University Notices
Statement from the Proctors on the occupation of the University Combination Room
20 December 2010
The Vice-Chancellor has reported on the occupation of the UCR between 26th November and the 6th December, and on some of the associated events, starting with an attempt on 24th November to force entry into the Old Schools. The occupation ended with an intimidating and noisy picket of members of the University Council leaving its meeting on 6th December.
The Proctors maintained a regular and often continuous presence throughout most of this period, and we concur with the factual statements made by the Vice-Chancellor. We witnessed almost all of the major events ourselves and we are clear that they involved conscious and deliberate contravention of University Regulations, and of the civil and criminal law, by many of those taking part, both junior and senior members of the University, and alumni. The fluctuating body of occupiers, and those in control of the ancillary entrances and facilities, were informed, on several occasions, of the disciplinary and legal implications of their actions, of the requirements for and the risks to health and safety, and of the possible consequences to themselves and others of all these matters.
It is the duty of the Proctors (under the Code of Practice issued under section 43 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986) to protect freedom of speech and the right of peaceful and lawful assembly within the University. We are also required to maintain discipline and good order (Statutes and Ordinances 2010, pp. 198-202, and the Proctorial Notices issued annually under these Regulations). We regard these two cardinal sets of duties as essentially linked: the protection of free speech, free assembly, and the right to protest requires the maintenance of discipline and good order: good order protects every person's rights.
We recognise that the University did not make a statement about tuition fees and related issues until after the Council had met on 6th December. However, we do not believe that such a statement, nor discussions outside of the Council, could properly have been made any earlier within our established procedures.
An occupation of University premises causes, at the very least, considerable direct and indirect disruption and difficulty, both to University functions and to staff and members of the University, and is a breach of Regulations. The occupation of the UCR was generally peaceful, and broadly - but with important exceptions - responsibly managed, and it eventually came to a voluntary if belated end. Nevertheless, there were instances of intimidation, and some actions put in jeopardy the health and welfare of staff, academic members of the University, and others (including minors on many occasions) who were in the Old Schools or its precincts during the occupation. We deplore the contravention of fire regulations (especially disabling routes for evacuation), the blockade of the Old Schools for several hours, the disruption to academic work in Caius College Library, two attempts to force doors, shouting at close range (at ourselves and at others), banging on the doors and windows of occupied offices, baiting security personnel, refusing to provide name and college when asked to do so by a Proctor or the Marshal. The action of two protestors in shackling themselves by metal locks around their necks to unsecured stepladders in particular incurred an immediate risk of appalling injury.
We have received messages from members of the University, on the one hand supporting disciplinary action against such individual occupiers as can be identified, but on the other asking us to avoid taking action against individuals, on the grounds either of principle or in view of the perceived good order and general peacefulness of the majority of events. After full consideration we have decided that we shall conduct a number of interviews next term, concerning both the occupation and potential future activities. It is unlikely that we shall take any further action against individuals at this time from matters arising out of this occupation. However, that view has been formed on a fine balance of judgment, and it should not be taken as a routine precedent for the future.
The Proctors view very seriously the significant lapses from peaceful and lawful protest that occurred. Our current stance is wholly without prejudice to the actions that we may decide to take in respect of identifying, and where appropriate disciplining, individual members of the University participating in any future occupations, or other forms of illegal protest; particularly if participation seems to us to involve deliberate and/or cumulative breaches of discipline, or the encouragement of breaches of discipline committed by others; or if the health and safety of individuals is again put under threat. The Proctors expect and depend on all members of the University, junior and senior and alumni, to respect the Regulations governing University discipline at all times, not least because the Regulations underpin freedom of speech.
Dr Jane Spencer
Junior Proctor
Sidney Sussex College
Mr James Trevithick
Senior Proctor
King's College
The title of this document is:
University of Cambridge: Notices
URL:
http://www.cam.ac.uk/univ/notices/proctorstatement.html
Last updated: 27/03/2012