Cambridge has delayed its review of arms investments, which was sparked by pro-Palestine protests, provoking accusations of “back-pedalling” and “watering down” its commitments to students.

This comes as 165 academic and admin staff have formally called on the University to cut ties with the arms industry entirely. Cambridge has admitted that its initial “timescales” for reviewing its weapons ties were “optimistic”.

The University published its terms of reference for an ongoing review of its ties to the defence industry on Wednesday (13/11), in which it said that its working group will have completed its work “by the end of the academic year”.

But, in a statement urging students to abandon the pro-Palestine encampment, published in July, the University pledged that this working group would operate “rapidly” in Michaelmas term 2024, and “reach initial positions by the end of term”.

One source close to the matter has accused the University of “backtracking” on its investigation of its ties with arms. Varsity understands that the first meeting of the working group has not yet taken place.

Announcing the working group’s targets, Cambridge said that it is “aware that many members of the University are deeply concerned about the tragic events unfolding in many parts of the world”.

When first announcing the review, University heads said: “We share the horror of our students at the loss of life, and the appalling destruction of education institutions and infrastructure in Gaza.”

Initially established in response to repeated pro-Palestine protests at the University over the year, the working group’s objectives have now been formalised, in response to a staff-submitted motion for Cambridge to cut ties with the arms industry.

This grace, submitted shortly after the Cambridge for Palestine (C4P) encampment was dismantled in July, has now been accepted by University Council, Cambridge’s executive decision-making body. It was signed by 165 members of Regent House, the University’s democratic body, of which admin and academic staff are members.

This means that the Council will be formally called upon to divest from arms by the beginning of next year, and produce a report detailing the costs and timetable for doing so.

This motion will pass unless it is put to a vote in Regent House before November 22. Cambridge’s statutes require 25 staff to call for a ballot, which a source close to the matter has described as “unlikely”.

The council has insisted that, if passed, the motion would not “be binding,” because the council “has sole responsibility for decisions about investments”.

The working group assessing Cambridge’s ties to the arms industry will include two student representatives nominated by C4P, and a further student member of the Council. Some of the academics behind the divestment motion will also be part of the group, Varsity understands.

Jason Scott-Warren, an English academic and member of University Council, told Varsity: “I am pleased that the University is reconsidering its arms industry investments and research ties, but I’m concerned that, in its approach to the grace, it may be watering down undertakings made to students at the encampment.”

“The working group needs to move swiftly and to register the strength of the case for radical change,” he added.

The terms of reference for the working group reveal that Cambridge will consider its ties to arms in relation to “national security,” and the University’s position as a “civic institution in the UK”.

The University has faced frequent pro-Palestine protests in recent months, with some activists targeting its manufacturing institute’s alleged links to companies which feature on Israel boycott lists, including BAE Systems, Siemens, and Rolls Royce, referred to by activists as “institutes of death”.

The review will also consider Cambridge’s “commitment to academic freedom and freedom of speech”. In its request for students to dismantle the pro-Palestine encampment, Cambridge revealed that the Office for Students had written to the University, and others, to remind it of its “legal duty to protect freedom of speech and the right to protest within the law”.

Earlier this term, former Home Secretary Suella Braverman accused pro-Palestine activists at the University of “mob rule,” though this claim was fiercely rejected by campaigners.

The announcement states that Cambridge will reconsider its definition of defence companies, and examine both its investments in and research partnerships with the weapons industry.

The council also says that it will discuss its review with other “comparable institutions,” who are “currently engaged in similar processes”. Students set up pro-Palestine encampments at multiple other UK universities this summer, with several, including King’s College London and York, committing to arms reviews or full divestment.

Sarah Anderson and Sumouli Bhattacharjee, Students’ Union undergraduate and postgraduate presidents, told Varsity: “It is SU policy to campaign for the demilitarisation of the University. This means that we campaign for the University to cut ties with all military and arms companies, particularly through our membership of key committees including University Council.”

“We are therefore pleased to finally see the establishment of this working group and hope that it is able to make swift recommendations which are taken seriously by the University going forward,” they said.

Student action at Cambridge has also targeted colleges. Earlier this year, King’s College committed to reviewing its investments in arms, following student pressure. Trinity has also faced repeated protest following a legal warning over its ties to Elbit systems, an Israel-based arms company.

In an online statement, Cambridge University mentioned its “constructive dialogue” with Cambridge for Palestine and the working group that followed.

The University said: “Whilst these steps were criticised by some, the University Council has supported this significant step forward. Plainly, work of this complexity and scale takes time, and earlier timescales were optimistic. The working group will now begin its activities and report in due course.”