University of Cambridge staff are on the brink of a contentious debate with University authorities over questions of job security and terms of employment.

Regent House, the self-governing body of the University’s nearly 4,000 academic and academic-related staff, began voting this week on two ballot measures that aim to reform Statute U—the set of guidelines that govern dismissal, disciplinary, and grievance procedures for University officers.

Current rules dictate that redundancies to academic staff can only be made following two separate votes in Regent House: the first to approve, in principle, that job cuts will be made, and the second to approve the specific list of staff to be sacked.

Under the new proposal, University authorities would only need a single vote to approve that redundancies are to be made. The list of positions to be cut would no longer be up for a vote.

Opponents fear that the new proposals could restrict academic freedom by making it easier to sack those who hold controversial views.

Professor Ross Anderson, Professor of Security Engineering, is a leading critic of the proposals. According to him, "For eight hundred years, Cambridge academics have been responsible for disruptive innovations that have changed the world again and again. We have a long tradition of sheltering troublemakers, from Erasmus to Keynes and Turing.

"The University must not acquire the power to sack staff easily – that might tempt the authorities to ask us to lean on whoever’s asking the embarrassing questions."

Professor Gillian Evans of the Faculty of History agreed. "There is huge and justified anger over this because it is seen as a power-grab by ‘Human Resources’ and an assault on old traditions of freedom to teach and think and write without being thrown out for your opinions."

Proponents of the changes, on the other hand, view them as necessary to modernize the University’s employment conditions.

Professor William Brown, Master of Darwin College and Montague Burton Professor of Industrial Relations, leads the committee charged with reviewing Statute U. He explained that, "These reforms are basically about bringing the University’s procedures for dealing with its academic staff more in line with what contemporary employment law expects."

He added, "There are no adverse consequences for either academic freedom or the democratic procedures of the University."

The proposed changes also seek to reform the ways in which staff grievances are adjudicated.

According to Professor Brown, "At present grievances and disciplinary processes are depressingly slow, and delay is demoralising for everyone. So I expect that a new right of appeal against decisions of heads of departments will alleviate the occasional blight that descends on departments when they have internal problems."

Critics, however, claim that the reform of grievance procedures is an excuse to introduce more radical changes. The group Campaign for Cambridge Freedoms, which seeks to unify opposition to the proposals, saw the reform as an attempt to "push redundancies through on the coat-tails of dissatisfaction about the grievance procedures."

The debate over procedures concerning redundancies is especially relevant at a time when the government seems poised to make deep cuts in education budgets.

Voting on the proposals will take place via paper ballot. Ballots were sent out this week and are expected to be returned on May 7th.