(Web Desk) — Imran Khan, the former cricketer and politician, has sparked considerable debate with his application to become the next chancellor of the University of Oxford, as highlighted in a column for The Guardian.
Khan, who has a history of making controversial statements—including calling Salman Rushdie a “blasphemer” and referring to Osama bin Laden as a “martyr”—is viewed with skepticism by many. British journalist Catherine Bennett has noted that Khan’s past comments on sensitive issues, such as his stance on women’s roles in cases of sexual assault and his support for the Taliban’s position on women’s education, have drawn significant criticism. Khan has suggested that women should take steps to avoid “temptation,” a sentiment that has been widely condemned.
These views, though they may find support in some circles, could discourage other candidates from pursuing the prestigious role. There is growing speculation about how Khan’s candidacy will be received by the Oxford community, which prides itself on inclusivity and progressive values.
Khan is being promoted as a potential successor to Chris Patten, the outgoing chancellor of Oxford University. Conservative peer Lord Hannan has praised Khan as “a towering figure” who would be an excellent choice for the role.
The chancellorship, a position held for a decade, involves significant administrative duties and presiding over key ceremonies, requiring someone who is both accessible and publicly engaged. However, Khan is currently serving a lengthy prison sentence, which his supporters argue is politically motivated. This raises questions about his ability to embody the values of Oxford, especially amidst ongoing discussions about free speech on campus.
Chris Patten, known for his advocacy of academic freedom, has previously cautioned against suppressing free expression, contrasting Oxford with institutions in countries like China that stifle dissent. Khan’s past admiration for the Chinese Communist Party and its controversial human rights practices has sparked concern about whether his views align with Oxford’s values.
Despite these issues, Khan enjoys substantial support, with some attributing his candidacy to strong ties within the cricket community and widespread admiration for his public persona. As the online voting for the chancellorship concludes, many are closely watching to see how Khan’s complex history will influence his chances and what it might reveal about the university’s priorities.
Khan’s bid for the Oxford chancellorship has drawn sharp criticism, with some commentators arguing that it sends a troubling message regarding the university’s values, particularly concerning its female students. Journalist Peter Oborne has suggested that Khan’s candidacy appears to be an affront to women at Oxford, pointing out the disconnect between his past remarks and actions.
While reports indicate that Khan now expresses support for “diversity, equality, and inclusion,” many question the sincerity of this shift. Critics argue that a genuinely worthy candidate would reconsider pursuing a role in a race that seems to perpetuate the long-standing male dominance of university leadership. The current slate of candidates has been described by some as uninspiring, with some likening it to a collection of individuals lacking serious qualifications.
In contrast, one candidate has stood out: Lady Elish Angiolini, a respected lawyer and former procurator fiscal of Scotland. If elected, she aims to improve access to Oxford for underprivileged students. Angiolini’s distinguished career includes her tenure as principal of St Hugh’s College and her leadership in inquiries into significant societal issues. Her commitment to addressing gender disparities in academia makes her a compelling choice for the chancellorship.
As the election nears, many hope that Angiolini’s leadership would better reflect Oxford’s values of inclusivity and equality, providing a stark contrast to Khan’s controversial past and the ideology of the Taliban. The outcome of the vote will be closely monitored as it signals Oxford’s dedication to its principles.
