Candidate should support universities

I am dismayed that Sir Julian Brazier [“Another week, another rant”, Dec 28] should make a public claim that students and academics have raised “harrowing concerns” about standards in our universities without there having been time for proper investigation by the vice chancellors and councils of the two universities of what was said on the BBC or reported by Gerry Warren.

Clearly if a student has been given a lower grade than their work merits because of that student’s political beliefs that is as unacceptable as if that student had been marked down on account of their religion, sexuality or racial origin. Any individual academic who was to act in such a way cannot be a fit and proper person to be employed in a university. However the gravity of the offence is so great that the truth of any such allegation must be established by due process. Sir Julian’s public intervention raises the concern that political pressure is being put on our universities, which in itself undermines due process.

Sir Julian regards my insistence that policy should be based on evidence as “a rant”. My complaint about his use of the International Passenger Survey (IPS) to claim that “around two thirds of students stay on after their courses” is that he has ignored what the Office of National Statistics has said on several occasions about this use of the IPS survey. Most recently, in the August 2017 Update, ONS wrote: “We now know that there is strong evidence to suggest that the International Passenger Survey (IPS) is likely to underestimate student emigration, therefore any attempt to estimate the contribution that students make to net migration is likely to be an overestimate.”

The ONS also said: “New analysis of Exit Checks data shows that 69% of the international students who immigrated on a long-term visa (12 months or more) and whose visa or extension of leave to study expired in 2016 to 2017, left the UK. A further 26% extended their visas to remain in the UK for further study or for other reasons such as work.” 69+26 = 95. So a maximum of 5% may have overstayed unlawfully and over two thirds left when they completed their courses.

Sir Julian attributes my criticism of his use of Lackademia to support his view of our universities to my personal disapproval. What I wrote was this: “John Morgan, one of the cited sources for Lackademia’s statistics, has published a critique of Lackademia in which he states ‘the report’s evidence… does not stand up for scrutiny’. He points out that Lackademia’s conflated two surveys asking different questions and drawing on different samples. This means that its allegation on the scale of bias is without statistically reliable support. On Lackademia’s allegation of a ‘trend towards curtailments of free speech on university campuses’ which ‘has arguably led to systematic biases in scholarship’, John Morgan points out that ‘There is no evidence in [this] report that this is true.’”

Pointing out to the readers of the Gazette the fact that Sir Julian’s assault on the integrity of our universities is based on a report that has so comprehensively been discredited by one of its key sources is not “a rant”. It is inexcusable that Sir Julian, instead of asking his successor as MP to ensure that concerns that have been raised by students are properly investigated, should have embarked on the course This stunning sunrise was captured on Tuesday by Ralph Lombart at his home in Lower Hardres. he has. I can only repeat my plea to my fellow Conservatives that a candidate be found who reflects the values of this 21st century city and is willing to fight for our universities. Joe Egerton, Palace Street, Canterbury