Lord Chris Patten, the outgoing Chancellor of Oxford University, recently insisted that the role is “not at all a ceremonial one”. But in an article by the Cherwell, Patten remarked that his diary is filled with “ceremonial stuff. “Fundraising…anniversaries”, and the like. In the same article, Patten claimed that Oxford was in a “golden age”. Yet, two months earlier, he had proclaimed that the dire state of university finances was threatening Oxford’s “world power status”.Ceremonial, or not at all ceremonial? Crisis, or golden age? Lord Patten seems to be struggling to gauge the mood here at Oxford. Currently, the very top of the university appears to lack a coherent image. Chris Patten’s resignation leaves vacant the seat at the helm of the university. Oxford graduates will be voting not just for the Chancellorship, but a vision of Oxford University itself.
The most vocal candidate to emerge from the University’s list of Westminster-tried PPE graduates is Peter Mandelson (St Catherine’s College). Mandelson made his fame as a prominent figure in the shadowy spin rooms of Blair’s Labour government. He was forced to resign twice: first after the notorious loan scandal, and then after alleged attempts to influence the passport application of an Indian billionaire friend.
After an inconspicuous decade, Mandelson is again gaining traction as a “core part“ of Keir Starmer’s circle. As if to freshen up the Google search results of “Peter Mandelson loans”, the ‘so-called’ Prince of Darkness has turned his head to educational reform. Mandelson has proposed changes to student loan repayments, and inflationary increases to domestic tuition fees. Labour Students are backing Mandelson, and they are currently undertaking an online campaign to mobilise eligible voters amongst their followers.
Former Conservative leader of the opposition, William Hague, (Magdalen College, PPE) is attempting to scupper Mandelson and Labour Students’ efforts in his bid for Chancellorship. In a profile by The Times, he obfuscates his position on tuition fee increases. Like Mandelson, Hague insists that Oxford should ensure disadvantaged students are not deterred from applying. Recalling his days as President of the Oxford Union, Hague positions himself as an advocate for free speech in universities stating “The intellectual exercise is the opposite of cancel culture”. A position which tidily echoes Lord Patten’s view that academic “intellectual safe spaces” are oxymoronic.
The new Labour government’s halting of the 2023 Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act was expected to renew the debate around free speech in universities. The legislation passed under Sunak’s Conservative government, intended to pressure universities and student unions to promote free speech. In effect, the legislation would have removed the supposed power of universities to no-platform speakers and academics for their political views. Amidst more pressing debates about university finances, this issue seems to have become less salient for voters and the media. Only one fringe candidate for the Chancellorship, Matthew Firth, an Anglican reverend based in the North East, positions himself as a “truly non-woke free speech champion”. The rest of the candidates, perhaps, are above all that.
Imran Khan, Pakistan’s former prime minister, was bidding to be Chancellor until his disqualification from the shortlist. Before today’s news, a piece in The Oxford Blue described his career as extraordinary, “unrivalled in its ability to unite those from all walks of life”. Another article, Catherine Bennett’s profile in the Guardian, was much less sympathetic. She described Khan as a “Taliban-friendly”, misogynistic enemy of free speech (concerning his labelling of Salman Rushdie as a “blasphemer”).
The basis for his disqualification is unclear. His aide acknowledges “no legal reason”, and the University has declined to comment. Being neither a student, nor an employee of the university, the possible grounds for disqualification are criteria (c) the Chancellor cannot be a serving member of, or a declared candidate for election to, an elected legislature; and (d) the Chancellor must not be disqualified from being a charity trustee by virtue of section 178 of the Charities Act 2011 and must be a “fit and proper person”. The interpretation of being a “fit and proper person” isn’t as flexible as it sounds, being a specific HMRC fraud designation. It is not known that Khan falls under this category. With a lot of weight in Khan’s corner, the university will certainly be under fire to explain his disqualification.
In a battle dominated by PPE grads recounting the romance of their youthful days under dreaming spires, Lady Elish Angiolini makes her pitch. Principal of St Hugh’s College, former Lord Clerk Register, and the only non-PPEist, non-Oxford graduate to hit the headlines as a serious contender. Breaking ground as a non-PPE candidate is a relatively trivial distinction. A win for Elish Angiolini would make her the first woman Oxford Chancellor in its 800-year history – while a victory for William Hague would make him the 36th man called William to hold the post. Again, though, there is little (if anything) new to be said about her vision for the university. She stands for the “status quo” on modernity and tradition, the “responsible exercise” of free speech, and “being a good listener”.
Examining the candidates, it seems that the vacuum of identity left by the equivocating Lord Patten is unlikely to be filled. Oxford is already lagging behind wealthy, dynamic American Ivy League universities and other British Russell Group universities that are constantly modernising. A big name, rather than a big idea, tends to win elections in conditions of limited debate. But, now more than ever, a big name doesn’t seem enough.