A former Oxford vice-chancellor has defended controversial reforms planned for the ancient university and rejected claims the changes would compromise academic freedom.
Writing in the Oxford Magazine, Sir Colin Lucas, the vice-chancellor of Oxford from 1997 to 2004, said the university had been debating questions of governance for more than a decade. Sir Colin said: "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."
In a white paper released earlier this year, the vice-chancellor, John Hood, confirmed that the council, which runs the university, would have a majority of outside members, including those with strong corporate interests, for the first time in Oxford's 800-year history. The move, part of a drive to modernise Oxford's governance, will be put before congregation, the dons' ancient parliament of more than 3,700 members, next month. The vote follows protracted debate over the future of Oxford. Last year dons clashed with Dr Hood, warning that the changes he was driving through could impinge on academic freedom.
In response, the white paper made several concessions to the dons, giving them more control over elections to the university's ruling council and setting out plans for the creation of a smaller academic board to oversee research and teaching. 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. However, in his article, Sir Colin responded: "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."
Sir Colin continued: "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."