The Vice Chancellor's fundamental reforms to the way the University is governed face a crucial Congregation vote this Tuesday. It is unclear whether Congregation will pass these major reforms and, with dons split on the issue, the future of the University looks to be hanging in the balance.
"Emotions in the University have never run so high," claimed one senior academic. John Hood's role as Vice-Chancellor could be undermined if these controversial reforms are not passed. He will be left as a "lame duck", one don has claimed. A senior opponent of the reforms believes the debate on Tuesday could become one of confidence in Hood. "I did not want to set out to achieve [his resignation] but Dr Hood, by denying Congregation the possibility even to discuss compromise and evolution for the future, is turning the debate into an issue of confidence," he said.
Some dons have expressed fears over the repercussions of opposing Hood by voting against the reforms. "People are afraid to speak their minds. This is appalling. I've never known anything like this before. I see it as an authoritarian putsch," one tutor said. A number of members of congregation contacted by Cherwell were unwilling to advance their views on the upcoming vote. Furthermore, some believe the argument for reform is not being presented accurately. "What I find most disturbing about the present state of affairs is that we've had weeks and months of spin. This is just the VC's own decision," said one don.
Opponents of the reforms claim that they will ultimately harm the University by shifting the balance of power. The proposals will make the University's governing body smaller and composed of a majority of non-University members. This will concentrate power in the executive bodies and the Vice-Chancellor's office, amounting to academics having less influence in the University's governance.The University has rejected two amendments to the reforms proposed by rebel dons and these will not be discussed in Congregation on Tuesday. One of the amendments attacked a core area of discontent - the balance of power. It proposed that the composition of Council members should be a majority of internal members, with eight internal and five external. Another asked to give Council only an advisory role. Four other amendments have been accepted.
The University had stated prior to the deadline for submitting amendments that only amendments that suggest changes to the White Paper would be put up for discussion, and that amendments which constituted entirely new proposals would be rejected. A University spokesperson said that, if accepted, the rejected amendments "would have radically changed the role and the proposed composition of Council". These rejected amendments have further divided the two opposing camps, according to Susan Cooper, a professor at St Catherine's. "These two amendments are the ones that would have allowed Congregation to reach a compromise. Now it's got to be pretty much a yes-no vote. The other ones are not enough. They have rejected any possibility of compromise." She added: "In a political context, I think it's extremely unwise not to allow Congregation to vote on this amendment which would have changed the composition of Council."
A University spokesperson defended the Vice Chancellor. "It is unfair to say that the Vice-Chancellor rejected the amendments. He took scrupulous advice from the proctors and four have been allowed. There is nothing political about this. To portray this as something else is very misleading." Hood has also been attacked by one senior member of staff for not allowing discussion on this crucial issue. "He's denying Congregation the possibility even to discuss the possibility of compromise and the evolution of our present system."
Many opponents accept that reforms are needed within the University but question the ability of those outlined in the White Paper to solve current problems. Bernard Sufrin, a tutor at Worcester, said, "Oxford certainly needs some reforms, but it needs progressive reforms addressed at our real problems, not this retrogression to a hierarchy dominated by a few powerful barons."
Alan Ryan, Warden of New College, raised concerns about where power would lie under the proposed system. He said: "Generally speaking, the Chairman of the Council says whatever the VC wants him or her to say. It is the standard red-brick university, ex-poly sort of model. I've never liked it, and much prefer a more collegial system where power gets devolved down to the bottom." Ryan suggested that the controversy caused by the White Paper is unnecessary and that the proposals do not address the root of the problem with the University's governance. "The greatest improvement we actually need is one we could make in five minutes without all this fuss, and that is to make the present Council absolutely transparent. The fact that Council doesn't do it makes me suspect that the talk of transparency is less than sincere," he said.
The University's Brief Guide to Reform explicitly states that the proposals do not concern the "erosion of democratic principles" or removal of power from academics to a centralised, corporate authority of outsiders. Dons in favour of the reforms have also dismissed the claims of rebels and maintain that the White Paper is necessary if the University is to advance. Stefan Dercon, a professor of Economics, suggested that the University's existing system of governance is outdated. He said: "Currently, I am much more optimistic about the future of Oxford as a world class centre of learning, even if remnants of this Dark Age remain. Blocking the reform process now would seem like a real step backwards."
Other proponents of the White Paper argue that fears about the perceived intrusion of outsiders in the University are unfounded. Denis Noble, a professor at Balliol, said: "The concerns about 'losing' control to 'outsiders' are unjustified. The present, and any likely future, lay members of Council are not only loyal to the University, they champion its interests in a way that only those who do not have a conflict of interest can do."
A University spokesperson denied that the results of the vote would have a major bearing on Hood's position. She said, "Dr John Hood is just one member of the working party that drafted the reforms, following widespread consultation over 18 months. He was asked at a public meeting about his position if governance reforms didn't go through. When asked 'Where would that leave him?' he said it would leave him as Vice-Chancellor of Oxford University." So there.