As reported first in the Times Higher Education , a letter is circulating in Cambridge University suggesting that academics use their single transferable vote judiciously to prevent the election of Lord Browne of Madingley as the new Chancellor.
There is now also press coverage of this campaign in The Times and in Varsity.
The text of the open letter is here. As reported in The Times, one of the principal organisers is Jason Scott-Warren, Professor of Early Modern Literature and Culture.
The letter argues that Lord Browne is a controversial figure for two key reasons. First, he chaired the 2010 committee that championed market-driven university funding and high student fees — a move that sparked widespread outrage and remains deeply contentious today. His name is still synonymous with the policy many blame for pushing higher education to the brink. Second, his long career as CEO of BP and ties to the fossil fuel industry sit uneasily with a university community increasingly vocal about the climate crisis. Appointing him Chancellor now would strike many as tone-deaf, if not outright provocative.
The 21 Group has already expressed our reservations about the suitability of Lord Browne here and here.
11 Comments
SPARTACUS · 2 July 2025 at 23:32
Anyone but Lord BP! His establishment supporters include many that have central roles in a gigantic scandal ongoing in cancer research in Cambridge. Bullies, dictators, liars, manipulators are all routing for the oil man. Biomedical research in Cambridge will be doomed.
21percent.org · 3 July 2025 at 23:13
Here are Oxford results. Notice how William Hague was well in lead after first round but by the end transfers had reduced his lead over Elish Angiolini to about a thousand.
Now Lord Browne of Madingley is a much more divisive character than William Hague, so he will be overhauled. He is not transfer friendly.
Eileen Nugent · 5 July 2025 at 05:14
Imagine a group of 30 kids where one of them is of the view that it is OK to hit every other kid & 29 of them are of the view that it is not OK to hit any other kid. One kid then goes around hitting 29 other kids & since the other 29 kids are of the view it is not OK to hit they passively let themselves get hit for fear of unintentionally initiating hitting. Then the 29 other kids realise the fault in their logic, if they want to live in a world where no one gets hit it’s not enough to not initiate any hitting, it is also necessary to actively resist getting hit while not initiating any new hitting a task that is much harder and requires greater strength and capability than initiating hitting. The 29 then start to actively resist getting hit, blocking as many hits as they can without initiating any hits on the kid initiating all the hitting. Is this 29 kids piling on one kid because they don’t share the same views or is this just common sense.
If the 29 passively allow themselves to get hit, they all progressively become weaker and more injured with one relatively stronger and less injured kid in the community. If the 29 actively resist getting hit whilst not initiating any hits against the one kid initiating all the hitting, they reduce the absolute probability of injury in the whole community and the whole community becomes stronger in an absolute sense even the one kid doing the hitting who becomes stronger because they are having to do more work [become stronger] to make the world conform to their view, that it is OK to hit every other kid, which they are now beginning to question because the strong signal they are getting from all the other 29 kids is that it’s not OK to hit any other kid.
If the one kid initiating all the hitting stops doing that will the other 29 kids then start initiating hitting of that one kid in unison i.e. pile on that one kid whose views they didn’t share – no – because the views shared by the 29 other kids are that they want to live in a world where no kid gets hit and they apply that rule to everyone including the one kid who didn’t share the same views and who hit them all. The application of one view leads to an absolute increase in community strength and increasing stability whereas the application of the opposite view leads to an absolute decrease in community strength and decreasing stability.
Sometimes a large group of people actively resist one individual because they don’t share the same views as that one individual & when the different views are then objectively evaluated holding one set of views leads to an absolute increase in the strength and stability of the whole community relative to holding the other set of views so the community adopts the set of views that leads to an absolute increase in the strength and stability of the whole community irrespective of whether that set of views came from the large group of people or the one individual.
Eileen Nugent · 5 July 2025 at 05:15
This response is in response to Irony below.
Irony · 4 July 2025 at 18:23
Absolutely loving an anti-bullying campaign group piling on to somebody because they don’t share the same views, or because they may people “feel uneasy”… Absolutely hilarious.
21percent.org · 4 July 2025 at 18:50
The Letter is nothing to do with the 21 Group, as made clear in the posting.
The organisers are academics in the University.
All we have done is report what has been stated in the Times, Varsity and elsewhere. This is known as freedom of speech.
IronyHitsHimselfwithaRubberHammer · 4 July 2025 at 19:10
If you are interested in bullying & coercive control, maybe take a look at what Browne did to his ex-partner, Jeff Chevalier
“Having bought his young lover at the outset, it seems that Lord Browne continued to believe that he owned him. The perks were stupendous – but Chevalier felt trapped.
His clothes were chosen for him. Even the guest lists for his birthday parties were dictated by Lord Browne and his staff.
“Virtually every aspect of my life was managed by other people,’ he says now.
“I was unable to opt out of many functions and was told I simply had to go. When I started to try to put my foot down in 2005 over which functions I attended and did not attend – to no avail – it was then I felt like a puppet.”
Although Mr Chevalier sought treatment for the condition, nothing seemed to work and eventually Lord Browne ran out of patience at his boyfriend’s refusal to attend the parties because of his medical condition.
The peer ended the relationship last year – virtually cutting Chevalier off without a penny.
Xerxes · 4 July 2025 at 20:07
This comment is insulting to genuine victims of bullying.
What next? Donald Trump is being bullied.
Poor Donald Trump couldn’t catch a break. Everywhere he went, someone had a mean tweet, a scathing headline, or a protest sign with suspiciously good graphic design. His policies—like building a wall or trying to ban TikTok—made him a magnet for more boos and hisses. Critics didn’t just disagree; they practically formed a conga line of bullying condemnation. Late-night comedians, college professors, and angry suburban moms waving reusable tote bags all picked on defenceless Donald. It was enough to make a billionaire reality TV star feel downright persecuted & bullied.
TigerWhoCametoET · 5 July 2025 at 10:58
You only hold up a mirror to those in power so I do not feel they can fairly complain about what they see reflected back there.
James Henderson · 9 July 2025 at 00:04
It’s also essential to consider the fact that Lord Browne committed perjury in 2007. Lying under oath is a serious breach of integrity, and it’s troubling that someone with such a history of dishonesty is even being considered for this important role. Cambridge should uphold the highest ethical standards, and appointing someone with Browne’s track record sends entirely the wrong message. I encourage everyone to look up the many articles for more context – simply search “Lord Browne perjury”!
21percent.org · 9 July 2025 at 12:19
Whilst we agree 1000 % with the tenor of this, it’s worth pointing out that — strictly speaking — Lord Browne did not lie under oath.
He provided untrue documents to the court — he made written statements that he knew were false in an attempt to discredit his ex-partner (who was suffering from health difficulties).
Whatever, it is not a pleasant action. This technicality is presumably why he did not end up prison.