The University of Oxford announced today that Lord William Hague has been elected as the new Chancellor of the University. CONGRATULATIONS to him.
My primary reason for this post, however, is to say a heartfelt THANK YOU to the 67 Oxonians who gave me their 1st preference vote. I am deeply grateful to them, and very conscious of the confidence they expressed in me and in the conception of the Chancellorship which I declared in my Statement of Interest [repeated below as an annexe]. I am truly heartened to know that there were 67 people – plus 6 lower preference voters – who agree the need for a more coherent and pertinent conception of the Chancellorship of our ancient alma mater in preference to the more narrow, piecemeal, sales role declared in the official ‘Job Description’.
Again, THANK YOU so much.
Secondly, I do sincerely congratulate William Hague. He is an immensely capable and experienced person who, I am sure, will serve the University with a commitment that comes from love and a sense of honour. He and I will disagree on much – though not quite all – and I am sure that he will meet the expectations of the Academic Establishment far better than someone like me from right outside that Establishment. After all, I did stand for very good and heartfelt reasons.
I congratulate the University too on having the courage to attempt to update the nomination and election procedure for a Chancellor vacancy. They were right to put a 10 year limit on the appointment, and they were right to endeavour to open up the vote in order to achieve the widest consensus possible.
With regard to that consensus, however, lessons clearly need to be learned and improvements implemented to achieve registration of as many alumni as possible. That manifestly failed this time despite their clear intention to widen the vote and achieve as broad a consensus as possible by using an Alternative Vote mechanism. Given the use of such a mechanism and the identical results for the 2 top places in both rounds, a second round of voting was patently unnecessary. Why, then, was it done ?
The desire to open up the nomination process was also laudable, but hit practical problems in the event: as a result of suspicions about political correctness the process was changed. That resulted in nonsense and inappropriate candidates who should never have been on the ballot. In my view, the Chancellorship should be reserved to a graduate of the University of Oxford. To do otherwise begs the question: for example, why should not the electorate be opened up too ? Can anyone who has not been a student at Oxford really have the experience and affection for this unique institution which the Chancellor of all people must surely exhibit ?
More also needs to be done to establish a level playing field for candidates. A cursory glance at the first round results demonstrates that those with the higher number of votes were all people with public profile. Indeed the profile of the five finalists suggests that fame played a critical part in gaining electors attention. Why did famous candidates resort to campaigning: this is not a political appointment – or is it ?
Personally I accept the result, despite the inequality regarding publicity. But the University must surely take steps to answer the legitimate questions regarding the election this time – and implement vital changes for next time. It is not satisfactory that the intended broad consensus results in a new Chancellor with less than 10% of total alumni actually registered to vote.
Annexe
I reproduce below my Statement as a candidate for Chancellor of the University of Oxford:
An historic opportunity
Convocation has an unprecedented opportunity to elect a Chancellor who will safeguard the University as an independent institution dedicated to objective research and impartial education.
At times in recent years, in my view, the University has engaged inappropriately and precipitately in current affairs and contentious matters. This is evident from the tone and perspective of posts on the University website. It is also evidenced by the early engagement of University scientists in the Covid crisis.
That raises the question of State and of Business influence on the University’s independence. What, for example, is the arrangement with China ? What consideration was given to questions about funding for the Blavatnik School of Government ?
It is time to elect a Chancellor from outside the academic world, from outside the British establishment, and from outside Global Business – a person who will ask pertinent questions and remind the University of its correct function.
What should the Chancellor do ?
Ceremonial duties reflect the dignity of the University, and the dignity of the University rests on its integrity. The Chancellor, then, has a moral responsibility for the strategic integrity of the University. This should be the basis on which the Chancellor gives « useful advice and guidance to the University ».
The primary concern of the Chancellor must be to ensure the official mission of the University :
The principal objects of the University are the advancement of learning by teaching and research and its dissemination by every means.
This University is not, then, a platform for any particular philosophy or political viewpoint, nor the outsourced R & D facility of multinational business interests.
A university should necessarily stand apart from the transitory and conflicting concerns and interests of the moment. In a university, ideologies and powerful interests are objects of research and teaching, not points of reference or promotion.
The culture and outlook of staff should be preoccupied with the advancement of objective learning. That requires an attitude of openness to others, to ideas and to information. Effective learning requires a willingness to adjust existing knowledge and understanding to new information and thinking. University teachers should exemplify respect for other perspectives, conceptions and paradigms of thinking ; they should be keenly aware of the influence of their own personal views and inclinations, and be willing to see their own shortcomings.
Why choose me ?
In general terms, I have already outlined my approach and my concern. More specifically, I mention the following.
1) Thomas Paine wrote Rights of Man in riposte to Edmund Burke’s 96,000 word personal letter titled Reflections on the Revolution in France. Both works are fascinating theses which explain competing political philosophies. But in today’s academia, Burke’s thesis is sidelined while Paine’s is esteemed. To counter such a partial perspective, I published an accessible edition of Burke’s 96,000 word letter, providing a basic contents page and a summary of Burke’s thesis to help students.
2) Understanding the need to adapt to a changing world, I took a Master of Science in Business Information Systems. Being a teacher, I chose for my research project the use of computers in education. That required me to understand and to learn the paradigm of teaching and of computing, in order then to construct a way to marry two different domains to one practical purpose in my design of a prototype app. for computer delivered teaching.
3 ) My vocational career reflects a range of pertinent interests and experience : law, accounting, management and teaching, as well as hands on practical projects in France. I am familiar with a range of functions and challenges in large organisations, and with how ideas affect practice.
4 ) Having lived in France for many years, I have been challenged to understand a French perspective and paradigm, to learn and to adapt to a different nation. Marriage and parenthood are the experience of so many of us and they rightly challenge us to personal development. Learning is not just intellectual ; it is a whole person and a life long process.
Much has changed in the University since 1979 when I came down from Exeter College after reading Modern History. Change is inevitable, but in which direction are we going and how do we go there ?
By focusing primarily on the integrity of the University, the Chancellor can make a critical and strategic contribution to the coherent development of the University of Oxford as an independent institution dedicated to objective research and impartial education.
DOMINUS ILLUMINATIO MEA
[end]
DEUS ERGO SUMUS 
Leave a Reply