Vice Chancellor Louise Richardson University of Oxford October 11, 2017 Dear Vice Chancellor Richardson, Lam writing this letter to you out of concer for two principles that I know are at the heart of the University, namely Academic Freedom and Freedom of Speech. The background for my concems is this. On August 28", I informed the Dean of the Blavatnik School of Government of my intention to resign from my position as the Blavatnik Professorship of Government and Public Policy. I explained my decision in the following way: “The reason for my decision to resign is that it has come to my attention that Leonard Blavatnik ‘has supported the current President of the United States with a substantial donation. This surprising information reached me early this month and seems to represent a dramatic change of policy for Mr. Blavatnik. President Trump stands for a system of governing that is completely contrary to what I have come to define as “quality of government.” As you know, based on substantial amounts of empirical research I have found such “quality of government” to be crucial for improving human well-being. As I see it, Donald Trump's policies are also antithetical to the goal of the Blavatnik School of Government, which aims “to improve the quality of government and public policy-making worldwide, so that citizens can enjoy more secure and more fulfilled lives.” I therefore find Mr. Blavatnik's decision to support Donald Trump both incomprehensible and irresponsible. The conclusion Ihave reached is that Mr. Blavatnik’s decision to support Donald Trump makes it impossible for me to continue at the Blavatnik School of Government. Given the results from ‘my research, my activities for increasing the ethical standards in higher education, my public Statements about the pressing need for integrity and impartiality for holders of public office, as well as the content of my teaching, I cannot give legitimacy and credibility to a person who is supporting Donald Trump. There is simply no way I can defend this in front of students or colleagues.” Talso wrote that I would follow what is stated in my Letter of Employment, namely that “the length of notice required to resign an appointment such as mine is least three months and should include one complete Full Term, so my intention is that my last working day at the Blavatnik School will be December 31, 2017.” The reaction from the Blavatnik School has been as follows. My duties as teacher and student supervisor have been cancelled. I have also been asked to vacate the responsibility [have had for the School’s weekly research seminar. And I have been asked not to appear in person at the school and not to use my office. Because the leadership of the school was quite insistent, I decided to comply. Workwise, this is not problem for me since I have an office at Nuffield College that I am using. However, I think this policy of excommunication stands in conflict with the principles of academic freedom and freedom of expression. According to these principles, I have the right to resign and I also have the right to state my reasons for resigning to whomever I want without beingbanned from my workplace. It should be added that I have not criticised the Blavatnik School as an academic operation and I have not criticised the University for accepting the donation given what was known when it was offered. I have also declared that I am willing to discuss my decision in any form if colleagues or the leadership of the school is interested, An example of a concrete effect of this policy is that I cannot attend a seminar when a “fellow of practice” from Brazil that I have been supervising is presenting his final report at the school today. The reason for asking me not to be present at the school presented to me was that my decision to leave had created much animosity among staff and faculty. I am not in a position to judge this rationale; what I can say is that I received emails from two members of the faculty expressing much anger. However, I have been in direct contact with six other faculty member who has expressed respect for my decision and who want us to remain good colleagues (which of course is also my wish). In any case, I think the leadership of the school should have used this situation as a teaching moment for faculty, staff and students to educate them that in academia we do not expel people with whom we disagree. I also believe that this policy of excommunication sets a problematic standard for the students on how to handle criticism in the organisations many of them are likely to lead in the future. As indicated above, I have no personal demands regarding my current work situation, However, I think that banning me from the school and from contacts with the students shows that, in this case, there is not much understanding for the principles of academic freedom and freedom of speech at the Blavatnik School of Government. The way this has been handled may be typical for private business organisations but the idea of academic freedom speaks another language. I take the liberty to write this letter to you because I cannot imagine that the University of Oxford wants to be known as a place where the prize for criticising one of the ‘major donors to the university is excommunication, (An identical letter has been sent to Neil MacFarlane, Head of the Social Science Division) ‘Yours sincerely, b A> Bo Rothstein Statutory Professor of Government and Public Policy Professorial Fellow at Nuffield College University of Oxford Bo.Rothstein@bsg.ox.ac.uk