The University of Edinburgh’s new vice-chancellor failed to uphold academic freedom and did not understand the needs of students, according to a survey of staff at his current institution.



Peter Mathieson, a British medical researcher, plans to start as the principal and vice-chancellor at Edinburgh University in February after serving three years in the same position at the University of Hong Kong.

But in a survey of academic staff and senior administrators at the University of Hong Kong, 78% of respondents said they strongly disagreed that Mathieson had “effectively protected academic freedom”, and nearly 80% said they strongly disagreed that he “understands the needs of the students and the staff”.

The questionnaire by the Academic Staff Association was sent to 2,060 members of the university staff, of whom more than 600 replied.

Universities urged to end secrecy over vice-chancellors’ pay Read more

In comments addressed to Edinburgh University, William Cheung, chairman of the staff association, said: “Perhaps you may now appreciate why we thank you so many times for taking Professor Mathieson on board, as clearly it would give our university a fresh start sooner rather than later.”



Mathieson is leaving Hong Kong three years into a five-year term. In recent months he has come under fire for allegedly discouraging debate on campus in the wake of students posting messages calling for Hong Kong’s independence from China at another university in the city.

Mathieson wrote a joint letter along with Hong Kong’s nine other university heads saying “freedom of expression is not absolute” and described calls for independence as “abuses”. In a subsequent response to questions over the statement, Mathieson said “abuses” referred to offensive comments unrelated to political speech.

One former academic who taught at Hong Kong University for 38 years said tensions between students and leadership was at an all-time high. Hong Kong University, once Asia’s premier institution for higher learning, also slipped in an international ranking under Mathieson.

The final question in the staff survey received the strongest negative reaction when it stated: “Overall, the job performance of the [vice-chancellor] is excellent.” More than 81% strongly disagreed.

One written comment in the survey, which was conducted anonymously, said his departure was “the best gift to Hong Kong University”.

“I have witnessed six [Hong Kong University vice-chancellors] and he is the worst,” wrote one respondent. “It is unfortunate for HKU to have him in the first place, but fortunately, he decides to step down early, as if he continues, HKU will continue to go nowhere. Edinburgh, you have been warned.”

And in another ominous message to his future institution, one respondent said: “HKU will be saved soon, and GOOD LUCK to Edinburgh University”.

In response to the overwhelming negative comments, Mathieson defended himself by questioning the methodology of the survey, saying: “I have received complimentary messages during my time here and since my decision to leave.”

He claimed “the negative opinions are not shared by the very large number of staff, students, alumni and friends of the university”.

Some staff who responded to the survey wished him the best on his departure, with one saying: “I think it is a great loss for HKU to see Prof. Mathieson leaving. He is a very charming, humble and supportive leader”.

Edinburgh University declined to comment on the survey, instead restating a line made at the time of Mathieson’s appointment: “He has a wealth of experience at a senior level in higher education and that we have every confidence that he is the person to lead the University of Edinburgh into an exciting new era.”

Mathieson’s tenure coincided with a period of intense political divisions in Hong Kong. Less than a year after he arrived, student-led protests engulfed the city with hundreds of thousands participating in an 11-week sit-in over a Beijing-backed proposal on electoral reform.