The vice-chancellor of Cambridge has disclosed that counterparts at other Russell Group universities have been “meeting with key people from Reform” and that senior figures at her own institution have done the same, amid fears of more direct state intervention in university autonomy if Nigel Farage’s party, now riding high in opinion polls, forms the next government.
Professor Deborah Prentice made the remarks at a November meeting of the university’s council, the decision-making body of college heads, academics and student representatives, after members raised concerns about a Trump-inspired backlash against universities.
According to a leaked transcript of the meeting, seen by The Sunday Times, Prentice told the council: “A number of you … have wanted to be talking about the possible implications of a Reform government for the University of Cambridge, and that is something that the sector is now beginning to take up as an issue. And so, people, for example, Russell Group vice-chancellors have been meeting with key people from Reform, and we’ve had people, in addition, who have been part of conversations with key members, key people from Reform.”
Discussions were taking place now, she said, because “they’ve made it very, very clear that any consultations are happening now”.
Prentice also revealed that a Reform figure had used a meeting with vice-chancellors to indicate the party would “get rid” of the Office for Students (OfS), the university regulator. “The crowd had to suppress some cheer,” she joked, but went on to caution: “What the US example reminds you is you have to worry about what’s coming next … there should be no cheer.”
Prentice, a former Provost of Princeton, said it was “very clear” that Farage intended to model his approach to education on President Trump’s administration.
It is not known which Reform figures have spoken to executives at Cambridge or other members of the Russell Group – the 24 leading research universities – or in what context. The party has five MPs but no education spokesman. In October, James Orr, associate professor of philosophy of religion at Cambridge, was appointed a senior adviser to Farage.
Since returning to office in January 2025, President Trump has begun to remake American higher education by tying access to federal grants and partnerships to compliance with his administration’s priorities, freezing research funds and threatening to exclude universities from federal programmes over EDI policies. Institutions have also been invited to sign up to a controversial new “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education”.
Initially sent to nine universities, including Brown, MIT and the University of Virginia, the Compact was later opened up to all US colleges and universities. Universities are told they are not obliged to sign, but the text makes clear that those declining may have to forego unspecified “federal benefits”, and that signatories found in breach could be required to repay money received during the year of any violation.
Under the Compact, universities would be required to foster a “vibrant marketplace of ideas on campus” by revising their governance structures where necessary, including by “transforming or abolishing institutional units that purposefully punish, belittle, and even spark violence against conservative ideas”. They would also be expected to enforce strict “conditions of civility” by preventing protests that disrupt teaching or amount to a “heckler’s veto”, with a commitment to use “lawful force” and impose mandatory sanctions where required. The document further calls for the screening out of international applicants judged to hold “anti-American values”.
As critics have pointed out, whether one agrees with some or all of these conditions or not, the Compact would insert the federal government’s agenda into areas that have historically been regarded as the preserve of individual universities, raising concerns about academic freedom and institutional autonomy. On pain of financial penalties, it would place both private and state institutions under far more invasive federal control, allowing Washington to shape which academic units can exist and to influence the mix of viewpoints represented among faculty, students and staff.
In the UK, Reform has already hinted at a similar direction of travel. In its manifesto-style “contract” at the last election, the party pledged to “cut funding to universities that undermine free speech”. The practical meaning of that pledge was left undefined, although party leader Nigel Farage has repeatedly accused universities of harbouring “huge left-wing bias”, saying in 2019 that “young people’s minds” were “being poisoned against the idea of sensible border controls”. At the party’s conference in September, he suggested again that universities were leading to “kids’ minds [being] poisoned”, this time with what he described as a “twisted interpretation of the history of these amazing islands”.
Against this backdrop, it’s clear why Prentice was quick to stress that her quip to the university council – that vice-chancellors “had to suppress some cheer” at the prospect of Reform abolishing the OfS – was, in reality, no cause for celebration. However frustrated VCs may be with the regulator, many fear that the party’s rhetoric could translate into discretionary conditions on public support, with institutions accused of “undermining free speech” facing targeted financial penalties in a way that would mirror the logic of Trump’s compact.
In England, ministers set the broad legislative framework through measures such as the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act, while the OfS – a statutory, arm’s-length regulator – translates those duties into general registration conditions and guidance that can be challenged in the courts. If the regulator were scrapped and its functions brought closer to ministers, one of the main institutional buffers between universities and direct political control would be weakened, making it easier for future administrations to make continued access to funding or loan eligibility contingent on new requirements around “British values” in university governance.
During her leaked discussion with the council, Prentice urged members to set aside time to consider the issue in more depth, suggesting a dedicated session at the principal executive and policy-making body’s March away day to look at “what we know, the information that we’re getting about what Reform, the pillars of a Reform government, would mean for higher education”. For council members at this meeting, two years out from the next general election, another question is likely to be whether an imperfect regulator is preferable to discovering what might replace it.
This article forms part of the Committee for Academic Freedom’s monitoring of developments in UK higher education. To receive monthly updates and analysis on cases affecting academic freedom, click the link and subscribe to our newsletter.