The University of Cambridge’s incoming leader could become immediately embroiled in a free speech row with a number of academics opposing a new “mutual respect” policy.
A consultation has been held on a second draft of the document that aims to “prevent inappropriate behaviour in the workplace” alongside a new grievance policy that outlines how complaints will be dealt with.
While both documents stress that they should be read in conjunction with the university’s free speech statement, critics claimed that they represented management trying to restrict speech beyond its legal responsibilities.
“I’ve got no doubt that these proposals are well-intentioned, but it is not the place of a university to be restricting speech beyond the law. Universities are there for the free discussion of ideas; they are not finishing schools for groupthinkers,” said Arif Ahmed, a reader in philosophy at the university.
The policy’s aim is to create “a safe, welcoming and inclusive community which nurtures a culture of mutual respect and courtesy” and states “there is no place for any form of bullying, harassment, discrimination, sexual misconduct, or victimisation in our community”.
But Ross Anderson, professor of security engineering at Cambridge, said respect was the wrong choice of word, particularly as this terminology was removed from the free speech statement in favour of “tolerate” after a vote in the university’s governing body, Regent House.
“It is unreasonable to expect atheists to respect the views of religious believers, or to expect climate change activists to respect the work of earth scientists who are trying to make mining or oil drilling more efficient, or to expect campaigners for social justice to respect law professors who advise banks how to avoid regulation. What is reasonable is to expect members of the university to treat each other with tolerance and courtesy,” Professor Anderson said.
He added that the draft policy “reads as if it has been adapted from a corporate HR manual” and does not consider the complexity of the university’s structures, which includes emeritus staff and visiting professors as well as those who work directly for the colleges.
The policy could only realistically apply to regular employees such as hourly-paid staff and researchers, he said, and not university officers, whose disciplinary procedures are a matter of statute, or students, because a separate system for discipline exists, mainly run by the colleges.
Visitors, suppliers and others will be expected to behave in a manner that is consistent with the code of behaviour outlined in the policy, but Professor Anderson said it was unclear how this would be enforced in reality.
Dr Ahmed added that he had “grave concerns” about the compulsory training element that would be introduced for all staff on areas such as diversity, which he claimed had “proven to be useless”.
A previous version of the same document was withdrawn in May 2021 and shortly afterwards, vice chancellor Stephen Toope announced his early departure from his position. He will be replaced on an interim basis from October by Anthony Freeling, outgoing president of Hughes Hall, Cambridge, just as the final versions of the new policies are likely to come to Regent House for a vote.
Free speech concerns are likely to be a key feature of Professor Freeling’s brief six-month tenure, with the government looking to pass its Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill.
A Cambridge spokesman said the policy was clear that it could not be used to undermine the university’s statement on freedom of speech – and this point had been emphasised to those concerned.
“In common with most other large organisations the university has policies governing staff behaviour. These are reviewed from time to time and this update is subject to a university-wide consultation with the purpose of understanding the broad range of views,” he added.
