I am writing to ask for your support in the election of the next Chancellor of our University of Cambridge.
Our University needs a Chancellor who will defend its founding purpose: to serve the public good through education, learning and research of the highest quality, not by bending to the demands of branding, managerialism and market logic.
I am the only candidate who is a currently a University Teaching Officer. As a teacher, researcher and mentor who has worked with generations of scholars, I appreciate both the extraordinary talent we nurture and the structural problems we must confront: the tension between management priorities and academic needs; the decline in secure academic posts; and the erosion of collegiate governance. Alone among the candidates, I know what it means to teach, research, supervise and support students & staff within our University and I know it can work better.
I will advocate for the creation of academic jobs and proper support for postdocs, researchers and college supervisors. I will support a strategic vision for Cambridge that embraces innovation while remaining true to our academic values and global responsibilities. The hallmark of excellence is secured by the well-being of both students and staff. I will stand up for early-career researchers & fixed-term staff and for everyone who works to make our University work. I will press for the establishment of an independent Ombudsman, advocating for transparency and an end to wasteful consultancy spending. As this is a radical re-imagining of the role of the Chancellor, it is only right that I serve only 5 years in the first instance.
This election matters. I believe that the University of Cambridge is ours and that it is shaped by those who teach, learn, work and research within it. If you agree, then I would be honoured to receive your vote and to serve with dedication and integrity as Chancellor.
If you already registered, online voting is between Wednesday 9 July and Friday 18 July.
If you are voting in person, the polling station will operate in the Senate House, on King’s Parade, Cambridge, between 10:00 and 17:00 UK time on Saturday 12 July and on Wednesday 16 July.
Prof Wyn Evans (https://21percent.org/?page_id=373)
All people of decency at the University support you! The establishment supporting Lord BP is in total panic mode! Never seen at our University is heads of house coming out with statements of support for a Chancellor candidate at this stage of an electoral process! Yes heads of house can be signatories but not campaigners! If I was a Fellow of their Colleges I would bring a motion of no confidence to the College governing body!
Bloody HoD and HoH cockroaches coming out of the woodwork
The problem with labelling other people as cockroaches & other tactics that dehumanise people as a strategy to weaken other individuals is that not everyone is susceptible to internalising the labels that other people attach to them & when those individuals who do not internalise these labels other people attach to them go into a court to put a stop to that dehumanising treatment of them by others the court of law will recognise them to be a human and not a cockroach because that is an indisputable legal fact, they are are human, they are not a cockroach & a human unlike a cockroach can get a legal advisor, go into a court and work towards putting a stop to other individuals dehumanising them.
Exactly!
Agreed! Dehumanizing opponents demeans the dialogue. UCam is in trouble because it’s leadership has been insensitive to the true needs of academia. They have lost focus and turned their management style into corporate mumbo jumbo. Exactly what happened with the Post Office.
So true!
This is our moment to show that people in the university stand up for decency, kindness, empathy and above all the fair treatment of all scholars, students and staff.
Here are some things Spot the Dog has spotted
1 The Invisible Woman: Sandi Toksvig has done nothing, Spot can only think of one campaign video, no articles, no social media campaign. There is one brief twitter campaign video in which she bizarrely compares herself to a low paid coffee shop worker.
https://x.com/SimonMcDonaldUK/status/1930152264737411496
Why did she bother standing to be completely absent. Perhaps her big backer Simon McDonald (Master of Christs) could explain why? Is she planning to visit? Sandi is actually a Fellow at 3 Colleges, so it’s bizarre that she’s not been more prominent.
2 The Oil Slick: Lord Browne is busy buying the election. His paid adverts are everywhere on social media.
Given the nature of the election, this prominent visibility could be decisive. Hard to say how much Lord Browne must have spent, but 100k looks plausible. Of course, in most elections there is an upper limit to how much candidates can spend — but not here.
Cambridge University wants to be bought. Lord Browne has the cash to buy it. He’s going to win.
3 The Bungler: Lord Smith’s campaign is clumsy. As the Financial Times reported, there was a kerfuffle when his backing group, ‘Cantabs for Chris’ used Cambridge University branding & logo on some of the promotional material.
This is in breach of both the Trademark Act and the University’s regulations, Spot has noticed that the logos have now been removed from Cantabs for Chris
https://www.linkedin.com/company/cantabs-for-chris/
A former politician should have enough nous to avoid this bungle.
Let me know what you have spotted. And get ready for the fumes of oil and gas, he’s our next Chancellor.
Don’t blame Spot the Dog. It’s not my fault. Spot put him tenth out of the ten candidates. Whoever you choose (and a number of the less well-known candidates like Mark Mann look great), remember to put Browne tenth.
Occasionally it’s important to determine a writers self-view before evaluating the writers writing to infer the writers views with respect to others. That is especially the case when there is ambiguity about whether the writers self-view is that of a fictional character or that of a real character.
As a fictional children’s literature character Spot the Dog was well known for being curious, it would be out of fictional character for Spot the Dog to not be curious about all the Chancellor candidates & for Spot the Dog to not be spotting things about all the Chancellor candidates.
No need for this, in my opinion
https://www.varsity.co.uk/news/29929
Chris Smith’s supporters made a small mistake. Chis fixed it quickly, once he learnt
Gina Miller accuses him of electoral malpractice
Article states
When asked about the allegations, Lord Chris Smith told Varsity that he was “very surprised” that Miller had not raised the issue with him first.
The Pembroke Master went on to explain that he was approached by another candidate earlier this week with the same concerns, and subsequently asked ‘Cantabs for Chris’ to “remove the University crest from their logo immediately”.
Wyn Evans was that candidate. Chris Smith behaved completely honourably and fixed the problem immediately.
No need for Gina Miller to make accusations of “electoral malpractice” or to involve the press. It was settled.
Thank you for this honourable clarification: Integrity shows through actions like these.
Though I support our HoH first you certainly have my vote second.
I spotted that Gina Miller likes publicity
If there’s a podium & a press pack, there’s Gina Miller.
If she’s elected, the University will never be off the front pages
To reach tens of thousands of alumni globally via digital ads, mailings, and PR outreach would realistically cost in the five- to six-figure range.
Even a modest digital campaign with minimal in‑person outreach could easily hit £30–60k. A more aggressive, polished campaign—especially with consultants—might edge toward £100k+
So my guess is Lord BP is spending a five to six figure sum on winning this.
And he will now win it.
At Oxford, Lord Hague, Lord Mandelson and Baroness Royall reportedly spent five to six figure sums, although Lady Elish Angiolini (who came second) and Dominic Grieve had minimal expenses.
Lady Angiolini had expenses of £100 for a social media site and for “two pizzas and a bottle of wine”. Grieve spend £120 on a website.
https://x.com/oxonpolis/status/1943609367586033871
(Hat tip: oxonpolis)
What do you think??? The University oligarchy is in panic mode and they will do what it takes for Lord BP to win! The rot goes to the core! UCam is doomed!
There’s certainly a sense of complete disarray.
The University oligarchy has presided over another undistinguished shambles.
They failed to find a unifying candidate.
It is our understanding that the oligarchy at the University of Cambridge is threatning Prof Wyn Evans because he used his .cam.ac.uk email address to canvas! This was a very minor oversight by a person of absolute integrity. The oligarchs are happy supporting Lord BP- a liar to the High Court and a friend of Putin! They must be desperate! Wyn Evans we will all be Spartacus! VC, ProVCs, Registrar, Head of HR, and Heads of the two richest Colleges are very worried for sure! Scandals in cancer research in Cambridge might soon be revealed…
This is correct.
I have been told that emailing any material about the Chancellorship is an improper use of the University’s computer system !!
If the senior management persists in threatning Prof Wyn Evans that has one name: BULLYING! The toxic environment in Cambridge is nauseating! I am Spartacus! Down with the oppression!
Is a Chancellorship candidate emailing material about the Chancellorship on the university computer system seen as giving that Chancellorship candidate an unfair disadvantage over other candidates as when emails are sent using the university’s computer system to other email addresses on the same system the email is far less likely to end up in a spam folder? Is an email sent by a current member of the university more likely to be read by other current members of the university? Does it also give an unfair disadvantage in terms of being able to access mailing lists of current members of Regent house? Did the university rationalise its intervention?
The risk with classifying this action by the university as a threat and/or bullying is that the action by the university may have a legitimate basis & if so to classifying a legitimate action by the university as a threat and/or bullying risks preventing a more accurate understanding of what does or does not constitute bullying from emerging without which bullying cannot effectively be addressed.
Spending limits are usually in place at elections to ensure an even playing field.
There is a vast disparity in resources that candidates can deploy in the election. Unlike Parliamentary elections, there is no limit on what can be spent on advertising.
The only way to contact all the dispersed electorate is by adverts on multiple social media channels & articles in the press. This favours those with the most resources. At least two of the candidates (Lord Browne of Madingley and Ms Gina Miller) appear to be using professional agencies to target social media.
If fairness is the chief consideration, a spending cap of say £10,000 (surely more than ample) seems the most important desideratum. One of the candidates has most likely spent at least ten times this figure.
I agree with the argument above, to see money that could have been spent funding core higher education activities (e.g. Phd Studentships to increase fairness for PhD candidates) being instead hoovered up by companies engaging in media activities – increasing the power of media organisations relative to the power of higher education organisations – seems like a recipe for the world to (i) produce lower volumes of accurate information (2) propagate higher volumes of unchecked information with a higher probability of false information being circulated more widely in society.