The former Culture Secretary and current Master of Pembroke College was announced as the winner of the election on Tuesday. Smith is expected to replace Lord Sainsbury as Chancellor of the country’s second oldest university before the beginning of next term.
The election, which was the first to allow both online and in-person voting, saw about 25,000 alumni and staff cast their votes. 10 candidates competed in the ranked ballot race, which saw Baron Smith of Finsbury emerge as the winner, ahead of TV presenter Sandi Toksvig and cross-bench peer Lord Browne among others.
During the campaign, Alumni for Free Speech sent a questionnaire on free speech and academic freedom to the candidates. CAF previously published a summary of the results, which placed Lord Smith somewhere in the middle of the pack.
Unlike a few of the other candidates, Smith took the time to provide thoughtful answers to each question, most of which were positive about free speech. For example, when asked where the line between free speech and other concerns should be drawn, he emphasised that as long as the speech is lawful, its protection “should be a fundamental part of a University’s core purpose”, adding that the “pursuit of knowledge […] happens by testing (and contesting) ideas.”
As Master of Pembroke, Smith has a generally good free-speech record. He claims to have distanced himself from the Master and Senior Tutor of Gonville and Caius, when they denounced the gender-critical journalist Helen Joyce in an email to staff and students prior to her 2022 talk at the college. When the right-wing journalist and Mail-on-Sunday columnist Peter Hitchens was de-platformed at Portsmouth University, Smith encouraged the Pembroke politics society to invite him to speak at the College instead.
Equally encouraging is his support for institutional neutrality. Smith writes that “Research funding should be sought and allocated according to the quality of the research and the possibility of beneficial outcome, not on the basis of ideology or opinion or the requirements of funders of governments.”
Despite these answers, AFFS gave Smith a (relatively low) score of +0.5 on a scale from -2 to +2. While none of the candidates reached the top of the scale, several did receive higher scores than the Baron of Finsbury. This is largely because Smith failed to demonstrate a strong appreciation for the nature of the current threats to academic freedom.
For instance, he argued that there is “no intrinsic clash between EDI policies and freedom of speech and academic freedom”. Moreover, when asked if it was appropriate to ask for evidence of support for EDI or specific campaigns (Stonewall, Athena Swan, etc.), Smith wrote that “I would not wish to require evidence of such activity or engagement as a necessary part of an application; but if such evidence were offered I would wish to take it into account in a positive way in considering the application”. This suggests that he accepts a certain level of viewpoint discrimination in hiring, which is not only contrary to academic freedom but also probably illegal.
However, in a recent interview with the Telegraph, Smith claimed that if he was elected Chancellor, he would “make it very clear from the top that Cambridge is a place where expression and an interplay of ideas are encouraged”.
As previously noted by AFFS, Lord Smith provides “a bit of a mixed free speech profile”. He articulates the correct sentiments, yet he also seems to support some rather unsavoury policies. Nevertheless, the Chancellor has a largely ceremonial role. The power of the position lies in its ability to represent the University and set the broader tone for the institution. As Lord Smith told the Telegraph, “You have a voice as chancellor. You should use it”. We certainly hope he will do so, and that he uses it to make the case for more free speech at Cambridge.