ÖйúAƬ

G. R. Evans describes the Schneider-Ross report on Cambridge's equality audit as damning (Letters, THES, February 2). Yes, the report pulls no punches in identifying weaknesses and issues that need to be addressed. Indeed, it would be surprising if it had found little to criticise in such a large and complex organisation. But it is all too easy to seek out the sensational soundbite and ignore the good news: "The results of the audit reveal a high level of satisfaction among university staff. Over two-thirds of staff see Cambridge University as a good employer and the same proportion feel fairly treated and valued by their colleagues."

Evans is aware of the efforts being made to supplement the many good things that exist to bring about culture change, improve the personnel management of staff and widen opportunities for training and development. She makes the point that academics run Cambridge and that they need training, why, then, does she decry attempts to do something about this? Evans accuses us of overlooking students, but undertaking an audit of Cambridge's staff was a big enough exercise to be getting on with.

A. W. F. Edwards questions the credibility of the report (Letters, THES, February 16). But 3,034 questionnaires completed and returned is a response rate of 40 per cent - and anyone in the business of conducting surveys of this kind will tell you that is pretty good.

Surely a university that is prepared to conduct an audit on such a scale - and publish the results - deserves a little respect for undertaking what many other organisations would shy away from.

Peter Deer
Director of personnel
University of Cambridge