a holder of the LL.M. Degree: