The transformative nature of Oxford, coming from a state comprehensive, and his commitment to “bringing the best people here irrespective of background” were all focal points of Hague’s interview with Cherwell. Ironic, I would argue, for a Tory who sat complicit through the austerity years, who voted to raise tuition fees, who – in his own briefing notes – refused to promise that school funding would not be cut. William Hague may proclaim his ambitions and his “objective” for Oxford (it sounds very good in a press release), but he is betrayed by his own voting record. If Oxford hopes to move forward, Hague crying out “State school! In Yorkshire! Really I am very normal!” (paraphrased) to all who can hear is perhaps less effective than voting for someone who has shown an ounce of care and compassion towards our nation’s education in the past three decades. It is Oxford who suffers by being fronted by a spiritless politician. When Hague proclaims his main qualification as ‘state-educated Oxford grad’, it undercuts the years of work that makes this as a normal situation. Hague is out-of-step with the University, making hollow statements and conveniently skimming over his voting history.
Hague’s largest spring into educational reform was as Leader of the Opposition, when he aimed to “sweep away the barriers” between state and independent education. This is an aim many, I am sure, can support. Why should the wealth of your parents dictate the quality of your education? And we are not speaking of the expansive sports fields and state-of-the-art pianos. Why should some children have to grasp multiplication from the back of a rowdy class of thirty, while others have careful tuition from day dot?
Perhaps his time in opposition weighed heavily upon him, as by 2010 his backbone seems to have been injured. As the coalition cut funding for Sure Start, as 88% of secondary schools saw real term cuts in the last Conservative government, as the ‘Building Schools for the Future’ program was scrapped, Hague remained eerily compliant.
To spend a Chancellor campaign telling anyone with ears that you attended a state school (as if it’s some kind of special skill) when you have shown no regard for them while in government is disgusting. Hague is a politician, no doubt about it, and the general public use ‘politician’ pejoratively. He has shown no interest in education, no interest in bettering the lives of those who come after him. He cares for a Tory safe seat, he cares for a foreign secretary job, a peerage, he cares for the Oxford Chancellorship. It is not a crime to want those things, it is not a crime to have ambition and to play a political game. I have no doubt he will make a good Chancellor, he will funnel questionably sourced funding into our programmes, he will appease donors and say the right thing at the right time, as he has been doing since 2010. Yet, nothing he says will be of any substance, for a glance over his track record will reveal a politician who has won a game and little more.
Oxford’s Chancellor should be intelligent and open-minded. When Hague voted to maintain the ban on the promotion of homosexuality in schools through Section 28, he demonstrated that he lacked those qualities. Some may argue he was voting with his time, or with his party, but this is incorrect. The vote was overwhelmingly in favour of removing the ban, and a significant minority of Conservatives supported it. Hague voted that schools should not teach the “acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship”. Someone who thinks like this, even twenty years ago, is not suitable to lead an institution in this century. I know, in spite of the stereotypes, the people of Oxford are accepting and deserve to have a Chancellor who reflects that. It is not an outrageous demand. It is damaging for the University’s reputation and reinforces the idea that Oxford is stuck in the past.
Hague lacks the ability to fight for something. “We are going to need to keep expanding those sorts of things [scholarships], particularly in an environment where fees are probably going up,” he told Cherwell. Has this been weighing particularly on Hague’s mind? Since when, I wonder? It did not seem to bother his conscience when voting to increase tuition fees. While I am sure some readers are screaming ‘he was following the whip, he was toeing the party line’. There was scarcely a gun to his head. Should it have bothered him so greatly, I imagine as Foreign Secretary an excuse can be feigned. Hague is a hypocrite. I, personally, believe the focus regarding access and finance should be around living costs rather than fees – a nuance that seems to have passed our Chancellor by – but the point stands.
Hague can scream from the rooftops that he was state-educated, he can speak about access to Oxford, he can push for scholarships, but none of this undoes his work when he had tangible political power. For years, he sat in Parliament and approved austerity measures that disproportionately affected children. This is inexcusable. To have him in the highest position at the country’s best University is embarrassing. Hague is a poor representative of Oxford. Either his strength of character is lacking and he just stumbled along with the votes, or he is morally disdainful. Oxford deserves better.
