On Wednesday 27th November, former Conservative party leader William Hague was elected as Oxford’s next chancellor. He will become the 160th person (not to mention 160th man) to be chancellor, a post that has existed for over 800 years. He beat former Labour cabinet minister Lord Mandelson, former Oxford pro-vice-chancellor Lady Elish Angiolini, and principal of Somerville College, Oxford, Baroness Royall.

I don’t know how you want to spend your early retirement years, but being head of one of the best universities in the world seems like a decent proposition (even if it is at the other place). Just kick back, relax, attend some graduations in a fancy cloak and ask rich alumni for money every once in a while.

Except, such a cohort of applicants suggests otherwise. Hague himself described being elected to the position as “the greatest honour of my life”. Forget being in the running to be prime minister (Tony Blair’s 2001 majority aside), the chancellorship must be one of the most coveted leadership positions in the country. This is the same role that the BBC described as “predominantly ceremonial” even if, as The Economist pointed out, “the role has been held by male politicians for 250 years”.

Each way you look at it, there is a dusty, old tradition that needs updating, for both Oxford and Cambridge. If the roles are “ceremonial”, then they are not necessary. It seems as if we are still keeping mostly old white male ex-politicians around to speak some Latin at our request, like some kind of aristocratic wind-up toy. Even the masters or principals at Oxbridge colleges who might fit that description at least have a much smaller cohort to work with, so certainly in my experience can connect with students as much as they do with alumni.

“It seems as if we are still keeping mostly old white male ex-politicians around to speak some Latin at our request, like some kind of aristocratic wind-up toy”

Then again, as a state-educated man who grew up in Yorkshire, Hague is also part of a demographic that is still underrepresented at Oxbridge some 40 years later. His position has the potential to demonstrate Oxford’s commitment to social mobility, even as the "36th William" in a long line of men. Yet, the fact that the role of Oxford chancellor is unpaid still suggests a certain lifestyle, retirement savings, or other means of employment that only serve to reinforce how the position is maintained for those who can afford it. Or, that the role is not serious enough to be considered a full-time job, or to exist so publicly in the first place.

By contrast, if the role is not simply ceremonial, it reflects an unsettling precedent. Forget the revolving door between politics and lobbying – it seems as if candidates like Hague and Mandelson wanted to relive their PPE glory days, all whilst making good use of their friends back in Westminster. This might have made sense for a university like Oxford who wants to maintain its prestige and funding network, at least up until recently. Hague can bring in money and lend a hand in maintaining public relations. But, if Oxbridge wants to expand its image in the long term, to go beyond the expected figureheads, it needs to stop sacrificing that goal to raise money and prestige in the short term.

They cannot be afraid to foster a culture that might encourage its members to vote for candidates that do not fit the historical mold. When a leaked email revealed plans to bar candidates who were active politicians already in office, the local neighbourhood “woke” watch was up in arms. There is a sense that Oxford wants to avoid the impression of supposedly artificial diversity, whilst remaining in touch enough to stick “applications from a diverse range of backgrounds are warmly welcomed” at the bottom of the job description.

“They cannot be afraid to foster a culture that might encourage its members to vote for candidates that do not fit the historical mold”

You could argue that the role, like Cambridge’s chancellor, is at least being reformed, with the introduction of ten year term limits. More than enough time for Hague to cross the aisle and try his hand at leading another prestigious UK university dated back to the Medieval period. Besides, if Hillary Clinton can be chancellor of Queen’s University, Belfast, why can’t Willian Hague lead Oxford?

This is the point where it all looks ridiculous to me. Universities across the country seem to want to get the most famous or influential candidate possible to be their chosen figurehead, whilst insisting that the role is ceremonial. Perhaps they think that Clinton or Hague might obscure the systemic issues going on behind the scenes, or somehow raise enough money to fill the gaps. Perhaps raising money that can then go towards scholarships and bursaries is much more important. Nevertheless, as ever, it’s time for Oxbridge to shake off (or at least radically update) another of its 800 year-old traditions, if it ever wants to really change, behind the fancy cloaks and Latin.