It would be easy to adapt Henry Kissinger's gibe, that academic disputes are so bitter because they are ultimately so trivial, to the dispute over the organisation of the University of Oxford that will debated by its Congregation today. It would not, however, be an accurate transposition. The administration of a leading university matters. It would be surprising if any reform package could be produced that would not attract controversy. Oxford is an exceptional institution. Although ancient, it remains one of the principal establishments of higher education in the world. For undergraduate teaching, especially in the arts, it probably has no rival on either side of the Atlantic. This it should wish to remain.
The issue is how it can and whether Oxford could be strengthened so that it might challenge the likes of Harvard and Yale. The university's present "board of directors" (although this is far from a perfect analogy) is a council dominated by heads of colleges and other prominent academics, which is responsible not only for academic policies but finance and planning as well. It has long been thought that it is better at teaching and research than at funding and strategy. John Hood, the Vice-Chancellor, has therefore proposed that these functions be separated. A new academic board, wholly the preserve of university insiders, would determine admissions, teaching and research (subject to the approval of all dons at Congregation) while a new 15-strong group of trustees, of whom a slim majority would be "outsiders", would concentrate on finance.
This plan has been condemned by some who fear that it would be, at best, an erosion of democracy within the university or, at worst, a Trojan Horse by which Oxford would eventually fall into the hands of bankers and management consultants. Those concerns have already obliged Dr Hood to modify substantially his original ideas. If this streamlined version of them were to fall too, his position would be untenable.
The credibility of the university as a whole would also be jeopardised. These so-called outsiders (whose nomination is subject to a vote of approval by all academics) are unlikely to be hostile figures. They will be people who wish the university well, have usually been students there themselves but who have the specific skills required to allow Oxford to build up further its inadequate £2 billion endowment fund and make suggestions on how departments might be run more effectively. To imply that they would be a set of asset-strippers or cultural barbarians is ludicrous.
One of Oxford's virtues is that it is a world apart, one that ends at Magdalen Bridge. In an increasingly international higher education market, nonetheless, an isolationist mentality is a liability. This is not a revolutionary formula but one that recognises Oxford's strengths and weaknesses and seeks to deal with the latter. It should certainly not be treated as a de facto vote of confidence on a Vice-Chancellor who has undoubtedly trod on a number of toes. Congregation should support this measure.