Oxford University has dropped plans to vet candidates to become its new chancellor on the basis of “the principles of equality and diversity” after being accused by senior ministers of attempting to “stitch up” the process and prevent students from voting for candidates whose views senior administrators find politically distasteful (Oxford Mail, Times).
In a significant U-turn the university will announce later this week that it has abandoned proposals that would have allowed university officials on a newly created ‘chancellor’s election committee’ to potentially disqualify candidates who put themselves forward for election, including anyone who is a member of a legislature or “active in politics”.
It has also ditched a stipulation that the vetting committee, consisting of Oxford’s vice-chancellor Prof Irene Tracey and representatives from the university’s council and congregation, would have “due regard to the principles of equality and diversity” when deciding who should go forward to a vote of all former graduates.
The move is designed to see off a row with senior government ministers who had accused the university of trying to “stitch up” the election with proposals deliberately designed to install the preferred candidate of university officials.
In a letter to the Times in March, seven Tory MPs said they were “concerned by plans for Oxford University to move from a system of electing its chancellor to what is effectively a form of selection by a small committee of insiders”.
Criticising the proposal’s “vague and undefined” rules, Miriam Cates, Danny Kruger, Simon Clarke, Chris Green, Tom Hunt, James Grundy and Neil O’Brien warned: “Where other universities around the world have moved away from meritocracy, the results have been disastrous. Oxford should not go down the same road.”
Another senior government source quoted in the Evening Standard expressed concern that the university was looking to fix the election to appoint a “woke” candidate.
“It cannot be right for the university to vet candidates,” they said, adding: “It is all about this performative obsession with equality and diversity that you’re seeing not just in this country but in the US too.”
Following these interventions the university attempted to row back, with anonymous insiders briefing the press that the vetting process was needed to weed out “joke” candidates, not least because the voting is being held online for the first time, and turnout is likely to be high.
But this was “just not plausible”, according to Oxford alumni Neil O’Brien, who felt it wasn’t a “good argument for any election to say we don’t trust the electorate, and particularly not one that is 100 per cent Oxford graduates”.
Oxford seemed intent on “imposing an eastern bloc-style managed democracy” in which a small group of officials would be able to choose who “if anyone, is allowed to go forward for election”, the MP for Harborough said, adding: “You can’t help but feel that this looks like a deliberate attempt by academics to ensure that the kind of person they want to see elected is elected.”
Sir Anthony Seldon, the historian and former vice-chancellor of the University of Buckingham, also warned that the chancellor “has to be the best”.
Oxford graduate Sir Anthony said: “We have got a system that has worked well for many years, and I wouldn’t be tampering with it. I’m not in favour of filters or anyone second-guessing what the electorate might choose. I think this will generate mistrust.”
Responding to accusations of “wokeism” in a letter to the Times, Prof Tracey denied that the committee was involved in any kind of ‘stitch up’. “In considering eligibility,” she said, “we will of course comply with equality legislation.” You only have to consider the number of legal challenges the FSU has mounted in response to universities who’ve attempted to present their enforcement of woke ideology as compliance with equalities law to see that this statement is not particularly reassuring.
Now, however, Oxford has dropped the plans entirely following a meeting of the university council that decided to substantially alter the election rules, originally published in March.
Under the former system, candidates needed to be nominated by 50 members of the university’s convocation, which is made up mostly of former Oxford students, but this is no longer the case. Anyone can, in theory, be elected. More than 8,000 Oxford graduates voted in the last election in 2003, from a choice that included the comedian Sandi Toksvig.
The originally proposed – but now scrapped – updates to these rules stated that a chancellor’s election committee would “consider all those [applications] it has received, and, having due regard to the principles of equality and diversity and the approved role specification, determine which candidates are eligible to progress to the next stage of the election process”.
Was the equality and diversity rubric simply a nod to the public sector equality duty (i.e., a promise not to discriminate according to race, religion, sexual orientation etc)?
Maybe, although as Toby Young points out for the Spectator, it seems odd for an institution to announce that it isn’t going to break the law. In an increasingly polarised culture it’s therefore perhaps not so surprising that many saw this as a woke ‘dog-whistle’ – a sign that only those who pay fealty to current progressive orthodoxy would be allowed to stand.
The new version of the rules abandons the vetting criteria and makes clear that the committee will put forward all candidates for election unless they fall foul of a narrow range of criteria. These include being a student or employee of the university or being a serving member of an elected legislature such as the House of Commons.
O’Brien, who led opposition to the original plan, described Oxford’s move as a “welcome victory for common sense”. He said: “Universities have been drifting towards too many poorly thought out equality and diversity policies. I am glad on this occasion there has been a rethink.”
The role of Chancellor dates from 1224, and former holders of the post include the Duke of Wellington, the Earl of Derby and Harold Macmillan. Although the role is largely ceremonial, the incumbent now chairs the committee responsible for appointing the vice-chancellor, who is responsible for the day-to-day running of the university.
Current incumbent Lord Patten has been in post since 2003, but announced last month he would retire later this summer.
Those who have been talked-up as possible successors to Lord Patten include the former Prime Ministers Tony Blair and Theresa May, who is stepping down from parliament at the next election, and the former Conservative MP Rory Stewart.
