Is Cambridge University right to enforce a retirement age? I think so – who wants to be a ‘job blocker’?

What is a “good” and “useful” old age, and how do we ensure it? Ageism is currently one of British culture’s biggest muddles. We rightly deplore turfing senior citizens – at some arbitrary retirement age – on to the scrap heap, their allotments, or towards decades of rail travel visiting the grandkids, courtesy of the Senior Railcard. And we love those doughty old ladies of broadcasting (think Joan Bakewell) who turn up from time to time to run rings around some unfortunate young man of 40.

But whatever the rules of any profession, no one fancies having their heart bypass carried out by an 85-year-old. Nor do they want to force a scaffolder up 10 floors of dodgy metalwork much past their mid-60s – or watch a presidential debate in which one candidate can’t get the facts right and the other can’t get out his words.

There’s also the inconvenient truth that sometimes, keeping options open for the elderly can prevent,or delay more junior people getting a proper foothold on the career ladder. Forms of discrimination and fairness sometimes clash. You can see that in the argument over Labour’s proposed introduction of a retirement age of 80 for the House of Lords. Yes, it can be seen as an ageist gesture that would deprive parliament of some of its most experienced voices. But how do we rate the importance of hearing new people and voices, rather than making them wait until they are equally venerable?

This is just the question that the University of Cambridge is debating right now. A niche dispute maybe, but one with wider implications. The university sector in general makes it hard for those early in their career to get properly on the career ladder. Forget any idea you might have of researchers spending a few dedicated years in the library or laboratory before slipping effortlessly into a job for life.

Largely thanks to funding cuts, most early career academics I know spend a decade or so “on the road”, going from one temporary job to the next (a year is standard, sometimes much less, and often the jobs are hundreds of miles apart) before struggling into a permanent job in their mid- to late-30s. They are known in the trade as the “precariat” – and it is a system that is obviously bad for them (try getting a mortgage), but also for students (who want continuity of teaching) and for universities themselves (which don’t thrive on this kind of constant rotation).

That is the main justification behind Cambridge’s mandatory retirement age of 67. It opens up opportunities at the bottom of the career pathway in a university that people tend not to leave unless they are pushed. And a Cambridge working group – of which, full disclosure, I was a member, as a voice of the retired – has recently recommended that a fixed retirement age be retained, though raised to 69, to reflect changing demographics.

It is controversial. Some people at the university would like to abolish the retirement age altogether: it is ageist discrimination, they say, that does not reflect the rights and potential contribution of those who are over 70. They have a point (though their arguments sometimes smell of that number one falsehood of those about to retire: that they are irreplaceable, and the university would find it hard to manage without them). On the other side is clear evidence that retaining a retirement age opens up literally hundreds of job opportunities for new people over a 10-year period. It’s a choice, but for me “intergenerational fairness” caps ageism.

It will come down to a vote of staff, as issues like this still (happily) do in democratic Cambridge. But whichever side wins, it exposes bigger issues that we need to face in Cambridge and outside. What is retirement for? What kind of contribution can the retired make, without “job-blocking”? How is this linked to new patterns of careers (and, for many, worse pension provision)? To put it bluntly, what are we supposed to do between retiring and dying?

The university promises to think hard about all those questions. It’s an opportunity to lead the way in how we value and seriously engage with retired professionals. On a grand scale, it’s much harder to get funding for any kind of research project once you no longer have a university job (and many retired academics are still “research active”, as the jargon goes). Then there are the apparently trivial, but irritating, micro-aggressions that could easily be resolved. If you lose a university email address, it’s much harder to get libraries or archives to take you seriously when you make an inquiry (“gmail.com” doesn’t have the clout of “cam.ac.uk”).

After spending years, sometimes decades, at an institution, simply taking away card access to libraries and workspaces – even access to the humble printer – can sting. A few years ago, one of my academic friends (not at Cambridge) went into his department the morning after his retirement party to thank the organisers. He discovered that the pigeonhole for his post had already been removed: back then “no pigeonhole” meant “social death”; it was a symbol of the scrap heap.

The value people can add to professional communities doesn’t dissipate the day they retire. Institutions and industries must find creative ways to engage with retirees. Let’s hope Cambridge comes up with some ideas that work outside the dreaming spires. Meanwhile, I know – having retired two years ago – that I could not look my precarious colleagues in the eye if I was sticking it out in my post as a job-blocker. Intergenerational fairness for me, please.

剑桥大学强制执行退休年龄对吗？我认为是对的——谁愿意成为“岗位阻碍者”？

什么是“好”和“有用”的老年生活，我们如何确保它？年龄歧视目前是英国文化中最大的混乱之一。我们理所当然地谴责在某个任意的退休年龄把老年人推向废物堆、他们的菜园，或通过老年铁路卡进行几十年的铁路旅行去看望孙子。而且我们热爱那些广播界的坚韧老女士（想想琼·贝克韦尔），她们时不时地出现，让一些不幸的40岁年轻人望尘莫及。

但无论任何职业的规则如何，没有人愿意让一个85岁的老人来做心脏搭桥手术。也没有人愿意强迫一个脚手架工人爬上10楼的不牢靠金属结构超过他们的65岁——或观看一场总统辩论，其中一位候选人说不清事实，另一位候选人说不出话。

还有一个不便的事实是，有时为老年人保留选择权可以阻止或推迟更年轻的人在职业阶梯上获得合适的立足点。某些形式的歧视和公平有时会冲突。你可以在争论工党提议为上议院引入80岁退休年龄时看到这一点。是的，这可以被看作是一种年龄歧视的姿态，会剥夺议会一些最有经验的声音。但是我们如何评价听到新的人和声音的重要性，而不是让他们等到他们同样德高望重？

这正是剑桥大学目前正在讨论的问题。一个小众的争议，但有更广泛的影响。大学部门通常使那些职业早期的人难以在职业阶梯上获得合适的位置。忘记你可能有的研究人员在图书馆或实验室度过几年的专心研究然后轻松进入终身职位的任何想法吧。

主要由于资金削减，我认识的大多数职业早期学者在“路上”度过大约十年，从一个临时工作到另一个（一年是标准，有时更少，而且工作地点通常相隔数百英里），然后在三十多岁时挣扎着找到一个永久职位。他们在业内被称为“不稳定群体”——这显然对他们（试着获得抵押贷款）、对学生（谁想要教学的连续性）和对大学本身（不依赖这种不断轮换）都是不利的。

这就是剑桥强制67岁退休年龄的主要理由。它在一个人们不被迫离开的大学里，为职业道路底部创造了机会。而剑桥一个工作组——其中，完全披露，我作为退休者的声音是成员之一——最近建议保留固定的退休年龄，尽管提高到69岁，以反映人口统计的变化。

这很有争议。大学里有些人希望完全废除退休年龄：他们说这是年龄歧视，不反映70岁以上人士的权利和潜在贡献。他们有道理（尽管他们的论点有时带有即将退休者的头号谎言的气味：他们是不可替代的，大学会发现没有他们很难管理）。另一方面，有明确的证据表明，保留退休年龄在10年期间为新人创造了数百个工作机会。这是一个选择，但对我来说，“代际公平”胜过年龄歧视。

这将归结为员工投票，因为在民主的剑桥，类似的问题仍然（令人愉快地）如此决定。但无论哪一方获胜，它揭示了我们在剑桥及其他地方需要面对的更大问题。退休是为了什么？退休者可以做出什么样的贡献，而不会“阻碍岗位”？这如何与新的职业模式（以及对许多人来说，更差的养老金）相关联？直截了当地说，我们在退休和死亡之间应该做什么？

大学承诺认真思考所有这些问题。这是一个在如何重视和认真与退休专业人士互动方面领先的机会。从大范围来看，一旦你不再有大学工作，任何研究项目的资金都变得更难获得（而许多退休学者仍然是“研究活跃的”，用行话说）。然后是那些看似琐碎但恼人的微侵略，这些可以很容易解决。如果你失去了大学的电子邮件地址，当你提出询问时，图书馆或档案馆会更难认真对待你（“gmail.com”没有“cam.ac.uk”的影响力）。

在一个机构工作了多年，有时是几十年，简单地取消对图书馆和工作空间的卡片访问——甚至是对不起眼的打印机的访问——都可能刺痛。几年前，我的一位学术朋友（不在剑桥）在他的退休派对后第二天早上去他的部门感谢组织者。他发现他的信箱已经被移除：那时“没有信箱”意味着“社会死亡”；这是废物堆的象征。

人们可以为专业社区增加的价值不会在他们退休的那天消散。机构和行业必须找到创造性的方法来与退休人员互动。希望剑桥能想出一些在梦想尖塔外有效的点子。同时，我知道——两年前退休——如果我继续在我的岗位上作为一个岗位阻碍者，我无法直视我的不稳定同事。请给我代际公平。

笔记区

Ageism  n. 对老年人的歧视

muddle n. 糊涂，茫然；（局面）一团糟，混乱；乱七八糟

deplore  v. 强烈反对，谴责

arbitrary  adj. 任意的，随心所欲的；专横的，武断的

scrap n. 废品，废弃材料（=scrap metal）；

heap n. （凌乱的）一堆；许多，大量；

allotment n. 配额，份额，配给物；分配，指定；<英>（可租用的）小块菜园地；

courtesy n. 礼貌，彬彬有礼；礼貌的行为（言语）；

doughty  adj. 勇敢强悍的；坚强的；勇猛的

bypass  v. 绕过，避开；对（动脉等）作分流术，为……作搭桥术；

scaffolder  n. 架子工；脚手架工

candidate n. 候选人，申请者；

clash v. 迥然不同，抵触；冲突，交战；争论，争执；

venerable adj. 庄严的，值得尊敬的；珍贵的

niche  adj. （产品）针对特定小群体的

dispute n. 争论，辩论，纠纷

precariat 不稳定性无产者

mortgage n. 按揭，抵押贷款；抵押贷款额

thrive v. 茁壮成长，兴旺，繁荣；

rotation n. 旋转，转动；旋转一周（一圈）；轮流，交替；轮班，换班；

justification  n. 正当理由，合理解释；

mandatory adj. 强制性的，义务的；

bottom n. 底，底部；

disclosure n. 披露，泄密；

demographics n. 人口统计资料

falsehood n. 虚假，不真实；假话，谎言；说谎；谬误

irreplaceable adj. 不可替代的，独一无二的

literally adv. 按照字面意义地，逐字地；真正地，确实地；（用于夸张地强调）简直

pension n. 养老金，退休金；

provision n. 提供，供应；准备，预备；

bluntly adv. 直言地，单刀直入地，（说话）不客气地

scale n. 规模，范围；

jargon  n. 行话，黑话；

microaggression n. 轻度冒犯，微歧视

inquiry n. 询问，疑问；

clout  n. 破布；敲打；影响力；势力

sting v. （昆虫、动植物）叮，刺，蜇；（使）刺痛，（使）产生剧痛；

pigeonhole  n. 分类架；鸽舍出入口；小房间；鸽棚；

dissipate  v. （使某事物）消散，消失；挥霍，耗费；放荡

spire n. [建]尖顶；尖塔；螺旋

precarious  adj. 摇摇欲坠的，不稳固的；（局势）不确定的，危险的