Catalogue description Franks Commission of Inquiry, 1964-68

Franks Commission of Inquiry, 1964-68

See also CSAC 113.4.86/A.195.

In February 1964 the Hebdomadal Council appointed a committee chaired by the Provost of Worcester College (Lord Franks) to consider the recommendations and criticisms in the Robbins Report on Higher Education which particularly affected Oxford. The committee's terms of reference were wide-ranging, extending 'not only to the organisation and activity of the University but also to the teaching arrangements of the Colleges' (Report of Commission of Inquiry, I, p.17). The committee issued general and specific invitations to persons and organisations to submit written evidence which might help them in dealing with any of their terms of reference and sent out questionnaires on aspects of academic policy and university organisation. It was made clear that all written evidence apart from replies to questionnaires addressed to individuals would be made available to the public (Report, I, p.13).

Krebs was involved as a member of an ad hoc sub-committee in preparing the Heads of Science Department's response to the Commission's July questionnaire on teaching and research (CSAC 113.4.86/C.298, CSAC 113.4.86/C.299). He also prepared in October his own very extensive memorandum of written evidence on the organisation of science at Oxford (CSAC 113.4.86/C.302-CSAC 113.4.86/C.307). He was not able to submit this memorandum, however, because he was unwilling to have it made public. Instead, in November, he submitted a short memorandum which sought unsuccessfully to change the Commission's policy on the question of confidentiality (CSAC 113.4.86/C.308). It was not until the end of January 1965 that Krebs submitted a major memorandum to the Commission (CSAC 113.4.86/C.309) - a memorandum substantially different in character from that prepared in October 1964.

In 1966 the Commission issued a report of its findings with a large number of recommendations. In his autobiography Krebs expressed his disappointment that so very few had actually been implemented by the university (Rem. & Refl., pp.202-3).