Oration by the Vice-Chancellor - (1) to No 4412



<br /> Oxford University Gazette: Oration by the Vice-Chancellor<br /> (supplement)

Oxford University Gazette

Oration by the Vice-Chancellor

Supplement (1) to Gazette No. 4412

Monday, 14 October 1996

To Gazette No.
4412 (17
October 1996)

To
Gazette
Home Page


Oration delivered by the Vice-Chancellor in Congregation on Tuesday,
8 October 1996:

The Vice-Chancellor's Oration is a curious institution. It is
delivered as the
last act at the end of one academic year and is immediately followed
in the
same ceremony by the first act of the next. Should the
Vice-Chancellor review
the year just ending, or offer a personal view on what will be the
big issues
facing Oxford, and the university community at large, in the year to
come?
Most Vice-Chancellors try to keep a foot on both stools without
falling
between them: whether they succeed is for others to judge.

I believe that the academic year which we are now about to enter will
be very
significant both for Oxford and for the entire university system in
this
country. For that reason, I shall touch rather more lightly than may
be the
custom on the events of the past year before moving on to address
some of the
issues likely to arise in the year to come.

However, let it not be thought that 1995-6 was devoid of significance
for the
University. Far from it. In any case real life does not stop on 30
September
and start again on 1 October, and many of the concerns of last year
will carry
on into next.

Much work has been done during the past year on the structure and
organisation
of our libraries. We have had the benefit of advice from working
parties
chaired by the Warden of Wadham, by the President of Corpus Christi,
and by
the Warden of Rhodes House. We have considered how far our library
system
should be co-ordinated, or indeed integrated. Of course much
co-ordination has
already stemmed from the computerisation of catalogues, and I
congratulate
warmly all those in the Bodleian Library, and across the university
library
system at large, who have contributed to that. One result, of course,
has been
that more people now know which books are where, and—not
surprisingly—they want to read them, putting increasing strain
on those
responsible for delivering the library service to all readers; and
here I
note that considerably more readers come from outside the University
than from
within it, such is our responsibility as the guardian of collections
of
national, and international, importance.

I know that the development of a strategy for the library system has
caused
anxieties to a number of members of the University, but I am
confident that
the University is moving ahead in the right direction with the
establishment
of the new post of Director of Library Services and Bodley's
Librarian. I am
particularly pleased that Mr Reg Carr, currently Librarian of Leeds
University, has been appointed to take on this role—a role
demanding both
administratively, and in terms of winning the confidence and support
of
librarians and library users across the University. We wish him well
in his
new post, which he takes up in January 1997, in place of David
Vaisey, whose
contribution to the whole world of libraries was well recognised by
the recent
award of a CBE. He is, however, our man, and I would like here to pay
tribute
to him on behalf of the University which he has served with such
distinction
and good humour. Happily, retirement from the post will not deprive
us of him:
he will remain with us as Keeper of the Archives.

I must now turn to a range of issues which affect many of us
personally,
relating to status and stipend.

The last year has seen the introduction of the scheme for the award
of titles
of professor or reader. This has enabled the University to recognise
the
distinction of many of its senior members at a time when financial
circumstances preclude any large-scale provision for more salaries at
reader
or professorial level. Three hundred and forty-four people applied
for
consideration—each set of the papers considered by the committee
weighed
some twenty-two kilos—and the overall strength of applications
was
immensely heartening. We were able to award the title of Professor to
162
people and the title of Reader to ninety-nine. Of course some were
disappointed at the outcome of the 1996 exercise, but the process is
to be an
annual one. I should also note that the new scheme is not wholly a
substitute
for the more orthodox ad hominem promotions exercises, the next of
which it is
hoped to hold in 1997-8.

Another issue addressed during the year concerned the financial
position of
university lecturers not holding tutorial fellowships, whose
contribution to
the life of the University was widely considered to be inadequately
recognised. Happily, the Working Party established to look at this
problem was
able to put forward proposals which, to a degree at least, meet the
legitimate
financial concerns of this group. I know that many of them regard the
measures
taken as merely interim, and that it is their hope that the whole
structure of
posts can be addressed by the Commission of Inquiry.

Although in electoral boards the role of the Vice-Chancellor, or as I
gratefully acknowledge, the role of Pro-Vice-Chancellors, is mainly
to act as
chairman, the Vice-Chancellor is essentially, and rightly, deeply
involved in
the process of securing first-class appointments to the University's
most
senior posts. It is in the nature of things that the distinction of
those whom
we wish to appoint has often already been recognised by the
institutions from
which we try to attract them; and such distinction tends to be
recognised
financially in two ways, first in terms of stipend and second in
terms of the
research support provided. How can we compete?

So far as research support is concerned, great efforts are
made—for
example at the Buildings Committee and the Research and Equipment
Committee,
frequently supported by generous help from the Higher Studies Fund
Trustees—to be ready to meet the needs of incoming professors.
This is
not always easy; nor has it always proved possible to meet the
aspirations of
those whom we wish to recruit and who would otherwise be willing to
come to
Oxford. That problem will undoubtedly persist. We have nevertheless
succeeded
in making highly distinguished appointments to our chairs.

However, there is also the question of personal finance. Some five
years ago
the University moved from a system of uniform professorial salaries
to one in
which a professor could be given a distinction award in addition to
the basic
salary. I believe that that decision, though not uncontentious, had a
salutary
effect, but I have no doubt that the University has continued to fall
behind
in terms of salary offered. I am glad therefore that the University
was
prepared during the past year—I think with far fewer qualms than
it would
have had five years ago—to accept a further extension of this
scheme,
providing for a wider range of awards, and to agree that the
Vice-Chancellor
should have authority, subject to taking extensive advice within and
outside
the University, to offer such an award to a potential incoming
professor.

This scheme, of course does nothing in respect of posts other than
chairs, and
that takes me on to the general issue of pay. Some striking figures
are in
circulation. It is said of the university system as a whole that the
average
academic has responsibility for 40 per cent more students now than in
1989.
There has been no compensatory increase in pay—rather the
opposite. The
Association of University Teachers has calculated that university
teachers'
pay has declined in relation to average earnings by 16.4 per cent
over the
last ten years. The problem is strikingly evident in the
current—and
this is October—negotiations about the general pay increase due
last
April. Figures of the order of 1.5 per cent—well below the level
of
inflation—have been under discussion; but there are
universities which
find that they cannot afford to pay any increase at all. Oxford is
not one of
these, but looking ahead it is inevitable that the cost of sustaining
increases in pay levels will have to be met by diminution in
expenditure
elsewhere. As far the largest element of our expenditure is on
salaries, we
can only increase pay by shedding posts, which in turn must increase
the
burdens on those remaining. The root cause is the under-funding of
the
universities. I shall to return to that later.

A Vice-Chancellor nowadays is necessarily much involved in the
`external
relations' of the University, and the Oration provides an opportunity
to say
something, very briefly, about that. It has indeed been an eventful
year for
Oxford abroad.

First, there was a major event in Canada in February. An aim of the
Campaign
for Oxford, and a particular objective of Canadian Oxonians and
friends, was
the establishment of a new Chair of International Relations in memory
of
Lester Pearson in this the fiftieth anniversary year of the United
Nations, of
which he was a founder member. The culmination of the process was a
Gala
Dinner organised in Toronto by the Canadian fund-raising committee at
which
the Prime Minister of Canada, Marrack Goulding, Under-Secretary
General of the
United Nations and a loyal Oxonian, and I, spoke. It was an
excellent
opportunity to carry Oxford's message to Canada at the highest level.
The
occasion raised sufficient funds to complete the endowment of the
chair, and
Professor MacFarlane—fittingly if fortuitously a Canadian
himself—is
already in post.

Only about a month later the major University North American
Reunion—now
held biennially—was held in New York. A reception at the United
Nations
Building for over 1,000 people was kindly given by Sir John Weston,
the United
Kingdom Permanent Representative at the United Nations and an old
member of
Worcester College. This event was followed the next day by a series
of
seminars, lectures, and debates on a range of issues to which the
main
contributors were Oxonians from both sides of the Atlantic, and the
whole
reunion culminated in a series of individual college celebrations. It
was
particularly encouraging to see such an effective combination of
University
and college activity.

One country with which, for good reason, our connections have been
less strong
than once they were (apart from the continuing link through the
Rhodes Trust)
is South Africa. This is changing fast. A highlight of the past year
was the
unique degree ceremony at which the Chancellor had the privilege of
conferring
the degree of Doctor of Civil Law by Diploma upon President Mandela,
one of
the great figures of this century, not in the Sheldonian Theatre but
with
seven other universities in the gardens of Buckingham Palace. The
opportunity
was taken of indicating to the President the University's interest in
developing stronger academic links with his country, and that was
pursued
during my visit to South Africa last month.

Another area of the world with which we believe it important to
strengthen our
academic links is the People's Republic of China, not least in the
context of
the return of Hong Kong—with which we have long and strong
links—to
Chinese rule next year. To that end, the Chancellor and I will
together be
visiting Beijing and Hong Kong in December.

I must here refer to the very important role in furthering our
overseas links
played by the Oxford University Press, which now has over fifty
branches or
offices across the world. The last year has seen significant new
activity in
Central and South America, in Central and Eastern Europe, and in
China. One of
the great advantages for a Vice-Chancellor travelling abroad is the
ready
assistance provided by the offices of the Press in whatever country
he happens
to be. At the same time a visit by the Vice-Chancellor may also help
the
Press. The Vice-Chancellor is Chairman of the Delegates of the Press
and his
presence can provide an opportunity for high-profile publishing
events, which
on a number of occasions during the past three years have involved
the Head of
State or Head of Government of the country concerned. It is important
for both
the Press and the rest of the University that the contribution that
each makes
to the other is fully realised. It is a two-way process, and the
success of
the Press has a direct impact on the University in several ways. Its
distinction as a great academic publishing house reflects very
clearly and
directly on the University, which must be the only university in the
world to
have, in a manner of speaking, through The Oxford English
Dictionary
, the custodianship of the national language.
Meanwhile, the
commercial success of the Press has enabled it in recent years to
make
substantial financial contributions in support of the academic
activities of
the University, which has thus been provided with something of a
cushion when
facing the hard financial realities of the present university world.

May I now turn my attention to some issues for the year ahead?

I would like to start with the matter of sites, since it encompasses
a number
of other issues on which I would like to comment. We have made very
substantial progress with two parts of our `three site strategy'. So
far as
the Ashmolean site is concerned, a very substantial pledge from the
Sackler
Foundation, to the far-sighted generosity of which I must here pay
the warmest
tribute, will enable the first phase of the project to go ahead,
namely the
building of what will be known as the Sackler Library; it is hoped
also to
provide accommodation at least on a temporary basis for a new and
much needed
Classics Centre.

As to the St Cross site, where a new building for Economics has long
been
planned, work on preparing the first phase of the project is now well
advanced: the funds are available, Sir Norman Foster has been
appointed as
architect, and it is hoped that work will begin on site next summer.
As soon
as phase I is completed space can be released in the existing St
Cross
Building for the benefit of Law and English, the other two main
occupants of
that site.

The third site of the three—the central area round the
Bodleian—is
still under review, and progress will depend on first finding ways to
ease the
pressure there and thus provide some room for manoeuvre. I hope that
the
Working Party on the University's site needs, chaired by the Master
of
Balliol, will be able to find a way forward: it plans to report in
the course
of the coming year.

Meanwhile I should record steps taken over the past year to purchase
two
pieces of land adjoining the Churchill Hospital in Headington, the
first to
provide a home for the new Institute of Health Sciences and the
second,
adjoining the first, to provide for a permanent home for the Wellcome
Centre
for Human Genetics, for the construction of which we are applying to
the
Wellcome Trust.

One further major issue involving sites—and more—which it
will be
necessary for the University to address in the coming term relates to
the
development of Management Studies. I was able during the Long
Vacation to
report briefly to members of Congregation the offer of £20
million from
Mr Wafic Said to enable the University to proceed with its plan,
agreed in
principle by the University some six years ago, to build a new School
of
Management Studies. Council and the General Board will be asking
Congregation
to agree to the use for the School of a site on the former Merton
playing
field in Mansfield Road. This proposal raises a number of substantial
concerns, not least among them being the fact that when the field was
acquired
over thirty years ago, through the generous decision of Merton to
part with it
in the University's interest, it was on the basis that the area now
in
question would remain open space in perpetuity. We shall also have to
ensure
that satisfactory alternative arrangements are made for the sporting
activities of the University Club. These concerns and others will be
addressed
in some detail in a note which will be published in the
Gazette later this
week being explanatory of a resolution to be placed before
Congregation next
month. I therefore do not propose to examine them further now.

I must however say two things about the proposal. The first is that
amid the
concerns and anxieties we must not lose sight of the fact that we
have within
reach the opportunity to achieve in full a major policy objective of
the
University. The second is to pay tribute to the benefactor. Mr Said's
single-
minded determination to enable us to implement our plan to create a
new sort
of business school, fully integrated within the University, and of
world
class, is matched only by the munificence of his gift.

I now come to the last major topic which I wish to address today:
university
funding. There is no doubt that last year's cuts in the financial
provision
for higher education are damaging the whole university system, and
they have
been followed by a further cut in recurrent funding of 3 per cent in
the year
about to begin, with `promises' of further cuts of 3 per cent in the
following
year and 2 per cent in the third. The cut in capital funding, spread
over two
years, is 50 per cent.

Cuts of 8 per cent over the next three years, added to the cuts over
the
previous seven, mean that the system will have suffered a 36 per cent
reduction in recurrent funding per student during the course of a
decade. I do
not believe that any commercial concern could have coped with cuts of
this
magnitude without reducing the quality of its goods or services, with
consequent loss of competitiveness. It is a most striking fact that
the
universities—predominantly through the ever-increasing efforts
of those
who work in them—have continued to produce high quality teaching
and
research despite the savage reduction in public funding. It is true
that some
universities, of which Oxford is one, have been able to sustain and
increase
the funding obtained for research, and our own fund-raising
activities have
played a very important part in sustaining our ability to contemplate
new
developments despite these cuts. Even so, to balance the books we
have had to
lop £1 million off the 1996-7 maintenance budget and over
£2 million
off the provision for equipment; and but for the help from the Press
the
position would have been far worse.

Frankly, I do not believe that the university system can take any
more of this
treatment without serious damage to its quality. There is increasing
evidence
that quality is suffering. It is hard for any one university publicly
to say
that it is not as good as it used to be. It is easier for the system
as a
whole to say it, and it is true. And if quality is threatened, so is
competitiveness. The international standing of British higher
education will
decline, and with it the ability to attract first-rate undergraduates
and
research students, and first rate academics, from other parts of the
world. If
this continues, we shall end up with a second-rate university system.
No one
wants that to happen. But a great deal will turn on the firmness with
which
Sir Ron Dearing, and his National Committee of Inquiry into Higher
Education,
grasp this problem.

What then is the way forward? There are short-term and longer-term
measures
to consider. The immediate need is to convince Government that the
cuts
planned for the next two years must be abandoned if the university
system is
to retain its high quality, and that the capital funding cut last
year was a
disastrous mistake. The Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals
has been
energetically campaigning to that end. The problem does not affect
the
Department for Education and Employment alone. Research funding comes
largely
through the Department for Trade and Industry which includes within
it the
Office of Science and Technology; that Department surely cannot but
be
concerned if supposedly `well-found' laboratories in the universities
where
research council projects are conducted find their equipment funding
halved.
The Department of Health cannot ignore the plight of universities
whose
medical schools will provide the next generation of doctors,
particularly when
it wants the number of medical students to be increased. The
Department of
National Heritage, again, has an interest through its responsibility
for
museums and galleries, as well as for buildings which form part of
that
heritage.

One step which I have taken in conjunction with the Vice-Chancellor
of Oxford
Brookes University has been to talk to the Members of
Parliament—whether
Front Benchers or not—whose constituencies lie in Oxfordshire,
in order
to explain how these problems affect the universities which employ so
many of
their constituents. At the national level important steps were taken
on the
initiative of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals. The
Secretary
of State for Education and Employment was persuaded to set up two
working
parties which included representatives not only of her own department
and of
the CVCP, but also of the Higher Education Funding Council for
England and of
the Treasury, to report respectively on the impact of the budget
settlement on
the universities' recurrent funding, and on the impact of the Private
Finance
Initiative (PFI). The first of these reports shows very clearly the
effects of
persistent cuts in funding: posts to be lost, projects abandoned, and
overall
financial security imperilled. Alas, it states equally clearly, on
its very
first page, that the Department (that is the Department for Education
and
Employment), and I quote, `does not necessarily share or accept the
views set
out in the report'. In other words, the report is put forward
essentially as
an account of the problems which the universities face. There is no
departmental response to those problems. Response there must be.

As to the second report, it seems to have been assumed when capital
funding
was cut that PFI would be our salvation. Cut public funds, and the
private
sector will step in. There are two fundamental flaws in that
approach. The
first is that the `capital' was not capital in the real sense, but
was, for
the most part, funds provided recurrently for equipment and
maintenance,
neither of which can produce the income stream required if the
private sector
is to supply the service that we need. The second flaw is connected
to that.
If universities are to fund projects on a recurrent rather than
capital basis
they need recurrent money to do it with, and if they have not got it
they can
only find it by cutting something else. Many universities could have
access to
the necessary funds simply by borrowing from a bank and, in the
process, avoid
payment of VAT on a PFI contract. It is the absence of an income
stream and of
recurrent funding which causes the difficulty: there is little merit
in
advising someone who is short of money to go and buy some. I am glad
to say
that the PFI report, while it indicates some areas (such as IT) where
private
finance might assist, recognises that there are others where it could
not; it
also recognises the income-stream problem, recommending (I quote)
that `in
reviewing the Government's expenditure plans in the 1996 Public
Expenditure
Survey, account should be taken of the recurrent effects of PFI
deals, in
addition to the burden of servicing existing borrowing'. It is
crucial that
regard is paid to this report in the next public expenditure round.

If those are some of the more immediate concerns, what of the longer
term?
The University will shortly have to submit its evidence to the
Dearing
Committee. Among a whole range of issues which that committee will
consider,
two are fundamental. The first is the nature of the range of
universities in
this country, and the second is funding.

As regards the range, it is clear that universities such as Oxford
compete in
the world market for staff, students, research contracts, and
resources of all
kinds, physical and intellectual. The country cannot afford to let
these
universities fall out of that market. But the country also cannot
afford to
have all its universities operating in this way. `Selectivity',
inevitably
unwelcome to some, is essential if a continued decline is to be
avoided. I do
not mean that any university has a divine right to be `selected'.
Indeed, the
much maligned research assessment exercise operates not institution
by
institution but department by department and faculty by faculty.
Certainly,
moreover, it is important to ensure that departments—or
universities if
that is the consequence—can move from category to category. But
I have no
doubt of the need for substantially selective funding to support
international
excellence in teaching and research. I firmly believe that the
Dearing
Committee will do the nation a disservice if it does not accept that
approach.

Selectivity, of course, is about distributing the available
resources; but
what resources are to be available to distribute? This is the second
fundamental issue for Sir Ron Dearing and his colleagues. An increase
in the
funding available to universities is essential.

On this issue I start from the premise that it would be unrealistic
to expect
an increase in public funding over the next decade from Government,
of
whatever colour. New sources of funding must be found. There is a
growing
acceptance across the university community, and more widely, that the
only
possible source of additional funding will be a contribution by
students, not
only to the costs of their maintenance, but also to the costs of
their
education. If, as I believe, there is going to be a move in that
direction,
then it will be imperative to guard effectively against the risk that
students
from poorer families will be disadvantaged. Among possibilities which
the CVCP
will no doubt urge the Dearing Committee to consider will be an
income-
contingent loan scheme, whereby students who benefit from a
university
education would in later years—depending on their
income—repay part
of the cost. There is, however, one crucial precondition: those funds
must be
additional to funds already available to the university system. They
must not
be a substitute for Treasury funding. I know that there are deep
concerns
that, even if a guarantee of that were given, it would not stand the
test of
time, and recent events in Australia, where such a scheme has
hitherto been
running successfully, have strengthened those concerns. But whatever
arrangements the Dearing Committee proposes, one thing is clear:
additional
resources will be needed if there is to be first-rate higher
education in this
country.

I have attempted to indicate some of the steps needed to put higher
education
back on the right track. These are national issues, and I must return
briefly
to this University. The Commission of Inquiry which I chair hopes to
report
the outcome of its deliberations in a few months' time, and I do not
propose
to go into detail now about the way in which its views are shaping. I
would
only say that the Commission has been very carefully reviewing not
only a mass
of information but also a very large volume of constructive advice
and comment
which has poured in. Amongst this has been comment on the report on
the
governance of the University by Messrs Coopers & Lybrand. The
Commission will
come forward with its own proposals on governance in due course, and
at this
juncture I would merely indicate two of its particular concerns. The
first is
that the detailed management of affairs should, as far as is
consistent with
the overall responsibility of the University centrally, be delegated
to those
most directly affected; and the second is that the University needs
more
effective structures than it has at the moment to facilitate
long-term
strategic planning.

Despite all these concerns about the future, it would be wrong to
close on a
gloomy note. We have seen many examples in this last year of
distinction and
success in a whole range of fields. For example, it has been a
pleasure to
congratulate Dr John Brown, Professor Christopher Dobson, Professor
George
Smith, and Professor David Stuart on their election as Fellows of the
Royal
Society and to congratulate Professor John Carey, Dr Rosemary Foot,
Professor
Martin Goodman and Dr John Maddicott on their election as Fellows of
the
British Academy. The University's research income continues to rise,
from
£94 million in 1994–5 to over £104 million in
1995–6, an
increase of 11 per cent and still the highest sum received by any
university
in the country and sure witness to the energies of our science
colleagues and
also those in the social sciences and humanities. It is a pleasure to
be able
to congratulate Professor George Radda on his appointment as Chief
Executive
of the Medical Research Council: we shall miss his wisdom in many
aspects of
the affairs of the University, but take pleasure in the fact that he
is now
the fourth member of the University to hold a position of great
significance
in the scientific research field, joining as he does Sir Robert May,
the
Government Chief Scientific Adviser, Professor Richard Brook, the
Chief
Executive of the EPSRC, and Professor John Krebs, the Chief Executive
of the
NERC. Oxford's contribution to scientific policy-making at the
highest level
is indeed considerable.

No fewer than eight colleges have new heads this coming year. At New
College
we welcome back to Oxford Dr Alan Ryan in place of Dr Harvey
McGregor, whilst
another lawyer, Mr Michael Beloff, succeeds Sir John Burgh at
Trinity. Indeed
the legal links continue with the arrival at St Edmund Hall of His
Honour Sir
Stephen Tumim in place of Mr Justin Gosling—to whom I owe many
thanks as
a former Pro-Vice-Chancellor. At Hertford, Sir Walter Bodmer returns
to Oxford
and at Somerville Mrs Catherine Hughes is succeeded by Dame Fiona
Caldicott.
The outgoing Chairman of the General Board, Dr Paul Slack—to
whom many
thanks for all he has done for the University this past
year—moves to
Linacre as successor to Sir Bryan Cartledge; whilst Mr Dennis
Trevelyan is
succeeded at Mansfield by Mr David Marquand. Finally, at Templeton we
welcome
Dr Michael von Clemm in place of Dr Clark Brundin, to whom particular
thanks
are owed for his service to the University in a variety of
capacities, not
least most recently as Peter Moores Director of the School of
Management
Studies. To all those who are retiring I offer the thanks of the
University,
in addition to that of their colleges, for their many contributions
to the
wider life of the University, and I welcome their successors in full
expectation of the contributions that they will make.

Over the past twelve months we have seen the retirement of a number
of our
colleagues who have provided the University with distinguished
academic
service. In addition to those I have mentioned already, I have in
mind, for
example, the retirement of Professor P.G.M. Dickson, Professor of
Early Modern
History; Professor Sir Roger Elliott, Professor of Theoretical
Physics and
former Secretary to the Delegates of the Oxford University Press;
Professor
D.E. Evans, Jesus Professor of Celtic; Professor M.G. Gelder, W.A.
Handley
Professor of Psychiatry; Professor R.W. Guillery, Dr Lee's Professor
of
Anatomy; Professor D.F. McKenzie, Professor of Bibliography and
Texual
Criticism; Professor P.B.C. Matthews, Professor of Sensorimotor
Physiology;
Professor S.E. Moorbath, Professor of Isotope Geology; Professor
E.A.
Newsholme, Professor of Biochemistry; Professor R. Posner, Professor
of
Romance Languages; Professor P.G.J. Pulzer, Gladstone Professor of
Government
and Public Administration; Professor G.H. Treitel, Vinerian
Professor of
English Law; Professor B.L. Trowell, Heather Professor of Music;
Professor
B.A.O. Williams, White's Professor of Moral Philosophy, and Professor
Z.A.B.
Zeeman, Research Professor in European History. From Readerships, the
following have retired: Dr D.H. Gath, Dr J.E. Allen, Mr J.L. Barton,
Dr D.A.
Edwards, Mr N. Johnson, Dr A.S. Kussmaul, Mr J.R. Lucas, and Dr M.
Treisman.

Many others have retired from their academic posts after long and
loyal
service: Dr G.B. Robinson, Dr C.C.F. Blake, Dr P.G. Dickens, Dr J.F.
Ashton,
Dr M.C. Brown, Mr J.D. Davies, Dr R.F. Green, Dr G.W. Groves, Mr J.B.
Hainsworth, Dr P.E. Hodgson, Mrs A.M. Mann, Dr A. Milner, Dr C.W.
Newbury, Dr
J.G. Olliver, Dr R. Park, Dr W.E. Parry, Mr J.R. Rea, Dr B.A.
Richards, Mr
J.R. Torrance, Mr G.J. Tyler, Dr G.H. Whitham, Dr D.G. Wild, and Dr
W.S.C.
Williams. There have been a number of retirements from other areas of
the life
of the University. I think in particular of the retirement of Mr
Giles Barber
as Librarian of the Taylor Institution, Mr A.P. Dyson as Director of
the
Language Teaching Centre, and Mr Tom Snow as Director of the Careers
Service.
Others who have retired from professional or administrative posts
include Mr
W.M.R. Addison, Mr J. Berry, Mr F. Boyce, Mr W.H. Clennell, Mr P.
James, Mr
J.G. Lum, Mr A.F.W. Mattingley, Mr J.A.N. Railton, Mr J.
Shuttleworth, and Mr
D.A. Stuart.

I would like to single out one person for particular mention on this
occasion,
namely Mr John Glozier, the Bedel of Divinity, who finally retires
today some
fifty years after first joining the service of the University.

It is fitting that I should record our gratitude for the lives and
service of
those who have died in office during the past year. We salute the
memory of
Professor Peter Hinchliff and Dr Paul Hayes. The University's loss
among our
former colleagues who have died in retirement is considerable. We
remember
such distinguished scholars and servants of the University as
Professor Alfred
Beeston, Professor Brooke Benjamin, Professor Richard Cobb, Professor
Geoffrey
Dawes, Professor Sir Rudolph Peierls, Lord Goodman, The Very Revd
Eric Heaton,
Mr Duncan Stewart, Sir Geoffrey Warnock, sometime Vice-Chancellor,
and Sir
Edgar (Bill) Williams.

I must conclude by expressing my thanks to all those—Pro-Vice-
Chancellors, senior University officers, and many more—who have
provided
me with so much support this past year. I can promise that such
support will
undoubtedly be called for as we face the challenges of the year to
come,
challenges which I know the University will face with energy,
imagination, and
robust confidence.

8 October 1996

To top of the supplement

To Gazette No.
4412 (17
October 1996)

To
Gazette
Home Page