ÌÇÐÄVlog

In over 800 years, only once has a non-university candidate ever won the chancellorship of the University of Cambridge. In 1847, the German-born Prince Consort, Albert of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, narrowly defeated the Cambridge-educated Tory aristocrat, the Earl of Powis, by 945 votes to 837. The victory sparked plenty of 19th-century Twitter-style drama about whether a ¡°foreigner¡± should be leading a bastion of English tradition.

But Prince Albert was a force for good. He used his influence to modernise Cambridge along the lines of German research universities. He promoted reforms, such as the introduction of the natural sciences tripos in 1851 ¨C the first time that physics, chemistry, biology and geology were examined.

In the 20th?century, the role of chancellor came to be seen as largely ceremonial, especially during the Duke of Edinburgh¡¯s between 1977 and 2011. But all of the seeking to succeed David Sainsbury agree on one thing: the chancellorship should, once again, become an active and engaged role at the heart of the university.

That has always remained true in constitutional terms. The chancellor is a member of council, which is Cambridge¡¯s principal executive and policymaking body. According to the statutes, the chancellor has powers ¡°to see that all officers of the University duly perform their duties¡±. What this means is unclear, as it has never been used, but the path to reform is there.

The most well connected of the 2025 candidates is Cambridge graduate?John Browne. He has garnered nominations from many influential people in the university, as well as in the worlds of arts, business and science. The form book says he should be home and dry.

But Browne is a controversial figure ¨C particularly within academia ¨C given the central role of his 2010 in prompting the shift from teaching grants to high tuition fees in English universities. The consequences are unfolding today, including deficit-ridden universities, rising student debt and worries about fair access. Browne¡¯s long tenure as BP chief executive has also invited controversy because of the company¡¯s business dealings with authoritarian regimes and oligarchs.

Hence, a letter is now circulating among Cambridge academics urging them to consider using their single transferable vote to elect a candidate more aligned with the mission statement and core values of the university (without championing any of the other candidates).

Could the stage be set for a modern-day Prince Albert to upset the odds? I hope so, as I am standing!

As a professor of astrophysics at Cambridge, I am not exactly a non-university candidate. Nor am I married to the monarch. But I do have lots of ideas about what needs to change.

First and foremost, there is a need for a university ombudsman to be appointed, with authority to investigate cases of mismanagement or misconduct. (This is an idea that I first advanced in a 2023 article?in ÌÇÐÄVlog.)

The ombudsman would provide independent oversight of Cambridge governance, including reviewing its financial accounts and the council¡¯s annual report. The role would also extend to investigating systemic issues. A prominent example is the mishandling of bullying and harassment ¨C an area highlighted by the recent staff survey, which revealed widespread dissatisfaction with existing procedures. Investigating any violations of free speech or academic freedom would also be the responsibility of the ombudsman.

I have urged my fellow candidates for chancellor to back this call for an ombudsman and to ensure that the role is properly funded.

Another prominent issue is academic precarity. Cambridge must prioritise the creation of new academic posts, rather than ever more managerial and administrative roles. On current trends, there will be three administrators for every two academics on permanent contracts by 2028. That is because more than two-thirds of university staff are employed on fixed-term contracts, most of whom are in academic roles. They often face inadequate pay, limited job security and restricted opportunities for career advancement.

Cambridge¡¯s record on advertising academic vacancies is among the worst in the Russell Group. It urgently needs to create new academic positions to maintain its international standing in teaching and research. I accept that that is not straightforward when Cambridge, like so many other UK universities, is running a deficit, but some of that deficit is caused by organisational dysfunction.

The university must focus not only on cost-cutting in activities peripheral to its core mission, but also on leveraging existing assets, investing strategically, and raising immediate capital. Without this broader approach, there is a real risk of decline.

This is a radical reimagining of the role of the chancellorship. Will it fly?

Well, even if ensuring that ¡°all officers of the University duly perform their duties¡± is not deemed to confer the power to enforce such changes, my remit could certainly be to make a lot of noise about them ¨C and I think that might be enough to get some changes through.

But will I win?

I hope so. But even if I don¡¯t, my view is that much good can come of a substantial vote for a reformer candidate even if they don¡¯t win. So I am pleased to poke my head over the parapet.

is professor of astrophysics at the Institute of Astronomy, University of Cambridge.