Letter: Why Oxford voted to save a playing field
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: James Archer draws attention (Letters, 19 November) to the recent rejection, by the Congregation of Oxford University, of a proposal to release a playing field as site for a business school. As mover of the opposition I should clear up a misunderstanding.
The opposition case rested on the principle pacta sunt servanda. A stretch of land had been acquired by the university on the explicit undertaking that this playing field would remain as open space "in perpetuity".
The subsidiary points we made were two: that the proposal to breach the undertaking had been prepared in a secret manner which looked from outside like an attempt to steamroll public discussion by a fait accompli; and that the proposed building, to be sited at the heart of the university, would be the property of trustees mostly appointed from outside the university.
None of the matters mentioned in Mr Archer's letter formed any part of our case. Some were raised by one speaker from the floor, and were the subject of placards held by a group of students outside the debating chamber. But it was the three points indicated above that formed the substance of the debate and decided the vote. A broken undertaking did not seem the best foundation for a school designed to teach the world how to do business.
ALEXANDER MURRAY
University College, Oxford
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments