Tax exemption controversy In May 1940, CUP applied to the Inland Revenue for the exemption of its printing and publishing profits from taxation, equivalent to charitable status. After a November 1940 Inland Revenue hearing, CUP's application was refused "on the ground that, since the Press was printing and publishing for the outside world and not simply for the internal use of the University, the Press's trade went beyond the purpose and objects of the University and (in terms of the Act) was not exercised in the course of the actual carrying out of a primary purpose of the University". In November 1975, with CUP facing financial collapse, CUP's chief executive Geoffrey Cass wrote a 60-page "preliminary letter" to the Inland Revenue again seeking tax-exemption. A year later Cass's application was granted in a letter from the Inland Revenue, though the decision was not made public. After consulting CUP, Cambridge's 'sister' press, the giant
Oxford University Press presented their own submission and received similar exemption. In 2003 OUP's tax exemption was publicly attacked by Joel Rickett of
The Bookseller in
The Guardian. In 2007, with the new 'public benefit' requirement of the revised Charities Act, the issue was re-examined with particular reference to the OUP. In 2008 CUP's and OUP's privilege was attacked by rival publishers. In 2009
The Guardian invited author
Andrew Malcolm to write an article on the subject. In 2007, from the National Archives at Kew, Malcolm obtained scans of CUP's unsuccessful applications for tax-exemption made in the 1940s and 1950s and their later successful applications in the 1970s. He then indexed and posted these on the Akmedea website. Late in 2020, the papers held at Kew were withdrawn from public access and ruled closed for 50 years until 1 January 2029. This rendered the scans on the website their only public source. In 2021, the documents were cited in a discussion on the formation of
Cambridge University Press & Assessment reported in the
Cambridge University Reporter. D.D.K.Chow of Trinity College, expressed concerns about the lack of academic leadership of the new body:
Alms for Jihad In 2007, controversy arose over the press's decision to destroy all remaining copies of its 2006 book
Alms for Jihad: Charity and Terrorism in the Islamic World, by Burr and Collins, as part of the settlement of a lawsuit brought by Saudi billionaire
Khalid bin Mahfouz. Within hours,
Alms for Jihad became one of the 100 most sought after titles on
Amazon.com and
eBay in the United States. The press sent a letter to libraries asking them to remove copies from circulation. The press subsequently sent out copies of an "errata" sheet for the book. The
American Library Association issued a recommendation to libraries still holding
Alms for Jihad: "Given the intense interest in the book, and the desire of readers to learn about the controversy first hand, we recommend that U.S. libraries keep the book available for their users." The publisher's decision did not have the support of the book's authors and was criticized by some who claimed it was incompatible with freedom of speech and with freedom of the press and that it indicated that
English defamation laws were excessively strict. In the
New York Times Book Review (7 October 2007),
United States Congressman Frank R. Wolf described Cambridge's settlement as "basically a book burning". The press pointed out that, at that time, it had already sold most of its copies of the book. The press defended its actions, saying it had acted responsibly and that it was a global publisher with a duty to observe the laws of many different countries.
Cambridge University Press v. Patton In this case, originally filed in 2008, CUP et al. accused
Georgia State University of infringement of copyright. The case closed on 29 September 2020, with GSU as the prevailing party.
The China Quarterly On 18 August 2017, following an "instruction" from a Chinese import agency, Cambridge University Press used the functionality that had been built into Cambridge Core to temporarily delete politically sensitive articles from
The China Quarterly on its Chinese website. The articles focused on topics China regards as taboo, including the 1989
Tiananmen Square massacre,
Mao Zedong's
Cultural Revolution, the 2014 Hong Kong
protests, and ethnic tensions in
Xinjiang and
Tibet. On 21 August 2017, in the face of growing international protests, Cambridge University Press announced it would immediately repost the articles to uphold the principle of academic freedom on which the university's work was founded. In a discussion reported in the
Cambridge University Reporter, D.K.K.Chow declared, "Without academic leadership on the matter, the University's basic ethical values were cast aside by commercial considerations. This instigated public debate, which would have been avoided had academic leadership been more vigilant, causing unnecessary damage to the University's reputation. The Press statement explained that lack of academic leadership was to blame: 'This decision was taken as a temporary measure pending discussion with the academic leadership of the University.'"
The Cambridge Handbook of Privatization In February 2021, the forthcoming
Cambridge Handbook of Privatization was found to have included a chapter by
J. Mark Ramseyer in which he described Koreans murdered in the
Kantō Massacre of 1923 as "gangs" that "torched buildings, planted bombs, [and] poisoned water supplies". Editors Avihay Dorfman and
Alon Harel acknowledged the historical distortions of the chapter, but gave Ramseyer a chance to revise. Harel described the inclusion of the original chapter as an "innocent and very regrettable" mistake on the part of the editors. == Corporate social responsibility ==