‘I think he’s the best analyst of extremism who ever lived. His plays show us how that when we try to reason with extremists, we get nowhere. The people who take the middle ground in his plays have no impact on anything. Sophocles wants us to ask ourselves what we what die for.’

Is this a retrospective public admission of the futility of reasoning with the ideologically-driven cabal of extremists currently wielding executive power which we commonly refer to as The Government?  As Vince Cable himself has said of the Coalition: ‘There is a kind of Maoist revolution happening in a lot of areas like the health service, local government, reform, all this kind of stuff, which is in danger of getting out of control. We are trying to do too many things, actually.’

Is Goldhill now admitting that his naive invitation to ‘have it out with’ Willetts made about as much sense as Canute’s imperative to the tides?  This would be surprising.  The same Simon Goldhill recently facilitated the ‘trial’ of Owen Holland and his statement for the prosecution was given a privileged position as evidence over that submitted by the defence.  More likely is that Goldhill, like many academics, has erected an intellectual cordon sanitaire between the lessons of the past and their applicability in the present; between the humanities and that which is genuinely human.

This sort of abstract dilletantism we repudiate and have nothing in common with.  Not only do those who take the middle ground have no impact in the plays of Sophocles; those who who stay in the middle of the road in real life, as Aneurin Bevan warned, will inevitably get run down.

Universities should be a place of critical thinking and open debate. Academics and students must be free to share ideas and think seriously about the world in which we live. The suspension of this student sets a dangerous precedent, which threatens to stifle debate within our academic institutions.

We believe, irrespective of individual opinions on the action itself, that this exemplary sentence undermines the University’s professed commitment to freedom of speech and the right to protest.

We call for the suspended student to be reinstated with immediate effect.

Prof Terry Eagleton, Honorary fellow, Jesus College, Cambridge
Prof Stephen Wagg, Leeds Metropolitan University
Prof Phil Husbands, University of Sussex
Prof Alberto Toscano, Goldsmiths, University of London
Prof Vikki Bell, Goldsmiths University
Dr Francesco Messineo, Lecturer in Law, Kent Law School
Mairead Enright, Lecturer, Kent Law School
Kasim N Sheikh, Lecturer in International Law, SOAS
Dr Anneli Albi, Senior Lecturer in EU Law, Law School, University of Kent
Catherine Carpenter, Senior Lecturer, University of Kent
Alan Story, Reader in Intellectual Property Law, Kent Law School
Steven Rose, Emeritus Professor of Biology (neuroscience), Department of Life Sciences, The Open University
Dr Gail Day, University of Leeds
Prof Steve Edwards, Open University
Joe Deville, Postdoctoral researcher, Goldsmiths, University of London
Dr Timo Jütten, Lecturer in Philosophy, School of Philosophy and Art History, University of Essex
Dr. David McNeill, Lecturer, School of Philosophy and Art History, University of Essex
Dr. Amal Treacher, Associate Professor, School of Sociology and Social Policy, University of Nottingham
Britt Hatzius, Goldsmiths University London
Dr Emma Jackson, King’s College London
Dr. Michael Guggenheim, Department of Sociology, Goldsmiths, University of London
Arturo Sanchez Garcia, Graduate Teaching Assistant, Kent Law School, University of Kent
Dr Peter D. Thomas, Lecturer in the History of Political Thought, Brunel University
Dr Graham Dyer, SOAS Professor Sally Sheldon, Kent Law School, Eliot College, Kent University
Mary Jacobus, FBA, Ex-Director, CRASSH, and Grace II Professor of English Emerita, University of Cambridge; M.H.Abrams Distinguished Visiting Professor, Cornell University
Kirsten Campbell, Goldsmiths
Susan Bewley  MA MD FRCOG, Professor of Complex Obstetrics, KCL, Honorary Clinical Director Obstetrics, NHS London
Donald McGillivray, Senior Lecturer in Law, University of Kent
Dr Donatella Alessandrini, Senior Lecturer in Law, Kent Law School Eliot College, University of Kent
Dr Miriam Muller, Lecturer in Medieval History, School of History and Cultures, Dept. of History, University of Birmingham
Craig Lind, Senior Lecturer in Law, Sussex Law School, University of Sussex
Professor Jane K. Cowan, University of Sussex
Professor Joyce Canaan, Birmingham City University.
Dr. Shalini Grover, Senior Research Fellow in Social Anthropology/Sociology, Institute of Economic Growth (IEG), University of Delhi
Professor Clair Wills, Dept of English, QMUL
Dr Nadia Valman, Dept of English, QMUL Jacqueline Rose, Professor of English, Queen Mary University of London, FBA
Dr Andrew van der Vlies, Dept of English, QMUL
Dr Rachel Gilmour, Dept of English, QMUL
Dr Andrea Brady, Senior Lecturer, English, Queen Mary University of London
Professor Amanda French, Senior Lecturer Education and Early Years, School of Education, Wolverhampton University
Dr Cora Kaplan, Visiting professor in the School of English and Drama
at Queen Mary, University of London; Emerita professor of English at the University of Southampton
Prof. Sir Alec Jeffreys, Department of Genetics, University of Leicester
Dr. Romain Guilbaud, Newcastle University
Dr Paul Hubert, Student Advisor, Kent Law School, University of Kent
Dr Margherita Laera, Leverhulme Early Career Fellow, Drama Department, Queen Mary, University of London
Dr. David M. Seymour, School of Law, Lancaster University
Dr. Geoffrey Abbott (Newcastle University)
Dr John Parrington, Lecturer in Molecular Pharmacology, Department of Pharmacology, Mansfield Road, University of Oxford
Dr Fiona de Londras, School of Law, University College Dublin
Dr Mark Leopold, Lecturer in Social Anthropology, University of Sussex
Dr Dinah Rajak, Lecturer in Anthropology and DevelopmentSchool of Global Studies University of Sussex
Professor Peter Dews, School of Philosophy and Art History, University of Essex
Dr. Pamela Kea, Department of Anthropology, University of Sussex
Gary Hazeldine, Birmingham City University
Dr Fiona Donson, Faculty of Law, UCC, Cork
Professor Valerie Fraser, School of Philosophy and Art History, University of Essex
Dr William McEvoy, School of English, University of Sussex

Lord Sainsbury was elected Chancellor of the University last October. His installation was attended by many of the senior members of the University. A representative of HRH the Queen attended to confirm the installation. The ceremony featured a procession at the university’s Senate House. The students held banners saying “Lord Sainsbury – freedom of speech is the basics!” and ‘Freedom of Expression? University Repression.” [1]

Over fifty prominent academics, authors and lawyers have signed a letter to the University of Cambridge asking that the suspended student be immediately reinstated. Signatories include Professor Terry Eagleton, the novelist Philip Hensher and the journalist Johann Hari, as well as lecturers from 30 Higher Education institutions across the UK. Over 7000 people have signed a general petition condemning Cambridge’s decision, including Michael Mansfield QC, a former contender for the position of Chancellor of the University. [3]

Cambridge student Amy Gilligan said: “Everybody is so angry about this decision. In the last few days the university has shown itself completely out of touch with its students and staff. Nobody in their right mind thinks a student should be punished for exercising his right to peacefully protest. I can’t imagine why they have gone after one student when over sixty people signed the Spartacus letter.”

Cambridge Alumni Richard Braude said “I used to be proud of having gone to Cambridge. Now I’m just embarrassed. I’ve spoken to a lot of friends and none of us intend to give a penny to the university until they change this terrible decision. I hope Lord Sainsbury knows how repressive the university is.”

[1] http://www.facebook.com/events/368493679849914/

[2] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-15326277

[3] http://www.defendeducation.co.uk/over-50-academics-sign-letter-condemning-student-conviction

Washington Post - Protests after Cambridge University student suspended for disrupting speech with poem

Globe and Mail (Canada) - Anger grows after Cambridge student gets 2-year suspension for poem protest

Russia Today – http://rt.com/news/line/2012-03-17/

Press TV - UK student gets 7 term-ban for universities minister protest

Der Spiegel - Cambridge verbannt Protest-Dichter

San Francisco Chronicle – Suspended for a poem

Diario de Noticias Globo – Universidade suspende estudante por interromper ministro

University World News – Cambridge student protester banned until 2014

National

BBC News - Cambridge protest planned for suspended student

Guardian - Cambridge student gets seven-term ban for poetic protest at Willetts speech

Morning Star - Cambridge bans student over protest

Huffington Post - Owen Holland, Cambridge University, Student Suspended For Poem

Workers’ Liberty – Student suspended for two and a half years for reading poem

Socialist Worker - Outrage as Cambridge student is suspended for Willetts protest

Independent – Cambridge student receives ‘unprecedented’ two-and-a-half year suspension for Universities Minister protest

Local

Cambridge News – Students march in support of suspended protester

Cambridge First – “This is a battle for the soul of this university” – 300 march on city in support of suspended student

Student

Varsity - Rallying Support: Students march against rustication sentence

Cherwell - Cambridge student banned for poem protest

TCS - ‘Justice for Owen’: 400 rally against rustication ruling

Tab – CUSU’s quiet riot for Holland

Comment

New Statesman – Owen Holland’s case shows the crackdown on dissent

Guardian – Our poetic Willetts protest was peaceful – banning a student for it is absurd

Independent - What is Cambridge thinking of? This is the act of a thug, not a university

London Review of Books – Cambridge cracks down

Earlymodernjohn - Cambridge University Cuts Off Nose; Face ‘Spited’

Left Futures – Protest is being crushed by a culture of examples

In Erewhon as in other countries there are some courts of justice that deal with special subjects. Misfortune generally, as I have above explained, is considered more or less criminal, but it admits of classification, and a court is assigned to each of the main heads under which it can be supposed to fall. Not very long after I had reached the capital I strolled into the Personal Bereavement Court, and was much both interested and pained by listening to the trial of a man who was accused of having just lost a wife to whom he had been tenderly attached, and who had left him with three little children, of whom the eldest was only three years old.

The defence which the prisoner’s counsel endeavoured to establish was, that the prisoner had never really loved his wife; but it broke down completely, for the public prosecutor called witness after witness who deposed to the fact that the couple had been devoted to one another, and the prisoner repeatedly wept as incidents were put in evidence that reminded him of the irreparable nature of the loss he had sustained. The jury returned a verdict of guilty after very little deliberation, but recommended the prisoner to mercy on the ground that he had but recently insured his wife’s life for a considerable sum, and might be deemed lucky inasmuch as he had received the money without demur from the insurance company, though he had only paid two premiums.

I have just said that the jury found the prisoner guilty. When the judge passed sentence, I was struck with the way in which the prisoner’s counsel was rebuked for having referred to a work in which the guilt of such misfortunes as the prisoner’s was extenuated to a degree that roused the indignation of the court.

“We shall have,” said the judge, “these crude and subversionary books from time to time until it is recognized as an axiom of morality that luck is the only fit object of human veneration. How far a man has any right to be more lucky and hence more venerable than his neighbours, is a point that always has been, and always will be, settled proximately by a kind of higgling and haggling of the market, and ultimately by brute force; but however this may be, it stands to reason that no man should be allowed to be unlucky to more than a very moderate extent.”

Then, turning to the prisoner, the judge continued: “You have suffered a great loss. Nature attaches a severe penalty to such offences, and human law must emphasize the decrees of nature. But for the recommendation of the jury I should have given you six months’ hard labour. I will, however, commute your sentence to one of three months, with the option of a fine of twenty—five per cent. of the money you have received from the insurance company.”

The prisoner thanked the judge, and said that as he had no one to look after his children if he was sent to prison, he would embrace the option mercifully permitted hum by his lordship, and pay the sum he had named. He was then removed from the dock.

The next case was that of a youth barely arrived at man’s estate, who was charged with having been swindled out of large property during his minority by his guardian, who was also one of his nearest relations. His father had been long dead, and it was for this reason that his offence came on for trial in the Personal Bereavement Court. The lad, who was undefended, pleaded that he was young, inexperienced, greatly in awe of his guardian, and without independent professional advice. “Young man,” said the judge sternly, “do not talk nonsense. People have no right to be young, inexperienced, greatly in awe of their guardians, and without independent professional advice. If by such indiscretions they outrage the moral sense of their friends, they must expect to suffer accordingly.” He then ordered the prisoner to apologize to his guardian, and to receive twelve strokes with a cat-of-nine-tails.

But I shall perhaps best convey to the reader an idea of the entire perversion of thought which exists among this extraordinary people, by describing the public trial of a man who was accused of pulmonary consumption—an offence which was punished with death until quite recently. It did not occur till I had been some months in the country, and I am deviating from chronological order in giving it here; but I had perhaps better do so in order that I may exhaust this subject before proceeding to others. Moreover, I should never come to an end were I to keep to a strictly narrative form, and detail the infinite absurdities with which I daily come in contact.

The prisoner was placed in the dock, and the jury were sworn much as in Europe; almost all our own modes of procedure were reproduced, even to the requiring the prisoner to plead guilty or not guilty. He pleaded not guilty, and the case proceeded. The evidence for the prosecution was very strong; but I must do the court the justice to observe that the trial was absolutely impartial. Counsel for the prisoner was allowed to urge everything that could be said in his defence: the line taken was that the prisoner was simulating consumption in order to defraud an insurance company, from which he was about to buy an annuity, and that he hoped thus to obtain it on more advantageous terms. If this could have been shown to be the case he would have escaped a criminal prosecution, and been sent to a hospital as for a moral ailment. The view, however, was one which could not be reasonably sustained, in spite of all the ingenuity and eloquence of one of the most celebrated advocates of the country. The case was only too clear, for the prisoner was almost at the point of death, and it was astonishing that he had not been tried and convicted long previously. His coughing was incessant during the whole trial, and it was all that the two jailors in charge of him could do to keep him on his legs until it was over.

The summing up of the judge was admirable. He dwelt upon every point that could be construed in favour of the prisoner, but as he proceeded it became clear that the evidence was too convincing to admit of doubt, and there was but one opinion in the court as to the impending verdict when the jury retired from the box. They were absent for about ten minutes, and on their return the foreman pronounced the prisoner guilty. There was a faint murmur of applause, but it was instantly repressed. The judge then proceeded to pronounce sentence in words which I can never forget, and which I copied out into a notebook next day from the report that was published in the leading newspaper. I must condense it somewhat, and nothing which I could say would give more than a faint idea of the solemn, not to say majestic, severity with which it was delivered. The sentence was as follows:

“Prisoner at the bar, you have been accused of the great crime of labouring under pulmonary consumption, and after an impartial trial before a jury of your countrymen, you have been found guilty. Against the justice of the verdict I can say nothing: the evidence against you was conclusive, and it only remains for me to pass such a sentence upon you, as shall satisfy the ends of the law. That sentence must be a very severe one. It pains me much to see one who is yet so young, and whose prospects in life were otherwise so excellent, brought to this distressing condition by a constitution which I can only regard as radically vicious; but yours is no case for compassion: this is not your first offence: you have led a career of crime, and have only profited by the leniency shown you upon past occasions to offend yet more seriously against the laws and institutions of your country. You were convicted of aggravated bronchitis last year: and I find that though you are now only twenty-three years old, you have been imprisoned on no less than fourteen occasions for illnesses of a more or less hateful character; in fact, it is not too much to say that you have spent the greater part of your life in a jail.

“It is all very well for you to say that you came of unhealthy parents, and had a severe accident in your childhood which permanently undermined your constitution; excuses such as these are the ordinary refuge of the criminal; but they cannot for one moment be listened to by the ear of justice. I am not here to enter upon curious metaphysical questions as to the origin of this or that—questions to which there would be no end were their introduction once tolerated, and which would result in throwing the only guilt on the tissues of the primordial cell, or on the elementary gases. There is no question of how you came to be wicked, but only this—namely, are you wicked or not? This has been decided in the affirmative, neither can I hesitate for a single moment to say that it has been decided justly. You are a bad and dangerous person, and stand branded in the eyes of your fellow-countrymen with one of the most heinous known offences.

“It is not my business to justify the law: the law may in some cases have its inevitable hardships, and I may feel regret at times that I have not the option of passing a less severe sentence than I am compelled to do. But yours is no such case; on the contrary, had not the capital punishment for consumption been abolished, I should certainly inflict it now.

“It is intolerable that an example of such terrible enormity should be allowed to go at large unpunished. Your presence in the society of respectable people would lead the less able-bodied to think more lightly of all forms of illness; neither can it be permitted that you should have the chance of corrupting unborn beings who might hereafter pester you. The unborn must not be allowed to come near you: and this not so much for their protection (for they are our natural enemies), as for our own; for since they will not be utterly gainsaid, it must be seen to that they shall be quartered upon those who are least likely to corrupt them.

“But independently of this consideration, and independently of the physical guilt which attaches itself to a crime so great as yours, there is yet another reason why we should be unable to show you mercy, even if we were inclined to do so. I refer to the existence of a class of men who lie hidden among us, and who are called physicians. Were the severity of the law or the current feeling of the country to be relaxed never so slightly, these abandoned persons, who are now compelled to practise secretly and who can be consulted only at the greatest risk, would become frequent visitors in every household; their organization and their intimate acquaintance with all family secrets would give them a power, both social and political, which nothing could resist. The head of the household would become subordinate to the family doctor, who would interfere between man and wife, between master and servant, until the doctors should be the only depositaries of power in the nation, and have all that we hold precious at their mercy. A time of universal dephysicalization would ensue; medicine-vendors of all kinds would abound in our streets and advertise in all our newspapers. There is one remedy for this, and one only. It is that which the laws of this country have long received and acted upon, and consists in the sternest repression of all diseases whatsoever, as soon as their existence is made manifest to the eye of the law. Would that that eye were far more piercing than it is.

“But I will enlarge no further upon things that are themselves so obvious. You may say that it is not your fault. The answer is ready enough at hand, and it amounts to this—that if you had been born of healthy and well-to-do parents, and been well taken care of when you were a child, you would never have offended against the laws of your country, nor found yourself in your present disgraceful position. If you tell me that you had no hand in your parentage and education, and that it is therefore unjust to lay these things to your charge, I answer that whether your being in a consumption is your fault or no, it is a fault in you, and it is my duty to see that against such faults as this the commonwealth shall be protected. You may say that it is your misfortune to be criminal; I answer that it is your crime to be unfortunate.

[Added in 1901:] “Lastly, I should point out that even though the jury had acquitted you—a supposition that I cannot seriously entertain—I should have felt it my duty to inflict a sentence hardly less severe than that which I must pass at present; for the more you had been found guiltless of the crime imputed to you, the more you would have been found guilty of one hardly less heinous—I mean the crime of having been maligned unjustly.

“I do not hesitate therefore to sentence you to imprisonment, with hard labour, for the rest of your miserable existence. During that period I would earnestly entreat you to repent of the wrongs you have done already, and to entirely reform the constitution of your whole body. I entertain but little hope that you will pay attention to my advice; you are already far too abandoned. Did it rest with myself, I should add nothing in mitigation of the sentence which I have passed, but it is the merciful provision of the law that even the most hardened criminal shall be allowed some one of the three official remedies, which is to be prescribed at the time of his conviction. I shall therefore order that you receive two tablespoonfuls of castor oil daily, until the pleasure of the court be further known.”

When the sentence was concluded the prisoner acknowledged in a few scarcely audible words that he was justly punished, and that he had had a fair trial. He was then removed to the prison from which he was never to return. There was a second attempt at applause when the judge had finished speaking, but as before it was at once repressed; and though the feeling of the court was strongly against the prisoner, there was no show of any violence against him, if one may except a little hooting from the bystanders when he was being removed in the prisoners’ van. Indeed, nothing struck me more during my whole sojourn in the country, than the general respect for law and order.

Following the news of the student’s punishment, Cambridge University Student Union (CUSU) organised a protest in support of the student.  Hundreds of students participated in this protest.  At a CDE meeting held after the protest, a statement of “no confidence in the university Vice Chancellor, management and Court of Discipline” was endorsed after a vote by the students and staff present. A petition against the judgement has already garnered over 6000 signatures, with over 2000 of them coming from students and academics at the university. The university also continues to receive hundreds of letters, emails and phone calls from its alumni who are pledging not to donate any further until the university repeals the decision.

At the protest CUSU President Gerard Tully read out a statement from the victimised student. In the statement, he says that: “I have been humbled by the level of support I have received these past few days. Thank you to everyone who has taken the time to assemble here today, and to everyone who has signed one of the various petitions expressing consternation at the severity of my sentence.”

“I can tell you that I plan to appeal the sentence before a higher court, and I have every hope that the seven senior members of this University will heed your calls for the sentence to be overturned.”

Before the hearing, sixty students and twenty dons signed a ‘Spartacus’ letter, which insisted that the protest against Willetts was a collective act and that singling out one student for punishment was “arbitrary and wrong”. In the letter the signatories asked to receive the same charge for the action. The letter has so far been ignored by the university Court of Discipline.

Gerard Tully, president of CUSU said: “The student body is demonstrating unprecedented anger over the disproportionate sentence handed down. The University has been caught out acting with no thought to precedent or to fairness, and ought to be ashamed of the message it sends. Two and a half years suspension for one person for one action is madness.”

Rachel Bower, a PhD student in English said: “Like the suspended student, I am also studying for a PhD in English. The punishment undermines the foundations of critical thought and debate that underpin our discipline, and supposedly the University as a whole. It endangers academic freedom, and makes me ashamed to be a member of the University today. I am glad so many of my fellow students have come out in support of our right to protest today.”

University officials, fearing a repeat of the Old School occupation two years ago, closed the Senate House gates. A spokesperson for the University said: “Senate House Yard is closed today in the interests of safety and the university will be monitoring the situation.”

During the protest, the student read out a poem criticizing Willetts for his role in the implementation of £9000 fees and the Higher Education White Paper. He went on to condemn the minister as “a man who believes in the market and in the power of competition.”[1]

In response, over 60 dons and students wrote a ‘Spartacus’ letter to the University Advocate admitting to their role in the original protest, and demanding that they be charged for the same offence. [2] In the letter the signatories object to the fact that only one person has been prosecuted for the protest. The signatories denounce the charges as “arbitrary and wrong” pointing out that the protest was  “a collective act and that we the undersigned were all involved in it – whether directly or indirectly, actively or in a supportive capacity.”

Gerard Tully, President of CUSU (Cambridge University Student Union) said: “A balanced judgement reflecting the evidence and severity of the charges would not have handed down seven times what the University itself asked for. Should an appeal be lodged, we fully expect the University to apply reason and quash this heavy-handed and unfair sentence. For a University that so rightly prides itself on academic freedom and the justness of its procedures, there is simply no alternative.” [3] They have also launched a petition which has gained over 2000 signatures in less than two days from staff and students at the university. A petition open to all members of the public has reached over 3000 signatures. [4]

Rees Arnott-Davies, a student at Corpus Christi College said: “this is out of all proportion. Two and a half years for an entirely legal and peaceful protest is an absolute travesty and makes me ashamed to study at this university. The idea that you can protect freedom of speech by silencing protest is the height of hypocrisy.”

In a bizarre twist to the story, it has emerged that the presiding Judge had previously upheld the right to Freedom of Speech.  Judge Colin Colston, QC, ruled that a publican whose customers simulated sex with an inflatable doll was protected from prosecution under European Human Rights legislation. [5] Judge Colston also previously acted as a character witness for a don accused of sexually assaulting a student. [6]

[1] http://www.defendeducation.co.uk/go-home-david-an-epistle-to-david-willetts

[2] http://www.defendeducation.co.uk/charge-us-all-mr-vice-chancellor-and-university-advocate-thornton

[3] http://www.cusu.cam.ac.uk/

[4] http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/support-suspended-cambridge-university-student/

[5] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1334383/Human-rights-invoked-over-blow-up-dolls.html

[6] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1536305/Don-cleared-of-Benny-Hill-sex-assault.html

7th March 2012

Dear Dr Thornton,

We understand that a student has been charged with “recklessly or
intentionally impeding free speech within the Precincts of the
University” in connection with the protest action which took place at
Lady Mitchell Hall on the 22nd of November 2011 when the Minister for
Universities and Science Mr David Willetts was scheduled to speak.

We regard the prosecution of a single junior member of the University
as arbitrary and wrong: we wish to point out that this was a collective
act and that we the undersigned were all involved in it – whether
directly or indirectly, actively or in a supportive capacity. We
therefore ask that the same charge be brought against each of us before
the appropriate University court.

Signed by the following:

RA Alexander
A al-Jeffery, W
R Arnott-Davies, CC
M Barford, T
N Bazin K
MB Beckles, K
T Belger CHU
D Benjamin, T
A Booth R
RE Bower CL
R Braude PEM
D Buchanan TH
S Carlo CHU
C Clarke K
A Diver CC
CR Doherty JN
F Docherty SID
A Odin Ekman W
BK Etherington CHU
L Finlayson K
K Forrester K
JB Frances K
M Galevski DAR
S Garrigan-Mattar G
L Gettings K
R Geuss
A Gilligan JN
P Gopal CHU
S Haf HOM
D Hillman K
M Hrebeniak W
K Jenkins EM
J Katko Q
A Komporozos-Athanasiou K
S Langsdale K
C Landin CHR
M Laven JES
EA Lee-Six T
A MacDonald K
L McMahon K
L McNulty HOM
TJ Miley DAR
CSB Miller HOM
M.J. Morey F
G Mulligan G
C Mouhot K
D Morris CC
F Musallam JN
G Oppitz-Trotman JN
O Oriogun-Williams CL
B Patrick N
C Page SID
T Phibbs K
M Phillips K
JH Prynne CAI
JE Riley W
A Ring N
LW Roberts JN
C Scozzaro JN
J Scott-Warren CAI
H Sillitoe K
A Shahvisi DAR
E Shang, EM
GM Stevenson FITZ
S Stillwell G
A Tatam W
F Taylor JN
I Urquhart HOM
P Vlad HOM
W Yaqoob PEM
CH Walker-Gore SE
J Whitfield K
H Warner CTH
H Wright CAI
A Wood T
N Zeeman K
AE Zurcher Q

cc The Vice-Chancellor

Dear Vice-Chancellor,

It is our understanding that, following a complaint lodged by the Proctors, the University has initiated disciplinary proceedings against a student for ‘impeding freedom of speech’ in the course of a protest action against the Minister for Universities and Science, Mr David Willetts, which took place on November 22, 2011 at Lady Mitchell Hall.

Although the event at which Mr Willetts was to speak was cancelled, over fifty senior members of the University issued a statement in which they agreed that ‘given the destructive policies of the present government, enacted without due consultation, we believe that the disruption of the Minister for Universities’ address and the subsequent occupation [were] proportionate and justified actions’. Therefore we again call on the University authorities not to persecute those involved in the protest; and ask that the University strike a more appropriate balance between protecting its members’ rights to freedom of assembly and association and the right of others to freedom of speech.

We wish also to express grave concern that one individual is being singled out for disciplinary action when a great many members of the University, both junior and senior, were involved. In the circumstances, we deplore the decision to prosecute one individual as either arbitrary (and so inherently unfair), or as an attempt ‘pour encourager les autres’ (and so itself an attack on freedom of expression within the University). By choosing to proceed in this way, the University has embarked on a course of action which could reasonably be supposed to intimidate this individual, and which therefore represents a failure of the University’s moral duty to them.

Finally, we are also concerned that the University seems to hold both photographic and audio-visual records of parts of the protest, as well as of individual members who were present, and that it is not clear whether this material was collected in a manner which accords with the restrictions and obligations imposed by the Data Protection Act 1998. We are further troubled that the collection of this sensitive personal data might be indicative of a move towards a ‘surveillance culture’ within the University. We believe that such a development would be incompatible with freedom of expression within the University, and with the general expectations of its members.

We believe these are serious issues, and that a failure to address them in a timely manner will damage the University’s reputation. In particular, we ask that the decision to punish this student be reconsidered. Given the exigency of this issue, we look forward to hearing from you in the near future.

Yours,
Dr Anne Alexander
Dr Anna Alexandrova
Dr Maike Albertzart
Dr M Atature
Dr H Azerad
Dr Tarak Barkawi
Dr Debbie Banham
Mr Bruce Beckles
Dr Duncan Bell
Dr Rowan Boyson
Dr Pam Burnard
Ms Sarah Cain
Dr Sophia Connell
Dr PJ Cunningham
Mr Will Davies
Dr Elizabeth Duignan
Dr Ben Etherington
Dr Lorna Finlayson
Dr Linda Fisher
Dr Alex Flynn
Dr Christophe Gagne
Professor Raymond Geuss
Dr Priyamvada Gopal
Dr Boris Groisman
Dr Jochen Guck
Mr Jeremy Hardingham
Mr Ronald Haynes
Dr David Hillman
Dr Edward Holberton
Dr Jana Howlett
Dr M Hrebeniak
Professor Simon Jarvis
Professor Cindi Katz
Dr Ruth Kershner
Professor John Kinsella
Dr Mary Laven
Dr Jessica Leech
Ms Mel Legatt
Professor John MacBeath
Dr Sinead Garrigan-Mattar
Dr Jeff Miley
Dr Clément Mouhot
Dr Subha Mukherji
Dr Kamal Munir
Dr Ian Patterson
Ms P Pointon
Mr JH Prynne
Dr Rory O’Bryen
Dr Jonathan Oppenheim
Dr George Oppitz-Trotman
Dr James Riley
Dr Josh Robinson
Dr Corinna Russell
Dr Jason Scott-Warren
Dr Adam Stewart-Wallace
Ms Isobel Urquhart
Dr Bert Vaux
Dr Isabel di Vanna
Dr Chris Warnes
Dr Ruth Watson
Mr Steve Watts
Dr David Whitley
Dr Andrew Zurcher

New documents pertaining to Grace 3 of 15 June 2011 (‘no confidence in the
policies of the Minister of State for Universities and Science’) have been
released under the Freedom of Information Act 2000:

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/104190/response/254890/attach/html/2/FOI%202012%2030%20Oppitz%20Trotman%20response%20letter%20and%20attachments.pdf.html

Scrolling some way down, you will find a copy of the notes made by the
Presiding Officer during the count. An interpretation of these notes might
run as follows:

- First count, 676 placet / 680 non placet
- Second count, 678 placet / 680 non placet

Only at this point did the Officers search the building to make sure that all
the votes had been gathered. They found 3 on a shelf in the post room and one
‘in intray to Registrary in plain white envelope’. These were:

3 placet / 1 non placet.

They were then added to the tally, giving the final tied vote of 681/681. (We
already know from earlier enquiries that two ‘spoiled’ votes were rejected
and that two ‘doubtful’ votes, both non placets, were accepted).

This new document might be thought to raise further questions about the
trustworthiness of balloting procedures, the accuracy of the counting, and
whether, in the circumstances, the decision to refuse a request for a recount
was correct. For broader context see:

http://donsspeakout.wordpress.com/2011/12/13/ben-etherington-demos-democracy-and-governance-in-cambridge-2011-a-polemical-report/

If members of CACHE wish to make comments about any of these matters, please send them to Dr George Oppitz-Trotman ]]> http://www.defendeducation.co.uk/no-confidence-ballot-raising-legitimate-questions/feed 0