READERS, IT WAS Francois de la Rochefocauld who said that great events, despite their interpretation by our leaders, are in fact usually the product of passion and temperament. Yet after so many petulant, cheap shots fired by our beloved Provost in his battle against the University of London, an element of sanity has been re-introduced by the esteemed head of University College.
University College, Oxford that is. When the Times Higher Education was published last Summer, many members of the university were left fuming that Professor Grant had been so discourteous as to rant without letting them know. “Is the University of London going to collapse because Malcolm Grant has flounced out of the Constitutional Reform Working Group? The answer is no.” (See CG11).
The Provost’s summer outburst was dismissed as, “one of Malcolm’s drama queen moments... It is fair to say that Malcolm’s actions have led to people's eyes glazing over when he’s speaking, even when he is right.” Staff within UL, and perhaps more significantly within college, have expressed their serious worries regarding the Provost’s provocative stance towards the university. And yet in recent weeks, Malcolm Grant has been strangely quiet. The man, who has managed to achieve this pantagruelian feat, is the esteemed and distinguished academic, Professor Sir Ivor Crewe DL, MA (Oxon), MSc (Econ), the recently installed Master of University College Oxford.
But first of all, a little background. Like the Spartans at Thermopylae, one body has stood between Professor Grant and his iniquitous plans for the destruction of the University of London: the School of Advanced Study. This is a research-led institution for postgraduates whose academic resources are available across the University of London, and one which does not compete for Research Assessment Exercise funding, to the shared benefit of all, sitting as the “jewel in the crown” of the University of London.
Vultures
It is an epithet that makes senior members of that institute blush, and yet its future has been in doubt. In fact, the nature of the School would fundamentally change should it fall under the umbrella of a particular college. “Yet Malcolm seems to be wearing blinkers on this issue and cannot understand it,” said one academic.
Senior members of the school expressed a hope that the issue would be resolved in 2008, when the review on behalf of the Higher Education Funding Council for England would secure the school’s (and its constituent institutes’) long-term future under UL. “The vultures can stop circling,” said one relieved academic. Vulture, surely?
Professor Sir Ivor's report pulled no punches, Not only did he define the school’s purpose as being in the “national interest”, but he has also recommended an immediate 10% increase in its direct non-competitive funding. He has also recognised the school’s unique status in the UK as a “research facilitator”, which the colleges of the University of London have unique access to. Malcolm Grant has, rather strangely, been overheard saying that the school is irrelevant, a sentiment with which Sir Ivor obviously disagrees.
At best the Provost has been compared to Nelson at the Battle of Copenhagen. At worst to an ostrich burying his moustache in the cement. “The report must have been terribly, terribly irritating for Malcolm to have read,” said one university source. Senior academics have pointed to the example of the Institute of Archaeology, which is now no more than a “glorified” department after being appropriated by University College.
Moreover, the school now has “power of purse” to shape the research collections in the UL library. Henceforth, thanks to Sir Ivor’s report, a certain amount of money is to be spent by the school to improve Senate House library. University insiders see this as significant, especially taken alongside a parallel report looking into library resources nationwide which refused to grant University College London library national research status while recognising the importance of UL library as ranking alongside those of Oxford and Cambridge.
Hearty Luncheon
Many are now questioning where Sir Ivor's report leaves the continuing reform of UL. One significant development has been that the Center for Research on Women and Gender has recognised all members of colleges as members of the university, which (as insiders point out) means we all have a stake in its future, including Professor Grant.
In addition many are now looking at ways in which academics can have a greater share in the university rather than it being just a top-down model. While Professor Sir Ivor’s report seems just to secure the school, in fact it secures the whole university. Despite Grant's grandstanding, people are now asking if University College is one step closer to achieving its goals of destroying UL. With all the realism of Kaiser Wilhelm, looking forward to a hearty luncheon in Paris, Malcolm Grant is no nearer to achieving his stated aims. In fact, thanks to Sir Ivor, quite the opposite.
Now university commentators are left mystified, attempting to interpret Professor Grant's latest actions. It had been suggested that when Imperial left the UL, he anticipated the collapse of the whole federal structure, with University College able to pick up the residuary property which the university owns. It is a collapse which has not happened and has thus lead to highly-strung exasperation, followed by his present monastic silence. It has been suggested that he has a rather unhealthy relationship with the School of Advanced Study; on the one hand he despises it publicly denying its existence, yet on the other he hankers after it like a spurned lover.
Rochefoucauld also said “Passion makes idiots of the cleverest men, and makes the biggest idiots clever.” No further comment is needed, I feel.