Under this reasoning, the removal of Professor Ganz is compensated for by the fact that King’s is willing to give house-room to a replacement as long as someone else picks up the tab. King’s commitment to palaeography is on the condition that it cost the college not a penny.

The argument in favour of King’s – most cogently and reasonably advanced by Mr Steven Rhodes, a former member of the King’s council, in comments to the THES – is that the question of Professor Ganz, and the question of Palaeography, are two entirely different matters. That is, getting rid of Professor Ganz has nothing to do with the issue of replacing him.

From an outsider’s point of view, it is difficult to see how anyone can think that Professor and Professorship can be separated, but that seems to be the line of argument. So let us look at the working group -- composed mainly of senior academics of some considerable distinction -- which accomplished this separation.

Even more strangely, the statement put out on May 18th to mark the end of the consultation said:

“The working group made its initial report to the Head of School on 31 March 2010 (my emphasis) and confirmed the continuing need for the study of Palaeography at King’s. The working group indicated that it would be recommending a re-defined Chair of Palaeography, incorporating Manuscript Studies, with a wide remit…”

Which is to say that -- if you compare report and press release -- the committee not only began work before the fate of Professor Ganz had been resolved, it effectively finished it the day it started -- for that was the major recommendation and everything else was merely filling in the details. March 31, it appears, was a busy day all round. This suggests -- the press release presumably means what it says -- either that the recommendations weren’t very deeply thought through, or that the groundwork had already been done elsewhere and in advance.

The final report defines the new post in a way which fits Professor Ganz’s skills to a tee (p.4) – languages, with latin as a core; a remit covering documentary and archival material (an odd distinction: what do archives contain except documents?) and medieval vernacular; meeting demands from a range of constituencies and “engaging with the digital environment” – (a rare lapse into gobblydegook) all of which Professor Ganz has been doing with great distinction, if little ostentatious fanfare.

The report never even considers the possibility that the current Professor might be the ideal person to do the job, even though he was actually doing it while the working party's meetings were taking place. Equally, the statement that palaeography cannot pay its way and must be endowed omits any discussion of why, in that case, the college needs to found a new chair at all, and could not merely seek an endowment for the existing one.

So how does leave this working party? Its achievements should properly be assessed by the choices it made; by what it did not do, as well as by what it did. Its schedule implied the assumption that Professor Ganz would leave long before he agreed to do so. It could have said – hey, why not keep Ganz? it’ll be cheaper – but didn’t. Individual members could have refused to serve unless they could shape the remit, but didn’t.

They could have protested at the treatment of a colleague, but chose not to do so. They could have acknowledged the Professor's contribution to college and discipline, but did not. They could have tried to link the cost of palaeography to other areas of expense at King's, but didn’t.

They advanced the notion that there is some difference between manuscript studies and palaeography without explaining the distinction between the two. They defined a new job, but skated over the task of saying where it differed from the old one. They turned their back on the fate of an individual to concentrate on the preservation of a position.

They dutifully answered the questions set by management, but chose not to wonder whether different questions should be posed. Either way, the working party allowed itself to be put in the position of providing a distraction – by concentrating attention on the resurrection of palaeography in the future, it served to divert attention away from its untimely death in the present. Its report permitted the "palaeography saved" headlines which obscured the fact of Professor Ganz's eviction.

Note -- This account derives from reading the report of the working party side-by-side with the various press releases put out by management in the past few months. That is to say, if there are any errors of dates, then these lie in the documents themselves.

King's College London has confirmed the controversial departure of Britain's only professor of palaeography, praising his role in "tirelessly protecting" the discipline.

King's says in a statement that David Ganz will become emeritus professor of palaeography. Originally, the college proposed to drop the study of ancient writing entirely as part of plans to save £27 million across the institution.

But after criticism from international scholars, it decided to scrap the current post - the only palaeography chair in the UK - and establish a new chair in "palaeography and manuscript studies" from 2012.

Despite the U-turn on palaeography as a discipline, King's remained determined that Professor Ganz should move on.

The question of how the college will raise the money for the new chair, to be funded entirely through "philanthropic monies", remains unclear.

Times Higher Education asked King's whether the previous funding would contribute to the new chair, or whether it would have to raise the entire endowment afresh. The college did not respond.

The story continues: at http://www.jobs.ac.uk/job/ACV171/professor-of-palaeography-and-manuscript-studie s/ you can find a job add (dated 2011-06-20) for the postion of KCL Professor of Palaeography & Manuscript Studies.

---

Found thanks to https://twitter.com/#!/hypocras/status/83463123549433856 .

King's College London is advertising for a new professor of palaeography, but private funding is yet to materialise after the controversial decision to scrap the original post.

King's, which accepted the working party's recommendations, has now invited applications for a "chair in palaeography and manuscript studies" to start in September 2012.

But on fundraising, the college's spokeswoman said: "We are exploring possibilities of securing philanthropic support. In the meantime, the new post will be funded from the college's core budget."

One academic expert in the field, who asked not be named, said the most likely source of donations for the chair would have been "alumni with particular interests in the medieval period...who had noticed the negative publicity".

They said King's may have realised "it would be a bit hard to ask the very people who had expressed so much distress at the original decision...to then turn around and give money for a new chair".

The college spokeswoman said Professor Ganz, who is now emeritus professor, "opted to take early retirement". Critics say he had no choice.

Teresa Webber, senior lecturer in palaeography at the University of Cambridge, said she "cannot discern any significant differences in the scope of the discipline (the new chair) outlines from the remit of the former chair". But the King's spokeswoman said the new post "has a broader remit than the previous chair, as indicated by the change of title", highlighting the focus on "leadership" and "digital techniques", the commitment to teaching summer schools and supervising research students, as well as "a formal requirement to take an active part in the intellectual and administrative life of the school".