Senior members of the university used their position to support Lord Sainsbury’s bid to be chancellor, a Varsity investigation has found.

The heads of a number of faculties and departments sent emails to their members implying that they should vote for Sainsbury as chancellor.

Sir Christopher Hum, the Master of Gonville and Caius College, sent an email to all Fellows of the college giving “advance notice” that Sainsbury would be dining as his guest earlier this month.

Hum claimed that the future chancellor would be his “personal guest”, but that “in view of the forthcoming elections for Chancellor, I shall try to give him an opportunity to talk to as many Fellows as possible.”

He also told members of the college that “If Fellows wish there to be some form of discussion over dessert I am sure that he would find this very valuable.”

Earlier this week, Varsity revealed that an email had been sent to employees of the Cambridge University Press, which stressed that Sainsbury has been one of the university’s largest single benefactors in recent years.

After informing members of the rules for voting, the email went onto encourage employees to vote for Sainsbury, the university’s official candidate.

A similar email was sent to the Cambridge Neuroscience email list – which includes a number of prominent academics – which told members “Without wishing to force opinion, if you have yet to make up your mind, you may wish to consider Lord Sains- bury of Turville”.

David Ford, the Regius Professor of Divinity, also wrote an email to members of the Divinity Faculty in which he wrote “I would urge you to join me in voting for him this week.”

 

The turnout was very low, with only 2.5% of the electorate, 5558 voters, casting valid votes.

Outside of Senate House, where voting took place, many who had voted complained that they had only heard of the election by chance, through media coverage or friends. This undoubtedly served as an advantage to Lord Sainsbury, whose support was primarily among members within the University.

Though those aiding the Chancellor were acting as private individuals, and so have not broken the rules, these allegations cast uncertainty over the University’s claim to have been impartial during the election.

Furthermore, no other candidate had these opportunities.

The revelations come amid other criticism of the result, as Cambridge Defend Education criticised the fact that the “election of Lord Sainsbury excluded current students from the franchise, much in the same way that the electorate was given no say about the presence of Lord Sainsbury in its legislature.” They also said that the election represents a further intru- sion of corporate interests into the University, a commitment, not to knowledge and learning, but to profit – above all else.”