A Cambridge professor has accused the University administration of bypassing “democratic structures,” following its decision to ignore the results of two votes by University members.

Jason Scott-Warren, an environmental activist and English professor at Caius, told Varsity that the University Council has found a way to “impose its will without check”.

This comes after the Council decided in advance that two votes of the Regent House – the governing body comprising Cambridge staff and academics – would have no binding effect over its decisions.

The first vote – or ‘Grace’ – was initiated by 156 members of the Regent House last June, regarding legal injunctions against protests on University land. At the time, Cambridge had secured a four-month injunction that covered Greenwich House, The Old Schools, and the Senate House Yard.

The Grace demanded that the University “not apply for an extension to the present interim injunction or for any further injunctions aimed at curtailing protest on University premises”. However, in July, Cambridge extended its injunction by a year and expanded it to include Chestnut Tree Lawn, which was occupied by pro-Palestine activists in June.

The Grace also asked the University not to take protesters to court “in the event of an alleged breach of the injunction,” and to enter “into dialogue with students who take conscientious action”.

At the same time, 94 members of the Regent House initiated a second Grace, demanding that “the list of members of the Vice-Chancellor’s Guild of Benefactors be made public”.

Since 1998, individuals who donate over £1 million and companies who donate over £1.5 million to the University have been invited to join a Guild of Benefactors. However, the membership of this group has been secret since 2014.

Scott-Warren claimed that this secrecy may be designed to prevent “reputational risk” caused by accepting donations from controversial entities, such as “regimes that kill journalists in cold blood,” or “oil and gas companies”. In response, the University told Varsity that it “has robust due diligence procedures to scrutinise strategic relationships, donations, and sources of funding, backed by specially formulated Ethical Guidelines”.

In July, the University Council agreed to submit both Graces to the Regent House. However, it also said that, even if they were approved, they would not “bind the Council”.

The Council justified ignoring the injunctions vote by asserting its “exclusive authority to conduct legal proceedings on behalf of the University”. It also claimed that, as “the trustee body of the University and the University’s principal policy-making body,” it had sole authority to decide whether to publish the membership of the Guild of Benefactors.

No action has therefore been taken, despite both Graces passing in December – the injunctions proposal by 826 votes to 757, and the benefactors motion by 985 votes to 562.

Supporters of the Graces produced a flysheet to accompany the ballot, which said: “If these Statutes and Ordinances can be interpreted in this way, the democratic structure of the University is effectively dead.”

Scott-Warren told Varsity: “The proper procedure, should the Council not wish to accept a Grace, is for a Report to be published setting out the case for rejection, which is then subject to a vote of Regent House. The Council has invented a new method, which involves passing and then ignoring the Grace.”

The University Council argued that publishing the membership of the Guild of Benefactors would “damage its ability to fundraise,” and create “a list of high-net-worth prospects” for use by other institutions. It also noted that the University would need to gain members’ consent under GDPR laws, which would likely be refused by anonymous donors.

In response, the flysheet claims that the Grace “would not prevent donors from remaining anonymous, should they so wish, and foregoing the option of being elected to the Guild”.

It also argues: “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.”

Scott-Warren added that the Council’s prerogative over legal affairs “was clearly intended to apply to routine matters, not to the imposition of injunctions that could land a student in prison for up to two years”.

However, the Council has argued that restricting its options for dealing with protests would likely conflict with its duties “to act in the University’s best interests, and to fulfil the responsibilities placed on them by the Statutes and Ordinances and applicable law”.

It added that it “remains committed to dialogue with students of the collegiate University,” citing the representation of students in a Working Group to evaluate the University’s arms investments.

The University initially agreed to establish this Working Group in exchange for the disbanding, in summer 2024, of the encampment that Cambridge for Palestine (C4P) had set up in front of King’s College.

In October, the Working Group published a report recommending the University cut ties with companies manufacturing “weapons illegal under UK law,” but stopped short of recommending full arms divestment. The University Council has delayed a vote on the extent to which it will divest from arms until February.

The Working Group’s report was initially scheduled for publication in Michaelmas 2024. That November, C4P responded to news that it had been delayed by occupying Greenwich House, the University’s financial centre.

Activists also set up new encampments at Trinity, Magdalene, and St John’s, leading all three colleges – in addition to the central University – to demand High Court injunctions against protests on their land. In November, Varsity revealed that legal action to prevent protests had cost the University and its colleges more than £400,000.

The University has claimed that the injunctions are necessary to allow students to graduate and staff to undertake their work: “Any claim that the University is trying to restrict protest or stifle debate is ridiculous – there are many ways protests can take place and voices can be heard.”

However, the authors of the Grace argue that injunctions represent “a significant assault on the right of protest, and hence on the human rights of freedom of expression and assembly, in the UK”. They note that breaching an injunction can result in “a prison sentence of up to two years and/or an unlimited fine,” without the “right to legal aid or to a jury trial”.

The University of Cambridge was contacted for comment.