{"id":4122,"date":"2026-08-04T08:18:50","date_gmt":"2026-08-04T07:18:50","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/21percent.org\/?p=4122"},"modified":"2026-08-04T08:20:03","modified_gmt":"2026-08-04T07:20:03","slug":"its-our-university","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/21percent.org\/?p=4122","title":{"rendered":"It’s Our University"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n

A Grace has been submitted. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

Integrity and the highest standards of conduct are foundational to the University\u2019s mission. Research must be carried out honestly, rigorously and responsibly to sustain public trust, safeguard the credibility of academic work and ensure that knowledge advances for the benefit of society<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Statute A V 1 makes the General Board responsible for the academic and educational policy of the University, but that responsibility is subject to the power of the Regent House to make Orders by Grace provided for by Statute A III 3.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Upholding research integrity is essential to the University\u2019s commitment to excellence in education, learning, and discovery. This Grace seeks to reinforce that commitment by strengthening the General Board\u2019s Procedure for the Investigation of an Allegation of Research Misconduct (Statutes and Ordinances<\/em>, pp.242\u2013253 ) to ensure it reflects the full scope of the University\u2019s responsibilities. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Paragraph 2.1 of the Procedure currently reads as follows:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

               “This procedure applies where there is an allegation of Research Misconduct (as defined in section 3) against any person undertaking research either as a member of or whilst connected to a University institution or using University facilities or funding. This includes, but is not limited to, University employees and workers (staff), students, visiting scholars, emeritus staff, individuals with an honorary contract or voluntary research agreement with the University, and those holding honorary clinical contracts. (See paragraph 4.3). This procedure does not apply to staff engaged for employment under Statute J 6 when undertaking research in the service of the Press and Assessment Department<\/em>.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

An amendment to the procedure is necessary to ensure that the University can respond appropriately to serious concerns about research integrity, regardless of when they arose. Past misconduct does not lose its significance upon appointment; rather, it may bear directly on current responsibilities, the integrity of ongoing research and the University\u2019s duty of care and professional oversight. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Without this clarification, the University risks being unable to address conduct that could undermine its standards, reputation, and the trust placed in it by the academic community and the public.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Formal text:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That the General Board amend paragraph 2.1 of its Procedure for the Investigation of an Allegation of Research Misconduct so as to read as follows:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

              “This procedure applies where there is an allegation of Research Misconduct (as defined in section 3) against any person who is undertaking research, has undertaken research, or has been involved in research activities that are connected with a University institution, or that use University facilities or funding, whether as a member of the University or otherwise.This includes, but is not limited to, University employees and workers (staff), students, visiting scholars, emeritus staff, individuals with an honorary contract or voluntary research agreement with the University, and those holding honorary clinical contracts. (See paragraph 4.3). This procedure does not apply to staff engaged for employment under Statute J 6 when undertaking research in the service of the Press and Assessment Department. Allegations of misconduct against a person that concern research activities that occurred before their connection with the University may be investigated at the discretion of the General Board, provided that the matter is relevant to their current or former research activities, role, responsibilities, or relationship with the University.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Academic integrity is the foundation on which Cambridge\u2019s reputation is built. Grassroots academics have a responsibility to defend the standards that define our institution.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Any credible concerns about past research misconduct must be examined transparently and fairly. Where improvements are needed, academics should be given clear guidance and support to ensure the highest standards of research practice. This is part of the duty of care that the University has to its employees.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If you are a member of Regent House, please consider signing the Grace.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Please also consider signing the earlier Grace initiated by Ronald Haynes, which calls for an audit of the Human Resources Division. Given the importance of academic standards and oversight, it would be logical for the review to also include the Research Integrity Office.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It’s our University. We run it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

(Image is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic license.
Attribution: The Old Schools, Cambridge by David Dixon<\/em>)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

A Grace has been submitted. Integrity and the highest standards of conduct are foundational to the University\u2019s mission. Research must be carried out honestly, rigorously and responsibly to sustain public trust, safeguard the credibility of academic work and ensure that knowledge advances for the benefit of society Statute A V […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"om_disable_all_campaigns":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_uf_show_specific_survey":0,"_uf_disable_surveys":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4122","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-blog"],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/21percent.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4122","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/21percent.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/21percent.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/21percent.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/21percent.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=4122"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/21percent.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4122\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4126,"href":"https:\/\/21percent.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4122\/revisions\/4126"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/21percent.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=4122"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/21percent.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=4122"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/21percent.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=4122"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}