Lord Hague of Richmond, the former Conservative Party leader, has been elected as the next chancellor of Oxford University. According to research carried out by Alumni for Free Speech (AFFS), this result bodes well for the future of free speech at Britain’s oldest university.
Having initially passed through the first round of voting, William Hague was one of five candidates who progressed to the second round. Voting in this round used an Alternate Vote system, in which voters ranked their choices, enabling their votes to be transferred after the candidate with least support was eliminated through five consecutive stages.
Throughout each stage, Hague maintained a comfortable lead, eventually emerging with a majority in the final round. He will be officially inaugurated early next year, becoming the 160th chancellor, approximately 800 years after the position was first created.
During the campaign, AFFS sent a list of questions to each candidate regarding their beliefs concerning free speech and academic freedom. At the time, we published a brief summary of each candidate’s answers, but after Hague’s victory, it is worthwhile taking a closer look at his answers in particularly.
Like several of the other candidates, Hague did not respond directly to AFFS’ questionnaire, but rather submitted a detailed statement addressing each point. Hague opened his statement by highlighting the current threats to academic freedom, saying that many institutions were currently “failing” their students by not preparing them for “life after university where people openly disagree with their views and values.”
Such acknowledgements may seem obvious, but several other candidates contested the idea that the free speech climate in UK higher education had declined in recent years. Lord Hague, however, took a different tack, writing that “Oxford minds should be ready for the great debating chamber of the world, not the echo chambers of the like-minded.”
Hague expressed support for the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023, describing the Government’s decision to shelve it as “a significant mistake”. He also took the commendable position that people should be free to express even unpopular or offensive views, provided that they are not illegal. Indeed, his statement went on to say that “[e]xtremism and prejudice should be countered through the rigor of reason, not the comfort blanket of cancellation”.
On the more contested subject of Equity, Diversity and Inclusion, Hague took a nuanced approach. Specifically, he wrote that these programmes can do a lot of good, if they are designed “to help students from disadvantaged backgrounds and those struggling with disabilities” attend university. But he acknowledged that certain EDI initiatives can cause free speech problems, especially when they require evidence of support or prior action in service of certain principles. Instead, Hague favours institutional neutrality, describing this principle as “necessary for the protection of free speech and academic freedom”.
Continuing in this vein, the chancellor-elect also criticised mandatory training for students or staff in the “highly contested concepts” of “gender ideology or critical race theory”. Here, Hague distinguished himself from several of the other candidates, most notably Baroness Janet Royall, who as Principal of Somerville College instituted “unconscious bias” training for all incoming students there.
In his statement, Hague even entertained the idea of publishing the content of such training as “a valuable exercise in transparency”. He also responded warmly to AFFS’ idea of appointing a senior officer responsible for promoting free speech and academic freedom.
While both of these proposals are commendable, they might fall outside the largely symbolic power of the chancellor. A former Oxford chancellor Roy Jenkins once characterised the office as “impotence assuaged by magnificence”. Jenkins’ successor Chris Patten offered a more upbeat assessment: “the Chancellor can also provide people with a sense of the cultural and political superstructure within which they are living.”
Although the power of Lord Hague’s new position may be almost entirely symbolic, it is symbolism that matters. Oxford remains one of the most famous and prestigious educational institutions in the world, and the influence of the chancellor reaches beyond its own colleges and even Britain’s borders.
When Times Higher Education recently awarded Oxford the top spot in its international ranking for the ninth consecutive year (a THE record), part of the reason was the University’s global reach in teaching, research, and overall influence.
An Oxford chancellor who actively champions free speech and academic freedom could have an impact on the global educational environment. If his responses to AFFS’ questions are any indication, we may hope that Lord Hague will be such a chancellor.