A stitch-up in Oxford

Goodbye democracy

Chris Patten is leaving as Chancellor of Oxford University.

Mysteriously, the rules governing his successor have just been changed.

The University Gazette has announced a new set of rules for the election of Patten’s successor.

I am not aware of any prior debate on this. The Gazette simply announces that “Council has made the following changes to regulations, to come into effect on 5 April.”

The effect is to shift it from an election to what is effectively a selection by a small group.

Under the old rules (from 2002), anyone can stand for election if they can get nominated by 50 members of Convocation. Given that all of Oxford’s graduates are members of this “Convocation”, this is not a high bar.

But no longer! The Council of the University have decided to move onto a civil service / EDI style process of eastern bloc-style “managed democracy”, in which a small group will choose who (if anyone) will be allowed to go forward for “election”.

Under the new rules (see file of the announcement below) a Committee will run the process. It will consist of a bunch of insiders and some people they choose:

Gazette

545KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

The Chancellor’s Election Committee shall oversee the election process.

(2) The committee shall consist of:

(a) the High Steward, who shall chair the committee;

(b) the Vice-Chancellor, who shall be deputy chair of the committee;

(c) one person appointed by Council from among current external members of Council;

(d) two members of Council appointed by Council from among the members of Council specified in section 4 (16)–(26) of Statute VI;

(e) one member of Congregation to be appointed by the Gardens, Libraries and Museums, University Administrative Services and the Department for Continuing Education:

(f)–(i) one member of Congregation appointed by each of the divisional boards;

(j) the early career research staff representative who attends Council;

(k) the Chair of the Conference of Colleges;

And so on:

This committee will be able to choose who if anyone will go forward for election. It seems to give almost unlimited power to the little committee to choose who gets the job – they can just block anyone they don’t like, and indeed force a reopening of nominations:

“After the closing date for applications, the committee shall consider all those it has received, and, having due regard to the principles of equality and diversity and the approved role specification, shall determine which candidates are eligible to progress to the next stage of the election process. (8) If the committee determines that only one candidate will progress to the next stage of the selection process or if only one candidate remains after other candidates have withdrawn, Council will be required to determine whether that candidate shall be deemed to be duly elected and the result published in the University Gazette or if further applications should be sought to allow an election to be held. 

It also doesn’t say how the committee is to make these decisions. Unanimity?  Majority?  Do they set their own rules and if so how?

It does not say what it means to have “due regard to the principles of equality and diversity.”

Richard Feynman famously said that “science is not a democracy”. It seems Oxford isn’t either.