Two tiers for universities
LETTERS
From Hugh Brogan, Lord Weymouth, the Rev Gordon Wilson, Maurice B. Reckitt, A. C. Little, Tibor Szamuely, Lieut-Col A. N. Skinner, Nweke Agbata, T. C. Skeffing- Ion-Lodge, David 1. Oldman, Peter Chettle, Rupert Jackson, Audrey Hannan, Doris Davy, Mary Phillips.
Sir: Cambridge readers will have been greatly amused by Mr Cowling's article in defence of academic freedom (30 May).
The key sentence, which should govern interpretation of this interesting text, comes in the last paragraph. 'All I am saying,' says Mr Cowling, accurately, 'is that, when dons resist outside demands to teach sub- jects they think they ought not to teach.
they are not necessarily being foolish and should not necessarily be condemned, and sometimes the subject should go elsewhere.' Mr Cowling finds it necessary to make this plea because, at this very moment, he is the leader of a curious alliance of medi- aevalists, lawyers, morbid anatomists, classicists and fellows of Jesus College who are trying to vote down the proposed in- troduction of a Social Sciences Tripos at Cambridge. The university agreed in principle some years ago that it would be desirable to consolidate sociology, anthro- pology and political science in one Tripos. Mr Cowling signed the report of the committee of management which pre- sented the detailed plan for carrying the decision of principle into effect. But he has now found his way back to the last ditch and hopes successfully to exploit Cambridge University's peculiar, if ex- cellent, constitution to kill what he so recently endorsed. Even he realises that this zig-zag of conduct is likely to lead to unfavourable comment: hence his disin- genuous article in your pages. The fact is that (with the exception of Mr Cowling himself) it is not the dons who are being asked (largely by their pupils) to teach the social sciences who are resisting the de- mand and risking accusations of foolish- ness, it is the dons who will scarcely be affected by the introduction of the new Tripos who are trying to destroy it, and whose behavior, in trying to sabotage the legitimate academic interests of their colleagues, can scarcely be condemned too strongly.
The whole affair must seem a storm in a teacup to the outside world, but if Mr Cowling is to be allowed to mislead it with the specious abstractions of his article, others must try and expose his activities for what they are. They have less to do with academic freedom than with the administrative structure of this university, which unfortunately, as Francis Comford long ago pointed out, offers great scope to muddled intrigue.
Hugh Brogan St. John's College, Cambridge
Previous page
