No 6749
Wednesday 17 July 2024
Vol cliv No 39
pp. 777–798
18 July, Thursday. Congregation of the Regent House at 9.30 a.m. (see p. 789).
19 July, Friday. Congregation of the Regent House at 9.30 a.m. (see p. 790).
20 July, Saturday. Congregation of the Regent House at 9.30 a.m. (see p. 790).
22 July, Monday. Ballots of the Regent House, voting closes at 5 p.m. (see p. 785).
Ordinary issues of the Reporter for the remainder of the 2023–24 academic year will be published on 24 and 31 July 2024. The first issue of the 2024–25 academic year is scheduled for publication on 25 September 2024.
The Council has received the remarks made at the Discussion on 25 June on the above Report (Reporter, 2023–24: 6744, p. 634; 6748, p. 760). Eleven members of the Senate commented, ten of whom were supportive of the proposal to adopt a fixed term for both the Chancellor and the High Steward.1
The Council agrees with Professor Evans that those serving as Chancellor and High Steward have held the office for considerable periods. Professor Evans draws a comparison with membership of the Regent House, which has no age limit. The Council notes that officers are expected to carry out certain duties, whereas members of the Regent House voluntarily take part in University decision-making, therefore it does not consider the two to be analogous. The Council notes Professor Evans’ comments on other offices referred to in Statute A I and will consider separately whether any changes should be proposed to the term of the Deputy High Steward and the Commissary.
The Council is proposing some additional changes to Statute A I:
•in response to comments, to confirm that the person elected would serve for one ten‑year term only, which would not be renewable unless the Senate otherwise determined by Grace in an individual case;
•to ensure that the new term would not apply to the term of any incumbent Chancellor or High Steward on approval;
•to remove a reference to the High Steward’s election that was overlooked.
Professor Evans states that the Council is proposing a return to a form of ‘Nominating Committee’ following the recent abolition of the Nomination Board. The Council can confirm that there are no plans to revise the existing nomination process, which remains focused on nominations made by 50 or more members of the Senate and does not involve any formal body putting forward its own candidate. Professor Evans also comments on what a role description for the Chancellor might contain. The Council has not finalised the details but will do so nearer the time of the next election.
The Council is submitting a Grace (Grace 2, p. 789) for the approval of this Report’s recommendations, as amended by the changes annexed to this Notice.
Deborah Prentice, Vice‑Chancellor
Zoe Adams
Sarah Anderson
Madeleine Atkins
Gaenor Bagley
Milly Bodfish
Anthony Davenport
John Dix
Sharon Flood
Alex Halliday
Heather Hancock
Louise Joy
Ella McPherson
Scott Mandelbrote
Sally Morgan
Richard Mortier
Alex Myall
Sharon Peacock
Jason Scott-Warren
Andrew Wathey
Michael Sewell
Pieter van Houten
Footnote
1The University's alumni newsletter included information about the proposal and the Discussion, but also gave the option of giving feedback by email, which is how the Council received these comments.
Amendment
*30 July 2024: The footnote above has been added to clarify how the comments from the members of the Senate were received.
Paragraph 5 of the Report, setting out its recommendations, has been amended to read as follows:
5. The Council recommends that the Statutes of the University be amended as follows, and that these amendments be submitted to His Majesty in Council for approval.
That, with effect from the next election to the offices of Chancellor and High Steward, in Statute A I (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 3) Sections 1 and 9 be amended to read as follows and in Section 14 the words ‘High Steward,’ be deleted:
1. The Chancellor of the University shall be elected by the members of the Senate and shall hold office, in accordance with the laws and customs of the University, for one period of ten years from the date of election unless prior to the expiry of that period the Chancellor voluntarily resigns or the Senate otherwise determines by Grace in an individual case.
9. The High Steward shall be elected by the members of the Senate. The arrangements prescribed by Statute and Ordinance for the election and term of the Chancellor shall apply also to the election and term of the High Steward.
The Council has received the remarks made at the Discussion on 25 June on the above Report (Reporter, 2023–24: 6745, p. 670; 6748, p. 774).
The Council agrees with Dr Cowley that the required reductions in expenditure in 2024–25 and 2025–26 must not come at the expense of the University’s education and research. Successive Reports have emphasised the potential savings of University‑wide change and transformation programmes, which will allow greater investment in pay, and in education and research. Schools and non-School institutions are particularly encouraged to develop near‑term plans for recurrent cost savings that are consistent with the long-term direction of those programmes, and which enhance – rather than diminish – the University’s academic capability.
The Council agrees with Dr Cowley that the ‘position is not rosy’. That the University Group as a whole (including Press & Assessment) continues to generate an annual cashflow surplus from its operations is not sufficient. The University needs to generate enough cash to maintain its physical and digital estate and continue to invest in academic activity. It would also be dangerous to rely on large transfers from Press & Assessment which is operating in increasingly competitive markets.
The Council notes Professor Evans’ remarks on the lessons to be learnt from the implementation of CUFS.
The Council is submitting a Grace (Grace 3, p. 789) for the approval of this Report’s recommendations.
The Council has received the remarks made at the Discussion on 25 June on the above Report (Reporter, 2023–24: 6745, p. 685; 6748, p. 776). It has consulted with the General Board in preparing this response.
Dr Astle asks whether any of the offices that the Report proposes to establish will be held co‑terminously with another role or will be for a fixed term, noting that the General Board previously committed to publishing this information in the future, in response to remarks on the Report of the 2023 exercise. The General Board apologises for this oversight and provides below the information that should have been published in this Report:
•Both of the Clinical Professorships proposed in this Report would be held co-terminously with an honorary clinical contract. This is in line with the expectations of the Report establishing the office of Clinical Professor (Reporter, 6646, 2021–22, p. 256). The reason for making the office co‑terminous with the honorary clinical contract is because, without an honorary clinical contract, those officeholders cannot work as clinical academics at the University. Neither of those proposed Clinical Professorships will be supported by external funding, nor is either of them being established for a fixed period.
•Where an existing role is externally funded, that arrangement will continue, as the funding for the currently held role transfers to the new appointment on promotion. The Report already notes in Recommendation IV that for two people the period of appointment would be to the end of their current appointment.
The General Board will include similar information in Reports on the outcome of such exercises in the future.
The Council is publishing a Grace (Grace 4, p. 789) for the approval of the recommendations of this Report.
Following consultation with the General Board, the Council has agreed to make the following appointments to the office of Pro-Vice-Chancellor:
•Professor Sir John Aston, FRS, CHU, will be appointed as Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Research) for a first term of three years from 1 September 2024; and
•Professor Anna Philpott, CL, will be appointed as Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Resources and Operations) for a first term of three years from 1 October 2024.
The Council made the appointments on the recommendation of its Nominating Committee for the appointment and reappointment of Pro-Vice-Chancellors, comprising the Vice-Chancellor as Chair; Ms Gaenor Bagley, Baroness Morgan of Huyton and Professor Jason Scott-Warren (members of the Council); and Professor Tim Harper and Professor Nigel Peake (members of the General Board).
The Council has also approved an extension to the appointment of Professor David Cardwell, F, as Pro‑Vice‑Chancellor (Strategy and Planning), in accordance with Statute C III 16. The reappointment is from 1 August to 30 September 2024. This short extension will enable Professor Cardwell to continue in the office until Professor Philpott takes up office.
The Council has agreed a new policy and process for considering funding from fossil fuel companies, as set out in the Annex below.
Decision-making on such funding will remain with the University’s Committee on Benefactions and Legal and External Affairs (CBELA).
Under the new policy and process, the University will not accept research or philanthropic funding from fossil fuel companies whose business models do not align with net zero 2050 (NZ2050) targets, unless there are exceptional circumstances.
CBELA will adopt external benchmarks to determine whether a company is classified as a fossil fuel company, and whether its business model is aligned with NZ2050 targets. The exceptional circumstances under which CBELA might consider funding from a fossil fuel company are described in transparent criteria, deliberately designed to set a high bar (see below).
No fossil fuel company is currently understood to have a business model that aligns with NZ2050 targets.
The new process is a response to a key recommendation in a report commissioned to consider the impact on the University if it were to end sponsorship and collaboration with fossil fuel companies. The Topping Study,1 led by Nigel Topping, UN Climate Change High Level Champion for COP26, said that the University should:
•Clarify the current CBELA process, maintaining discretion but largely relying on simpler tests and third-party analysis, and
•Adopt the Science Based Targets initiative definition of ‘fossil fuel company’ to cover companies substantially involved in fossil fuel extraction (but not wholly or partially owned subsidiaries focused on clean technology solutions) and use clearer external benchmarks to guide its decision-making.
For CBELA to consider whether accepting funding from a fossil fuel company on an exceptional basis is in the best interests of the University, the proposal will need to meet both of the following two criteria:
•It is for a large gift, or equivalent value for a research collaboration (usually several million pounds), which could not be obtained elsewhere;
and
•The proposal advances the University’s overall academic and institutional aims (for instance the visions of the Schools).
In assessing whether the proposal advances the University’s overall academic and institutional aims, CBELA will (where appropriate) continue to be supported by the Advisory Group on Research Purpose2 on issues such as whether the proposed purpose of a project is to aid the energy transition and whether the proposal has no material risk of dual use in relation to fossil fuel extraction.
The Council is aware that some staff and students wish the University to place a blanket ban on funding from all fossil fuel companies. However, a blanket ban may cause tension in relation to academic freedom and freedom of speech. It may also give rise to questions concerning the University’s obligations under charity law. Charity law governs the circumstances under which universities and other charities can reject funding and, as the Topping Study1 makes clear, charity trustees may only refuse a donation exceptionally.
Under the new policy and process, there are no restrictions on academics’ non-funded collaborations with fossil fuel companies.
1The Topping Study is available at https://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/reporter/documents/reports/FossilFuelStudy2023.pdf.
2The Advisory Group’s membership and terms of reference are available on the CBELA website at: https://www.governance.cam.ac.uk/committees/cbela/Pages/The-Advisory-Group-on-Research-Purpose.aspx.
Amendment
*30 July 2024: An editorial amendment has been made to restore text that on publication was missing from the paragraph headed 'Why has the Council taken this decision?'.
This Policy and process outlines how the University, through its Committee on Benefactions and External and Legal Affairs (CBELA), will consider donation or research funding opportunities from fossil fuel companies. It is informed by the Topping Study,1 which made recommendations about how the University should mitigate the risks of engaging with fossil fuel companies, and how it could pursue opportunities consistent with its charitable mission.
Fossil fuel combustion and industrial processes represent the single largest source of carbon dioxide and overall greenhouse gas emissions worldwide. In addition, the oil and gas industry is one of the largest contributors of methane emissions. The University has recognised the urgency of the climate emergency and has taken action to demonstrate leadership in this area.
The University will not restrict academics’ non‑funded collaborations to avoid the risks of impinging on academic freedom and freedom of speech or of impeding academics’ access to data and expertise required for education, learning and research, such as into the transition to clean energy technologies. For the same reason, the University will remain open to minority (under 25%) membership of multi-company technical collaborations, even if this collaboration requires a small amount of funding (maximum £300,000) from all participants.
1.In this policy, the University uses the Science Based Targets initiative’s (SBTi) definition2 of fossil fuel companies, that is:
Companies with any level of direct involvement in exploration, extraction, mining and/or production of oil, natural gas, coal or other fossil fuels, irrespective of percentage revenue generated by these activities, i.e. including, but not limited to, integrated oil and gas companies, integrated gas companies, exploration and production pure players, refining and marketing pure players, oil products distributors, gas distributors and retailers and traditional oil and gas service companies.
2.SBTi makes the following exceptions from its definition:
2.1.Companies that derive less than 50% of revenue from (a) sale, transmission and distribution of fossil fuels, or (b) providing equipment or services to fossil fuel companies (see above).
2.2.Companies with less than 5% revenue from fossil fuel assets (e.g. coal mine, lignite mine, etc.) for extraction activities with commercial purposes.
2.3.Electric utilities that mine coal for their own power generation.
2.4.Wholly or partly owned subsidiaries of fossil fuel companies if the subsidiary itself is not considered a fossil fuel company.
3.For clarity, and as recommended in the Topping Study, the definition therefore does not cover subsidiaries that are focused on clean-tech acceleration.
4.To qualify as having a business model aligned with net zero 2050 under this Policy, a fossil fuel company must meet all three of the following tests, where data is available:
4.1.Short-term targets aligned with scientific pathways to net zero 2050: meaning a company is green-rated for short-term alignment using the Transition Pathway Initiative’s carbon performance rating;3
4.2.Short-term capital expenditure (CapEx) plans aligned with net zero 2050: meaning a company is green-rated for Capital Allocation Alignment on Climate Action 100+ using data provided by the Carbon Tracker Initiative;4
4.3.Policy influence activities reasonably aligned with net zero 2050: meaning the company has a C+ rating for climate policy engagement on Influence Map.5
5.At present, the University is not aware of any fossil fuel company, as defined by SBTi, that meets all of these tests for alignment with net zero 2050. If a fossil fuel company were to meet those tests in future, any funding opportunities would be considered in line with normal CBELA processes for standard opportunities.
6.The University will only consider accepting funding from fossil fuel companies whose business models do not align with net zero 2050 in exceptional circumstances.
7.The following two criteria enable CBELA to interrogate and understand the specific opportunities and risks of a proposal and to determine whether accepting such funding is in the best interests of the University. The two criteria must be met by all proposals for CBELA to consider making an exception. When assessing a funding proposal, CBELA will need to be satisfied that the positive impact of the proposal means that the benefit of the funding would outweigh any reputational harm to the University and its mission.
7.1.Criterion 1: The proposal is for a large gift, or equivalent value for a research collaboration (usually several million pounds), which could not be obtained elsewhere.
7.2.Criterion 2: The proposal advances the University’s overall academic and institutional aims as articulated in School Visions or equivalent, including for NSIs.
8.In assessing whether the proposal advances the University’s overall academic and institutional aims, CBELA will (where appropriate) continue to be supported by the Advisory Group on Research Purposes on issues such as whether the proposed purpose of a project is to aid the energy transition and whether the proposal has no material risk of dual use in relation to fossil fuel extraction. For work in relation to developing policy on fossil fuels, the economics and/or challenges of the energy transition, CBELA may also seek assurances that explicit safeguards are in place to ensure that the association with the source of funds does not compromise the academic outputs.
9.In the context of the circumstances as set out in the Introduction, and given the level of reputational risk associated with University accepting funding from fossil fuel companies, the criteria intentionally set a high bar.
10.This Policy was adopted by the Council on 15 July 2024, following discussion at CBELA and the General Board. It is owned by the Council and implemented by CBELA.
11.The Policy does not apply retrospectively.
12.The Policy will normally be reviewed by Council every three years.
1The Topping Study is available at https://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/reporter/documents/reports/FossilFuelStudy2023.pdf.
3The Transition Pathway Initiative’s Carbon Performance rating compares the company’s emissions pathway against different climate scenarios consistent with the UN Paris Agreement, for example the aim to limit global warming to 1.5°C above the pre-industrial level.
4The Carbon Tacker Initiative (CTI) analyses the impact of the energy transition on capital markets. It provides data on capital allocation alignment for Climate Action 100+’s company assessments and company profiles for oil and gas.
5Influence Map measures a company’s climate policy engagement, accounting for both its own engagement and that of its industry associations. There are 16 Performance Bands from A+ (representing a total score from 95–100%), with scores below 25% falling in the red ‘F’ band.
The Task and Finish Group overseeing the University’s Review of Teaching (Reporter, 6722, 2023–24, p. 197) has produced its initial recommendations (available at https://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/cam-only/reporter/2023-24/weekly/6749/TeachingReview2024-InitialRecommendations.pdf, University account required). These initial recommendations serve as a first step towards addressing the underlying issues affecting undergraduate student workload, and sustainability of the supervision system. There is further work to be done throughout the Michaelmas Term 2024, prior to development of the final recommendations which will be considered by the Colleges’ Committee, the General Board, and the Council in the Lent Term 2025.
Alongside the initial recommendations, the Task and Finish Group has identified a number of statements setting out problems and aims (see https://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/cam-only/reporter/2023-24/weekly/6749/TeachingReview2024-Statements.pdf, University account required), which seek to clarify the underlying issues, how they are experienced, and what the desired future state may be. Tripos teams will be asked to consider how closely these statements capture the issues in their local context during the Michaelmas Term 2024, to feed into the final recommendations.
In December 2008, the Council approved a procedure to handle claims for the transfer of stewardship of human remains in the University’s collections (Reporter, 6131, 2008–09, p. 270). The Procedure established a Human Remains Advisory Panel to give advice and make recommendations to the Council in relation to those claims.
The Council, on the recommendation of the Human Remains Advisory Panel, has made some minor changes to the Procedure, primarily to the language used (for example, replacing references to requests with references to claims). The revised Procedure is set out in the Annex below and will replace the version reproduced in the Appendix to the Statutes and Ordinances, p. 1114.
1.1 Claims or enquiries relating to the transfer of stewardship of human remains in the University’s collections should be submitted in writing by email to registrary@admin.cam.ac.uk.
1.2 The Registrary shall take responsibility for dealing with the claim or enquiry and shall act as the point of contact in respect of such claim or enquiry. The Registrary may appoint a delegate to act in their place under this procedure, and any reference to the Registrary in this procedure shall be deemed to include a reference to any such delegate.
1.3 The Registrary will openly engage and enter into constructive dialogue with anyone making a claim or enquiry.
2.1 A claim for the transfer of stewardship of human remains should include as much supporting information as possible, including information about:
•the identity of the individual(s) or community making the claim and any intermediary or representative;
•the specific human remains being claimed;
•the connection between the claimant(s) and the human remains in question;
•the basis for the claim and the reason for making it;
•the wishes of the claimant(s) for the future of the remains; and
•any information in the possession of the claimant(s) regarding other potential claims in respect of the same human remains.
2.2 The Registrary will formally acknowledge the claim in writing and provide an indication of how long it is likely to take for a decision to be made.
2.3 The Registrary will consider the information provided by the claimant(s) and may gather further information as necessary, either from the claimants, or from other sources, including from the national government of the country from which the claimant(s) originate. The Registrary shall also invite those with responsibility for the University collection in which the human remains are located to provide a response to the claim, together with any material which they consider to be relevant to the claim, including expert evidence.
2.4 The Registrary may take such steps as may be deemed necessary to advertise or give notice of any claim for the transfer of stewardship of human remains with a view to ensuring that any competing claims to the same remains are brought to the attention of the University.
3.1 The information provided by the claimant(s) and by those responsible for the relevant University collection, as well as any other information gathered by the Registrary shall be presented to a Human Remains Advisory Panel, which shall be established in accordance with Annex I.
3.2 The Panel shall consider the information presented to it and, taking into account the criteria set out in Annex II, which are derived from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport’s Guidance for the Care of Human Remains in Museums, the Panel shall give advice and make recommendations to the University Council regarding the claim. The Panel shall submit its advice and recommendations to the Council in the form of a full written report of all the relevant facts, factors, and evidence.
3.3 The Panel may itself seek additional information or evidence as appropriate from any persons in order to assist it in determining its advice and recommendations to the University Council, including independent advice from experts on ethical, scientific, legal and political issues.
4.1 Based upon the advice and recommendations contained in the Panel’s report, the University Council shall make a decision regarding the claim.
4.2 Once a decision has been made it shall be formally minuted. The Registrary shall promptly inform the claimant(s) of the decision and the reasons for it.
4.3 The claimant(s) shall be allowed time to respond. It is possible that further discussions may continue. If a claim for the transfer of stewardship of human remains is declined, this shall not preclude future dialogue or communication between parties.
The costs of administrative support for the Panel, together with any approved costs of any independent expert or third party who is commissioned to provide evidence at the reasonable request of the Panel, shall be met out of central University funds.
The efficacy of this procedure shall be regularly reviewed by the University Council and this procedure shall be revised as deemed necessary or appropriate in the light of feedback and comment from interested parties.
1. A Human Remains Advisory Panel shall be established to give advice and make recommendations to the University Council regarding claims for the transfer of stewardship of human remains held in the University’s collections.
2. There shall be three members of the Panel.
3. The members of the Panel will be appointed by the University Council on the recommendation of the Nominations Committee. One member of the Panel shall be appointed as Chair of the Panel. The Panel shall have a sufficient and appropriate range of expertise amongst its members to enable it properly and fairly to perform its functions.
4. Members of the Panel shall be appointed in their own right, not as representatives of any interests or institutions.
5. Members will be appointed for an initial term of up to five years. Terms of appointment may be renewed.
6. The Registrary shall appoint the Secretary of the Panel.
7. The Panel may set procedures regulating its own activities, including procedures for the summary resolution of a claim by one or more members of the Panel. The Panel may at its discretion hear oral evidence or submissions from the parties involved and may at its discretion allow the parties to be represented at such a hearing.
8. The activities of the Panel shall be reviewed by the University Council every three years.
Genealogical descendants: If individuals can demonstrate a direct and close genealogical link to the human remains, their wishes would generally be given very strong weight. However, consideration should be given as to whether they are the only people in this category and if they are not, whether there was any risk of harm to others in this category if the claim being made were granted.
There may be exceptional cases where remains would not be returned to genealogical descendants. However, it is expected that in the majority of cases they would be, or that consent would be required from the descendants for any further use by the University.
In practice, individuals who died more than 100 years ago may have many descendants from more than one community, so genealogical descent alone may not be the only criteria considered. In such cases, the University will need to assess the range of potential claimants and gauge how the interests of these individuals might be balanced with any other relevant considerations. The ethical principles will help to guide the University through these cases. The principles of avoiding harm (to the particular individuals concerned) and solidarity (seeking co‑operation and consensus) are likely to be particularly important here.
Cultural community of origin: The concept of a community can be a difficult one to define. The assumption is that human society is characterised by the creation of communities that individuals feel a part of and which take on a collective set of values, often identified by particular cultural behaviour. It is often far less easy to identify which particular cultural community, or part of a community, has the greatest authority in any particular instance.
When considering claims based on cultural links, the University will need to take care to verify that the group it is dealing with is the only potential claimant, or that, if it is not, the other potential claimants support them. For overseas claims, where there may be doubt on this, advice should generally be sought from the national government concerned. It might also be normal to look for precedents for how a community has acted in the past.
For a community to be recognised and their claim considered it would generally be expected that continuity of belief, customs or language could be demonstrated between the claimants and the community from which the remains originate. Cultures evolve and change through time but these changes can normally be recorded and demonstrated. The relationship between the location of the claimant community and the origin of the remains might also be a consideration.
It would be unusual to accept a claim for return from a group who did not either occupy the land from which the remains came, practice the same religious beliefs, share the same culture or language, or could not demonstrate why this was no longer the case.
The University will need to be assured that a sufficient link does exist and that the group they are dealing with has sufficient authority to make a community claim.
A clear demonstration of a continuity of association between the claimant and the remains will be of great importance in dealing with any claim.
The country of origin: In some cases a nation may make a claim for remains, either on behalf of a particular community or for all of its nationals. Such a claim would be considered along similar lines to claims based on cultural community.
Where claims are made it would be expected, but not essential, for the claimant group to show that human remains and their treatment have a cultural, spiritual or religious significance to their community. The claimant group may show that remains were removed without the permission of their community, or at least outside its laws and normal practices. Further, the claim may be being made purely on cultural, spiritual or religious grounds. The claimant may show that the correct treatment of the remains is of religious or spiritual importance.
The remains might also be of a particular cultural significance to a community, for example as being from an important family or representing war dead, or victims of a particular event, such as a massacre.
Demonstration through some or all of the ways above, of strong continuous cultural, spiritual or religious significance of particular human remains, will add weight to a claim. This is particularly so in cases where there is clearly a risk of harm to the individuals or communities concerned, for example, where the continued holding of the remains by the University perpetuates a strong feeling of grief amongst claimants.
The vast majority of claims that have been made for return have concerned the remains of overseas people who died within the last 100 to 300 years. This corresponds most closely to the period when expansion took place by European powers with its subsequent effect on Indigenous peoples – a period that does not go back further than 500 years. It is also the period in which it is more likely for a close genealogical link to be made between the living and the dead.
Archaeological and historical study has shown that it is very difficult to demonstrate clear genealogical, cultural or ethnic continuity far into the past, although there are exceptions to this. For these reasons it is considered that claims are unlikely to be successful for any remains over 300 years old, and are unlikely to be considered for remains over 500 years old, except where a very close and continuous geographical, religious, spiritual, and cultural link can be demonstrated. Some cultures put more emphasis on association with land that has a cultural, spiritual or religious importance and less on relative age. In such cases, the chronological age of the remains may be less significant.
There are many cases of human remains being removed and studied without dispute. There are other instances, particularly during the 19th and early 20th century, of remains being removed against the will of individuals, families, and communities.
The University should be sure of the exact legal status of the remains within its collections and that it has the right to make decisions over their fate.
The University should identify the remains being claimed and then ascertain why they are being curated and how they have been, and are likely to be, studied:
1.Are the remains fully documented and the information about them publicly available?
2. Do they have continued, reasonably foreseeable, research potential?
3.Do they form part of a documented access strategy?
4.Are they curated according to the very highest standards?
5.Are they curated in such a way as their long-term preservation is assured?
6.Can the long-term security of the remains be guaranteed within the University?
Many human remains have undoubted potential to further the knowledge and understanding of humanity through research, study and display. In considering a claim for return of human remains, the University should carefully assess their value and reasonably foreseeable potential for research, teaching and display and should ensure that specialists with appropriate knowledge and experience have assessed this.
If the remains do have value for research, teaching and display, the University should decide whether this can override other factors, particularly such as the wishes and feelings of genealogical descendants or cultural communities.
Consideration may be given to previous studies of the remains. Evidence of extensive previous research would normally support an argument for scientific value.
The care of remains, if returned, also requires consideration. Some claims might require re-burial or removal from the public arena, whereas some claimants may be prepared to keep the remains in such a way that future research, teaching or even display is possible.
Whether a record of the remains exists, or can be made before return, might be a factor in making a decision.
There may be more than two options when a claim is made. The University should explore further alternatives if this helps in reaching a consensus. For example, it may be possible that remains would stay in the relevant University collection, but a claimant group would gain a level of control over their future use.
Some nation states have developed domestic legislation or policy to govern claims for the return of remains. The University would normally expect to be aware of any policies of the national government from which a claim originated. It is worth considering how a claim would be resolved if made in the country from which the claimants originate, as well as the expectations of the claimant based on the practice in their country of origin.
Claims will generally be dealt with on a case‑by‑case basis. However, it would be expected that the University would review past cases of claims made to it, or claims of a similar kind made to other collections and their outcomes, as well as giving some thought to the impact of any decision on future claims.
Version history
Version 1 approved by the Council
on 1 December 2008.
This version approved by the Council on 15 July
2024.
The following ballots are currently open for voting by members of the Regent House:
•Ballot on Grace 2 of 12 June 2024 (Employer Justified Retirement Age)
•Election to the Board of Scrutiny in class (c)(ii)
Voting closes at 5 p.m. on Monday, 22 July 2024 and members listed on the Roll of the Regent House promulgated on 6 November 20231 are eligible to vote. Voting services are provided by Civica Election Services, who will send a reminder shortly before voting closes to members of the Regent House who have not voted.2
Information about the ballot and election, including fly-sheets, candidate statements and access to the online voting portal, is available on the ballots site at https://www.governance.cam.ac.uk/ballots/voting/ (University account required).
1See https://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/reporter/regent_house_roll/section1.shtml.
2The names and choices of individual voters cannot be identified by the University.