Brexiteer Noel Malcolm penned a research piece for the Russell Group, who describes itself as “a self-selected association of twenty-four public research universities”, through sheer frustration at the University of Cambridge having dished out false information to students on the matter of Brexit. Mr Malcolm learned the institution issued a public letter about the dangers of a no deal Brexit in January that claimed it would take “decades” for universities to recover from leaving the EU without an agreement and also told foreign students they were “facing significant uncertainty about their futures”. Mr Malcolm said the “dishonest” letter made no mention of the Government’s plan to rejoin the European research funding system as an ‘associated’ country after Brexit, and that EU students’ continued status had already been granted.
The academic said that when he fact-checked such information and attempted to correct the university via a research piece, they refused to publish it – having first claimed he had no link to the university as one reason why, despite him being a fellow there.
They then said they do not publish “opinion” pieces on their site before shunning his work as nothing more than “fact based analysis”.
The university then refused to “balance” its stance on Brexit in what Mr Malcolm called a “curt” reply to him directly.
It read: “On a broader level, there does not appear to be an argument for Cambridge to balance a position it has taken, in that we do not appear to be a signatory to the ‘much-publicised letter sent to MPs by representatives of British universities, including our own’ as you state.
“We are not included on the list of signatories. If you have additional information that can clarify this point, I would be very grateful if you could share it.”
Mr Malcolm said in an open letter on magazine Standpoint: “When I read this, I was not sure whether the slightly lip-curling tone of that final sentence was deliberate or not.
“But I felt quite sure that the second and third reasons given here were bogus. So I wrote to her myself to say so, very politely.
“I pointed out that my article was indeed ‘fact based’, and that far from excluding opinion pieces from the Brexit section of their website, they posted articles there which they themselves labelled as ‘Opinion’.”
READ NOW: General election REJECTED as MPs defeat Boris Johnson in Commons vote
The reply said: “We only publish articles authored by current Cambridge researchers.”
He then said he tried the Russell Group themselves to seek clarification on why his research correcting the university was being rejected.
They did not respond, Mr Malcolm said.
He then tried the university again, and got what he called a “get lost” reply.
It read: “I repeat that I am sorry if you do not like the replies you have received from our office, but the points we made are clear and I believe we answered fully all the lengthy points you have made again. I do not intend to enter into further correspondence on this issue.”
Mr Malcolm said: “Can I absolutely prove that the systematic obstruction I encountered was caused by the fact that my article had appeared on a pro-Brexit website, and consisted of criticising something that was hysterically anti-Brexit? No.
“But when people who are well-informed resort to falsifying simple facts, and people employed to communicate resort to stubborn silence, there must be a strong reason. And as anyone who works in a British university will know, strong hostility to Brexit has been, ever since June 2016, an almost unquestioned public doctrine.
“Soon after the referendum, when the University of Oxford had placed on its own website a series of pieces by Oxford academics denouncing the result, I asked whether they might consider commissioning one piece to put the opposite point of view, given that this was a major public issue on which the whole country had divided almost 50/50.
“The response I received was that they did not think it would be right, since—and no, I am not making this up — that might expose them to an accusation of ‘creating false balance’.”
Express.co.uk has contacted the University of Cambridge for a statement.
