Appendix A: Testimony of Dr. Ajit Singh, Queens’ College to the Devlin Enquiry on the Sit-In in Cambridge University in February 1972 3 June 1972. Lord Devlin, High Steward of Cambridge University “Report on the Sit-in in February 1972 and its Consequences”, Cambridge University Reporter Wednesday, 14 February 1973, Vol CIII, Special No. 12; 84p. Background facts. When, where, the meetings immediately prior and leading up to the sit-in Lord Devlin took evidence in hearings and submissions on 1, 2 and 3 June in Cambridge. NB: Day One was 1 June. On Day Two, 2 June, in Speech and Evidence, p.41, Lord Devlin says: “Tere is one other possible witness in connec- tion with that incident and that is Dr Singh. Dr Singh was a member of the Faculty Board and who made the initial speech. I think I might ask Mr Whittaker to write to him or to contact him and to ask him whether © Te Editor(s) (if applicable) and Te Author(s), under exclusive license 339 to Springer Nature Switzerland AG, part of Springer Nature 2019 A. Saith, Ajit Singh of Cambridge and Chandigarh, Palgrave Studies in the History of Economic Tought, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-12422-9 340 Appendix A: Testimony of Dr. Ajit Singh, Queens’ College … he may wish to give evidence or not, because he may be able to throw some light, again, on the connection between the two proceedings”. John Barnes and Robert Neild gave their testimonies on 3 June; Ajit comes later, #83, but overnight, Ajit seems to have prepared the detailed and complex document that follows — clearly something rubbed of from being around his father, the High Court judge. Jo recalls that Ajit was completed focussed and worked overnight to produce his written testimony, the high quality of which apparently was much appreciated by Lord Devlin. Ajit Singh’s Submission. 7 pages of typescript; in Proceedings of the Devlin Enquiry, Cambridge University Archives, Devlin Enquiry Report and Papers; GBR/0265/Devlin, 1972–1973. 3 June 1972. The Submission Background to the Economics Faculty Board’s Proposals for Examination Reform and the General Board’s Reaction to Tem Te Faculty Board of Economics has, for the last three years, been actively considering the question of improving methods of assessment in the Faculty. Te matter in all its aspects was frst considered in a Joint Staf–Student Committee (known as the Kaldor-Rivers-Moore Committee), of which I was a member, during the Lent and Easter Terms of 1969. Tis Committee submitted two interim reports, includ- ing an important and substantial one which contained statistical anal- ysis of the discrepancies between frst and second reader’s marks in the Tripos examinations. It also submitted, in 1970, a very full fnal report which made specifc recommendations for changes in the Faculty’s methods of assessment. Tis report and its recommendations were the subjects of long discussion over the next year and a half in open staf– student meetings of the Faculty, in the Faculty Board, at the Conference of Lecturers and in various subcommittees appointed by the Board. I took an active part in all these discussions. Appendix A: Testimony of Dr. Ajit Singh, Queens’ College … 341 Tese matters came to ahead in the Michaelmas Term of 1971, since there was, by then, a widespread feeling, both among junior members and among many senior members, that discussion had gone on long enough and that some reforms ought actually to be imple- mented as soon as possible. However, another important subcommit- tee was appointed during that term, consisting of Professor Reddaway (Chairman), Professor Kaldor and myself (with powers to co-opt) to report on the question of the possibility of a Part II examination by dis- sertations alone (see Faculty Board Minute 391/8, dated 8th November, 1971). In the event, this subcommittee worked very hard and produced a unanimous report which was accepted at a specially convened meeting of the Faculty Board held on 29 November 1971. (See Faculty Board Minute 392/3 dated 29th November 1971.) It was the general feeling at this meeting that every efort should be made to implement the reforms during the academic year 1972–1973, as envisaged in the detailed time- table given in the Reddaway report (Faculty Board document 392/3). With this end in view, it was felt that the matter should be pursued during the Christmas Vacation and “that a letter setting out the pro- posals in full, stating the reasons for the changes proposed, should be sent to the General Board of the Faculties in time for their meeting on 12th January” (Faculty Board Minute 392/3, dated 29th November 1971). A subcommittee consisting of the Chairman, the Secretary, Dr. Feinstein (or Dr. Heal) and myself was appointed to draw up this letter. We met during the vacation and Professor Stone (the Chairman) wrote on behalf of the Faculty Board on 23 December 1971 to the Secretary General of the Faculties setting out “the precise nature of our proposals and the intentions behind them”. Professor Stone’s letter also said that: “I am writing this letter to you in the vacation in the hope that it may be possible for the General Board to consider it when it meets again on 12th January and to let us know what further documentation will be required to implement these proposals”. I should also like to point out in this connection that this was not the frst time the General Board had heard of the matter. Te minutes of the Faculty Board meetings for the Michaelmas term (at almost every one of which meetings the question of examination reform had been discussed) were available to the General Board. I also helped to prepare 342 Appendix A: Testimony of Dr. Ajit Singh, Queens’ College … a briefng for Mr. R. F. Bennett, the General Board representative for Group II of the Faculties (there is, incidentally, no economist currently serving on that Board), so that he could speak to proposals concerning classing in Part I (See the enclosed letter dated 12 November 1971 from the Secretary of the Faculty Board of Economics to myself). It is in this context that one must view the General Board’s let- ter of 17 January 1972, which replies to Professor Stone’s letter of 23 December 1971. Many of us on the Faculty Board, particularly the younger members, were very much dismayed by the peremptory and dismissive tone of the letter and by its apparent practical implications (see below). Te General Board had not asked for any further documentation in support of our case, as was ofered in Professor Stone’s letter; nor did it invite any member of the Faculty Board of Economics to speak to these proposals at its meetings. Instead it fatly stated that it did not agree with some of our major proposals without giving adequate reasons or justifcation. I should like to stress here that these proposals were not refused because of practical difculties of implementation. For instance, a major proposal—the one concerning examination by dissertations alone—was ruled out in principle with the following comment: “… the Board consider an examination consisting entirely of dissertations to be inappropriate for undergraduates”. No justifcation was ofered for this assertion. It is not necessary here to go into a detailed analysis of the General Board’s letter; what is relevant is what we felt at the time to be its practical implications. Whatever the legal and constitutional status of the letter, it had two efective consequences. Firstly, it was quite clear to us on the Faculty Board that in view of the General Board’s opposi- tion, any possibility of the examination reform proposals coming into efect in the academic year 1972–1973 was virtually ruled out. Tis was naturally a source of great disappointment to many of us, and particularly to the junior members. Secondly, some senior members of the Faculty Board who had originally supported the proposals now felt that in view of the General Board’s frm opposition, the Faculty’s Appendix A: Testimony of Dr. Ajit Singh, Queens’ College … 343 proposals had very little chance of acceptance by the University as a whole, and that we should just accept the very limited reforms which were ofered. However, it was argued by myself and by a majority of the other members of the Board that, even though we recognized that the chances of our ultimate success were small, we should at least ask the General Board to give adequate reasons for its refusal of our pro- posal. In our view, nothing had been said in the General Board’s letter which ought to make us change our mind about the principles of our original proposals, over which there had already been a series of inev- itable compromises during the three years of discussion. (A perusal of the Faculty Board minute 394/3 dated 31st January 1972, as amended by minute 395/1 dated 14th February 1972, will give Lord Devlin some favour of the Faculty Board’s reactions to the General Board’s letter.) It has been argued by the General Board that in fact it has no ulti- mate power and that constitutionally speaking it is merely a screening device, and that the Faculty is free to go directly to the University as a whole over the head of the General Board. Although this is consti- tutionally correct, the realities of the situation are very diferent. Tere have been very few instances where, on issues of Tripos or examination reform, a Faculty Board’s proposals have been accepted by the Regent House in the face of the General Board’s opposition.