“Who wants to be a job blocker?” Cambridge academics divided over support for Forced Retirement Policy, despite pushback from colleagues 

A group of Cambridge academics have been campaigning over the last few months against a rule that requires them to leave their post once they reach 69. However, academic Dame Mary Beard, an honorary fellow of Newnham College, has defended the retirement policy, as a means of providing more opportunities to younger academics, who often can gain career progression with the retirement of senior academics .

“I could not look my precarious colleagues in the eye if I was sticking it in my post as a job-blocker”, said Beard. 

Cambridge University has an Employer Justified Retirement Age (EJRA) policy, which was proposed in May 2024 to be raised from 67 to 69, while abolished for support staff. 

Among the policy’s purported aims is a claim that it is “designed to ensure intergenerational fairness and career progression”, since it opens up opportunities for younger academics. 

A group of Cambridge academics have been pushing back against the policy. “Top talent won’t join Cambridge knowing they’ll be forced out at 67 or 69. We lose our best professors to other universities by 62 or 64, creating a brain drain and taking their big grants elsewhere,” said a statement from a group of Cambridge academics canvassing against EJRA .

Classicist Mary Beard, who retired from her University position two years ago, penned an article in The Guardian last week (29/06) about the issue. 

Beard suggested that – despite older academic’s claims of “ageist discrimination”–, their arguments “sometimes smell of that number one falsehood of those about to retire: that they are irreplaceable”.  Indeed, the group of academics campaigning against EJRA “creates a brain drain” causing the UK to “lose our best professors”. Psychologist Sir Simon Baron-Cohen argued in the Cambridge University Reporter that the policy “doesn’t make good business sense”; it “undermines innovation” and “may be unlawful”. Computer Scientist Professor Jon Crowcroft suggested that “productive people bring income […] The new minted academic doesn’t replace a seasoned one”.  

“For me intergenerational fairness gaps ageism”, Beard argued. Academics are having to balance the realities of the academic job market, while ensuring that their employment policies are not inherently discriminatory. “The mean age on appointment to a permanent academic position is now over forty”, noted Professor Richard Penty in the Cambridge University Reporter. 

Forced retirement can only be enforced if it can be justified as a proportionate means of achieving legitimate aims. In Oxford, an employment tribunal found that the university acted unlawfully when it refused a second extension of Physics Professor Paul Ewart in December 2019. Ewart was awarded almost £30 000 in compensation. In May 2019, the forced retirement of Oxford English Professor John Pitcher was justified by a different tribunal panel, providing a social purpose for providing career progression opportunities for younger academics. 

However, Beard highlights the complexities of how universities should deal with retired academics, who may need access to a university email or even a departmental pigeonhole. Beard noted the experience of one of her colleagues, who lost their pigeonhole the day after their retirement party. The loss of the pigeonhole “meant social death; it was a symbol of the scrap heap”, Beard wrote. 

Several academics support this sentiment. “The University could do so much more, at relatively little cost, to allow academics to contribute to the intellectual life of the University, whether or not they continue with formal employment”, suggested Professor Robert Penty from Cambridge’s Department of Engineering. 

Full comments from the academics mentioned can be found in the Cambridge University Reporter (Vol CLIV No 34).