Stay up to date with notifications from The Independent

Notifications can be managed in browser preferences.

Carrie Lam is an honorary fellow of Wolfson College. This farce can't go on

As recently as last November, Wolfson defended Carrie Lam’s position. Now there is a re-think going on. Maybe we should be re-thinking the whole system of honorary fellowships all together

Andy Martin
Tuesday 07 July 2020 10:42 BST
Comments
Hong Kong's chief executive Carrie Lam has announced emergency measures and has halted visits to mainland China

Now the historian David Starkey has relinquished his honorary fellowship at one Cambridge College for racist ranting, who is going to be toppled next? It seems to me that Carrie Lam, chief executive of Hong Kong, is right in the firing line.

She was awarded her honorary fellowship by Wolfson College – one of the university’s graduate colleges – in 2017, when she was appointed to her job in Hong Kong. Now, in the wake of her ushering in the new totalitarian National Security Law, Wolfson has announced that it is “deeply concerned” and is “considering” revoking her fellowship.

According to its statutes, the college awards these fellowships to “persons of distinction whom the College holds in high standing”. The very language used, in my view, suggests there is something slightly dubious going on. What is the nature of this “distinction” exactly? So far as I know, you hold someone in “high regard” or “esteem” – they simply have “standing” or they do not. To me, even the word “whom” – that rather archaic piece of grammar (technically, a subordinating conjunction), used here to inject pseudo-gravitas – strikes a note of rhetorical grandstanding.

As recently as last November, Wolfson defended Carrie Lam’s position. Now there is a re-think going on. I would imagine that there will be frantic phone calls and possibly a zoom conference between the president, biochemist Jane Clarke, and members of the governing body. Fitzwilliam College, in accepting the resignation of David Starkey, said that, “Although Dr Starkey holds no teaching role at Fitzwilliam, honorary fellows have the same responsibility as all members of our College to uphold our values.”

But what exactly are those “values” that allow honorary fellowships to be awarded in the first place?

Ever since the crackdown on the democracy protests in Hong Kong, hundreds have been marching and protesting in Cambridge about the Wolfson connection. They carry placards saying, “NOTHING HONOURABLE ABOUT CARRIE LAM”. But from what I've seen, even in Cambridge they fear possible reprisals. One person I spoke to, with family from Hong Kong, and whom I shall call “X”, says that, “We would like to see a worldwide boycott of Chinese goods, hoping that will put pressure on the government in Beijing. We try not to buy anything made in China as a personal protest.”

X is fearful that all forms of communication are now being surveilled by the Chinese government.

I spoke to another Hong Konger who was more sympathetic to Lam. “We’re all anti-China and pro-democracy,” he said. He approved of the original Extradition Law, brought in by Lam, that triggered the protests. “If only she had been tougher in the beginning. Hong Kong is full of corruption and unfairness. But it’s too late now. She is not allowed to resign.”

But she will probably have to “resign” her fellowship (i.e. she will be dumped). But the question remains, what are we doing awarding honorary fellowships anyway?

The notion of a “fellowship” – rather like Tolkien’s Fellowship of the Ring – harks back to the mediaeval formation of the colleges that have clustered together to form the university. Most fellows are scholars of some “standing” that actually do something, whether teaching or research, within the university. None of that applies to the honorary fellows. They don’t have to do anything, just be.

You could say that the system of honorary fellowships is a way for the academy to maintain its links to the world beyond the dreaming spires. One cynical academic I spoke to said, “Ninety per cent of it is to do with money, the other 10 per cent is virtue signalling. The institution wants a bit of reflected glory or glamour – and the honorees are in it for vanity and status.”

How it works is that one member of college makes a connection and then mounts a campaign to whip up enthusiasm and the proposal then typically gets nodded through. A dinner will be held in honour. And generally that’s all honorary fellows have to do: turn up from time to time and eat and drink and, possibly, be merry. If that. It’s largely symbolic. But the hope is that it will increase the power and “standing” of the college itself, attracting students and donors. It can easily backfire.

In addition to the usual ranks of academics and retired vice-chancellors, Wolfson can boast among its honorary fellows the opera singer Dame Kiri Te Kanawa, a former head of the Met police, a retired general, the senior minister of Singapore, the chief justice of Australia, a former president of the International Criminal Court, the father of Bill Gates, and a vice chairman of the London School of Economics’ Court of Governors who is now deceased.

Being dead doesn’t seem to stop you from being an honorary fellow. I notice, for example, that Magdalene College in Cambridge still lists, among its luminaries, Thomas Hardy, Rudyard Kipling and Nelson Mandela. Maybe, as with certain statues, we need to dump not just Carrie Lam, but the very notion of honorary fellow.

Andy Martin has been a fellow of King's College, Cambridge, a fellow of the Cullman Center for Scholars and Writers in New York, and a Norman Mailer fellow. Non-honorary.

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in