Accountability is needed on CaSE decision
Whomever made the decision should have the decency to explain their reasoning
A great number of controversial decisions have been taken at Imperial this year. Some have been taken by departments, some have been taken by central College management, others have been taken by the Union. The one thing that unites them, something that Felix has always been pleasantly surprised by, is the willingness of the decision-makers to put forward their argument; to answer questions about their motivations; and to make themselves accountable. Of course this has occurred to varying degrees, and we have not always agreed with their arguments or motivations, but the story of the past academic year is of people accepting the accountability that must come with authority. Which is why we are disappointed that this accountability has not accompanied Imperial’s decision to cut its £3,000 subscription to the Campaign for Science and Engineering (CaSE).
There has been no explanation given for the decision. Well, no proper explanation. To say that it was felt the £3,000 would be better directed towards “core activities” doesn’t explain why somebody thought CaSE’s lobbying efforts weren’t already benefiting Imperial’s core activities. (We would truly love to hear the reasoning behind this, it is self-evident that helping to protect our research budget from more stringent cuts and lobbying successfully to improve the lot of our overseas researchers in the visa system benefits Imperial’s core activities.)
But even if the argument was made, who would make it? The person normally responsible for Imperial’s relationship with CaSE would be the Pro-Rector for Research. But this role is currently unfilled; Professor David Begg of the Business School is standing in temporarily. Did he make this decision? Is the decision linked to the departure of the previous Pro-Rector for Research, Professor Sir Peter Knight? The College have refused to shed further light, saying only that the decision was made “collectively”, which essentially means that no-one is going to take responsibility for the decision.
Why is it important that somebody be held responsible? The answer is not complicated: this decision affects a large number of people at Imperial. Researchers at Imperial are now left without a formal voice in the UK’s most prominent science and engineering lobby group. At a time when the science and engineering sector faces great challenges, this is very alarming.
People across Imperial have been willing to stand by their decisions, make their arguments, and be held accountable for the choices that they have made in the past year. Felix too has done so, and has apologised when it has made mistakes. We believe the decision to leave CaSE is stupid and a step in the wrong direction, but if there’s a good argument for doing so, whoever made the decision should have the decency to stand up and make that argument.
