Fly-sheets reprinted

Fly-sheets relating to the ballot on an initiated Grace on Injunctions (Grace 1 of 30 July 2025)

In accordance with the Council’s Notice on Discussions and Fly-sheets (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 116), the three fly‑sheets received for the ballot on an initiated Grace on Injunctions (Grace 1 of 30 July 2025) are reprinted below. The fly-sheets are reprinted in the order in which they appeared in the ballot booklet, which was random. For the result of the ballot see p. 152.

Fly-sheet re Grace 1 of 30 July 2025

At stake in this ballot are questions both of principle and process.

As a matter of principle, the University and its constituent Colleges ought not to be seeking civil injunctions to curtail student protests on their property. Such injunctions expose protesters to the risk of extreme penalties, over and above those arising from the criminal charges that can be brought against anyone committing illegal acts, and from the disciplinary procedures of the University. Once an injunction is put in place, a student unfurling a flag at a graduation ceremony, or taking part in an occupation or an encampment in a proscribed area can, without jury trial, incur a punishment of up to two years in prison and an unlimited fine. The decision of a wide range of corporations to apply for injunctions that carry such draconian penalties represents a significant assault on the rights of protest, and hence on the human rights of freedom of expression and assembly, in the UK. It is not appropriate for a University to curtail the rights of its students in this manner, and in the process to incur costs which have neither been disclosed to nor approved by the Regent House.

In relation to process, the Council has decided to submit this Grace initiated under Special Ordinance A (ii) 5 for approval, despite the fact that it has no intention of acting on it. It believes it can do this because, according to the Ordinance on Legal Powers, ‘the Council has exclusive authority to conduct legal proceedings on behalf of the University’, authority which it delegates to the Registrary. The Council therefore considers that it is not obliged to follow the normal procedure for an initiated Grace that it chooses to reject. This procedure is set out in Special Ordinance A (ii) 7(a); there, the Council is instructed ‘to publish a Report giving reasons for its decision to withhold authorization and recommending the Regent House to approve that decision’, and that Report is itself subject to a ballot of Regent House. Whereas the submission of an initiated Grace by the Council and its approval by the Regent House would normally make that Grace binding, now it merely shuts it down. In our view, it is not clear that the Ordinance on Legal Powers automatically overrides any input in the form of initiated Graces. Nor can Statute F II, which merely gives the Council the responsibility of maintaining University property, be used to resolve a complex ethical question of this kind. If these Statutes and Ordinances can be interpreted in this way, the democratic structure of the University is effectively dead.

We the undersigned object to the Council’s handling of this initiated Grace in terms both of principle and procedure, and we urge members of Regent House to vote PLACET [in favour of the Grace] in the ballot, to indicate that they share one or both of our objections.

Signed by the following members of the Regent House:

Fly-sheet against Grace 1 of 30 July 2025 (Injunctions)

At stake in this ballot are questions of responsibility as well as rights. While the right to protest is fundamental to a free society, it must be exercised in a manner that respects the rights of others. The University has a duty of care to ensure that all members of its community including students, their families, and staff can participate in important academic occasions such as graduation ceremonies without fear of disruption or intimidation.

While the right to lawful protest must be respected, it cannot override the University’s duty to protect the safety and enjoyment of others or to uphold the proper conduct of its affairs. The power to seek an injunction, when used proportionately and only as a last resort, is an appropriate and necessary tool for fulfilling that duty. To deny the Council the authority to seek such injunctions would be to remove an essential mechanism for maintaining safety, order, and fairness within the University.

For these reasons, we urge members of the Regent House to vote NON PLACET [against the Grace] in this ballot.

Signed by the following members of the Regent House:

The authority of the Council under the Ordinance on Legal Powers

In its Notice dated 14 July 20251 the Council argued that under the Statutes and Ordinances the Regent House, the governing body of the University (Statute A III 12), has no authority over the Council in respect of the conduct of legal proceedings. The Notice states:

As set out in the Ordinance on Legal Powers and Statute F II 2, the Council has exclusive authority to conduct legal proceedings on behalf of the University, including where necessary to secure access to and use of University property. These powers are granted in Statutes and Ordinances; they are not delegated from the Regent House (or any other body). The Grace, if approved, would therefore not bind the Council, or the Registrary as its delegate.

The Council’s argument is constitutionally dubious and its appearance in an official Notice accompanying the submission of the Grace raises doubt about the democratic legitimacy of this ballot.

The general authority of the Council to conduct legal proceedings under the Statutes and Ordinances derives from the Ordinance on Legal Powers3, rather than from any statute. Statute F II 2 merely makes the Council responsible for the care, management, and maintenance of University property.4

All the Ordinances of the University, including the Ordinance on Legal Powers, were enacted by Grace of the Regent House. Furthermore, the Regent House has the power to make exceptions to the Ordinances at any time by issuing Orders by Grace, providing such Orders are consistent with the Statutes (Statute A II 15 and Statute A III 36).

By approving the Ordinance on Legal Powers in 1968, the Regent House transferred the University’s power to take legal proceedings from itself to the Council.7 If approved, the present Grace would make an exception to the Ordinance, in effect returning control of the two powers specified in sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) to the Regent House. The University’s other legal powers would remain in the hands of the Registrary, to whom they have been delegated by Council.

The undersigned call upon the Council to correct the errors in its Notice of 14 July 2025.

Signed by the following members of the Regent House:

Fly-sheets relating to the ballot on an initiated Grace on the Guild of Benefactors (Grace 2 of 30 July 2025)

In accordance with the Council’s Notice on Discussions and Fly-sheets (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 116), the two fly‑sheets received for the ballot on an initiated Grace on the Guild of Benefactors (Grace 2 of 30 July 2025) are reprinted below. The fly-sheets are reprinted in the order in which they appeared in the ballot booklet, which was random. For the result of the ballot see p. 152.

Fly-sheet re Grace 2 of 30 July 2025

At stake in this ballot are questions both of principle and process.

As a matter of principle, the University ought not be admitting members to an honour community, the Guild of Benefactors, and carving their names in stone in the Old Schools, without informing the wider University about who is being thus honoured. The University is a collective endeavour, and we have a right to know whom we are choosing to honour, at every level. This would not prevent donors from remaining anonymous, should they so wish, and foregoing the option of being elected to the Guild. The Council’s claims that GDPR rules make publication of the membership list impossible, and that a significant loss of revenue will result from its publication, are unevidenced. Publicizing the membership of the Guild, as was common practice until very recently, cannot be shown to entail any loss of funding for the University. It would however represent a significant increase in institutional transparency, which would benefit everyone who works for and studies at the University.

In relation to process, the Council has decided to submit this Grace initiated under Special Ordinance A (ii) 5 for approval, despite the fact that it has no intention of acting on it. The Council believes that it can do this because it is the Trustee body of the institution, with a responsibility to assure its financial good health; ‘given the importance of philanthropy in supporting the mission of the University, it would be unwise to adopt a change in policy that is likely to damage its ability to fundraise’. The Council therefore considers that it is not obliged to follow the normal procedure for an initiated Grace that it chooses to reject. This is set out in Special Ordinance A (ii) 7(a); there, the Council is instructed ‘to publish a Report giving reasons for its decision to withhold authorization and recommending the Regent House to approve that decision’, and that Report is itself subject to a ballot of Regent House. Whereas the submission of an initiated Grace by the Council and its approval by the Regent House would normally make that Grace binding, now it merely shuts it down. In our view, it is not clear that an appeal to the fiduciary responsibility of the Council can override an initiated Grace, without a full justificatory Report and a ballot on that Report. If it can, the democratic structure of the University is effectively dead.

We the undersigned object to the Council’s handling of this initiated Grace in terms both of principle and procedure, and we urge members of Regent House to vote PLACET [in favour of the Grace] in the ballot, to indicate that they share one or both of our objections.

Signed by the following members of the Regent House:

The authority of the Regent House and the Council’s role as the trustee body of the University

In its Notice dated 24 July 20251 the Council argued that the Regent House, the governing body of the University (Statute A III 12), has no authority over the Council in respect of a decision to publish the membership of the Guild of Benefactors. The Notice states:

As the background information provided with the Grace acknowledges, the authority to decide whether the Guild’s membership should be published rests with the Council. This is because the Council is the trustee body of the University and the University’s principal policy-making body under Statute A IV 1(a). The Grace is therefore advisory and does not bind the Council.

The Council’s argument is constitutionally questionable. There is a strong case that the Regent House is the supreme executive authority in the University, because of its statutory designation as the governing body and because of its statutory right to issue Orders by Grace (Statute A II 13 and Statute A III 34). On this interpretation, policies made by the Council for the University under Statute A IV 1(a)5 are subordinate to Orders of the University made by Grace of the Regent House.

Significant decisions of university governing bodies often have financial consequences. Indeed, one justification for academic democracy is that the best way to raise and distribute financial resources in support of studies across a wide range of fields is to let the experts decide how to raise and spend the money themselves, by giving them collective control of their institution. The Council’s designation as the trustee body of the University, which is relatively recent, imposes fiduciary duties on its members that are unknown to the Statutes and Ordinances and which, on the interpretation of the Council, practically abolish the University’s participatory democracy.

The undersigned call upon the Council to investigate ways in which the strength of the University’s democracy, where it has been inhibited by the development of twenty-first century charity law, might be restored.

Signed by the following members of the Regent House: