This document has been written, in a personal capacity, by Bruce Beckles of the University Computing Service. All views expressed in this document are his own and should not be taken as in any way expressing an official view of the University Computing Service or the University of Cambridge. (Any errors are his own as well.) Please feel free to circulate this document to anyone you think might be interested.

Discussion of a topic of concern to the University, 24th April 2012

1. Background
• Timeline
2. Who can attend (and speak at) the Discussion?
3. Where and when?
4. Is there a dress code?
5. Can someone go on my behalf (or can I represent someone else)?
6. How does it work?
7. What are the rules for speaking?
8. What should I talk about?
9. Is there anything else I should know?
10. Are there any guides to taking part in Discussions I can read?
11. Useful links

In response to the singling out and two-and-a-half year suspension of a University student for his part in a non-violent protest on University premises at an event where a government Minister was scheduled to speak, 37 members of the Regent House have called for the following Discussion of a topic of concern to the University:

The selective and unreasonable punishment of a single student for a collective act of protest by students and senior members.

This Discussion has been scheduled for 2pm (to 4pm) on Tuesday 24th April 2012 at the Senate-House.

Please consider attending this Discussion and/or making remarks (or having some read for you) at it, and please also encourage your colleagues to do the same.

Note: it appears that The Cambridge Student (TCS) student newspaper has gotten hold of a copy of the “RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AND REASONED DECISION” of the University Court that tried the student; see their article (which includes a comment from me) here.
UPDATE: it appears that The Tab student newspaper has also gotten hold of a copy of this document, which it appears that they have made available, in full, here.

Also, if you would like to sign a petition regarding the sentence, you can do so here.

Below is a timeline that summarises the events that have led to this Discussion. If you are already familiar with these, and just want to know who can take part in the Discussion, and how, etc. jump to this section.

It may help to keep in mind a timeline of what happend when, as follows:

It's a myth that only members of the Regent House can take part in Discussions. Practically anyone associated with the University can:

• Members of the Regent House
• Members of Faculties
• Students of the University
• Graduates of the University
• Members of the Senate (roughly speaking these are the members of the Regent House and graduates of the University)

…and finally:
• Anyone else who gets the Vice-Chancellor's permission (the Registrary normally handles such requests)

Discussions normally take place in the Senate-House, and this one is no exception. Entrance to the Senate-House is via the doors at the east end of the building (opposite Great St. Mary's church).

Discussions are normally held at 2p.m. on a Tuesday. This one is at 2p.m. on Tuesday 24th April 2012. It's a good idea to get there a few minutes early, as, although latecomers are admitted, the doors are closed once the Discussion starts, so you'll need to get someone to let you in…

Unfortunately, yes. You need to wear a gown, whether or not you intend to speak. (Strictly speaking, only matriculated members of the University need to wear a gown, but that's practically everyone who's likely to attend.) There are usually a few gowns on hand for those who don't have them, but I wouldn't rely on this. You may occasionally see a few brave souls not wearing gowns, although possibly those are the rare non-matriculated members of the University who attend Discussions…

(What you wear under the gown is entirely up to you.)

Note that for Discussions in the Senate-House, that if you have a bag with you, you'll be asked to leave it at the back of the Senate-House.

You can't deputise someone to attend on your behalf, but you can get someone who is attending to read any remarks you wish to make. Remarks can only be on behalf of the individual whose remarks they are, though, not on behalf of a group.

Obviously if someone is going to read your remarks for you, then that person has to be someone who is allowed to attend and who is willing to read your remarks.

Note that reading someone else's remarks is in no way considered an endorsement of those remarks (and remember remarks can only be on behalf of individuals, not groups). Also, you are allowed to read more than one person's remarks, and to make (or read) remarks of your own as well as reading for someone else. If you are reading remarks for someone else, start by saying "I'd like to read some remarks on behalf of…".

If you are reading for someone else as well as yourself, the etiquette is to read your remarks last. You start off by saying "I'd like to read some remarks on behalf of…" and then when you've read those remarks, you say "And now I'd like to read (or make) some remarks on my own behalf.".

So, how does the Discussion actually work?

Firstly, it's an understandable misconception that Discussions are something like a "discussion" in the everyday sense of the word. They're not. They are more like a formal debate, but one where participants are allowed to speak only once. (Most people will be reading prepared speeches, but you are free to make it up on the spot, or change your prepared speech if you feel it necessary.)

It's probably best to regard them, rather than as a "discussion" or a debate, as an opportunity for you to present a prepared statement that you would like the University Council (or, at least in theory, some other University body) to take note of, and, with luck, respond to. They are a way of letting the Council, the “principal executive and policy-making body of the University” (Statute A, IV, 1(a)), as well as anyone who reads the Reporter, know what you think.

The official procedure is detailed in Statute A, Chapter VIII, Regulations 2-4 (p. 11) and Ordinances, Chapter I, CONDUCT OF BUSINESS, Discussions (p. 107), but those don't detail the custom and practice that have grown up around Discussions…

…so here's what happens in a Discussion:

• The Vice-Chancellor presides at a Discussion, but this role is usually delegated to a Deputy Vice-Chancellor. All remarks are addressed to the person presiding. The person presiding will read out the topic of the Discussion and then ask for any remarks.

• The first set of remarks will normally be from someone introducing the topic of the Discussion: in the case of a Report, usually someone who was involved with producing the Report, and in the case of a Discussion of a topic of concern to the University, like this one, someone who called for the Discussion.

• After each set of remarks, the person presiding will ask whether there are any further remarks. If you want to speak, you put up your hand. You should do this each time the person presiding asks, until you are called, to ensure you don't get accidentally overlooked or forgotten. Note that you can only speak once per topic, and you have no "right of reply".

• When it is your turn to speak, you walk to the podium to make your remarks. Start by giving your name and affiliation/status in the University (e.g. "student at X College"; "member of Faculty of Y"). Then begin your remarks with "Mr Deputy Vice-Chancellor" or "Madam Deputy Vice-Chancellor" (or "Mr Vice-Chancellor", depending on who's presiding).
  There's a microphone for you speak into (your remarks will be recorded for the benefit of the Editor of the Reporter). The audio of your remarks will also be published on the Reporter website.
  After you've finished, if you have a paper copy of your remarks to hand, you should hand them to the Editor of the Reporter, who'll be sitting at a table near the podium. It's helpful if you've put your name and e-mail address on the paper copy of your remarks.

• When no one else wants to speak, the person presiding will move on to the next topic for Discussion. At this Discussion there's only one topic to be discussed, so when no one else wants to speak the Discussion will finish and we'll all leave the Senate-House.

• If more people want to speak than can be accommodated in the available time (2 hours for this particular Discussion) the Discussion would normally be continued at another occasion, often the following week.
  If the Discussion is carried over to another session, then anyone who is allowed to speak who hasn't already spoken (or had remarks read for them) may speak at the later session (or have remarks read for them at it). You do not have to attend every session of the Discussion, and you don't need to have indicated you wanted to speak at an earlier session in order to speak at a later one.

• If you spoke then it's very helpful if you e-mail the Editor of the Reporter with an electronic copy of your remarks. You'll be contacted by the Editor of the Reporter with a proof of your remarks prior to their publication in the Reporter. You'll usually have a few days to check the proof and get any corrections to them, and you must get any corrections to them by first thing the following Tuesday. Note that you cannot change the printed version to be different from what you actually said at the Discussion.

• All the remarks made at a Discussion (except for any words ruled out of order or considered defamatory) will be published in the Reporter.

• The University Council are responsible for responding to what was said at the Discussion (consulting other bodies in the University if necessary), and they'll normally do this by publishing a Notice in the Reporter.

Although what you say in your remarks is entirely up to you, there are a few rules you must observe (mostly detailed in Ordinances, Chapter I, CONDUCT OF BUSINESS, Notice by the Council, Discussions and Fly-Sheets, Discussions (p. 112)), and some others that you really should observe.

• You should have a paper copy of your remarks with you, with your name and e-mail address on them, which you should give to the Editor of the Reporter (who'll be sitting at a table near where you speak) when you've finished speaking. After the Discussion, you should then e-mail the Editor of the Reporter with an electronic copy of your remarks.

• You should start your remarks by declaring any particular interest, or any conflict of interest, you might have regarding the topic of Discussion. (This can often be accomplished by stating who you are in relation to the University.) For example, for this Discussion, if you were one of those who called for the Discussion, you might start off your remarks by saying "I am one of those who called for this Discussion.".

• If you want the Council to respond to your remarks, rather than just ignoring them, you need to ask them (or, through them, some other relevant University body) a direct question. Historically this was not the case - the Council used to be quite good about responding to whatever was said. In recent years though, they've taken to ignoring anything that isn't a direct question. So if you want them to respond, make sure you ask a question in your remarks, and make sure you phrase it as a question, and that it is not a rhetorical question. It also needs to be a question directed to the Council (or some other relevant University body), not just to the world at large or to the Regent House (or University) as a whole. If you want to ask a question of a University body other than the Council, I recommend directing the question to the Council and explicitly asking the Council to consult the relevant body.

• You are allowed - indeed it is good practice - to give references and/or web addresses for/in support of particular points you make in your remarks. However, you would normally not read these out, but instead put them in the paper/electronic copy of your remarks that you provide to the Editor of the Reporter. The first time you have a reference/web address in your remarks, you might mention in your spoken remarks that the reference/web address will appear in the printed remarks in the Reporter, but don't do this every time, as it gets tedious for those listening. In the paper/electronic copy of your remarks, you would normally format your references/web addresses as footnotes or endnotes.

• And in case you haven't already gathered, it is a good idea to keep your remarks short and to the point, and non-inflammatory in tone.

Provided your remarks are on topic (and aren't defamatory), you can say whatever you like, and since you can only speak on your own behalf, and no one else's, you should not say anything you don't completely agree with.

It seems to me (but this is just my opinion) that, in connection with this particular topic, some of the key points people might like to make are:

• The singling out of this student for prosecution when 74 other individuals have publicly admitted their involvement in the protest; further the decision to prosecute a student when 21 of those who have publicly admitted involvement are senior members of the University.

• The severity of the sentence being so dispproportionate to any perceived offence, and in particular, the sentence being seven times greater than the sentence sought by the University Advocate prosecuting the case.

• The lack of transparency of the University Courts, particularly their refusal to allow representatives of the students' union to attend the hearing and the delay in publishing their reasoned judgment; and, in the case of the Court of Discipline, its seemingly uncontrolled power to impose whatever sentence it likes without any reference to the severity of the offence.

…although it is, of course, entirely up to you what you talk about. You might also wish to consider the record of the Court proceedings and their reasoned decision (as reported in TCS, and seemingly made available here).

Really, apart from ensuring your remarks do not last for more than 15 minutes, there are only three things you need to keep in mind:

1. The person presiding is allowed to declare remarks off topic, but this is most unlikely to happen if you are speaking about the broad issues of the prosecution and sentencing of the student and the any subsidiary issues around those.
2. Remarks considered to be defamatory may be cut before publication in the Reporter after consultation with the Registrary.
3. You are not allowed to say you are speaking on behalf of others, or to read out lists of names of persons supporting what you say.

• Discussions can seem intimidating, especially if you haven't taken part in them before, but you'll find that it is fairly easy to take part, and actually less scary than many other forms of public speaking, since you're pretty much guaranteed a calm, quiet, mildly attentive audience.

• Although this won't be possible before this Discussion, it's a good idea to go along to a Discussion before the one you intend to speak at, if you can, just so you can see for yourself how it all works. Once you've seen one Discussion, it will all seem much less intimidating.
  And if you know someone who is familiar with Discussions, ask them if they'll accompany you the first time you speak at a Discussion; being in the company of a "veteran" will probably do wonders for your confidence, and they can advise on any rules of procedure, etc. you might forget.

• If you are going to speak, it is a good idea to sit somewhere where you can easily get to an aisle without disturbing everyone around you.

• It really is a good idea to prepare your remarks in advance and bring along a paper copy of them. This is what most people will do. Whilst you can ad lib, it is probably not a good idea unless you are both a confident public speaker and good at making unscripted speeches.

• Since you can only speak once, you might want to delay speaking until later in the Discussion so you can change your remarks in response to earlier speakers. Of course, this is only a good idea if you are happy frantically making changes to your prepared statement as the Discussion proceeds. For first time speakers I'd suggest sticking with your prepared statement.

A long time ago, someone circulated a short guide to taking part in Discussions to the mailing list of the main academic union of the University, which I've put on-line here. Unfortunately I don't know who wrote this guide, so I can't credit them.

If you know of any other guides, I'd be happy to host them or link to them. Let me know.

Finally, if you want to see what Statutes and Ordinances have to say about Discussions, here are the references:

• Statute A, Chapter VIII, Regulations 2-4 (p. 11)
• Ordinances, Chapter I, CONDUCT OF BUSINESS, Discussions (p. 107)
• Ordinances, Chapter I, CONDUCT OF BUSINESS, Notice by the Council, Discussions and Fly-Sheets, Discussions (p. 112)

• David Willetts walks out of Cambridge University talk
  BBC News, 23 November 2011
  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-15855838

• Cambridge students hijack Willetts speech
  Judith Welikala, Emily Loud & Zoah Hedges-Stocks, The Cambridge Student, 22 November 2011
  http://www.tcs.cam.ac.uk/issue/news/cambridge-students-hijack-willetts-speech/

• Willetts forced from lecture hall by student protest
  Andrew Griffin, Varsity, 22 November 2011
  http://www.varsity.co.uk/news/4115

• David Willetts Silenced by Cambridge Fees Protest
  Cameraboy, Indymedia Cambridge, UK, 23 November 2011
  http://publish.indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/cambridge/2011/11/488987.html

• VIDEO: Students occupy lecture theatre in protest over fees
  Cambridge News, 22 November 2011
  http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/Education-and-Training/Universities/Minister-forced-to-abandon-talk-by-student-protest-22112011.htm

• “GO HOME, DAVID”: An epistle to David Willetts
  Cambridge SWSS blog posting, 23 November 2011
  http://cambridgeswss.blogspot.co.uk/2011/11/go-home-david-epistle-to-david-willetts.html
  Note: I am not a member of, or in any way affiliated with, the Cambridge Socialist Worker Student Society (SWSS) or the Socialist Workers Party (SWP).

• Council Statement on the Principle of Freedom of Speech in the University
  http://www.cam.ac.uk/univ/notices/council-statement-freedom-of-speech.html

• EXCLUSIVE: “The University v Mr Owen Holland” – Cambridge University Court document leaked to TCS
  The Cambridge Student, 16 April 2012
  http://www.tcs.cam.ac.uk/issue/news/exclusive-the-university-v-mr-owen-holland-university-court-document-leaked-to-tcs/

• Court Of Discipline, Record Of Proceedings
  Pupports to be the RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AND REASONED DECISION of the Court of Discipline, seemingly made available by The Tab, 17 April 2012
  http://www.flickr.com/photos/cambridgetab/sets/72157629838870281/

Note: I've deliberately chosen commentaries that highlight problems with the selective charging of a single student, the subsequent trial or the sentence, or issues related to those. There are undoubtedly people out there who are in favour of the sentence, but I haven't included any commenatries espousing such views here - if you want to read those, you'll need to find them yourself (hint: Google).

• This is not justice!
  Cambridge University Students' Union President Gerald Tully, Varsity, 15 March 2012
  http://www.varsity.co.uk/comment/4624

• An Ugly Lesson in Repression at Cambridge University
  Visiting Professor Thomas Glave, The Chronicle of Higher Education WorldWise blog, March 22, 2012
  http://chronicle.com/blogs/worldwise/an-ugly-lesson-in-represssion-at-cambridge-university

• What is Cambridge thinking of? This is the act of a thug, not a university
  Alice Jones, The Independent, 17 March 2012
  http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/alice-jones-what-is-cambridge-thinking-of-this-is-the-act-of-a-thug-not-a-university-7575770.html

• Cambridge University Cuts Off Nose; Face ‘Spited’.
  Blog posting from a History Ph.D. student at the University, 15 March 2012
  http://earlymodernjohn.wordpress.com/2012/03/15/cambridge-university-cuts-off-nose-face-spited/

• Our poetic Willetts protest was peaceful – banning a student for it is absurd
  Rees Arnott-Davies, The Guardian Comment is free, 16 March 2012
  http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/mar/16/cambridge-university-willetts-protest

• Owen Holland's case shows the crackdown on dissent
  Dr Priyamvada Gopal, New Statesman's The Staggers blog, 18 March 2012
  http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2012/03/david-willetts-holland-student

• Cambridge cracks down
  Dr Ian Patterson, London Review of Books blog, 15 March 2012
  http://www.lrb.co.uk/blog/2012/03/15/ian-patterson/cambridge-cracks-down/

• A World Away from the Court of Discipline: a University Regent's view
  My thoughts after learning of the Court's sentence, 18 March 2012
  http://donsspeakout.wordpress.com/2012/03/18/bruce-beckles-a-world-away-from-the-court-of-discipline/

• INDEPENDENCE ≠ ABSOLUTION
  My response to the University's implicit suggestion that it is not responsible for the official actions of the University Advocate or the Court of Discipline, 18 March 2012
  http://donsspeakout.wordpress.com/2012/03/18/bruce-beckles-independence-does-not-equal-absolution/

• donsspeakout!

• Cambridge Defend Education (CDE)

• Cambridge Academic Campaign for Higher Education (CACHE) on Facebook

This document has been written, in a personal capacity, by Bruce Beckles of the University Computing Service. All views expressed in this document are his own and should not be taken as in any way expressing an official view of the University Computing Service or the University of Cambridge. (Any errors are his own as well.) Please feel free to circulate this document to anyone you think might be interested.