News & Views item - October 2006

 

 

Reforms for Oxford's Governance Continue to Cause Controversy. (October 24, 2006)

    Oxford University's Vice-Chancellor, John Hood, in a white paper he released a year ago confirmed that the council, which runs the university, would have a majority of outside members, including those with strong corporate interests.

 

That would be a first in Oxford's 800-year history.

 

The Guardian reports that within a month proposed changes in the governance of the university, including the proposed council changes "will be put before congregation, the dons' ancient parliament of more than 3,700 members". Whether or not they will approve is questionable; a year ago they warned Dr Hood, they considered his proposed changes could impinge on academic freedom.

 

However, the vice-chancellor in his white paper made several concessions which would allow the dons more control over elections to the council. It also sets out plans for the creation of a smaller academic board to oversee research and teaching.

 

The Guardian summarises the differences saying, "Most of the criticism of the reforms has centred around concerns that the university's long-standing academic independence could not be sustained if more power was handed to business.

 

Now former Oxford Vice-Chancellor, Sir Colin Lucas (1997-2004), has had his say, siding with Dr Hood.

These questions have not changed over the last 13 years. It is unconvincing to suggest that some new principle has suddenly emerged or that the answers to them have suddenly acquired a devilish, even conspiratorial quality... I cannot see myself that such a threat exists.

The history of universities is a history of change. It is a history of being alert and responsive to the changing needs and requirements of the society within which they find themselves.

Where individual universities have failed to be so, we see decline and even failure. We ought not to aspire to be separate from our context, to fear some sort of contamination from the embrace of the outside ... It is inelegant, to say the least, to believe that we alone know what's what and that there is no health in them.

One of the most difficult issues for a university like Oxford is undoubtedly the involvement of lay people from outside in its governance ... If we were dealing with political appointees or commissars of government (as is the case in some other countries), then we would be rightly fearful.

But lay members whom we would identify as interested in the welfare of the university, such as we have had on council for a number of years now? It is right of course to debate carefully how such men and women relate to the way in which the university's decisions are made.

However, it is strange to start from the premise that such people cannot be expected to understand or have sympathy with the objectives and values of the university.

It is strange to presume that intelligent people, often educated by us, cannot be trusted to apprehend and defend what is essential to the success and prosperity of higher education."

It remains to be seen if Oxford's congregation will be persuaded by Sir Colin's views, for although the fight between Harvard's President Lawrence Summers and the Faculty of Arts and Sciences was far more bitter than the differences between the dons and Dr Hood, it does have significant similarities.