Part III: Antarctica and Academe - Scott Polar Research Institute

only a good number of my fellow students but also most of the staff, whose
unhappiness was an upsetting thing to be aware of while I was in the College. I
surmise a major cause of the resignations was the two-facedness in the Bursar that I
had personal experience of, with [the resigning fellows] likely to have seen only the
ingratiating side of him." I had of course seen both sides.
However, on 22 June twenty students (out of a hundred or so) signed a letter to the
Cardinal, expressing their fear that as a result of the resignations, the academic
quality and balance of the College had been seriously damaged. The resigning
Fellows had served the College well and their resignations were a considered
response to what they deemed to be an intolerable situation. They appealed to the
Cardinal, as Visitor of the College to investigate the situation. The Cardinal replied
that he had always considered the problems to be domestic ones which should be
resolved within the College itself without the intervention of outsiders.
It got "curiouser and curiouser". On 5 July Elsmore wrote to the Cardinal's solicitor to
say that he and Lehmann, the two remaining dissidents intended to proceed with
their petition to the Visitor! Glazebrook would act for them. Glazebrook wrote to Mr
Horwood-Smart a few days later, again complaining at length about my behaviour.
He also enclosed a letter to the Visitor, which drew attention to points he had made
in his Opinion, was misleading about Horwood Smart's actions, strongly and at
length criticised the actions of the Cardinal's solicitor and advised that such
professional and legal advice and services as he might require in discharging his
duties as Visitor "should henceforth be sought from someone other than Mr H, or
anyone connected with the firm of which he is a partner (and incredibly, named another
solicitor that the Cardinal should retain to advise him ). Also by implication he
threatened the Cardinal with a challenge in the High Court. What overweening and
unbalanced arrogance this displayed! It demonstrated so clearly what I had been up
against, confirmed the low opinion I had formed of the opposition, and the
misleading unprofessional and low-grade advice Holifield and my other critics had
been acting upon.
The Visitor wrote to Glazebrook at the end of July in response to his letter
maintaining the application for a Visitorial decision. He asked whether all steps
capable of being taken by the College to resolve the matter internally were taken.
Would Glazebrook confirm that the actions the Master was alleged to have taken
were not such as to warrant involving the Visitor, or that a majority of the Fellows
desired the Visitor to take action. Te enable him to review the opinions earlier given,
would he let him know whether or nopt the Association had met and passed
resolutions either limiting the Master's authority under ArtIcle ll (i) or otherwise,
either limiting the Master's authority or supporting or criticising any action alleged to
have been taken by the Master. If not why should such steps not be taken before
referring the matters to the Visitor?
Meanwhile other Fellows were looking for a way out of the mess. At my request Paul
Luzio became involved in negotiating a settlement between myself and Elsmore and
Lehmann, which would result in the latter withdraweing their appeal to the Visitor.
372