Choosing a chancellor of Cambridge is no joke
Cambridge must choose a chancellor who enhances its reputation without politicising or making a mockery of the role, and Lord Browne is emerging as the most credible candidate to do so, says Eliot Wilson
Our leaders like to speak of the United Kingdom “punching above its weight”. For at least 80 years, it has been a way for Britain to adjust to its loss of global standing, and it is frequently self-deluding nonsense. But it is impressively true in the upper ranks of higher education.
The Universities of Oxford and Cambridge are not just world-class but often world-beating: of how many other British institutions can that be said? This year’s Times Higher Education World University Rankings but Oxford at the top of the tree, and Cambridge was ranked fifth. While both institutions are wealthy, their endowments do not match those of the company they keep so far up the global list: MIT, Harvard, Princeton and Stanford are all many times richer but cannot quite vanquish their much older cousins.
Each of England’s ancient universities is formally headed by a chancellor. Although executive power now rests with the vice-chancellors, the university administrations and the colleges, it is not quite fair to say the chancellor has an honorary role. He (it has always been a “he” so far) wields considerable influence—soft power, if you like—and as the university’s ultimate ambassador is an important public lobbyist and fundraiser.
Last November, Oxford elected former foreign secretary Lord Hague of Richmond as its 193rd chancellor, recognising his international profile, political experience and advocacy. Next month, the Senate of the University of Cambridge (effectively the graduates and current senior staff) must elect its 109th chancellor as successor to Lord Sainsbury of Turville.
Sayre’s law
Sayre’s Law says that academic politics is so vicious because the stakes are so low, but the chancellorship of Cambridge matters. The UK’s higher education system overall may be numbed by an atmosphere of permacrisis, but for our best universities this is a moment of opportunity.
Six months into his second term of office, President Trump is effectively at war with America’s elite colleges. He and his cercle believe that universities are steeped in left-wing, “woke” ideology which must be eradicated, and he is taking the fight to them financially. Billions of dollars of federal funding have been suspended to six of the eight Ivy League schools and others, and the enrollment of international students has been disrupted. Many feel academic freedom is at stake.
Academics and wealthy students are highly mobile, and there are already signs that the UK is becoming an attractive alternative to Trumpist America. UCAS reports the highest level of undergraduate applications from the US ever and there are some signs of more academic staff moving across the Atlantic. Overall numbers, compared to total migration, are small, but could give academic, research and the economy an outsized and positive boost.
Cambridge has a near-matchless global brand, but it should maximise that advantage by picking the right figurehead. There are 10 candidates on paper but maybe half are not serious runners (whether they realise it or not).
Cambridge has a near-matchless global brand, but it should maximise that advantage by picking the right figurehead
Of the recognisable names, comedian Sandi Toksvig, who sought to be Oxford’s chancellor in 2003, is running on a jokey-but-serious platform of identity, a gay woman concerned with inequity. Educationalist Tony Booth is an anti-fossil fuel, anti-Israel activist who wants to be the university’s “critical, loving friend”. Campaigner Gina Miller, who rarely lets a platform go past unmounted, wants to “lead with courage, integrity, and heart”, highlighting “social progress” and “sustainable funding”.
The situation in America—the very circumstances which have created an opportunity for Britain’s universities—shows that the last thing Cambridge needs is an activist, campaigning chancellor. Mohamed El-Erian, investor, economist and outgoing president of Queens’ College, feels this urge too: as chancellor he would promote sustainability and be a “catalyst for innovation”. Lord Smith of Finsbury, Tony Blair’s first culture secretary and now master of Pembroke College, stresses his “commitment to diversity, openness and ethics” and mentions his opposition to the Iraq War.
The other likely front runner, former BP chief Lord Browne of Madingley, presents a more interesting case. He believes serving as chancellor “does not carry power but rather responsibility”, and distinguishes between advice given in private and the public representational role. His global influence and experience are both undoubted and ongoing, he does not seem to have a pet cause, and he seems the only serious candidate who understands the public/private dichotomy of the chancellorship. If I were a Cambridge graduate, Browne’s case would be the most persuasive.
Striking the right balance is not easy. Cambridge’s new chancellor must command attention, respect and credibility, and put the university’s case forcefully. But it must be the university’s case. Britain’s leading universities have a window of opportunity to flourish, if they can show what they have to offer, rather than telling people what to think.
Eliot Wilson is a writer and contributing editor at Defence On The Brink