It is often said that the role of the Chancellorship is purely ceremonial. In recent years, this has certainly been the case. The pattern was set by the long tenure of the Duke of Edinburgh as Chancellor from December 1976 to June 2011. However, the Statutes and Ordinances support a broader role of engagement.
So, it is worth asking: What can the Chancellor of Cambridge University Actually Do?
The answer to this question is the same as the answer to: What can the Vice Chancellor of Cambridge University Actually Do?
Nothing.
Both the Chancellor or the Vice Chancellor have limited individual power. They cannot dictate to the policy-making bodies of the University.
But both the Chancellor and the Vice Chancellor have a lot of influence.
In my view, the Vice Chancellor, Prof Deborah Prentice, understands what some of the problems in Cambridge are. She needs more allies to drive through reforms.
So any Chancellor should be looking to work in harness with the Vice Chancellor. Together, they would be a powerful force for good, and could make some of the changes that the University needs.
(Prof) Wyn Evans (Chancellorship candidate)
16 Comments
Jay · 13 July 2025 at 10:00
Influencing systemic change in policy is more important than addressing individual cases, as it is more likely to lead to lasting, positive outcomes over the long term.
Eileen Nugent · 14 July 2025 at 10:56
If policy works i.e. it’s not generating individual cases, why spend resources pursuing systemic change in policy? If the policy is not working (i.e. continuously generating individual cases) then addressing individual cases gives the system the information necessary to make the accurate systemic changes in policy to prevent similar individual cases arising in future i.e. it drives more precise systemic changes in policy that are more likely to lead to lasting, positive outcomes over the long term (prevention of problems for individuals, prevention of individual cases arising). This logic applies in the absence of any major internal/external environmental shifts, in which case the policy should then settle into a working state i.e. preventing the problems it’s designed to prevent from occurring after some trial and error and given some time. The presence of major internal/external environmental shifts (with impact wrt to target problem of policy) would in any case be sensed by the organisation as a change in the number of individual cases being generated, indicating the problem the policy is targeting the prevention of is worsening and organisational policy needs to evolve. In this situation individual cases would still need to be addressed for the system to determine what shift has happened & how the organisation might need to adapt its organisational policy to effectively respond to that shift.
If the logic above had been applied to the post office : there could have had one set of individuals prosecuting post masters for false accounting (as no one was willing to address the mounting numbers of individual cases of the same type) whilst another set of individuals was developing a new wellbeing policy for post masters. Would the development of a wellbeing policy and influencing systemic changes in the wellbeing policy have lead to lasting, positive wellbeing outcomes for all post masters over the long term? Or would the net impact of wellbeing policy have been to make an already irrational situation – bringing prosecutions for false accounting based on accounting data that neither prosecutor nor defendant could interrogate – even more deeply irrational. Would the blind application of an organisational wellbeing policy to individuals the organisation continued to unnecessarily criminalise & have imprisoned with no importance being given to addressing any type of individual case have resulted in an even deeper state of organisational irrationality with respect to those individuals, even more intense mental suffering for that subset of individuals & even more preventable deaths.
In assigning “influencing systemic changes in policy” as more important than addressing individual cases, organisational/system policy is then being permitted to evolve in ways where policy could become completely decoupled from the reality of the organisational/system problems the policy is designed to prevent & the organisation/system is then being permitted to evolve in ways where it could become increasingly irrational with respect to solving a particular set of organisational/system problems that the organisation/system needs to continuously be able to solve for the organisation/system to continuously run in a state of high autonomy.
BreakerMorant · 13 July 2025 at 10:04
*** BREAKING ***
Another very serious bullying story involving Cambridge University will be breaking over the next few days.
Another young scholar is the victim
University lawyers fighting to keep the awful details out of the press
*** BREAKING ***
21percent.org · 13 July 2025 at 14:49
This is correct. There is another extremely serious Cambridge bullying scandal about to come out.
It involves the rigging of the promotion process for a young scholar.
oudzonker · 14 July 2025 at 04:03
I swear, this university has more leaks than a bloody sieve
21percent.org · 14 July 2025 at 07:05
Organizations that are both secretive and incompetent are especially prone to leaking—whether through whistleblowers, accidental exposure, turf wars, internal confusion, disgruntled staff or digital vulnerabilities.
Duchamp · 14 July 2025 at 16:33
More leaks than a urinal
Picabia · 14 July 2025 at 17:08
A urinal normally has basic oversight & maintenance
The university doesn’t aspire to the level of functioning plumbing
SPARTACUS · 13 July 2025 at 10:26
I commend Wyn Evans for his clarity about what ‘latitude’ a Chancellor has according to the Statutes. The problem lies with the increasing role of senior management (VC, ProVCs, Registrary, Head of HR, Heads of School) in using executive power totally detached from the scholastic body. The structure is totally roten and heads need to fall. Council needs to take over and Board of Scrutiny needs to exert its function. I am afraid current VC is part of the problem and will unfortunately never be a solution. If her candidate (Lord BP) does not win she MUST resign!
Insider · 13 July 2025 at 10:39
From the point of view of University management, this election has been a shambles.
As many know, the University tried to persuade a scholar & administrator of distinction to put his name forward to occupy the post. He declined. Once that had happened, the University should have found a unifying candidate — someone acceptable to most — eg member of the Royal Family with nothing much to do like Princess Anne. Preferably senior.
Some fool hit on the idea of Lord Browne. (The scholar who declined is one of his nominees).
It should be obvious that even if Lord Browne wins (and he is spending to win), he is going to be very far from a unifying candidate. It is almost beyond belief that someone who has done so much damage to UK Higher Education will be Chancellor.
In fact, our problems will significantly intensify with Lord Browne as Chancellor. Someone with more self-awareness than Lord Browne would have seen this.
Interesting · 13 July 2025 at 10:51
https://www.cam.ac.uk/sites/default/files/first-witness-statement-michael-glover-signed-02-07-2025.pdf
See top of page 2
SPARTACUS · 13 July 2025 at 14:24
Registrar on leave should not be a surprise! The top echelon of University leadership and management has been the perpetrator of several major wrongdoings! They know: bullying, dictatorial Directors that are supported, gross mismanagement of internal investigations, serious intimidation of those that defy their disastrous management, scandalous legal bills, destruction of world-class cancer research, promotion of mediocre people, etc. Postal Office 2.0 under the watch of current grossly incompetent VC, ProVCs, Registrar, Head of HR, Heads of (some) Schools and other ‘facilitators’ of the rot! Just look at what his happening with rankings, ERC grants, Highly Cited, etc. A downward spiral that with this management will spin out of control! The election of Lord BP will be the perfect climax! Or better anti-climax!
Anonymous · 13 July 2025 at 14:40
The fact is that a candidate ran on an anti-bullying platform and got huge endorsement then brought critical attention to one of the key challenges facing the university. This ensures that whoever wins will have to take this issue very, very seriously now. At least if they want to have any chance of governing the university and reforming structures that are in desperate need of reform.
Eileen Nugent · 14 July 2025 at 12:44
It’s clear the Vice Chancellor and Chancellor cannot dictate policy i.e. have limited individual power with respect to organisational policy creation, organisational policy amendments and organisational policy destruction. It’s less clear what individual powers the Vice Chancellor and Chancellor have when it comes to intervening in situations that are being generated as a result of policy gaps/blindspots, policy ambiguity, policy faults/emergence of unintended negative policy consequences, refusal to apply a policy, misapplication of a policy. It seems to be that in exceptional circumstances the Vice Chancellor could acquire the individual power to intervene in such situations but the rest of council (including the Chancellor) would also acquire the individual power to intervene in the same situation at the same time. In Cambridge there is a phrase sometimes used in connection with electing a head of house – “commands the respect of the governing body”, it could also be applied when electing a Vice Chancellor – “commands the respect of council”. In one of these higher-risk organisational situations where all members of council could acquire the individual power to intervene in a situation it appears to be this combination – occupying the principal leadership position in the group of trustees (council) and “commanding the respect of the group of trustees (council)“ – that determines whether the Vice Chancellor leads the internal intervention in any situation to navigate the organisation out of any higher-risk organisational state.
The university is a charity but it’s an exempt charity and its principal regulator is not the Charity Commission it’s the Office for Students (OfS). When it comes to the creation/amendment/destruction of university policies the main decision-making body is Regent House. Regent house are however not the trustees of the exempt charity i.e. they are not the set of people responsible for managing the risks associated with any situations that the currently running organisational policy generates. When it comes to decision-making on internal intervention in situations that currently running university policy is generating to manage risks the main decision-making body is council – the trustees of the exempt charity. The universities principal regulator, the OfS, expects trustees (council) to “manage the charity’s resources responsibly, including by managing risks and protecting its assets and people” i.e. council has the powers to intervene in a situation that could in the absence of an internal intervention by council generate an intervention from the universities principal regulator and/or the health and safety executive. Council also has the power to inform Regent House that currently running organisational policy is generating organisational risks that are becoming unmanageable for council and that organisational policy therefore needs to evolve to find new organisational policy that when applied in reality does prevent/address the target problem of the organisational policy. Individual members of Council & Council itself cannot dictate policy but they can exert a particular type of influence on organisational policy & they can bias organisational policy in a very specific way – they can drive changes in organisational policy to increase the accuracy of organisational policy and to make it more functional when deployed in reality.
Some have made statements to the effect that the Vice Chancellor “MUST resign” if a particular candidate does not become Chancellor but none of the candidates for Chancellor have indicated that the current Vice Chancellor wound not command their respect were they to become Chancellor and hence join council & I fail then to see the logic behind statements to the effect that the Vice Chancellor must take a specific course of action with respect to their own position in the organisation depending on who gets elected to another position in the organisation.
Eileen Nugent · 14 July 2025 at 13:38
typo in message above : wound should be would
SPARTACUS · 14 July 2025 at 18:31
Lord BP will satisfy the VC and the rest of the oligarchy!