New regulations for staff dismissal procedures, called sacking by numbers, came into effect on October 1. While well-intentioned, these regulations lack the excitement of the old disciplinary proceedings in universities. The term "moral turpitude" was once used to define a serious offense that could result in immediate dismissal for lecturers and professors. "Gross moral turpitude" was the threshold for senior lecturers while "persistent gross moral turpitude" was necessary for professors. These descriptions were more exciting than the current codes of practice that describe "actions inconsistent with the values of our joint partnership and stakeholders’ mission statement."

One could imagine getting called before the vice-chancellor for the crime of "persistent gross moral turpitude." This would do wonders for the reputation of any academic. However, universities no longer use such descriptions in their disciplinary proceedings. Anonymous letters to the vice-chancellor often reveal stories of wrongdoing, but the fundamental law that people who write anonymous letters are never able to spell the name of the particular wickedness they think others are engaged in proves true.

As a result of reading these letters for too many years, Dr Peter Knight, vice-chancellor of the University of Central England, has become world-weary and cynical. Despite this, he ironically asks what it takes to dismiss a vice-chancellor. The ancient statute used to say, "The vice-chancellor holds office for life."

In his experience, Knight has found disciplinary hearings unhelpful since he often lets the guilty off with nothing more than a warning. He believes in instant redemption since allowing offenses to linger only leads to ongoing wickedness. While universities used to be more exciting places to work, disciplinary procedures have become mundane with time.