Voting for the next Chancellor of Cambridge opens on 9 July. 10 candidates are vying to become the next head of the country’s second oldest university. Our friends at Alumni for Free Speech have reached out to each of these candidates and presented when with a questionnaire on their attitudes towards and beliefs about free speech and academic freedom.
The results provide a useful guide for Cambridge alumni who wishes to base their vote entirely or in part on these priorities. The report from AFFS can be found here, and contains links to each candidate’s full response. Along with an analysis of their answers, the report also rates each candidate’s position from -2 to +2.
Below is our summary of each candidate’s answers alongside AFFS’ free speech rating.
Dr Ayham Ammora
Dr Ammora is an energy strategist and former oil executive, who has held positions at Shell, Gulf Oil and Chevron. He obtained a PhD in Chemistry from Cambridge, but does not appear to have had much involvement with the world of academia since then, except in some advisory capacities.
His answers are largely supportive of free speech and academic freedom. Dr Ammora acknowledges the problems facing free speech at universities, and seems generally aware of major examples. He supports the appointment of a designated free speech officer and opposes the extension of EDI to require support for Stonewall or Athena Swan.
However, two points for concern also stand out. The first and most important one is that while Dr Ammora had initially listed “Explore appointment of an independent Advisor on Academic Freedom” in his First 100 day action plan, he has since removed this, suggesting that it is not a top priority for him.
Secondly, the “action plan” provided in Dr Ammora’s answers implies that he expects more executive power than is actually granted to the position of the Chancellor. For example, part of the plan is to “Review college-level speaker policies for consistency and transparency”. While not necessarily a bad idea, the largely ceremonial role of the Chancellor does not include any powers of oversight regarding college policies.
AFFS rates Dr Ammora’s free speech standing as +1.5.
Mr. Ali Azeem
A former member of the Cambridge Union and Director of Varsity, Mr Azeem has spent most of his career in consulting and policy advise.
Unfortunately, Mr Azeem did not respond to the AFFS’ questionnaire. This either means that he did not receive it or decided to ignore it. His official candidate statement makes a brief mention of the need to move Cambridge “away from being an echo chamber”, but the issue does not appear to be among his foremost concerns.
AFFS rates Ali Azzem’s free speech standing as -0.5.
Mr. Tony Booth
Mr Booth is a former research fellow at the Cambridge Centre for Commonwealth Education, and claims to be the only candidate standing on an “ethical” platform.
The answers provided paint a complicated picture of Booth’s views on free speech and academic freedom. On the one hand, he writes “I think it absurd to hold people accountable for their thoughts or the committing of thought crimes. I think it is important that there are opportunities for people to publicly express their thoughts within the law”.
However, when asked about EDI and whether these practices sometimes go to far by demanding support for certain programmes or charters, Booth writes that “People have to support equalities legislation and avoid discrimination against people based on their protected characteristics under the law. But they should also go beyond the law to avoid discrimination because it is the right thing to do.” It is not clear whether Booth is merely offering his personal view of what people ought to do or whether he is advocating this as an institutional policy.
AFFS rates Mr Tony Booth’s free speech standing as 0.0.
Lord John Browne
Lord Browne is the former CEO of BP and a crossbench peer who was responsible for the 2010 Browne Review, which analysed university funding mechanisms.
While Lord Browne opted not to respond directly to the questionnaire, he did provide a general statement on free speech and academic freedom. This was because “it would be inappropriate for me to comment on specific cases or policies, particularly where they rightly fall within the remit of the university’s executive leadership or its regulator”
However, the provided statement does discuss many of the key points of the questionnaire, suggesting that Lord Browne at least took time to read and think about the questions. He acknowledges that there have been instances where viewpoints at universities were “inappropriately suppressed”, but considers these “the exception rather than the norm” and that they do not “undermine the reputation and integrity of the entire sector.”
Moreover, Lord Browne insists that “decisions regarding employment, funding and student admissions must be taken on the basis of merit and merit alone” and that his top priority as Chancellor would be to “uphold the University’s defining values of free speech, intellectual freedom, fact-based analysis, and freedom from discrimination”.
The only cause for concerns comes from a statement on EDI. Attempting to distinguish between using equality and diversity as “inputs” rather “outputs”, Browne implies that there is no threat from EDI as long as inclusion is used “as an input, with equality and diversity following as outputs”. He even claims that “where freedom of speech and thought is allowed to flourish, ‘EDI’ always follows”. If one squints hard, this may be a defence of free speech and a minimalist interpretation of EDI, but it could just as well be a vaguely-worded attempt at pleasing everybody by saying nothing.
AFFS rates Lord Browne’s standing on free speech as +1.
Dr Mohamed El-Erian
Dr. El-Erian is a well-known economist, professor, and the current President of Queens’ College.
In his replies to the questionnaire, Dr El-Erian writes that the “fundamental purpose of universities is to explore complex issues” and that a “rigorous examination of the facts and the evidence” must be allowed to take place “regardless of current popular thinking”.
Asked where the line on free speech at a university should be drawn, Dr El-Erian emphasises the need to disagree in a “respectful and honest manner”, but maintains that the only real boundary is “at incitement to violence, harassment, or speech that violates the law”.
He also voices support for institutional neutrality, calling it “essential in areas of academic inquiry, funding decisions and promotion processes”. However, a few other issues are left vague, such as whether EDI should be a factor in appointments: “It is possible to promote merit-based inclusion and protect exploration of ideas”.
More notably, on the question of establishing a senior officer for free speech, Dr El-Erian acknowledges the importance of handling the issue at the executive level, but says that “The Vice Chancellor should be responsible for free speech”. This is likely to be unworkable due to competing interests and the onerous duties of that position.
AFFS rates Dr El-Erian’s standing on free speech as +1.
Professor Wyn Evans
Professor Evans is an astrophysicist at Cambridge, a member of the University’s Board of Scrutiny, and of the 21 Group, created to combat bullying and harassment in academia.
The answers provided by Evans were thorough and consistently in favour of free speech and academic freedom, describing these concepts as “a cornerstone of academic life and essential to the mission of universities”.
Moreover, Prof Evans’ personal history shows a consistent support for free speech and an opposition to so-called “cancel culture”. As a member of the 21 Group, he publicly supported Prof Jo Phoenix when she was harassed out of her position at the Open University over her gender critical beliefs.
While Evans at one point says that he is “not aware of any UK universities that has any requirement of support for Stonewall or Athena SWAN in job applications or promotion”, he nevertheless notes that such a practice would “be contrary to employment law”, indicating an understanding of the protections for freedom of conscience in this area.
Prof Evans also supports the establishment of an officer for free speech, highlighting a suggestion from his manifesto that a special ombudsman be appointed to safeguard academic freedom, which he calls “a vital step”.
AFFS rates Prof Wyn Evans’ standing on free speech as +1.5.
Dr Mark Mann
Dr Mann is a former engineer, BCC Research & Development technologist and co-founder of ImpactU – an organisation supporting mission-driven ventures across the country.
His responses covered the questionnaire in full and indicated a strong belief in the importance of free speech in most areas of academic life. He writes that “freedom of speech is integral to both a free society and academic inquiry” and points out that if one truly cares about diversity and inclusion, this “means making room at the table for voices we don’t agree with”.
Mann endorses the need to tolerate offensive but legal views, as well as the importance of institutional neutrality. As for requiring support for certain campaigns or viewpoints, Dr Mann rejects these practices as “ideological filtering”, insisting that candidates should instead be selected “on their ability to contribute to an environment where all can excel”.
This line of thinking becomes slightly murkier in his responses to the potential threats posed by EDI, as he writes that “EDI and free speech are born from the same goal: providing a platform for more voices”. According to Mann, the tension only arises when EDI is politicised. This can be avoided, according to his statement, by framing “such initiatives as invitations to engage” and encouraging “critical questioning”.
AFFS’ rating of Dr Mark Mann’s standing on free speech is +1.25
Mrs Gina Miller
Gina Miller is business owner and activist, perhaps most well-known for successfully challenging the then government’s prorogation of Parliament in 2019. Mrs Miller did not directly answer the questionnaire, but submitted a general statement.
In her statement, Mrs Miller advances a somewhat complicated view of free speech. First, she writes that “robust and respectful discourse is essential not only to academic excellence but also to the health and the progress of society”.
However, this is immediately qualified with an acknowledgement of “the complexities involved in defending free speech”. Mrs Miller writes that history “has shown us repeatedly that freedom can be weaponised, twisted into a shield for intolerance, division, and hatred”.
It is clear from the statement that Mrs Miller has not engaged directly with the issues raised by AFFS’ questionnaire, but rather provided a general statement outlining on views on the issue of free speech.
AFFS’ rating of Gina Miller’s stance on free speech is 0.0.
Lord Chris Smith
Lord Smith is a former Labour politician, a member of the House of Lords, and the current master of Pembroke College.
Lord Smith provided detailed answers to the entire questionnaire, generally expressing a belief in the importance of free speech. He writes that a “University is all about the pursuit of knowledge and learning, and that happens by testing (and contesting) ideas.”
He expresses support for the right to hold unpopular or offensive views and the need to maintain institutional neutrality, but opposes the appointment of a free speech officer on the grounds that “the protection of free speech should [not] rest with an individual”.
While Lord Smith supports the idea of academic freedom, he seems unaware of some of the current threats and the indirect ways in which this principle is being limited. For example, he insists that there is “no intrinsic clash between EDI policies and freedom of speech and academic freedom”. When asked about requirements of support for Stonewall or Athena Swan in job applications, Smith writes that he would not consider these requirements but would nevertheless “wish to take it into account in a positive way in considering the application”.
AFFS rates Lord Smith’s stance on free speech as +0.5.
Ms Sandi Toksvig
Sandi Toksvig is a comedian, television presenter and writer, best known for her appearances on QI and The Great British Bake Off. She also ran for Chancellor of Oxford in 2003 and served as Chancellor of Portsmouth from 2012 to 2017.
Ms Toksvig did not respond to AFFS’ questionnaire, which means either that she did not receive it or did not wish to reply to the questions on free speech and academic freedom. Her candidate statement stands apart from the others, as it makes no direct mention of the need to protect freedom of speech. Instead, Ms Toksvig’s statement refers to “the politicisation of free speech”, calling it “a threat to academia”.
AFFS rates Sandi Toksvig’s stance on free speech as -1.