Dr Magdalen Connolly started as a graduate student and went on to become a Leverhulme Early Career Fellow at Cambridge University’s Faculty of Asian and Middle Eastern Studies. She completed a Humboldt Fellowship at Munich University just a few months ago. Despite having all the makings of a thriving academic career, she has left academia and is now dealing with stress-related health issues.
Dr Connolly developed innovative ideas regarding a Judaeo-Arabic text, but one of her advisors appropriated them without acknowledgement. In the Daily Telegraph, the alleged plagiarist is named. As noted in the Times Higher Educational Supplement, a disturbing aspect of this matter is that the plagiarism was actually perpetrated by an advisor. Plagiarizing a student’s work undermines a university’s fundamental mission to mentor and develop the next generation of scholars. It is unfortunately not uncommon.
In 2020, Dr Connolly filed a formal complaint with Cambridge University, hoping for a swift resolution and an outcome acceptable to both parties. She then encountered one of the grotesque features of Cambridge University — the inordinate time taken to investigate and conclude staff complaints.
It took four years to investigate the grievance. Cambridge University finally concluded that Dr Connolly was correct and acts of plagiarism had taken place.
Four years!
This is a truly astonishing length of time. A productive academic career might last 40 years, so this is 10% of an academic’s working life. Even for a senior academic, a grievance process lasting 4 years is a big chunk of time that affects research and teaching productivity.
For a young scholar, it is an extinction level event.
Young scholars are employed on fixed term contracts, often just 2 or 3 years. They have their name to make, research articles to publish, teaching experience to gather. Time is critical as the fixed term contracts will soon run out. Normally only two or three such positions can be gotten before young scholars are expected to secure a permanent position — which are increasingly hard to find nowadays. They can’t afford to waste 4 years navigating an intransigent & labyrinthine grievance process.
As Dr Connolly said: “When this process began, I was assured that it would take between 3 and 6 months. I never expected it to last this long. And I honestly trusted the University to investigate the complaint thoroughly and fairly, which I now realise was a little naïve“.
Everyone involved in the investigation of this grievance by Cambridge University should be truly ashamed at what has been done to Dr Connolly. The 21 Group has written to the Leverhulme Trust to insist that no more Leverhulme Early Career Fellowships should be awarded to Cambridge University’s Faculty of Asian and Middle Eastern Studies until it has demonstrated adequate safeguarding of young scholars.
It is a legal obligation of an employer to have a fair and swift process to deal with grievances. The Board of Scrutiny, which is an internal oversight committee of the University, raised the alarm in its most recent report “that the time taken to investigate and conclude staff complaints and grievances were unduly lengthy“. Sadly, Dr Connolly’s case is not untypical.
18 Comments
Anon · 17 November 2024 at 11:44
At least they began four years in.
I made a bullying complaint under our “Dignity at Work” scheme two years ago and still have yet to commence any form of investigation.
Needless to say, the perpetrator has since gone on to bully multiple other staff.
21percent.org · 17 November 2024 at 21:43
We agree that the Dignity at Work policy at Cambridge University is a sick joke
It has been revised endlessly
When HR break their own rules, they revise the policy to make the rule-break legal
Better to call it “Indignity at Work”
Jannah · 17 November 2024 at 23:18
Could the board quantify in its next report the cost to the university in terms of lost staff time, legal fees, reputational liability and so on as a result of the total negligence and incompetence of HR to resolve or even mediate staff disputes? I think it would be good to have some concrete numbers on just how much sheer damage they are responsible for causing our university.
21percent.org · 18 November 2024 at 08:35
The 21 Group applauds this suggestion
The Board of Scrutiny has extensive powers of investigation
It would be good if you (and others at Cambridge University similarly concerned) emailed the Board of Scrutiny, and/or its members
The Board is (or should be) responsive to such requests
Michelle · 22 November 2024 at 11:18
I fully respect and empathise with the whole “give em hell” feeling that seems to prevail among members of this group. But if I can add something here, simply in a personal capacity – and I am speaking only an ally who has not (yet!) been a direct bullying target, so I do not pretend to speak for the victims of abuse or their pain – is it that I do feel that another aspect of “hidden cost” of HR failure which really, really needs to be quantified is the whole “externalisation of care”. What we do is for a good cause, but some days it does anger me a lot that we have to take so many hours out of our routine to care for victims with personal support, mentorship and advice when it is actually the university – as the formal employer bearing Duty of Care – that is meant to be responsible for this. Where the &%! are university HR? Health services? Line management? How much more research, teaching, and leadership could we have all provided if they simply done their (beep)ing jobs, instead of making peers responsible for helping one another – often in the face of their own abusive conduct?
I think we should keep track all the hours spent in mentoring and peer support, and symbolically “bill” the university for this one day… Even if they refuse (as they inevitably will) to pay us back for doing their jobs for them.
21percent.org · 22 November 2024 at 22:32
That is a very interesting point indeed.
Mentoring & supporting victims is something that some academics can do well
But others have no aptitude or training in the matter. They were hired for ability in research & teaching.
Ultimately, it is the employer’s responsibility, not employees. Agreed.
Eddie · 18 November 2024 at 21:18
Wow. Cambridge spun this crap out for four years, only to go to court, lose the case, and let the whole world know that they are plagiarists.
What a bunch of losers
21percent.org · 19 November 2024 at 11:00
Agreed — but plagiarism (like bullying) is not generally illegal unless it involves to breach of copyright
Magdalen Connolly sued under age discrimination & the University “won”
It “won” — but its ethical behaviour was so shabby and has been so well publicised that its victory was Pyrrhic, so tantamount to a loss
Anthonytheantipodean · 20 November 2024 at 08:05
No, they didn’t.
Let’s recap here.
The case forced Cambridge to admit, in public, that senior academics were plagiarizing their own students’ work. They then admitted to failure to sanction perpetrators of misconduct, whom they had, instead, protected. Then, they revealed a culture of ignoring basic legal duties to staff under health and safety law, causing damages as a result of their negligence and incompetence.
The only count on which the university “got away with it” was a specific technicality – namely whether it was discriminatory to favour senior academics over junior postdocs in the prioritization of internal case handling and evidence. (Which it obviously is – and is indeed systemic in Cambridge HR – but for which not enough evidence has yet been publicly disclosed to land that charge in this case).
In every other respect they have lost the argument, and lost out big. And literally every journalist, lawyer and activist who has covered this case in any detail has reached the same conclusion.
Now bring on the next trial!
21percent.org · 20 November 2024 at 16:21
This is a brilliant summary
Cambridge University seem to believe they have behaved impeccably
There is no hint of apology from the Responsible Person who was in charge of the investigation
No apology from the plagiarist
No apology from the Department
No apology from HR
Wait... · 22 November 2024 at 11:51
Wait up – I am confused on this one. How is it possible that the university admits to a wrongful act (like plagiarizing a student’s work) but not apologize?
Isn’t that basically like them saying “yeah we abused a customer”, and then saying, “but actually we still don’t care”?
Work in corporate PR and referred to this site by chance but that bit sort of bamboozles me. I mean if one of our products (god forbid) caused consumer harm and we were nailed, then first press release would have to lead with CEO and/or Board apology, sacking of rotten apples, then boilerplate commitment to do better for our customers, employees and shareholders in future.
Anon · 24 November 2024 at 13:47
Wait…Universities in the UK are run along business lines, and it is entirely possible for a university neither to apologize nor give a damn about any harm caused to students, even in extreme cases. In UK higher education, there is seldom, if ever, any real care or self-reflection on their part toward students.
Think about it. This is a case of plagiarism at an Oxbridge university—the crème de la crème of UK academia—which is why it apparently shocks so many people. But I honestly don’t know why they’re shocked. Scrape the surface, and you’ll find Oxford and Cambridge are usually among the worst universities in the country when it comes to addressing complaints or staff misconduct.
Meanwhile, there are cases of student suicides caused by neglect (Bristol) or bullying and mobbing (Kent) at lesser-known institutions, such as the University of Kent (Jessica Small) and the University of Bristol (Natasha Abrahart).
If universities aren’t willing to apologize or admit to failures in cases where students have literally lost their lives due to chronic ineptitude and toxic practices, why would they ever apologize for plagiarizing students’ work?
Whether it’s Cambridge or Kent, as long as the funding keeps flowing and the “prestige” from publications continues, they really couldn’t care less about any other reputational damage—or the damage they do to the lives of students and staff.
Janet · 19 November 2024 at 07:45
So our kids pay these huge fees to go to Cambridge – then instead of helping them intellectually, they are stealing their ideas as well as our money?
Wappingwomble · 20 November 2024 at 10:31
That’s exactly what it is.
Stormzyshadow · 20 November 2024 at 19:40
Make them pay tax!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Jessica · 21 November 2024 at 10:21
How come they don’t pay tax?
21percent.org · 21 November 2024 at 11:02
UK universities do pay tax, but some aspects are favourable
Eg The main supplies of education by a university are exempt from VAT
Or some of their activities are classed as charitable.
So universities benefit from tax exempt gifts
Anon · 24 November 2024 at 14:01
Janet, it’s actually far darker than just hoodwinking students over tuition fees and shamelessly stealing their ideas. In some cases, universities in the UK have literally driven students to take their own lives—and it wouldn’t surprise me if they had driven Connolly to an early grave too. Thankfully, they didn’t.
Universities—not just Oxbridge, but across the board in the UK—have absolutely no moral compass whatsoever, and despite their grand claims, they are bereft of any kind of ethics. The only way this changes is when people start to push back, just as Connolly did, and when it becomes normalized to hold these institutions accountable for wrongdoing.