Letter: Oxford and the 'tainted cash' row
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: In your editorial on the Flick benefaction to the University of Oxford ("The Flick fiasco", 18 April) you attempt to discredit the university on the grounds of hand-wringing and inconsistency.
The facts are that when concern was expressed about the benefaction the matter was, at once, fully investigated, and the university took the view that the money was not tainted and that it was entirely proper to retain it.
The university has not in any way retreated from that view, as Dr Gert- Rudolf Flick himself acknowledged publicly. The title was removed from the chair, and the funding was returned to the donor, only at the personal request of Dr Flick himself, following a deplorable campaign of vilification. The university remains very grateful to Dr Flick for his initial support.
Dr Peter North
Vice-Chancellor
University Offices
Oxford
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments