Today Oxford dons will file past stone busts of the more decadent Roman emperors into the Sheldonian Theatre to debate the end of eight centuries of academic self-rule. The culmination of two years of often heated argument, the vote in Congregation - the "dons' parliament" - is of huge symbolic importance and puts the job of the vice-chancellor, John Hood, on the line. Rejection of his plan to reform the way the university is run, giving control to a council with a majority of external members, would leave him little option but to resign.
Oxford and Cambridge are unique among British universities in being run by academics, as well as vesting ultimate control in assemblies of the entire academic staff. Cambridge academics rejected similar reforms a few years ago and the then vice-chancellor, Sir Alec Broers, departed soon afterwards. So bitter was that contest that his successor, Alison Richard, has decided to leave constitutional change alone.
Hood, a New Zealander with a track record in business, was appointed to change Oxford and his reform plans have certainly shaken the place up, making several enemies in the process. Giving control to outsiders from business or other spheres is stoutly opposed by dons, who argue that Oxford is doing very well thank you - unlike much of British industry - and that the changes would place too much power in the hands of the vice-chancellor.
Hood proposes to replace the present 26-member council (with four external members) with a council of 15 (with eight externals) to deal with the finances and administration of the £800m-a-year business and an academic board with control of academic matters. This would bring Oxford into line with the standard UK university model, except that Congregation, comprising 3,773 members of the academic, library and administrative staff, would retain its ultimate veto. As a sop to opponents, the council would be chaired for the first five years by Patten.
As chancellor he must be careful how he intervenes in university affairs, but that doesn't mean he has taken a "vow of omerta ", says Patten. It's hard to imagine the former governor of Hong Kong and chairman of the Conservative party being silent for long, and his views are hardly secret in Oxford, but he set out his case publicly for the first time to Education Guardian.
Sitting in the drawing room of his Victorian house, with its collection of ancient Chinese ceramics, Patten is well aware of the importance of tradition. He is a conservative as well as a Conservative, and he sums up his approach to today's choice for the university with a second Sicilian reference - quoting from his favourite political novel, Lampedusa's The Leopard: "If we want things to stay as they are, they will have to change."
There are no Sicilian stilettos lurking for Patten or Hood in the back lanes of Oxford, but plenty of ink has been spilt and the debate has been vicious at times - "Malice Springs", sighs Patten, who recalls that Henry Kissinger considered his years at Harvard as excellent preparation for the Nixon White House. He believes that some academics have found it so hard to accept the introduction of external control because they have been underpaid and undervalued for years and cling to academic democracy as some compensation. But he finds it difficult to share the "sense of assault" in the idea of external trustees and says he just can't explain it to American university heads.
The current proposals have been improved, he says, by two years of debate and the criticism that "buried" Hood's first green paper. (That proposed a ruling council made up entirely of external members.) "They were tabled for debate and by God they got it." Noting that the issue remains "unresolved in our sister university in the Fens", Patten says Oxford cannot "delude" itself that any relationship with the outside world "infects it with some terrible virus". "If we want to convince the government, charities and benefactors that you are efficiently run, open to dialogue with them and prepared to listen to them, how can you argue that externals shouldn't have a position on the board that looks after the broad interests of the university?"
He worries how the debate is viewed outside Oxford. "People have given the impression that we can't involve outsiders because they don't really understand the values of the university and would turn it into Asda or Tesco. At the same time, we want to get more support from alumni, and donors and government. Has no one noticed a certain hiccup in the argument?" Rejection of the reform proposals would send an even worse message to alumni and to potential donors, he believes. Patten hopes the issue can be "put to bed" so the university can get on with raising serious amounts of money for its endowments to fund research, raise academic salaries and student bursaries.
But matters won't end today or even after a postal vote, he warns. If the vote goes in favour, the administration will have to make things work to prove to the doubters that the plan is "clawless and fangless". If the dons vote "no", Patten believes that eventually the government will impose change on Oxford and Cambridge. "Are we as good as we are because of the way we are managed or despite the way we are managed? And can we stay world class, given the way we are managed?" He adds: "This is about transparency and accountability. It has also got to be about effectiveness. Athenian democracy is one thing, the Paris Commune is another." (For a minute we contemplate the unlikely prospect of the chancellor being strung up from a lamp-post by his brocaded robes.)
Critics might be more convinced if the present council proceedings under Hood were more open to public view. They argue that recent problems such as the trouble-hit £15m Osiris computer system for university finances were the result of poor management, not bad governance. Patten doesn't make direct comparisons with Newcastle, where he is also chancellor, but says a capital investment programme put forward by the vice-chancellor was vigorously debated by a council with a majority of external members. "It emerged better for the debate." The plan is not a step towards privatising Oxford, he says, but he believes that universities in the UK and Europe are moving "inexorably" towards students paying full-cost tuition fees. That would mean having to raise very large endowments to support students from poor families and make sure they are not excluded. "I don't say this in any threatening way, but I can see how I can argue Oxford's case to would-be donors more compellingly if we have sorted out issues of governance than if we haven't. I just don't know how I can do it if we appear to have given people two fingers."
Today, as the dons assemble in the Sheldonian Theatre, Patten is in China, but in two days' time he will be back in Oxford to give the King of Norway an honorary degree. "I hope the issue won't be decided by super-cautious negative conservatism," he says, but intends to carry on with the chancellor's job in any event.
Critics of the Hood plans don't accept that external business figures, even if they are Oxford alumni, will necessarily be more competent, and assume they will tend to vote as the vice-chancellor wants. In the pages of the Oxford Magazine, which has hosted a robust debate on governance and indeed the whole Hood administration, there have been mentions of scandals involving trustees on American university boards, which have prompted Congress to investigate university governance with a view to limiting their powers. Referring to these, David Palfreyman, bursar of New College, added: "Why should Oxford dondom put its faith in lay members drawn from business as we recall the management fiasco at Railtrack, the strategic collapse of Marconi, and the demise of Barings? If the saintly externals are also to be from other, non-business walks of life, we need to note that such folk brought us the hugely expensive national joke in the shape of the Dome." Advice from alumni was valuable to the university and the colleges but, concluded Palfreyman: "There is no credible rationale for handing the shop over to outsiders, given that we have kept it open for 800 years or so, even if to management consultants our present governance structure may look complex and messy."
Hood's supporters, such as Andrew Graham, master of Balliol College, have argued that external council members are important for public perceptions of Oxford and that the reforms have been worked into a "sophisticated and intelligent package". Sir Peter Lampl, the millionaire philanthropist and possibly the sort of external member the reformers have in mind (he is an alumnus), wrote in the magazine: "I have always been more likely to invest in organisations - whether charities or commercial companies - which are transparently run, which draw on a range of expertise, and which are open to new ideas from the outside. The same is true of Oxford."
In contrast, Professor Brian Leftow, an American philosopher at Oriel College, says: "It's not credible that a donor to Yale or Harvard checks to see who's on the trustee board before signing the cheque."
Sir Peter said: "Oxford alumni are far more likely to give both time and money if they feel that they and their peers have a real say in the university's direction." He believes the government will be more likely to let Oxford raise its tuition fees and have more freedom of manoeuvre if it improves the way it is run.
Colin Lucas, the previous vice-chancellor, who cannot be happy about the demolition of the reforms he instituted in 2000, has nevertheless urged academics to settle the governance matter one way or the other after years of "querulous" debate. Unlike most of Hood's critics, he believes the reforms will actually diminish the powers of the vice-chancellor and believes the main problem is the relationship between the university and its 39 autonomous colleges. "The great weakness of the system remains the unwillingness of the colleges to accept binding majority votes [which is, after all, a recognised democratic practice]. Without that, I do not see strong governance when stresses come," he said.
With such complex issues at stake and such a clever and inventive electorate, Hood must worry that today's meeting will get bogged down in amendments and procedural moves. Debate may be prolonged to another session and there may well be a postal vote. What many at Oxford fear most is that the vote in Congregation is a close one either way. That would deepen the split in the university and guarantee a prolonged period of further infighting.