Before 1988, academics in permanent posts in the UK could only be dismissed for serious wrongdoing or failure to perform their duties. This gave them strong protection comparable to tenured professors in North America. The Education Reform Act of 1988 changed this by permitting redundancies on standard ’employment law’ grounds, meaning that universities can eliminate posts if they decide to scale back or discontinue certain activities. Since then, the strength of a UK academic’s position has depended less on a concept like “tenure” and more on the governance structures of their particular institution.
A crucial feature of the 1988 framework is that redundancies must be approved by a university’s governing body rather than imposed solely by senior executives.
This is where Oxford and Cambridge stand apart. Their governing assemblies — Oxford’s Congregation and Cambridge’s Regent House — are very large bodies composed substantially of academics and college officers. In principle, these assemblies function as the ultimate decision-making authorities within their universities. Any move to close whole departments requires the endorsement of these broad, academically constituted bodies. The academic community itself effectively holds a veto.
This historical tradition of collective self-government means that employment protections at Oxford and Cambridge are arguably comparable to tenure at the elite North American institutions. Elsewhere in the UK, governance is more managerial. At all other UK universities, academics make up a smaller proportion of governing bodies, weakening the collective academic oversight that exists at Oxbridge.
As has been widely reported by the BBC and the Times Higher Education, the University of Cambridge is seeking to close its Vet School and stop the teaching of Veterinary Science. This has prompted the setting up of a campaign group, Save the Vet School , as well as an Open Letter from the British Veterinary Association.
Our concern here is not whether the Vet School should close, but rather with the dangerous precedent that the University is seeking to establish to facilitate its closure.To circumvent a vote at Regent House, the General Board of the University is mischievously seeking to discontinue undergraduate admissions, as reported by Varsity. This effectively would seal the fate of the Vet School, after the current cohort of students have completed their undergraduate course. To many Cambridge academics, this seems to be an attempt to shut the Vet School in a way that sidesteps the proper oversight of Regent House. It is an attack on what remains of the concept of tenure.
Prof Mark Holmes, the head of the Veterinary Medicine Department, told Varsity that he too has heard “almost nothing” about the decision to delay making any offers for the 2026 cohort.
He added that “the University are doing everything they can to stop the course without going to Regent House” – which is the governing body of the University – because “they know that they won’t have the votes to close the course”. Holmes described such moves as “undemocratic and uncollegiate” [Varsity]
Irrespective of whether the Vet School should close or not, it is in the interest of all academics that the proper processes are followed and there is full scrutiny of any decision. Accordingly, we urge members of Regent House to sign the Grace initiated by Dr Stephen Cowley as soon possible. If you are a member of Regent House, the Grace is accessible here.
(The image of the Vet School was taken by John Sutton and is reproduced under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic license)
20 Comments
Crooks behave as crooks! · 11 February 2026 at 12:55
What do you expect?? Regent House might stop this but the regime of the American Queen is much like having Trump running the place! And Prentice seems to think talking with the Farrage lot is a good thing! UCam is doomed!
Anon · 11 February 2026 at 13:04
This is simply mind-blowing.
If I understand the situation;
1. We have British students who want to study here in veterinary sciences (and are willing to pay substantial student fees to the university for this right).
2. However, the university is obstructing them from applying and receiving education of benefit to the country.
This would appear a clear violation of the university’s charitable status. We are required to serve the goals of education and research. That is our mission.
We are certainly not required to spend money on administration, executive compensation, delayed and over-cost IT systems or big-ticket buildings.
Socks · 11 February 2026 at 17:41
Strictly speaking the students have already applied, but are being held in limbo on whether their dreams of studying veterinary medicine at Cambridge will, in fact, come true as they hope, or instead, be dashed against the wall at a whim of indifferent cruelty
G · 11 February 2026 at 18:35
The university is being run badly and despotically. It looks to many — following the appointment of a CFO that was then reversed — that the collective leadership is failing and defective.
The university has inherited significant problems thanks to Emma Rampton & her inept performance as Registrary
The pursuit of the Vet School looks to many as though motivated by the arbitrary whim of one of the proVCs. This could be the final straw — many of these people at the top need to be swept away
SPARATACUS · 11 February 2026 at 20:59
The ‘one ProVC’ should be outed now! Who is this despicable person? Name please! Let’s shame her/him!!
TheResearcher · 11 February 2026 at 22:19
Professor Anna Philpott, the Pro-Vice-Chancellor Resources and Operations, is the only biologist of the Pro-VCs…
chloe · 12 February 2026 at 00:25
Didn’t even one of the pro VCs speak out against closure of Vet school at recent staff event, or am I misremembering
4shame · 12 February 2026 at 08:51
Not Philpott! You may be thinking of Bill Astle? He’s on the council but as a rep and made a statement that is quite revealing. It seems even those asked to approve the new site development were not told about the plan to shut down educational programmes to cover its cost.
TheResearcher · 12 February 2026 at 11:29
@Chloe,
There are four Pro-VCs:
– Prof. Bhaskar Vira, Pro-VC for Education and Environmental Sustainability
– Prof. Kamal Munir, Pro-VC for University Community and Engagement
– Prof. John Aston, Pro-VC for Research
– Professor Anna Philpott, Pro-VC Resources and Operations
Not only Prof Philpott is the only biologist of the group, but according to the University website, I would think that she is directly involved on the issue of the Vet School. The website reads:
“As Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Resources and Operations, she will lead on:
– prioritisation, distribution and use of resources across the University to optimise operational effectiveness
– integration of academic planning with resource planning
– oversight of the University’s change programmes
– oversight of the University’s IT and digital capability”
If I am wrong, it would be great if someone could correct me.
Eileen Nugent · 11 February 2026 at 20:26
Higher education systems should be isolated from other critical national systems e.g. human health systems, animal health systems, food security systems. This could be achieved by applying a protected status to certain higher education courses e.g. veterinary medicine which would mean that higher education providers cannot make unconstrained & uncoordinated cuts to specific higher education courses with that protected status during times of increased instability in higher education systems.
Any alterations to these courses being made during times of increased instability in higher education systems would then be constrained by the need to dynamically matching higher education systems to other critical systems – coordinate any changes to courses at the higher education systems level – to ensure the fundamental needs of other critical systems are continuously being met during any major restructuring of higher education systems.
This type of isolation between systems would reduce the risk of critical systems e.g. health systems simultaneously being impacted by instabilities in multiple other systems at times when also experiencing own instabilities – a situation that has the potential to generate critical systems instability of a higher complexity. The higher the complexity of the critical systems instability the greater the risk to ongoing functioning of critical systems and the more difficult it is for critical systems to advance and to deliver improved levels of service to society.
Eileen Nugent · 12 February 2026 at 09:58
When people think of independence of thought often they think of this as binary attribute – a person is an independent thinker or a person is not. This is not the most precise way to think about independence of thought not only because it suggests that independence of thought is binary attribute but also because it suggests it’s a static and immutable attribute that requires no maintenance.
Independence of thought is more like a line that has to be actively stabilised & maintained, the sharpness of which can vary. To have independence of thought and to maximally contribute to an environment where others also have independence of thought it is necessary to not yield to any form of bullying whilst simultaneously also not subjecting others to any form of bullying – a stable, sharp line needs to be in actively held in place at all times. An exceptionally detailed understanding of bullying is required to develop the required ability to be exceptional firm on bullying. It’s akin to actively maintaining intellectual core muscles to support sustained intellectual activity at an exceptionally high level in a chosen field of specialisation.
To maintain independence of thought in an intellectually rich environment where a person has a high probability of being exposed to new ideas and new thinking it is necessary to develop and maintain an ability to play with new ideas and with new thinking without incorporating anything into your own thinking. Modelling the incorporation of new ideas and new thinking into your thinking is not the same as incorporating new ideas and new thinking into your thinking. There is no unintentional incorporation of new ideas and new thinking into your thinking, all incorporation of new ideas and new thinking is intentional and done at the level of conscious thought.
This is the basis of not only maintaining high independence of thought but also of maintaining stability of self and stability of mental health in the presence of the high levels of intellectual challenge necessary to undertake intellectual discovery. I think Oxford and Cambridge do stand out in having held on to these self governance structures for their academic communities i.e. have continuously fought hard to retain the optimal conditions for members of Oxford and Cambridge to actively maintain themselves in a mental state where high independence of thought is possible.
Eileen Nugent · 12 February 2026 at 13:04
I think where independence of thought becomes particularly important is when examining new ideas and new thinking in relation to mental health. It is extremely important to be able to play with new ideas and new thinking in relation to mental health without incorporating those new ideas and new thinking into your own thinking during the play process to examine new ideas/thinking for utility and basis in fact.
The mind is continuously working to maintain the stability of a persons mental health, it has already discovered ways to do that for itself, the incorporation of new ideas and new thinking in relation to mental health that are incompatible with the ways the mind has found and is currently operating to stabilise itself has the potential to significantly destabilise a persons mental health rather than increase the stability of a persons mental health.
If a person is to move from thinking about mental health at one level of complexity to thinking about mental health at a higher level of complexity – something which has the potential to significantly improve mental stability and also allow a person to access higher levels of mental health and a higher quality of life – it is necessary to make that transition in a measured and intentional way facilitated by a safe environment where maximisation of independence of thought is possible.
Eileen Nugent · 12 February 2026 at 10:28
Those working in HR in Cambridge could attempt to continuously mentally force feed a person copious amounts of HR gobbeldy guck by involuntarily signing a person up to an automated HR training system that delivers endless streams of templated HR videos that some corporation saw fit to continuously defecate on the world to maximise their profit to work ratio but any such an attempt is likely to be met with extreme resistance in Cambridge.
Eileen Nugent · 12 February 2026 at 11:07
“Those working in HR in Cambridge could attempt to continuously mentally force feed a person copious amounts of HR gobbeldy guck by involuntarily signing a person up to an automated HR training system that delivers endless streams of templated HR videos that some corporation saw fit to continuously defecate on the world to maximise their profit to work ratio but any such an attempt is likely to be met with extreme resistance in Cambridge.”
apologies …… it’s a continuous effort to maintain that core academic standard …… independence of thought
I recommend those working in HR in Cambridge review the use of automated HR training systems to evaluate whether the delivery of generic HR training courses produced by external companies through these automated HR training systems is (i) having the intended impact on people being exposed to this HR training material and on overall culture in Cambridge (ii) beneficial to Cambridge and (iii) an appropriate use of organisational resources at a time when organisational resources are becoming more limited.
Anonymous · 12 February 2026 at 11:39
@Eileen – It is good that you brought up this particular point (in addition to the other points that you have raised). I hope your suggestion is followed, not just at UCam, but throughout the sector.
Perhaps it could go further though. For me, HR departments putting out compulsory anti-bullying training courses like this, while at the same time persecuting and even firing staff for raising genuine and serious complaints about bullying (from HR and management in particular),
is one of the most depraved things that HR departments do.
21percent.org · 12 February 2026 at 11:58
The fundamental deceit is representational: HR presents itself as a moral body when it is, structurally, a risk-management function.
This does not mean individual HR professionals are malicious (though some are). Many may sincerely believe they are acting fairly within constraints. The deception is systemic rather than purely personal. It emerges from institutional incentives: protect reputation, minimize liability, avoid scandal, retain powerful figures.
The university, as an idea, speaks of truth.
The university, as an organization, protects power.
Anonymous · 12 February 2026 at 13:03
Indeed, I accept these points, and have raised similar points previously. However, in my view, the higher up the HR and management chain one goes (and the more consequential the complaint is), the more likely they are to know that what they are doing is corrupt and abusive. I can also say with certainty, that there are cases where the abuse is personal.
While some HR staff are coming forward, which is to be highly commended, I feel that the rate at which this is happening falls far short of where we need to be. I really hope that changes.
TheResearcher · 12 February 2026 at 13:15
“there are cases where the abuse is personal”
Of course there are, namely when the victims challenge their authority. There is a lot of UCam staff who do not understand that some individuals out there do not accept being manipulated and could not care less about power differences.
Blacklisted · 12 February 2026 at 13:26
“there are cases where the abuse is personal”
Whenever an individual refuses to allow power to take precedence over truth.
MUSKETEER · 12 February 2026 at 13:50
The disgraceful lot that are degrading UCam must go: VC, all ProVCs (obviously including Philpot), acting Registrary and all members of Council! The Vet School situation is a total disaster for which this rotten regime of the American Queen is solely responsible! Out out out out out out