Austerity may sound like fiscal responsibility, but it’s often a false economy. And that is especially true in academia.

The University of Cambridge is at a crossroads – and what’s needed isn’t austerity but transparent, robust financial systems, innovative thinking and investment to ensure fairness, trust and an environment in which everyone in the Cambridge family is valued and flourishes. As chancellor, this is the agenda I would pursue.

Cementing Cambridge’s reputation of excellence is vital. At a time when its world ranking is slipping, the university should be harnessing the opportunities emerging from global disruption to offer sanctuary to world-class minds who are disillusioned by regressive politics, most notably in the US.

Amid the Trump administration’s attacks on federal science budgets, international student recruitment, race-conscious admissions and academic freedom, over 75 per cent of US scientists are considering leaving the country. This is a window of opportunity for the UK, and for Cambridge in particular.

ɫ��ֱ��

I acknowledge that UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) has recently launched the £54 million Global Talent Fund to cover the relocation, visa and research costs for “world-class” researchers interested in moving their teams to the UK, but this pales in comparison with the European Union’s €500 million “Choose Europe” scheme. As chancellor, I would encourage Cambridge to supplement the UKRI scheme by using some of its own endowment to lure world-leading minds whose work and freedoms are under threat specifically to Cambridge.

Investing in this way would make Cambridge a global standard-bearer for free enquiry, academic independence and human dignity. By improving the university’s ability to partner internationally, attract top talent and secure philanthropic backing, it would also enhance Cambridge’s standing in global rankings. And these are not a mere matter of vanity. The reputational boost (or hit) that they confer feeds back into everything from impactful research partnerships to international admissions – and the revenue that those admissions generate.

ɫ��ֱ��

I understand the perceived need for cuts. Cambridge recorded a deficit of £53 million in 2023-24 and has a projected deficit of £47 million for 2024-25. But the university’s response – a 5 per cent reduction in the money that academic departments receive from the central administration over the next two financial years – is causing growing anger. And that anger is justified when the university’s has identified “a lack of budgetary control” that “worryingly…has not been fully traced to source, with the result that there is no clear understanding of what has happened or why”.

This serious lack of budgetary control cannot be in the long-term interests of the university. Hence, alongside increased spending on recruiting top international talent, Cambridge also needs more robust financial oversight. This is not an either/or. As chancellor, I would also be active in carrying out my statutory duty to ensure that all university officers properly perform their duties – including financial officers. I would push for a full, independent audit and transparent financial reporting to rebuild confidence and ensure accountability.

I would also seek to address rising disquiet in the Cambridge academic community about a variety of other issues relating to the culture of the place. Both students and staff are concerned about ineffective harassment processes. Students struggle to access mental health support. Early-career academics are trapped in insecure contracts and resentful of intergenerational unfairness. And women and minority groups, in particular, are troubled by the discrimination they perceive in the way that the few permanent jobs that do come up are allocated.

Excellence can’t thrive if care is not taken of the people that deliver it. That means fixing broken systems, fully implementing policies and creating a culture that supports everyone, regardless of where they sit in the university hierarchy.

ɫ��ֱ��

In that regard, it would serve Cambridge well to choose an independent chancellor who respects tradition and status but is not blinded by it. Some have said that what Cambridge needs is a chancellor with “deep pockets” – presumably because such a chancellor would have connections to other deep-pocketed individuals who might be induced to make a donation. But that is not the reform to the role that we need. If it were, the position might as well be rebranded as chief fundraiser and be filled by auction, not election.

Rather, what the university needs is a chancellor defined by courage, conscience and the ability to inspire – and, in that regard, I believe my record speaks for itself, as I have dared greatly. If elected, I would speak up for the entire Cambridge family without fear or favour, ensuring Cambridge remains both financially sound and morally strong.

And that begins with pushing back against an austerity that is born out of dysfunction and that risks wasting a vital opportunity to make the best – for both researchers and the institution – of a dire situation on the other side of the Atlantic.

Gina Miller is a businesswoman and activist. She is a candidate to become the next chancellor of the University of Cambridge, the election for which runs until 18 July.

ɫ��ֱ��