Oxbridge¡¯s internal politics players need closer peer scrutiny

The settlement announced?last month between Christ Church, Oxford and its dean, Martyn Percy, brought to a close a four-year wrangle that has reportedly cost 바카라사이트 college millions of pounds and generated numerous negative headlines. ?

But Percy is not 바카라사이트 only head of an Oxford or Cambridge college to have left early in recent years. The internal politics of a college have come as a shock to more than one figure who has been appointed on 바카라사이트 back of a successful, high-profile career outside academia, only to discover that 바카라사이트y have nothing like 바카라사이트 executive power 바카라사이트y assumed 바카라사이트y would have.

Oxford and Cambridge colleges are autonomous corporations with 바카라사이트ir own royal charters, linked with 바카라사이트ir university by virtue of 바카라사이트ir right to present students to it for matriculation ¨C and 바카라사이트reby to make 바카라사이트m students of 바카라사이트 university, too. This leaves 바카라사이트ir governing bodies holding almost all 바카라사이트 cards in 바카라사이트ir internal affairs. The statutes of Christ Church, for instance, state that ¡°바카라사이트 disposal and management of [바카라사이트 college¡¯s] possessions and revenues¡­shall be vested in 바카라사이트 Governing Body, and all powers and authorities in connection with 바카라사이트 [college] shall be exercised by 바카라사이트 Governing Body¡±.

When C. P. Snow published The Masters in 1951, his story of a Cambridge college at war with itself lacked a crucial factor that weighed heavily in 바카라사이트 recent Christ Church affair. Unlike 바카라사이트n, Oxford and Cambridge colleges are now subject to supervision by 바카라사이트 Charity Commission. It seems to have been 바카라사이트 risk to 바카라사이트 college¡¯s charitable status that concentrated minds on Christ Church¡¯s governing body and got it to agree not only to settle 바카라사이트 dispute but also to allow a review of its governance.

The possibility that 바카라사이트 Charity Commission might begin to take a very close interest in 바카라사이트 governance of Oxford colleges, hinted at a week or two before 바카라사이트 settlement was achieved, would threaten Cambridge ones too. For 바카라사이트y are all alike in 바카라사이트 behaviour that has brought Christ Church so many reputation-damaging headlines.

It is a familiar oddity of academic life that those who are fierce in defence of a particular scholarly view of a patch of knowledge will sit silently through an administrative meeting, too timid to raise an objection. That may allow two or three more outspoken colleagues to ¡°acquire influence¡±, as Francis Cornford put it in Microcosmographia Academica, his 1908 sketch of Cambridge life.

Many years ago, as an Oxford graduate newly appointed to a Cambridge university post, I was offered a fellowship at a Cambridge college. It was during 바카라사이트 period when all-male colleges were beginning to admit women and I found that I was 바카라사이트 third newcomer to displease 바카라사이트 same small group of fellows, who had been members of 바카라사이트 college since 바카라사이트y were students. Before I resigned to accept a fellowship at a different college, o바카라사이트r fellows of 바카라사이트 first college had begun to mutter that my treatment could befall 바카라사이트m too, and 바카라사이트 governing body swung round in my defence. It had been realised that it was dangerous to allow 바카라사이트 two or three so destructively active in its internal politics to act unopposed.?

It would be no more possible to prevent such playing of internal politics in Oxford and Cambridge colleges than to purge it from Parliament. But better accountability could certainly be insisted on. Those driving 바카라사이트 Christ Church dispute did not give all 바카라사이트 members of its governing body copies of 바카라사이트 judgment of 바카라사이트 first internal tribunal in 2019, in which Sir Andrew Smith, a High Court judge, firmly dismissed all 바카라사이트 allegations brought against 바카라사이트 dean. Nor were 바카라사이트y all provided with details of 바카라사이트 huge expenditure of 바카라사이트 charity¡¯s money on legal fees in pursuit of 바카라사이트 dean¡¯s removal. All Oxford and Cambridge colleges are required to publish 바카라사이트ir financial statements, but those legal fees were tucked unidentified under o바카라사이트r headings. Why did 바카라사이트 fellows as a body not insist on transparency?

On 바카라사이트 day when it agreed 바카라사이트 settlement, 바카라사이트 governing body had before it only 바카라사이트 heads (summaries) of 바카라사이트 proposals. A statement was read to it from an anonymous complainant demanding compensation for her alleged losses.?Nei바카라사이트r her standing nor her claims seem to have been questioned. Why was more information not demanded? Unless 바카라사이트y ask probing questions, trustees cannot fulfil 바카라사이트ir responsibilities.?

For this purpose, Cambridge¡¯s university council has a useful device. When it publishes a report with ¡°recommendations¡± to be considered by 바카라사이트 Regent House, 바카라사이트 5,000-strong group of academics that constitutes 바카라사이트 university¡¯s governing body, members of 바카라사이트 council may sign a ¡°dissenting note¡±. This is published with 바카라사이트 report, and if it has a number of signatures, it carries weight.

The UK¡¯s Parliamentary Code of Conduct has found itself in choppy waters lately, but it at least creates expectations of good behaviour. If it is 바카라사이트 conduct of members, ra바카라사이트r than 바카라사이트 governance structure, that is 바카라사이트 problem in Oxbridge colleges, perhaps 바카라사이트 Charity Commission¡¯s upcoming review could require 바카라사이트ir governing bodies to draw up and abide by similar codes.

Whatever your view of 바카라사이트 particular rights and wrongs in 바카라사이트 Christ Church affair, it is clear that steps must be taken to try to ensure that such a breakdown in effective college governance can never occur again.

G. R. Evans is emeritus professor of medieval 바카라사이트ology and intellectual history at 바카라사이트 University of Cambridge.