Cambridge University must overturn this suspension for reading a poem
|
Version 0 of 1. Owen Holland has been sentenced to a suspension of seven terms by Cambridge University's court of discipline for reading a poem aloud. He was found guilty in March of "impeding freedom of speech" after a group of students disrupted a lecture by David Willetts, the minister for universities and science, in November last year. The decision to pursue a peaceful protester is questionable; a sentence of seven terms – more than two years – is absurd. This is not simply a question of internal disciplinary procedures at a single university. This injustice sets a dangerous precedent. We should all be able to conduct reasonable protests against our government without the fear of unjust punishment at the hands of bodies keen to maintain good relations with that government. In this, Holland's case concerns all of us. Yet in the runup to Holland's appeal this Friday (22 June) there has been little public outcry. In recent months, students and staff in Cambridge have organised a number of protests. But any sense of disquiet in the wider academic community has been pitifully, shamefully, quiet. Indeed, the case serves as an indication of the political pusillanimity into which the academic community has, on the whole, fallen. Where, in previous decades, scholars would have been quick to denounce this abuse of power, now there is nothing but dust and air. I emailed the vice-chancellor's office to express my concern (and, as an alumnus, embarrassment) and was informed that Sir Leszek Borysiewicz had "no influence" over the court of discipline. This is a position that the university has consistently expressed; a "Cambridge University spokesman" told the Guardian at the time of Holland's sentence that "the court of discipline is an independent body". It seems an odd arrangement. If Holland were to sue, surely the university would be considered liable by an actual court for the actions of its quasi-judicial "court". This point has been made by, among others, Bruce Beckles, a member of the university's governing body, a university officer and an elected member of the university's board of scrutiny, on the "donsspeakout!" blog. According to Beckles, the vice-chancellor is morally as well as legally responsible for the court of discipline's actions and has a number of powers to rectify any injustice. I emailed once more to ask the vice-chancellor to use these powers to overturn Holland's sentence and was told, with no additional explanation, that the "vice-chancellor does not have any powers to overturn a decision of one of the university's independent disciplinary courts"; it was also suggested that it "wouldn't be productive to prolong this correspondence". Readers who, like me, have concerns about the implications of this case for the freedom to protest in this country can express them by emailing v-c@admin.cam.ac.uk. I hope that readers who, unlike me, are prominent members of the academic community or financial sponsors of the university will go further. Before Holland's appeal, I hope to see public threats of a boycott; I would like scholars and sponsors to declare that, unless Holland's sentence is overturned, they will refuse to fulfil speaking commitments and will suspend donations. This is a shameful incident and the silence around it is no less shameful. • Follow Comment is free on Twitter @commentisfree |