Cambridge votes to retain controversial retirement policy

Age at which academic staff forced to leave the university to increase from 67 to 69

July 23, 2024
Juliette Rowsell
King’s College, Cambridge
Source: iStock

The University of Cambridge has voted to retain its controversial retirement policy for academic staff, but will raise the age at which people are made to leave the institution from 67 to 69.

A ballot of the Regent House, the governing body of the university, backed keeping what is known as the Employer Justified Retirement Age (EJRA) with changes that were due to come into effect from 1 September 2024. 

Using a single transferable vote system, a total of 3,498 votes were cast, with a 64 per cent majority voting to keep a retirement age in the final round. 

A university spokesperson said: “A decision to retain the Employer Justified Retirement Age for academic officers, but increase their retirement age to 69, was made by the Regent House, the governing body of the university. 

“The turnout for the vote was high and followed extensive discussion, consultation and engagement across the university. We will now take the necessary steps to implement the decision.”

The university has come under increasing pressure over the policy – which has been in place since 2012 to create greater opportunities for younger academics – after 120 current and former professors signed a letter urging its vice-chancellor, Deborah Prentice, to call a vote on the rule. 

The University of Oxford, the only other English institution to enforce retirement, last year lost a legal case against four of its former staff members after a judge ruled the policy had a discriminatory effect despite having a legitimate aim to improve diversity.

Academics have argued that the policy makes it harder for academics over the age of 60 to win research grants, as they are unable to apply for grants that extend beyond their forced retirement date.

But others have argued that the rule is necessary to make way for new talent. Data from the university found that while academics at other institutions typically retire between 62 and 67, 70 per cent of established Cambridge academics in STEM subjects and 60 per cent in other subjects do not retire until they hit 67.

juliette.rowsell@timeshighereducation.com

Read more about
Read more about: 
Employment

Register to continue

Why register?

  • Registration is free and only takes a moment
  • Once registered, you can read 3 articles a month
  • Sign up for our newsletter
Register
Please Login or Register to read this article.

Related articles

Related universities

Reader's comments (6)

#1 Submitted by richpent on 七月 23, 2024 - 9:22pm
Actual vote in favour in final round was 2269 v 930 so 71%, not 64%. In first round 1699 in favour of raising age to 69, 899 for keeping at 67 and 900 for abolishing, so 74.3% for retaining some form of retirement age
#2 Submitted by crowcroft on 七月 24, 2024 - 9:32am
That is incorrect. A number of those votes were by people who are academic related and the proposal they voted for included this policy: "The EJRA should be abolished for academic‑related officers". So as well as 900 for abolishing retirement for academics, some of the 1699 were voting for removing retiremenr for academic related. That doesn't mean they voted in favour of retaining retirement at all. Of course, we don't know what fraction that was, but please don't under-represent the amount of distate for ageism in Cambridge
#3 Submitted by ... on 七月 24, 2024 - 12:07pm
Indeed Oxford has lost two ETs and an EAT - its EJRA being declared unlawful discrimination and it being unable to show clear evidence of how such could be ‘justified’ by a supposed greater good of ensuring a more diverse academic labour force. Perhaps Cambridge will be better able to defend its EJRA at the ETs it will soon face? - possibly because its HR function has been more competent than Oxford’s in gathering cogent data? If not, like Oxford, it will be wasting £ms in legal costs and compensation awards to those illegally dismissed - not that Oxford actually knows what it has spent, according to the feeble answers it gave to my FOIA requests!
#4 Submitted by nwe22 on 七月 24, 2024 - 12:42pm
Richard Penty adopted a well-known technique in winning elections. He 'bribed' part of the electorate. He removed the fixed retirement age for academic related staff in its entirety (despite the fact that some of those positions pay well in excess of a typical Professor's salary). It is only being retained for a subsection of the electorate, the academic staff. The new policy seems less logical than the one it replaced, so it will almost certainly fail at Employment Tribunal.
#5 Submitted by ... on 七月 24, 2024 - 6:36pm
This vote does not make the EJRA legal. The EJRA is not legal unless the institution (Cambridge University in this case) can demonstrate that it is a proportionate means for achieving some legitimate and important aim(s). Intergenerational progress might be a legitimate aim, but the figures show that the EJRA is not a proportionate means for achieving it, only reducing the vacancy rate by somewhere between 2 to 4%. It is on the basis of this notion of proportionality that Oxford has lost 5 consecutive cases in litigation pursued against it.
#6 Submitted by cgs4 on 七月 25, 2024 - 10:38am
This has only kicked the can down the road for two years. Nothing has changed regarding its legality. Cambridge discriminated against women for many years, being one of the last to allow women students to graduate. Now it looks like it is happy to discriminate against academics over non academics in its own institution, implying it does not want diversity in its non-academic posts.

You might also like

Sponsored

Featured jobs

See all jobs