Part III: Antarctica and Academe - Scott Polar Research Institute

traumatic arguments of the last few years, and therefore have little concept of the
damage some of the signatories of the motion have inflicted on the Fellowship. I
think you will find that once they have thought through what they have done they
will give you their support. The feeling I have at present , knowing that you are
considering whether or not to resign, is that without you the College's future is
indeed bleak. It will be seen to espouse incompetence, to apply double standards
and be utterly narrow in outlook if this is to be part of the College's future path,
then I do not wish to be part of it. After all the effort and really positive results you
have achieved, for which I am immensely grateful, I will be deeply saddened if such
a vociferous minority can have such a devastating effect on the College. I hope and
pray you will continue as Master".
Helen Mason wrote to tell me that she had abstained on the vote because there was
not time to make a valued judgement on the resolution and amendment proposed.
She was not prepared to make a choice on personal grounds of loyalty to one set of
Fellows or another. She had respect for all the Fellows on both sides of the debate,
but it was wrong of both sides to force a confrontation which could only destroy the
Fellowship. It was unfortunate that I had interpreted the letter from my critics as a
challenge rather than as a starting position for negotiation. My amendment was
suggesting changes to the Articles without being specific. "Had you asked for a vote
of confidence I would have voted for you. I think that St Edmund's could not have a
better Master - but I was not prepared to make a decision about the constitution of
the College, without careful consideration and prior warning". She was concerned
that the wounds inflicted at the meeting were so severe that it was difficult to know if
they could ever be healed. She felt that the five critics positions were not entrenched
and they were not bitter and vindictive. Cambridge seemed to breed strong but
difficult personalities!
The six current Visiting Fellows (senior visitors of Professorial status, who are not
members of the Governing Body, but some of whom had a long association with the
College) were aware that there were serious problems in the Fellowship. They wrote
tactfully to express their concern and also that it was "regrettable that confidential
discussions which take place in the Association and Committee Meetings quickly
become known to the student body. We are unsure whether or not this is associated
with the difficulties mentioned above. In any case, the apparent lack of
confidentiality could erode the authority of the Association and is reflected , on
occasion, in a lack of respect for rules, regulations and reasonable behaviour". They
recognised and applauded what had been achieved in recent years and trusted that
such progress could continue. I took this as an expression of support. (I was in no
doubt that the leaking of confidential papers and information had been the work of
my critics; it had backfired here).
I also had a letter from the four members of the Executive of the Combination Room,
representing the student body. It had come to their attention, via rumours which
were currently rife within the College, that there was a major disagreement amongst
the Fellowship. "Whether these rumours are true or not, or indeed which of the
rumours are true, is not our concern. However, be assured that , should you require
346