Fly-sheets reprinted

Fly-sheets relating to the ballot on Grace 2 of 12 June 2024 (EJRA)

In accordance with the Council’s Notice on Discussions and Fly-sheets (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 116), the thirteen fly‑sheets signed by members of the Regent House and the Council statement in response received for the ballot on Grace 2 of 12 June 2024 (EJRA) are reprinted below. Fly‑sheets are reprinted in the order in which they appeared in the ballot booklet, which was random. For the result of the ballot see p. 828.
 

---

Fly-sheet in support of Grace 2 of 12 June 2024 (EJRA)

We would like to express our strong support for the recommendations put forward by the EJRA Review Group, and urge you to vote in favour of the recommendations. In particular, we oppose a blanket removal of the EJRA for academic University officers, unless a clear transition plan is put in place to (1) minimise the impact on academic career progression, and (2) ensure continuation of the positive changes in research culture, diversity and equality.

As the comprehensive analysis by the Review Group highlights, abolishing the EJRA for academics is predicted to result in ~40% decrease in new vacancies over the next decade. This will severely impact career prospects for early-career academics in non-established posts, who lead ambitious, innovative and creative research programmes, and contribute substantially to teaching, outreach, grant income, and many aspects of University life and culture.

Although most other Russell Group institutions do not apply an EJRA, with the exception of Oxford, a key difference is that 53% of Cambridge academics stay at the University until retirement, in contrast to 22% elsewhere. Whilst this highlights the exceptional academic and professional environment at the University, it also advocates the need for other solutions to sustain a diverse and dynamic academic environment, and provide opportunities for academics starting their independent careers. In the absence of alternative, better approaches, we currently favour maintaining an EJRA within the University.

We highly appreciate and respect our established colleagues and mentors, some of them nearing or past the retirement age, who continue to lead world-class research programmes. They provide invaluable guidance, inspiration, and collaborative opportunities at the onset of our independent careers. One day, we hope to be in a similar position, feeling similarly valued, and keen to carry on our jobs and research. However, we believe that the proposed revisions to the extension process ensure sufficient flexibility for continued academic engagement beyond the retirement age.

Finally, the recommendation of the Report is to increase the EJRA to the age of 69. This will still result in a ~10% reduction of vacancies over the next 10 years, without clear prospects of new positions being created. The signatories would be grateful for the University to consider how to mitigate this. Together with the Mid-Career Fellows and Early PI Networks that many of us are members of, we are keen to help develop a strategy for ongoing fair, diverse and innovative career opportunities.

Please vote in favour of the Report’s recommendations [Option (A)].

Signed by the following members of the Regent House:

Also signed by ten University employees who are not members of the Regent House or registered students.

---

Fly-sheet in favour of abolishing the EJRA

As a British employer seeking to retain a mandatory retirement age for its academic members of staff, Cambridge University is legally obligated to provide an adequate rationale for doing so. Legally as well as morally, the burden of proof lies on the University to justify its age-based discrimination. Through the Review Group chaired by Richard Penty, the University has sought to discharge its burden of proof by contending that the abolition of its mandatory retirement age would significantly reduce the number of vacancies each year for entry-level academics. However, as is shown in a sustained rejoinder by Oliver Linton and Raghavendra Rau and others to the report issued by Penty’s Review Group, the efforts of the Review Group to supply a justification for the University’s mandatory retirement age are fatally undone by errors and inconsistencies and unsubstantiated pronouncements in the Group’s statistical analyses.1

As is recounted in the Linton/Rau document, some apt modeling of the likely effects of the abolition of the University’s mandatory retirement age indicates that any reduction in vacancies for entry-level academics will in fact be trivial (between 1% and 4%). As five employment tribunals have held in five consecutive successful lawsuits against Oxford University2 – the only other English university to retain a mandatory retirement age since 2011 – such a negligible reduction in entry-level vacancies is far too small to be a legally recognizable justifying factor. It cannot render lawful the age-based discrimination in which the University is engaging through its retention of a mandatory retirement age.

Members of Penty’s Review Group have also invoked a few ancillary rationales for the retention of a mandatory retirement age. Each of those additional rationales is rebutted both in the Linton/Rau document and on the 'Abolish EJRA at Cambridge University' website.3 One of those ancillary justifications should receive some brief attention here. Supporters of a mandatory retirement age suggest that, if it is eliminated, it will have to be replaced by the University with a system of performance management. Three responses to such a concern are warranted here. First, as has been stated by successive employment tribunals and by a parliamentary position paper that accompanied the 2011 Repeal of Retirement Age Amendment to the 2010 Equality Act,4 the use of a mandatory retirement age as a substitute for an adequate system of performance management is unlawful. Second, most if not all of the components of a satisfactory system of performance management are already routinely operative within the workings of the University: probationary-period assessments, course evaluations, promotions assessments, REF inclusion or exclusion, professorial pay-grade reviews. Indeed, those components generate more fine-grained appraisals than will be necessary in any adequate system of performance management. Third, any additional measure that would involve an amendment to Statute C of the University cannot be introduced without the approval of the Regent House.

In short, the justifications for a mandatory retirement age propounded by the University through the Penty Review Group are untenable. Hence, the University has not discharged its legal burden of proof for its retention of a mandatory retirement age. Members of the Regent House should vote to abolish that discriminatory policy, which currently leaves the University vulnerable to spates of successful lawsuits [Option (B)].

Signed by the following members of the Regent House:

---

Recommendations of the Joint Report of the Council and the General Board on the
University’s Retirement Policy and Employer Justified Retirement Age – Placet fly-sheet

As retired members of the University, we are reluctant to meddle in its governance. But we can perhaps claim a legitimate voice on this issue. We appreciate the anxieties that members of the Regent House may feel about a fixed retirement age. But many of those anxieties are faced in these proposals (including the raising of the retirement age to 69, the modification to the rules for ‘extensions’ and the planned review of the contribution of retired academics to the University). For us inter-generational fairness, and the hopes and aspirations of early career scholars take precedence. So we urge you to vote placet, in favour of the Grace [Option (A)].

Signed by the following members of the Regent House:

---

Fly-sheet in favour of recommendations regarding the EJRA

The case for retaining a mandatory retirement age for academic Officers is a straightforward one. The majority of academic posts in Cambridge become vacant on the retirement of the holder – not many leave for other universities in mid-career. If the retirement age were abolished for academic officers and a significant number were to retire later, then the University would be unable to maintain even the present low rate of new appointments. The greater unpredictability in the timing of retirements would also make planning for recruitment for the replacement of retirees by Faculties and Departments more difficult.

New academic staff, mostly younger in truth, bring new ideas, new approaches and new research areas. Turnover in academic officers at Cambridge is already low and to refresh our research portfolio we need more turnover, not less. This of course is not about the capability of staff near retirement age but rather an acknowledgement that each new vacancy provides a way of opening up a new research area. Recruitment of new staff also serves to improve diversity amongst our established academic cohort.

Retirement from office should not mean the end of academic life: we all have colleagues who continue to contribute to the University via teaching, research and in many other ways after formal retirement. This post-retirement engagement can be made easier, and here the EJRA Review proposes that extensions beyond the retirement age in an unestablished capacity should be made simpler and more than one application allowed. There is also a recognition that more needs to be done to assist emeritus staff to continue to contribute where they wish to do so and the University has committed to make sure this happens. This is very much in line with trends at many other research intensive institutions on both sides of the Atlantic.

We recognise that the EJRA is an emotive subject for many, but there is no one perfect solution to the issue. The Review’s recommendations, which include the proposal to raise the retirement age from 67 to 69 for academic officers, are an attempt to mitigate the issues facing those approaching retirement whilst providing opportunities for early career researchers and for the University to refresh its research base. The combination of new recruitment with mechanisms for retaining exceptional researchers and scholars beyond the retirement age promotes fairness across the generations. We believe that the recommendations achieve a sensible balance between these competing drivers.

Hence we are certain that the proposals are in the best interests of the University. We therefore urge you to vote in favour of the recommendations on the EJRA in Grace 2 of 12 June 2024 and to reject any amendments [Option (A)].

Signed by the following members of the Regent House:

---

Fly-sheet in support of Grace 2 of 12 June 2024

In this fly-sheet we highlight something that is of crucial importance to the hundreds, if not thousands of us who have worked over the years to make Cambridge a better and fairer university. The Employer Justified Retirement Age (EJRA) policy at the University of Cambridge plays a critical role in maintaining the institution’s tradition of academic excellence and innovation and has a positive impact on diversity, equality and inclusion. While intergenerational fairness is an aim of EJRA, diversity is a vital part of that fairness. Frankly, we think improvement in EDI indicators needs to be an EJRA aim and are disappointed that it was dropped from the list. Nevertheless, it remains crucially important to all the signatories of this fly-sheet.

Over the past 10 years, the University has increasingly become more diverse, equal and inclusive. This has led to more creative thinking and innovation, the introduction of new perspectives, greater motivation and aspiration for all staff groups, and immeasurable enrichment of university life for everyone. We would like to remind everyone that this wasn’t always the case and diversity is not uniformly distributed.

The vast majority of white and BAME women working for the University for instance are still stuck in lower paid jobs. While almost half of all associate and assistant professors at grade 9 are women (45% in 2023), only a quarter of professors at grade 12 are female (25% in 2023). Similarly, BAME colleagues still constitute a small minority in high level decision-making bodies in the University.

The University is recruiting more diverse staff as positions become available. Over the past 10 years, 86% to 90% of retirees were white, with a vast majority of them male, indicating clearly how the University is changing. In the same period, while the proportion of women at grade 12 is still low (26.0% of all staff in 2023), it has risen by almost 10% (16.6% of all staff in 2014). The overall percentage of BAME employees at the University has also increased steadily from 11.1% in 2014 to 18.6% in 2023 (of those who declared their ethnicity).

Having a more diverse university is good for everyone, and it wouldn’t be possible if no positions came up to be filled. The EJRA review finds that the majority of academic posts in Cambridge are created only when the position-holder retires. If people did not retire, Cambridge would not have become more diverse.

Remember, while other universities have been able to grow, our peculiar collegiate system precludes significantly increasing student numbers and therefore the creation of new positions. Before other universities abolished retirement age, Cambridge had the lowest job creation rate in the Russell Group. As a result of abolition, many Russell Group universities now have an even lower new position creation rate, despite their growth. EJRA is how we have been able to become more diverse, and we need to maintain it. The proposed policy is in the best interests of the University.

Let’s vote in favour of Grace 2 of 12 June 2024 (placet) and reject any amendments [Option (A)].

Signed by the following members of the Regent House:

---

Postdoc fly-sheet in favour of the recommendations on the EJRA

The University’s retirement age is a logical and important trade-off to the unique independence and academic freedom offered by Cambridge’s established academic posts, as it guarantees Cambridge’s established researchers and academics to be at the forefront of innovation and knowledge creation without having to fear how their ideas and advances might be interpreted by performance managers. This extraordinary flexibility and protection are a key asset for Cambridge’s innovation potential, and essential for its future success.

However, unsurprisingly, having such a unique post is not only highly sought after by many within the local postdoctoral and earlier career communities but even PIs well beyond Cambridge. It is therefore understandable that most established Cambridge academics prefer to remain within their positions until they need to be vacated and, accordingly, the EJRA plays a major role in Cambridge’s job creation rate.

The data presented by the EJRA working group has impressively demonstrated that abolishing the retirement age could lead to 672 fewer vacancies for earlier career academics over the next 40 years, which would not only fuel the precarities already experienced by many but also significantly damage Cambridge’s aim to support intergenerational fairness by hindering career opportunities and progression for large numbers of the early and mid-career academic communities.

Hence, the postdocs, early, and mid-career researchers and academics signing this fly-sheet appeal to everyone that is permitted to participate in the ballot to protect the retirement age and intergenerational fairness by accepting the recommendations on the EJRA in Grace 2 of 12 June 2024 [Option (A)] while rejecting potential amendments.

Signed by the following members of the Regent House:

Also signed by twenty-four University employees who are not members of the Regent House or registered students.

---

Fly-sheet for Regent House ballot on Grace 2 of 12 June 2024

There are some key issues which Regents should bear in mind when deciding how to vote.

47% of academic officers retire on the last day they currently can. This is despite some staff choosing to move to other institutions to avoid retirement. The Review looked for such staff but the numbers were too low to be visible in the data. Late career ‘brain drain’ is not a significant phenomenon overall, though there may be some subject exceptions.

Cambridge had the lowest job creation rate of any Russell Group University before the abolition of mandatory retirement. We have maintained our rate, most probably because of our Employer Justified Retirement Age (EJRA), but we are no longer the lowest. We are still below the average of the 22 Russell Group higher education providers (HEPs) which don’t have an EJRA but the gap between us and them pre‑2012 was such that it would have required almost no one to retire from those HEPs in the past 10 years to reduce their raw rate to below ours.

No one can predict, with certainty, what would happen if we ended mandatory retirement. The Review’s detailed modelling yielded estimates for the reduction in vacancies of 28–40% (in first 10 years) and 12–19% in long-term. Others claim the Review’s methodology is flawed and that the long-term figure is 2.75% (or 1–4%), obtained by estimating average length of tenure, and average extension to that, if there is no mandatory retirement, yielding a plausible figure of 11% for long-term reduction but then dividing it by 2 twice; both divisions are inappropriate. The first was to adjust for only c. 50% of departures being retirements, but this is accounted for in the figure for average tenure. The second division is due to estimating 50% would still retire at 67 without an EJRA, but again this is already part of the calculation of the increase in tenure due to staff retiring later than now. Both these are double counting and invalid.

The EJRA does discriminate on age, but age discrimination is legal in the right circumstances, e.g. you can’t vote until 18 and can’t serve on a jury after 75. Without an EJRA, our progress in addressing historic discrimination in recruitment by gender and ethnicity will be slower.

We believe that accepting the hurdle – that we must present a convincing case for staying on after 69 – is an acceptable compromise to retain our stringent protection from influence or interference in our intellectual freedom. Others may believe we can have our cake and eat it, but we expect that abolition of mandatory retirement will create a necessity for greater management of academics, including easier dismissal for perceived weak performance. Yes, this will require Regent House approval, but Regents are duty bound to accept measures which have a compelling case.

We urge you to put the interests of the University first, above any personal considerations, and vote to approve Grace 2 of 12 June 2024 unamended [Option (A)].

Signed by the following members of the Regent House:

---

You have nothing to lose as a result of voting for Abolition of the EJRA

The ballot on the amended EJRA Grace offers several choices:

•to vote for the status quo, or not to vote, which would have the same effect

•to vote to abolish the EJRA for academic-related Officers and to raise the age of dismissal for University Teaching Officers from 67 to 69

•to vote to abolish the EJRA altogether.

Single transferable voting means that any academic Officer who puts ‘abolition’ [Option (B)] first and the proposal to raise the age of dismissal from 67 to 69 [Option (A)] second will not be denied the extra two years as a result of voting for abolition if that option succeeds in gaining a majority.

Voting for abolition of the EJRA does not automatically benefit Cambridge’s younger UTOS. Vacated UTO posts are advertised globally, and are commonly taken by applicants from outside the University.

Signed by the following members of the Regent House:

---

Fly-sheet in support of Grace 2 of 12 June 2024 (EJRA)

The subject of retirement is one that academics in the University feel strongly about. The University as an institution is not its buildings, committees, departments or other structures – it is people who make the place: students, professional services staff, technicians, cleaners, gardeners, academics and those in the multitude of other roles that make the University work. To very many of us, the relationship that we have with the University is not purely transactional. It is as though we give a piece of our very souls to this place. Many staff in a diversity of roles share this feeling of course, but in the context of the EJRA, there is a particular impact on academics.

The single most important reason for having an EJRA for academics is the consequence for academic freedom. There is no other university worldwide that surpasses the academic freedom that we benefit from here. Fundamentally it is for each academic to decide for themselves what to research without fear for our positions. This allows us all to be risk‑takers; to test out ideas that are radical, unpopular, untried or beyond the edge of what might usually be considered ‘our fields’. But it is exactly in this type of space that some of the most outstanding research takes place, and Cambridge has had a far greater impact on the world than its physical size would suggest because of this freedom.

Nothing, however, is without a price, and the necessary consequence of the absence of a performance review that could lead to the end of employment (something that would greatly diminish that academic freedom) is the fixed retirement age for academics in tenured posts. We therefore support the recommendation to retain the EJRA and increase it to 69.

However retirement should not be the end of an academic’s relationship with the University: someone’s ability to contribute to learning and research does not depend on age. The University has not had a good track record in recent years of recognising this and has largely ignored the consequence of retirement on academics; they suddenly find themselves practically excluded from the University that they have given themselves to, and to which they may have so much more to offer. It is perhaps the Colleges who have been much better at valuing Emeritus Fellows in their academic communities.

Hence the review recommendation that an academic can continue to be indefinitely employed on research grants to which they contribute is one positive step. But there is much more to do to improve the current situation, and the final recommendation that the University should review its post-retirement engagement with academic staff is critical. The University could do so much more, at relatively little cost, to allow academics to contribute to the intellectual life of the University, whether or not they continue with formal employment, and it is important that Council has said that it will implement this recommendation should the Grace be passed in its original form.

If we get this right, retirement from tenure should not be something to be feared. Rather, it should provide an opportunity to each of us as we pass through retirement to find new, exciting and fulfilling ways to participate actively in the life of this University, and in doing so enhance its ongoing mission to contribute to society through learning and research at the highest international levels of excellence.

We urge you to vote in favour of the recommendations of Grace 2 of 12 June in its original form [Option (A)] and to reject any amendment that would lead to the removal of the EJRA.

Signed by the following members of the Regent House:

---

Fly-sheet against the abolition of EJRA and for the recommendations
of the EJRA Review Group

The EJRA Review Group has produced a range of analyses – in many ways more robust than evidence provided by Oxford to defend its retirement age – showing how many more Cambridge academics, compared to other Russell Group universities, retire at the cut-off age of 67 instead of retiring before their mid-60s. Simulations based on HESA data show that abolishing the retirement age would cost us 12 to 26 new job opportunities annually. The Review Group had legal counsel and is confident those arguments will stand in court.

Esteemed colleagues have produced a rebuttal paper critiquing the Review Group’s assumptions and methods. This would make for a great review in a top econometric journal, but it does not provide evidence or analysis of its own. The analyses provided by the EJRA Review Group were reviewed by other statistical experts who maybe did not have the conflict of interest of being close to their retirement age. Another fly-sheet points out one important problem in this rebuttal paper.

Importantly, Linton, Rau and their co‑authors conclude that the EJRA should be abolished altogether without providing evidence that this is the right course of action. While the Review Group does not claim the evidence provided by the Review is perfect (at least it provides evidence to support its conclusions), it does not take a team of advanced econometricians to know that in a university like Cambridge that does not grow in the number of its students, allowing people to retire whenever they decide (meaning staying on way after 67 as our data would suggest), would have a disastrous impact on the creation of new academic posts. On page 3, the Linton/Rau paper simply misunderstands how our University works and make the assertion that ‘the creation of new professorships is contingent on funding availability and academic interest, not vacancy generation through retirement.’ This is incorrect: there is no open‑ended process to recruit new people at Cambridge. The Chest income for each institution is tightly defined and this controls the number of academic positions. The kind of expansive university they imagine simply does not exist here. Comparing Cambridge with other Russell Group universities with regards to the job creation rate is misleading considering how those universities have grown their student numbers, while we have not.

Do we really want a university where people can retire whenever they wish whatever their contribution to our institution? The temptation for many would be to stay on ad vitam aeternam. We need to retain flexibility to create new academic posts through retirement, while offering opportunities for certain individuals to stay on, in a transparent and fair manner.

A fly-sheet states that ‘the use of a mandatory retirement age as a substitute for an adequate system of performance management is unlawful.’ The reference provided merely says that the Government does not believe that it should be so used. By contrast, in the case of Seldon v Clarkson Wright and Jakes (a partnership) [2012] UKSC 16, the Supreme Court found that ‘The third [aim] was limiting the need to expel partners by way of performance management, which is directly related to the ‘dignity’ aims accepted in Rosenbladt and Fuchs. It is also clear that the aims can be related to the particular circumstances of the type of business concerned (such as university teaching, as in Georgiev). I [Lady Hale] would therefore accept that the identified aims were legitimate.’ Abolishing the EJRA would implicitly be an agreement for performance management which would impact academic freedom especially for most senior colleagues who are not subject to probation.

The recommendation of the EJRA Review Group – to maintain the retirement age but shift it to 69 – is fair and well‑needed to maintain equity across generations through necessary turnover. By contrast, the idea of abolishing the EJRA altogether would throw our university into chaos. We encourage colleagues to consider the risks associated with the abolition of the retirement age and vote in favour of the conclusions of the EJRA Review Group [Option (A)].

Signed by the following members of the Regent House:

---

Fly-sheet against the notion that the EJRA improves the diversity of the
University’s academic staff

Some supporters of the retention of an EJRA contend that age-based discrimination by the University enhances the diversity of the academic staff. This fly-sheet briefly presents several considerations that tell against such a rationale for the retention of an EJRA.

First, given that the abolition of the EJRA will affect the number of entry-level vacancies only trivially,1 any enhancement of diversity through entry-level appointments will likewise be affected only trivially by the abolition of the EJRA.

Second, the report of the Penty Review Group explicitly refrains from invoking the improvement of diversity as one of the considerations telling in favor of the retention of an EJRA. The report concedes: ‘The simulation based on HESA data did not reveal clear evidence that the EJRA impacts on diversity directly (there is no significant difference between the University and other Russell Group universities in this regard).’ Indeed, since the elimination of the EJRA at other Russell Group universities, both Cambridge and Oxford have been persistently behind those other universities with regard to the proportion of women in academic posts.

Third, as has been remarked by one of the employment tribunals that found Oxford University’s EJRA to be unlawful, there are numerous non-discriminatory steps that can be taken to improve the diversity of the University’s academic staff.

Fourth, when invoked as a rationale for involuntarily removing members of the academic staff from their positions, a diversity-focused justification is of dubious legality. It would very likely be in contravention of the 2010 Equality Act and the 1998 Human Rights Act, since it consists in the proposition that certain members of the academic staff should be involuntarily removed from their posts on the basis of their skin color and gender.

Fifth, the retention of an EJRA can detract from the diversity of the University’s academic staff at senior levels. Cambridge University as a world-class institution of higher education should be able to attract eminent academics from the United States to fill chairs and other senior posts. At present, the operativeness of an EJRA in Cambridge is a major hindrance to attracting such academics. As such a hindrance, the EJRA can also be an obstacle to improving the diversity of the University’s academic staff at senior levels. For example, one of the University’s scientific departments has currently extended an offer to a distinguished African-American scientist for a position in Cambridge. That scientist is waiting to see whether the EJRA will be retained or abolished. If the EJRA is retained, the African-American scientist will decline to accept the offer from Cambridge.

In light of the considerations adduced here, we conclude that there is no diversity-centred rationale for retaining an EJRA. We therefore encourage the members of the Regent House to vote to abolish the EJRA [Option (B)].

Signed by the following members of the Regent House:

---

Fly-sheet in favour of abolishing the EJRA

It is an embarrassing fact that the University of Cambridge has a poor record when it comes to discrimination. Cambridge University refused to grant degrees to women until the late 1940s – the last British University to do so. We now look back and wonder how members of this university could have been so bigoted and determined to maintain gender discrimination for so long whilst other institutions had embraced this form of gender equality decades earlier. Yet now, in relation to age discrimination, the University is again refusing to move with the times, more than a decade after nearly all other British universities have accepted the 2011 Repeal of Retirement Age Amendment to the 2010 Equality Act and abolished compulsory retirement.

The report of the Retirement Policy and EJRA Review Group (the Penty report) has been shown to be seriously flawed. A recent research paper by Linton and Rau (see Linton et al. 2024 Cambridge Working Papers in Economics, CWPE2428) has demonstrated convincingly that, contra the Penty report, the effects of the EJRA for the creation of vacancies and opportunities for early career academics are negligible, even in the short term, and these effects become even more negligible when one considers that, as the Penty report itself acknowledges, most vacancies are filled by external candidates.

Moreover, Cambridge’s attempt to hold onto the EJRA puts an additional burden on the USS as a whole, and it therefore puts more financial pressure on other UK Higher Education institutions, further undermining their financial viability and their ability to create new posts. In other words, within the broader picture, if there is any effect, the EJRA is likely to undermine intergenerational progression within the broader university sector.

Furthermore, as explained in various contributions to the Discussion on 28 May (published in the Reporter on 5 June 2024), the Penty report is fallacious in a variety of ways, presenting data in an incomplete and misleading fashion, and with the evidence presented sometimes contradicting its own conclusions. It is alarming that a report of such poor quality would be used as the main basis to promote the retention of the EJRA for academics, affecting the lives of thousands of people.

The Penty report recommends abolishing compulsory retirement for administrative staff (‘academic-related’ is the lingo). When considered in isolation, this is obviously a positive step, but most astonishingly the Penty report wants to retain the EJRA for academics. Indeed, the recommendation from Penty et al. is to have age‑related discrimination targeted at academics only! Interestingly, in the survey conducted by the Review Group, more staff wanted to abolish rather than retain the EJRA for academic University officers, whilst more staff wanted to retain rather than abolish the EJRA for academic-related staff (p. 25 in the Penty report) – precisely the opposite of the Penty report’s recommendation.

Some arguments have been raised about diversity, and they have been addressed in another fly-sheet.1 Whilst diversity cannot be used to justify age discrimination, it is undoubtedly an important consideration which is valued by most of us. That is why it is so important to look at the financial implications of the EJRA for different categories of people. There is a widespread perception that Cambridge academics are a group of highly privileged people, but a sizable proportion of them struggle financially, and their accrued pensions do not go nearly far enough. Academics with truncated careers, for instance, would benefit from a few extra years; we know several academics (most of them women) who had to take time out to look after children and whose retirement funds are not nearly sufficient. Then there are people whose international careers have taken them to different countries with different pension arrangements (and often without the equity to purchase houses at the exorbitant Cambridge prices); again, they are disadvantaged. The EJRA is not only unfair for those financially more vulnerable within the University; it also makes it extremely difficult to recruit and retain people who have no independent financial means.

The EJRA is most unfair for the numerous successful research groups within the University that create opportunities for researchers at various stages of their career. Some of these groups have painstakingly been built up over decades. Data from the UKRI shows that 17% of the sum total of awards went to PIs aged 60 or above; these were also the largest awards. We cannot be complacent and expect Cambridge’s success story to continue if the EJRA remains in place. Accomplished PIs are not going to wait around, begging for an extension with all the uncertainties, patronage and casualisation that involves. In an increasingly competitive climate (as we all know, Cambridge is one of the least affordable places to live in the UK, academic salaries at the University are low by international standards, and USS pension arrangements have become less attractive), the more successful academics amongst us will undoubtedly leave, some of them well before retirement age. It is already becoming increasingly difficult to hire senior academics. If we may be allowed a footballing metaphor, since the Euros are currently taking place, we are seriously at risk of becoming a mere feeder-club to other institutions.

One last thing: the way in which the Penty report has been communicated to members of the University is disturbing. The various bullet points in the emails that were sent out mistakenly suggest that these are indisputable facts; the rebuttal research paper by Linton and Rau has shown how problematic these ‘facts’ are. Most contributions in favour of the EJRA (in the Discussion and in the fly-sheets) are written by members of the Review Group, commenting on their own report. They have used School and Departmental channels to promote their stance. It is also interesting to see the concerted effort on behalf of the University to appeal to early career academics by wrongly implying that their interests are different to those with established positions. It is important for the academic community within this University not to fall into this trap. The academics should stand united and refuse to be treated as second-class citizens within their own institution.

For the record, we welcome the Penty recommendation to abolish the EJRA for academic-related staff. However, the EJRA should be abolished for both academic and academic-related University officers [Option (B)].

Signed by the following members of the Regent House:

---

Fly-sheet against notion that the EJRA improves the job prospects
of early career scholars

Some supporters of the retention of an EJRA contend that age-based discrimination by the University enhances the prospects of early career scholars. This fly-sheet presents several considerations that tell against such a rationale for the retention of an EJRA.

1. More than two-thirds of researchers at the University are employed on a fixed-term basis. They are rightly unhappy with job insecurity, modest pay rises and uncertain career prospects. They are often (but not always) early career researchers. The University has repeatedly failed to do even small things to improve the lot of these researchers. For example, if unestablished staff give a lecture, then the University pays £87.85 per lecture. Let us say it takes one 8‑hour working day to create a new one‑hour lecture from scratch. This works out at £9.76/hr, whilst the 2024 national living wage is £11.44/hr.

2. The University has failed to take advantage of existing opportunities to advance prospects of its early career or fixed-term researchers. When the UKRI launched its Future Leaders Fellowship scheme, most departments did not allow prospective candidates to use it, even ones already on so-called (fixed-term) ‘Early Career Lectureships’. The UKRI scheme offers generous funding for up to 7 years for untenured staff, but requires a commitment from the host university to provide a permanent position upon completion of the fellowship. The scheme has a focus on diversity, and other Russell Group universities used it to broaden the backgrounds and ages of their staff. Over 500 new jobs have been created at UK universities with the scheme, but none at Cambridge. (Some departments allowed those with existing offers of permanent positions to apply to the Future Leaders Fellowship, a policy which actually prevented new permanent roles being created elsewhere.)

3. The University’s record on academic vacancies is amongst the worst in the Russell Group, even though the creation of such vacancies is one of the stated aims of the EJRA. The University consistently has had lower levels of vacancies for established academic posts compared to other Russell Group universities, both before and after the elimination of mandatory retirement at those other universities in 2011 (see Linton et al 2024, arXiv 2405.14611v2). The University urgently needs to create new academic positions to maintain its high international standing in teaching and research. Over the last decade, the University has found it much easier to create fresh managerial and administrative positions than academic jobs.

4. The use of inflexible and blanket organisational employment policies (EJRA, UKRI Future Leaders Fellowship applications, proliferation of temporary employment practices) is dangerous. The unlawfulness of the similar EJRA at Oxford has already been shown in a succession of lost lawsuits. This is a persistent drain on resources which could be used more profitably elsewhere, amongst other things, to create new positions. Employment processes cannot be automated by using blanket policies such as a mandatory retirement age without severe legal risks.

5. Discrimination is still discrimination. Polluting the academic system with institutional age discrimination demeans everyone. The University should be creating fresh academic jobs for younger researchers as well as facilitating productive academic careers for its established members of staff. The University should be aiming for higher levels of organisational care for all its employees, whether young, mid-term or old.

In light of these considerations, we conclude that there are better methods for supporting early career researchers than a discriminatory EJRA which as operated in Cambridge is ineffective in increasing the levels of academic vacancies. We therefore encourage the members of the Regent House to vote to abolish the EJRA [Option (B)].

Signed by the following members of the Regent House:

---

Statement by the Council

1 July 2024

The Council (or any other body whose proposal is to be voted on) may choose to publish a statement, for inclusion with materials provided to voters, when it considers it necessary to correct factual errors or address any misunderstandings contained in fly-sheets provided by members of the Regent House and others. The Council has approved this statement in response to the fly-sheets concerning Grace 2 of 12 June 2024, to draw attention to the following points:

1.Where a member continues after the normal retirement age (NRA) in USS, currently aged 66, both they and the employer will continue to pay contributions in respect of the additional benefits earned. Although a late retirement factor will be applied to the benefits accruing after the NRA, this is calculated by the scheme actuary to be cost‑neutral (on the basis that it is anticipated that benefits will be paid for a shorter duration).

2.The University’s Retirement Policy does not claim to justify the EJRA by reference to diversity (it is not an Aim of the Policy), a point which was clarified in the Review Group’s report.1 Nevertheless, the Group considered the impact on diversity at the request of the Council because it is a matter of importance to the University. While the EJRA is not a direct means for introducing greater diversity, it creates opportunities for greater diversity because it opens up vacancies that would otherwise not be available. It was notable that those retiring are considerably less diverse than those being recruited.

3.The EJRA is certainly not the only way of opening up opportunities for early career and fixed-term researchers, but it is an important one at an institution where the number of available established posts is otherwise restricted by the availability of funding and broadly static student numbers.

4.For the reasons already noted in the response to Discussion remarks on the EJRA proposals,2 considerable caution should be exercised when drawing comparisons with the EJRA arrangements at the University of Oxford.