Who should be the next Chancellor?
(Of Cambridge, that is, rather than of the Exchequer)
I’d have quite liked the Duchess of Cambridge to be the next Chancellor of the University of Cambridge. She has a grace and composure needed, is hugely popular, avoids controversy and would surely be an asset to fundraising.1
Failing that, I’d have happily accepted Prince William, following in the footsteps of his grandfather, or a leading academic such as Amartya Sen (former Master of Trinity), Jocelyn Bell-Burnell (discoverer of pulsars) or one of the many Nobel laureates associated with the University. Or perhaps a top-flight former politician, such as Ken Clarke.
But we don’t have any of those options. Though it pains me to say it, Oxford did it better.
So, of the rather lack-lustre list of ten candidates, who - if you’re one of my readers with a vote2 - should you vote for?3
But before we go on, thank you to the 321 of you who completed the Parenting Survey - and to everyone who shared it to help us achieve that number. I’ll be analysing the results over the weekend and hopefully posting the findings next week.
Of the ten standing, five - Ayham Amoora, Ali Azeem, Tony Booth, Wyn Evans and Mark Mann can immediately be set aside, all people who have achieved no more than a moderate degree of success in their careers in academia, business or consultancy, and some of whom are also campaigners on various issues. They may be good people, and one may or may not have sympathy for their causes, but fundamentally, they are no more qualified to be Chancellor of Cambridge than I am - or you are, dear reader.4
We turn then to the two female candidates who are, coincidentally, both campaigners and activists: Gina Miller, who most famously took the Government to the Supreme Court and won over the need for a Parliamentary vote to implement Brexit, and Sandi Toskvig, founder of the fringe Women’s Equality Party and, more recently, has been appointed the University’s ‘Q+’ fellow, is an activist on transgender issues and other similar issues.
Of the two, Miller should frankly be disqualified for no prior connection to the university; Toskvig does have a strong Cambridge connection, as well as a distinguished career in the arts, most notably as host of the Great British Bakeoff. Both have indicated in their statements that, if elected, they would use the Chancellorship as a platform for activism.
For myself, ruling out these two candidates is straightforward: I disagree with both of them politically. But even if you are in agreement with them, I would urge you to ask yourself: is the Chancellorship really a role for activism on such divisive issues? Or do we want a Chancellor who can bring people together, rather than polarise and alienate them?
Cambridge has stood for over 800 years, and the Chancellor’s first duty and loyalty should be to the institution, not to their own causes.5 It’s notable that successful Chancellors from the political world - such as the outgoing Chancellor Lord Sainsbury (Labour), or Oxford’s new Chancellor William Hague (Conservative) - have typically been both long-retired from front-line politics, and worked hard to command respect across the political divide.
So that leaves us with three clearly qualified, even if not hugely inspiring, individuals:
Mohamed El-Erian, a leading economist and current Master of Queens’.
Lord (John) Browne of Madingley, the former CEO of BP.
Lord (Chris) Smith of Finsbury, former Culture Secretary and current Master of Pembroke.
El-Erian has a wide array of senior roles under his belt, in the business, charitable and university world. He’s clearly a distinguished figure, a gifted networker and communicator and would likely be an excellent fundraiser. I will be honest that I found his statement to be a smorgasbord of corporate consultancy speak, but perhaps that appeals to some.
The two peers, Lords Browne and Smith, are perhaps the most objectively qualified, not only as members of the House of Lords, but having run major institutions, chaired boards, and with a strong track record of charitable endeavour. The difference between the two can perhaps be summarised by observing that Lord Smith gave us free entrance to museums and galleries,6 while Lord Browne chaired the review into higher education that gave us £9,000 tuition fees.
Particularly when thinking of a senior university role, it is hard to forgive someone so directly responsible for one of the worst domestic policies of the last two decades, one that has immiserated millions of young people, stoked intergenerational unfairness, and contributed to the housing crisis and the fall in family formation. Even if you think, as many do, that it is fair for people to pay something towards the cost of their degree, surely the highest fees in the developed world,7 £50,000+ piles of debt that will often never be paid off, and marginal tax rates that we used to only levy on millionaires is too high a price to pay.8
Lord Smith, although not a household name such as the Oxford candidates Lord Hague or Lord Mandelson, has an impressive record of achievement both as Culture Secretary, and in a string of senior roles in cultural and other organisations. He was a leading figure in the Parliamentary opposition to the Iraq War.
Perhaps even more importantly, since leaving politics, he has not sought controversy. In his own words, he “‘was appointed as Chairman of the Environment Agency by a Labour Secretary of State, and reappointed by a Conservative.” He has had a decade-long tenure as Master of Pembroke, avoided controversy,9 and has been a highly successful fundraiser. He has acknowledged the importance of free speech in his opening paragraph and in his statement when he announced his candidacy.10 Though not a habitual Labour voter,11 based on his track record I do not believe that he - unlike some of the other candidates - will seek to politicise the role of Chancellor, but rather that he will strive to put the University, its heritage, its community and its future first.
If you have a vote in the upcoming Chancellor election, I urge you to cast it for Lord Smith of Finsbury. If for any reason you do not feel able to support Lord Smith, I would recommend you support Mohamed El-Erian.
Please feel free to share this piece with others who may be considering who to vote for in the upcoming Chancellorship elections.
And the progressive media could have gushed about the ‘first female Chancellor’, so there’d be something for everybody.
I suspect Cambridge alumni are significantly over-represented amongst my readership!
For that matter, several of my subscribers are considerably more qualified to be Chancellor than any of them.
I would equally say that, for example, Dominic Cummings or Kathleen Stock would be poor choices - even if I agree with them more myself, they would deeply alienate others.
He also founded Nesta, but hey, we all make mistakes.
Yes, significantly higher than US state universities, which is what the vast majority of people attend in the US.
The justification for high fees - that it allowed university expansion - is no defence at all. As I’ve written before, it opened the floodgates to a massive explosion of unnecessary, low quality courses, and told hundreds of thousands of less academic young people that even though they can’t manage A-Levels, their best option is to enrol on a dead-end course that will leave them with nothing but a mountain of debt - and that employers don’t value. A disaster for the country, and even more of the disaster for those who have been missold a dream.
Searches for ‘Pembroke College controversy’, ‘Pembroke College woke’ and similar.
Citation needed.
footnote 2 - significantly and over should either get a room, or have a bit of space put between them.
footnote 4 - either of them should be any of them.
Thank you for the extremely niche election commentary I was looking for. I will be voting for Lord Smith.
Smith is the best of a pretty uninspiring bunch, but free entry to museums and galleries was a mistake: ultimately responsible for the slow-moving crisis in the sector.