It’s a hyper-competitive field! Like the most evil tech billionaire. Or the dumbest thing done by Donald Trump.
When it comes to the destructive culture of modern universities, Oxbridge likes to be at the apex of the rankings. For example, Cambridge is at the top when it comes to Vice Chancellor pay, Oxford leads in complaints to the Information Commissioner. University College, London has had a number of extremely disturbing sexual harassment cases splattered across the media (such as the Christopher Backhouse and Felipe Abdalla affairs). Despite these strong contenders from ‘the Golden Triangle’, the 21 Group has received most bullying and harassment complaints from staff & students at the University of Warwick.
Of course, complaints to the 21 Group are confidential, but the below three cases are a matter of public record.
Professor Thomas Docherty is emeritus Professor of English and of Comparative Literature. He is also a prominent critic of higher education leadership and policy at Warwick University. In 2014, he was suspended by his university for “sighing” and “projecting negative body language” according to the then Head of the English Department. This ‘Alice in Wonderland’ case ended with the charges being dismissed, but not before Prof Docherty had been suspended for nine months. Ultimately, Warwick University had to pick up a legal bill of in excess of £109,000 for this ludicrous case. Its main purpose seemed to be to intimidate those who disagree with Warwick University’s leadership and policies.
An ongoing but equally disturbing case is that of Professor Dora Kostakopoulou. She joined the University of Warwick in 2012 as a professor of European Law. In 2016, after raising whistleblowing concerns about violations of data protection law, her Head of Department initiated disciplinary action against her. In response, she lodged complaints with both Warwick’s Human Resources department and Vice Chancellor, accusing the university of victimization and violations of its own procedures and legal standards.
Following her complaint, Dora was suspended after counter-allegations were raised against her by senior figures at Warwick University. Although Dora provided evidence of the falseness of the charges, she was kept in suspension for months. In 2017, Dora initiated an employment tribunal case. She contends that during the proceedings, she faced further retaliatory and fabricated allegations of misconduct. She asserts that she raised grievances and provided evidence showing a pre-planned retaliatory strategy of bullying her out of her job. She remained suspended until she was made ill. Despite being medically unfit for work, the university then proceeded with a disciplinary hearing in her absence and ultimately dismissed her. She was informed of her dismissal by email in July 2020. Legal action in this case continues to this day.
Dora Kostakopoulou told us “I was suicidal when senior figures at Warwick University manufactured false allegations in order to suspend me and to end my academic career.”
The 21 Group can reveal no evidence in this matter beyond what is already in the public domain, reported here and here. A common institutional ‘gaslighting’ strategy is to force the whistleblower to repeatedly defend himself or herself against bogus disciplinary charges presented as genuine complaints. This is contrary to the Public Interest Disclosure Act. There is a major case against Cambridge University on this very matter pending.
Finally, Warwick University was the centre of the Rape Chat scandal. In 2019, a number of Warwick humanities students discussed graphic rape and sexual assault of fellow students in a WhatsApp messaging group. The messages are harrowing (“Rape the whole flat to teach them a lesson“, “Sometimes it’s just fun to go wild and rape a 100 girls“, “Which girl at uni would you like to rape the most“, “Oh god. I would hate to be in the firing line if I had a vagina“).
There was an investigation and serious consequences were initially meted out to 5 students in the group. One was given a lifetime ban, two were banned for 10 years and two were excluded for one year. Subsequently, two of the male students appealed and successfully reduced their 10 year bans to one year, allowing them to return to Warwick. This meant that, in total, 4 of the 5 students initially banned from campus in effect merely just intermitted a year. At first, the university did not publicly disclose this information about the appeals due to “duties of confidentiality”. (This is the standard university excuse when something really nasty needs hushing up). Unsurprisingly, when it became public, many were very unimpressed with this lax conclusion. The Vice Chancellor was accused of failing to address the toxic culture at Warwick University.
Many more bullying and harassment cases have been reported to the 21 Group by Warwick University staff & students. Leaders set the tone for the whole organization. It’s hard to avoid the conclusion that there need to be big changes at the top of RapeChat University.
62 Comments
Anon · 13 January 2025 at 14:58
In the time of student attrition, I was flunking,
Red ink in my veins, fiending for the funding.
Whistleblower claims, retaliate and gaslight, then bury the tragedy,
Duck pond strolls while the public’s blind to it.
Kill the headlines, put it in neutral,
With a loser at the helm and HR in damage control.
Baby’s at the society, chasing NERC cash,
Got a living wall, dying from neglect, talk about the rainforest.
Someone came in sayin’ I’m insane to complain,
About the allegation and a stain on my reputation.
Don’t believe your own bullshit PR,
Just dodge the PIDA violation and go drink at the campus bar.
So weaponize the alumni network and do some retaliation in the dark,
Conservin’ all your yes men while killing free-thinking spark.
Yo — cut it,
Soooooy un perdedor,
I’m a loser, of a university, so why can’t I face it?
[Double Revenue Loss]
Soooooy un perdedor,
I’m a loser, of a the university, so why can’t I face it?
Xerxes · 13 January 2025 at 16:20
When whistleblowers reveal that they reported misconduct and subsequently lost their jobs, they are often met with the rhetorical question, “Well, what did you expect?”
What they expected, however, is what most people would: — a fair investigation that uncovers the truth.
Anon · 13 January 2025 at 17:16
Ever seen that outcome personally, or is it as rare in British universities as your namesake?
Xerxes · 13 January 2025 at 17:30
The people who run UK universities believe they are above the law
The UK is cover-up country.
Obscurantism is our art form, and revelations of the truth (like the Post Office scandal) are rare accidents
Anon · 13 January 2025 at 18:35
Oh, I agree, but I think there might be some stochastic events on the way.
Anonynous · 13 January 2025 at 21:12
I have seen appalling behavior in Oxbridge. One Head of Department was single-handedly responsible for a bullying epidemic. This was “officially” revealed in an anonymous survey of the department staff. The following Head of Department, who only managed to secure a chair in the department thanks to the previous Head of Department, made sure the matter was swept under the rug.
21percent.org · 13 January 2025 at 22:07
The rugs in Oxbridge are enormous
Anoynymous · 14 January 2025 at 20:16
Very comfortable if you were already there for your undergrad. There is a stench but they got used to it when they were young.
Anon · 14 January 2025 at 22:00
You make a really interesting observation, and I think anthropology is a very good lens through which to view this.
Sometimes, it’s a case of “acculturation” to the culture of an institution. If you start off there as an undergrad, you become socialized within it, imbibe the culture, and it becomes the air that you breathe—you don’t question it. With that air come all the norms and implicit, unspoken rules of the status quo and hierarchy, which you may then begin to participate in within the organization.
Not everyone does, of course, which is why this blog exists and why there is resistance to what is going on at universities.
With graduate outflow, this doesn’t just remain in the institution; instead, you have cultural reproduction of these norms in other institutions or organizations too. The most obvious example here, which affects us all, is the culture of British boarding schools and the way our elites are accultured to that elitist brutality, with its “fagging,” lack of accountability, and in-group/out-group behavior.
As with the revelations about boarding schools and their alumni, it’s not immediately obvious that there is a problem in university departments. However, if you dig a little deeper and ask around, you can see how these problems manifest through the creation of elites.
If an institution’s norms are toxic or enable certain behaviors, then that’s the danger. What can happen is that these toxic institutional cultures become essentially an “environmental externality.” Downstream, the cultural reproduction of these norms will begin to affect other organizations, institutions, or fields.
There is a need for accountability to tackle these problems and cultures at their source so that they don’t become replicated elsewhere and grow into bigger problems outside of the academy.
We can’t afford not to. Universities may not consider themselves on the level of boarding schools, just as they shrug off comparisons to the Post Office, because it’s convenient for them to ignore these parallels. But they are creating our elites and setting the tone for things downstream.
Anon · 14 January 2025 at 22:21
Cue the tone-deaf alumni network PR stuff….. yawn/sigh….. (I’d be fired if I was employed at Warwick)
Veritasium · 15 January 2025 at 10:27
I did my undergrad at Oxbridge decades ago, worked at professionally managed universities in the States, and then returned for a professorship.
The difference, sad to say, is stark. It all rather feels like an episode of “Little Britain” – small budgets, small decisions, and rather small-minded people. We don’t have budget to afford the equipment we need ,and even Oxbridge has stopped paying to publish gold access or get access to the latest software, AI or data. The bullying is just an extension of that small-minded mentality: the result of too many people who care more about their pension, than doing or achieving anything worthwhile in their careers.
Euxit · 15 January 2025 at 13:03
“Small” is the word. Small-minded people, small ambitions, small budgets and sadly small on talent.
Maybe there was a window in the 2000s when UK universities were on top of their game, when salaries were better and a strong currency could attract good people from overseas.
But now the “big names” have either retired or left for North America, Asia or northern Europe. As for the next generation, the UK is struggling to attract or retain them. And they are quickly bullied out whenever they try to change the culture or do anything innovative or new.
Europium · 15 January 2025 at 14:10
I feel like this is a mixed bag. I know colleagues who left mainland Europe for places in the UK and are happy, but tellingly, not one single person who went to Oxbridge. Perhaps the “up and coming” UK universities in places like Scotland (e.g. Glasgow or St Andrews) or outside of London (Bristol? Exeter?), still have a positive organisational culture?
But it is true that nobody who left Europe for the United States, Canada or Australia ever came back.
Anon · 15 January 2025 at 14:10
I speak to quite a lot of friends Stateside who have been mobbed in academia—some really tragic and heart-breaking stories out there that make your blood boil so it can happen over there too.
The difference, I think, is that it manifests in a different way in England, and a lot of it is tied to a love of classism, ossified and archaic hierarchies, and, as you say, also a truly toxic ‘little Britisher’ type BS attitude towards things.
Europium · 15 January 2025 at 14:29
Exactly – the difference between bullying in the US and UK can be summed up in one word:
Hierarchy.
In the US, you certainly have a lot of “horizontal” fights between academics (including academic mobbing), and in some cases it can be truly horrific. But in response the university often steps in to “break things up” (and does so very, very fast once academics start toxic “twitter wars” or suing each other in court, which in the US happens a lot).
In the UK, it is completely different. Most cases I hear seem to involve “vertical” abuse, such as imperial heads of department who abuse students, postdocs and junior staff and exploit their power to take away funds, credit for publications, titles and opportunities. Perhaps some UK universities have good HR departments who react by clipping their wings and setting boundaries. But many others – including, allegedly Oxbridge – may have cultures of “institutionalised bullying” that enable the wrongdoers, and then, subject their victims to a campaign of legal harassment, isolation, defamation and retaliation simply for asking for help.
goquakers · 15 January 2025 at 16:01
Over here that would mean a class action lawsuit
https://www.publicjustice.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/spring-2024_scrp-higher-ed-verdicts-settlements.pdf
TigerWhoCametoET · 16 January 2025 at 19:26
Class action is an interesting suggestion. Why are there none in the UK like in the US? Is this something we could follow up on? Seems an obvious solution, with so many people experiencing the same patterns of misconduct and abuse.
Libertas · 17 January 2025 at 09:49
Not sure if you can file group litigation in UK courts on behalf of students, as payment of fees to the university should make them consumers under CRA 2015.
For employees you could try a U.S. state court to see if they will take the case. A foreign organization engaged in activity under American jurisdiction would be unwise to act in contempt, even if registered overseas.
21percent.org · 17 January 2025 at 11:58
This is a very interesting point.
Take for example Cambridge University. It has the affiliated organisation ‘Cambridge in America’ that operates in the US
Is it possible a US State Court might accept group litigation against ‘Cambridge in America’ because it is raising money and therefore facilitating the bullying and harassment of academics/staff by Cambridge University in UK.
Libertas · 17 January 2025 at 13:02
Reach out to some of the groups handling U.S. cases and get some professional advice. Maybe if 1. a lead plaintiff is American citizen, 2. defendant operates in the United States, and 3. plaintiffs lack the means of pursuing claim elsewhere, those factors may work in your favor. Might go to federal instead, it is all hit and miss with these things.
21percent.org · 17 January 2025 at 13:20
If you know of any groups handling US cases that we could reach out to, can you send brief details to contact@21percent.org
Many thanks
We can satisfy 1,2 and 3 and …. ‘Cambridge in America’ is wealthy.
Libertas · 17 January 2025 at 13:28
The defendant is the overseas organization per se. Iit does not have to be their U.S. subsidiary.
Anonymous · 14 January 2025 at 13:21
I wrote about my experiences as a whistleblower last year on this blog: https://21percent.org/?p=945.
Recently, a little bird perched on the grapevine told me that the institution in question reads this blog with interest and growing concern and that the elusive feedback form in question may have finally surfaced, along with some conclusions that could be quite embarrassing (for the organization, not for me).
What better place than here, in the public arena and in a public forum, for the institution to finally provide an explanation to me as a whistleblower whose reputation has been under constant attack (not for a personal vendetta, but for doing what was right, in the public interest, and for demanding institutional accountability from those who should have known better)?
I would ask that you refrain from putting forward a comms officer recruited from the student body to deflect attention or attempt to “complicate the narrative” on this blog, thereby avoiding accountability once again. They seem like a perfectly lovely person, and it is highly unethical and cowardly to involve them in this matter and place their reputation at risk to cover your institution’s shortcomings and take your flak. They deserve better.
I want to see this resolved, and I believe we all do. Send forth thy amygdally-, follically-, or leadership-challenged senior champions to engage in public debate, or we can proceed with constructive negotiations—with mediators who are objective and impartial, not handpicked by your institution. It’s your choice and I’m ok with either.
I expect a meaningful and transparent response, either here or through third parties, without further delay.
Wolfe · 15 January 2025 at 06:39
It’s interesting that in both Docherty & Kostakopoulou cases, the grievances were initiated by Heads of Department.
Our Head of Department thinks that he is Louis XIV.
Any attempt at departmental discussion or democracy is met with threats of disciplinary action. He believes in the divine right of departmental heads to govern
Anon · 15 January 2025 at 12:52
Now, I’m the king of the climbers,
Oh, the campus VIP,
Clawed my way up to the top, then had to stop,
So I lost all sense of humanity.
I pretend to do what’s right,
But I’m filled with spite,
It keeps me micromanagin’ around.
Oh, oobee doo,
Can’t be like you,
Can’t talk like you,
You’ll see it’s untrue,
That a …… like me
Can learn to be human too.
Oh, you mean Versailles boy?
They usually can’t individuate from the institution, and like some petty monarch, they are incapable of listening to people lower down the chain—even when it’s in the institution’s best interest to engage.
If you try to get their ear to explain your concerns or intervene early when you’re being mobbed by their préférés, they don’t want to know and they shout you down. Try to organize a meeting to discuss concerns? No, that’s impossible. Le Roi can’t speak with you today, they are inspecting the petite leçon de danse and then organizing their collection of scented handkerchiefs. Thanks for all the tuition fees, but just go and eat your cake, paysan.
In the end, this backfires massively and forces people to become whistleblowers. Then, they get punished for doing so through retaliation and sabotage of their careers, sometimes even when they’re outside of the institution. Institutions punching out individuals… how is that ever fair? You can never win in these situations.
The most ridiculous thing is that none of this ever needs to happen in the first place. The tragedies, the fallout, the bad blood—it’s so avoidable and unnecessary. If leadership actually worked, and people at the top just listened, for once in their lives, to those lower down the chain (both staff and students) there would be no problems, no need to blow the whistle, and no ill feeling. It’s so, so dumb and it causes so many problems.
GreatCourt · 16 January 2025 at 11:34
Remarks about bullying at Cambridge being vertical are just so, so true
If you disagree with my Head of Department, he immediately starts threatening you with talk about raising a Grievances. He’s very good friends with the HR department, so there is no chance of a fair procedure at all. The bullying is endemic as Heads of School and pro-VCs and senior management just support each other, and back each other up in lies.
This is one of the reasons why Cambridge is falling down the rankings.
Morgan · 16 January 2025 at 13:26
“This is one of the reasons why Cambridge is falling down the rankings”
I know nothing about Cambridge (never been there) but that might be right, because the other key difference stateside is about what I guess you might call “merit.”
Sure, there is a lot of toxic interpersonal rivalry in U.S. academia (more than in Europe, which I recall as quite friendly by comparison). But often a lot of the shitty treatment does kind of have a “meritocratic” component, in that, the people in charge are genuinely exceptional professors, and are holding junior academics to their own ridiculous standards. Am not saying that makes it “ok.” But, that is why senior university leaders here are prepared often to look the other way.
My sense is that in Europe, the people doing the bullying are more like these academic bureaucrats. They cut you down to size in passive aggressive ways behind your back, and instead of upholding academic standards, really are aiming to keep them down to their own level.
Whereas one is a culture of success, the other is a culture of failure.
FWIW I worked in UK academia for two years (lecturer) before leaving for a job on the East Coast (tenure track).
Anon · 16 January 2025 at 14:01
“My sense is that in Europe, the people doing the bullying are more like these academic bureaucrats. They cut you down to size in passive aggressive ways behind your back, and instead of upholding academic standards, really are aiming to keep them down to their own level.”
So, we generally call them by their vernacular name of ‘wankers,’ in Europe (or ‘tossers’ in the common parlance), or at least in the part in question. Not so sure about their taxonomic relationship to the rest of law-abiding humanity—that’s a classification for lawyers, investigative journalists, and policymakers to decide.
Anon · 16 January 2025 at 13:41
Oh, I couldn’t agree more, but the Oxbridges are such an easy target, aren’t they?
Especially when this is a problem across the board, including Russell Group universities like Warwick, and non-Russell Group ones like Kent and UEA. Time to get curious…
On vertical, I’d say another key stakeholder in the need to reform dynamics in universities—from Cambridge to Kent—is the students. Gen Y is a really smart bunch—smarter, more cynical, and more canny than the millennials ever were.
Gen Y also seems far more media-savvy and critical of power structures and narratives; they remind me a lot of Gen Xers, actually. It makes perfect sense: they’ve come of age during or in the wake of a global pandemic, experienced personal loss, and witnessed the ineptitude of governance and its failures. In the UK, they’ve seen scandals involving institutions like the Post Office and have learned that institutional narratives are often self-serving lies. They’ve grown up under the microscope of social media and are naturally more curious about things.
Polls show that, with each passing year, Gen Y is growing more cynical toward the idea of higher education. Universities are facing an enrollment cliff, exacerbated by the cost of living crisis. Current students are paying the highest student tuition fees in the industrialized world, and it looks like they are starting to question the value of what they are getting in return—including issues like misconduct. I think a lot of students will get curious, and many will find this blog and its content both revealing and refreshing.
As with staff, I’m sure it’ll empower many of them to get curious, do some critical thinking (which, after all, is what education is all about, right?), ask more questions, and demand more accountability from the institutions they are putting themselves in debt to. They can see the writing on the wall.
More power to them—they have so many people in their corner who see them as humans and don’t like to see them abused, manipulated, or robbed blind for their tuition fees to fund research, management, oh, and things like illegal retaliation against whistleblowers…
Morgan · 16 January 2025 at 14:07
Sure. I wasn’t at Oxford either (though know a couple of people who went there and then left). My direct experience is from another UK school. Still I sense Oxford/Cambridge is probably similar when it comes to (a) overpowerful administrators who don’t respect academic freedom, or frankly even know (b) what is required to attract and retain independent and productive scholarship.
Also FWIW fees are pretty darn high over here! But they are lower at the top state schools for those who arrive in-state and in reality lower too for a lot of students accepted into the Ivies due to generous alumni scholarships, foundation grants and merit awards as well as full deals for our grad students. And the quality of education here is much better on average I would say. Oxford/Cambridge is a nice thing for a year to get CV points and maybe a bit of networking. But that is all.
Anon · 16 January 2025 at 15:26
Oh, really? A Russell Group? Sorry for prying!
Oxbridge is one of the hot zones, but that framing feels a little bit reductive—and with a bit of a “ra-ra-ra” vibe, which is a little odd for an American (you must be really passionate about the UK and some of our institutions, though), or considering that this blog is critical of Oxbridge anyway.
Were you offended by something said, maybe? Or just weighing in from afar?
Pete · 23 January 2025 at 08:05
In the States, what you say about “horizontal” bullying (among staff) is most common at the big private schools like those in the Ivy League, where the profs are well-paid, possess gigantic egos, and are fairly independent (post tenure).
But staff at the big state colleges (Cal, Michigan, Texas and so on) suffer at least some of the same “vertical” bullying issues as you report. And probably for similar reasons – lack of staff to students, depressed salaries and revenue from in-state fees, departure of good people, entrenched insiders, administrative bloat, reliance on short-term contracts and so on.
Elias · 17 January 2025 at 11:20
Working with student groups a very good idea. Many handling the exact same issues regarding bullying and harassment as staff, and with the exact same persons responsible for abusive conduct and subsequent cover-up.
Anonymous · 17 January 2025 at 14:12
Preach!
Elonic Dusk · 16 January 2025 at 14:50
Morning from California guys. As we count down the days to Trump v2.0, kind of sucks to hear about the state of British universities… though… salaries there are so crappy it would be more like a 4-year sabbatical I guess (a kind of “changing places” experience?)
Where else is a good bolthole to consider while we await the end of western civilization? I see a lot of jobs posted in Ireland these days for some reason, are they imploding too? What about Australia or Scandinavia, any thoughts?
Nomad · 16 January 2025 at 16:06
My two-pennyworth is
Ireland — pay is a bit better than UK. Jobs tend to come with more teaching than in UK. Access to research funding is poorer than in UK
Australia — currently shrinking because of dropping international student numbers. Australian universities seem to be run even more poorly than UK’s (difficult to believe). Australian VCs earn tonnes, but at the bottom, there is serious wage theft.
Scandinavia — don’t know
US — if you have said anything critical of Trump, you need to leave immediately. He is not a forgiving man. In general, US universities look as though they are in for a really tough 4 years. If you have ever said anything anything vaguely left-wing, I’d be exploring opportunities anywhere but Greenland & the Panama Canal.
Anna · 17 January 2025 at 00:34
The best sailing is in England.
Jimmy · 16 January 2025 at 16:30
California? Buddy when civil war breaks out, you are already in the safe zone. Spare a thought for those of us who will be boarded up at campus towns all over the midwest.
For a time-limited “changing places” experience Oxbridge is probably still ok, so long as you keep alive your Cali tenure. Otherwise…. Australia could be your best bet. The only place there with bad reviews is Sydney, where they (allegedly) think “pushy yanks” deserve a lesson for daring to, like, publish in top journals or continue landing NSFs.
Meanwwhile Scandinavia has like zero bullying as unions will shut it down and it is not in the culture. The flipside is that it is super collectivist…. so expect every time you publish or make a big grant application to have to add a boatload of people who made zero contribution to the project, all for the sake of maintaining “academic collegiality….”
Becklin · 17 January 2025 at 05:11
Ugh, yeah, like, Oxbridge is just like sooo last millenia, it’s giving like total Pinterest cottage core ancestor vibes. I mean, like, who even still cares about that? It’s like, ugh, I bet Brittany would love it though, because she’s, like, totally obsessed with anything that screams ‘old money’ like… ‘pretentious’.
Scandinavia? Kawai ! but like zero bullying? Omg, ugh, that’s, like, soooo lame. I mean, who even wants to live in a place where no one’s, like, trying to ruin your life or, like, mess with your career? It’s like hollaback girl.
So boring. Like, how are you even supposed to feel like on top when everyone’s just like really nice and actually helps you? Omg I can’t even… Like all cozy with their gender quality indicators and, like, universal healthcare. Like, can you imagine not having to hustle ?
çîya · 16 January 2025 at 22:25
The young professor who got hoodwinked sounds like she had a tough time and got a pretty raw deal. Honestly, she seems like a victim of the system herself. She did the right thing though.
KdAufklaerung · 19 January 2025 at 11:58
University of Warwick famous for recent scandals.
Meanwhile, THE rankings for Warwick over past five years:
2020: 77th
2021: 77th
2022: 78th
2023: 104th
2024: 106th
That is what awaits universities with absent management and toxic HR.
21percent.org · 19 January 2025 at 12:21
This is an excellent point
We are looking at bullying metrics in universities & correlations with rankings & will release this research soon
Tintin · 19 January 2025 at 13:31
I am sure you have already noticed this, but the exact same people who sank Warwick over their handling of the Kostakopoulou fiasco were responsible for the Connolly scandal last year at Cambridge.
TigerWhoCametoET · 19 January 2025 at 16:39
I had not actually noticed this. Could there be grounds for a new case or even a class action if former members across several universities discovered that they shared a common grievance against the behaviour of a single actor, which they could now substantiate via fresh evidence?
Mary Calkins · 20 January 2025 at 07:59
Not sure but my instinct is that it would be for the universities themselves to initiate such litigation.
This could be reasonably argued as solicitors are supposed to act in line with the overriding obligation to protect their clients’ best interests, including reputation.
So it would be for the universities themselves to bring a group case against a (shared) legal adviser, if they felt this duty had been breached.
In England and Wales such group litigation could be based on the provider not representing their best interests, shown to do so as a persistent pattern of behaviour, and favouring the provider of legal services over the institutions they served.
Helmut · 20 January 2025 at 09:36
Observing the Kostakopolou and Connolly cases in greater detail, the commonality that appears overall striking is the use of “Zersetzung” to destroy victims ahead of trial. For a guide, I commend that you watch this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjpwZ5GM4jg).
Key commonalities include deliberate and unreasonable delays, intentional and repeated gaslighting, and clear efforts at emotive provocation – then followed, inevitably, by use of the victims’ reaction in order to portray them before others as “crazy” or “unhinged”, and thereby cast doubt on their original, valid complaint. In the Kostakopolou case, the use of this playbook appears to have been extremely effective in discrediting her before the courts, as well as undermining her professional reputation.
The intentional infliction of emotional distress is a serious matter in any circumstances ; it would become especially so in situations when it is enacted on purpose by juridical professionals to deliver victory over victims as a repeated matter of operational practice.
Lampito · 20 January 2025 at 16:00
Provoking/harassing survivors in order to characterize them as “crazy” for their emotive responses, is exactly what universities were doing during the #MeToo sexual harassment/assault complaints.
The Kostakopoulou and Connolly cases seem really awful. I am disgusted that we are in 2025 and universities can continue abusing female scholars in this way.
Maria · 21 January 2025 at 10:20
She is obviously still really traumatised. It is a permanent black mark against the reputation of Warwick as an academic employer.
Erika · 21 January 2025 at 14:50
I guess one question I have on this is if new facts have come to light about her case?
Waering · 21 January 2025 at 16:14
Maybe there is, maybe not, but in my view, that is not the key point.
So what is the ‘key point’?
That academia is full of awkward and difficult, yet also, amazing, talented, wonderful, and brilliant people. It all comes as part of one package.
The job of university HR is to manage that fact. I seriously doubt there is a single famous professor anywhere who did not at some point get into a spin.
This obviously happened in the Warwick cases, but instead of intervening in a sensible manner, HR gave lawyers free reign to rack up fees and deliver a ‘victory’ (please note my deep eye rolls of despair at this point) that hurt their own professors emotively and professionally and at the same time, forever ruined the university image as a humane environment in which to pursue an academic career.
−273.15 · 21 January 2025 at 23:33
Exactly. By undermining and humiliating in public a famous law professor, they let the whole world know the value of their staff.
Zero. Absolute Zero.
Erika · 22 January 2025 at 11:43
Thankyou I appreciate the point that you make here and I am sorry for not expressing my initial question more fully.
What I had in mind was, could we find evidence from other cases to validate Dora’s concern that they had been making covert moves to psychologically harass and undermine her reputation (as a form of underhand legal strategy), and thereby allow her to reopen her own case again?
TigerWhoCametoET · 22 January 2025 at 12:25
Thanks Erika that was my question too. Let’s talk one on one first and discuss next steps.
Schnabel · 19 January 2025 at 14:53
As a secret plan by Oxford to take down its rivals that would be the most ingenious operation ever
21percent.org · 19 January 2025 at 14:58
The situation in Oxford is equally dire
Anon · 27 January 2025 at 16:43
“A secret takeover by Oxford” or “clandestine sabotage by foreign universities”… sounds like the most ridiculous, paranoid, and not-at-all ingenious conspiracy theory ever, coming from a Russell or non-Russell group in a bit of a bother.
Are they gaslighting themselves too now?
I don’t want to be unkind, but perhaps they should check themselves into occupational health and get that in writing. Sounds like an external locus of control and possibly symptoms of a cluster B (though they do say it’s common at the leadership level; apparently, it does wonders for the corporate CV too).
It’s definitely the kind of convenient, BS delusion you’d hear floating around the rarified heights of upper management and HR at universities in crisis, sinking into a quagmire of trouble.
The answer is much more mundane: leadership and HR at universities in trouble only need to look in the mirror. Your lederhosen await—so put them on and take responsibility for the damage you’ve done to the universities and the people within them.
Carol · 25 January 2025 at 09:39
Wow. That video on Stasi tactics was an eye opener.
The same thing happened to a lecturer in our college two years ago. After she got in dispute with her head of department, she said it was just like this. For example, being assigned to a committee, but then finding she was the only person not put on the mailing list (so HOD could confront her as to why had she not reviewed the documents?) Basic requests mysteriously denied and teaching switched around and items removed from stint record. People in her department (but not elsewhere) ghosting her online. She told me she felt she was losing her mind. She was trying always harder and harder to be liked again, even bringing in chocolates for people and things like that. But then once she finally raised the issue (politely but firmly as I advised) with her HOD the latter out of nowhere gave instant verbal attack – why are you the only one with these problems? Perhaps you are just mentally unstable? Why do we not refer you to occupational health so they give me a report and have that in writing?
After that she stayed in the college more, she could not go to her department (5 minutes away) without nerve-wracking anxiety. I later heard that she (the HOD) used that against her too as evidence she was a bad colleague for not using the office, so risking them losing their building and so on.
Glitter on the wet streets · 27 January 2025 at 11:48
That’s so sad about that college lecturer. Sounds like she got duped into taking the fall for some cover-up by the HOD and got gaslit. The HOD honestly sounds like a total jerk. Hope she’s doing okay now. Sad times but things aren’t hopeless.
anon · 27 January 2025 at 12:12
Very sad about that college lecturer. It does sound like she was being gaslit by the HOD and kept out of the loop. Anxiety and depression can be brutal but I hope she’s doing alright and in a safer place now. Things aren’t completely hopeless, change will come eventually for college staff like her.
Also.anonymous · 27 January 2025 at 12:13
what happened to her in the end?
Anon · 27 January 2025 at 16:00
Don’t know, but it usually makes people stronger, wiser, and much more cautious with institutions and their narratives, and wary of gaslighting by their leadership. Sounds like she endured a lot; it sounds like a bit of a witch trial.
Hope for their sake they didn’t hang, draw, and quarter her. Heads would have to roll for that.
anonymous · 27 January 2025 at 11:05
The managerial class at the universities, using a smorgasbord of Stasi tactics wrapped in corporate business BS, would do well to head over to their history departments (if they haven’t scrapped them already to “save costs”) and acquaint themselves with the recent past.
The Stasi were ruthlessly effective with their surveillance and Zertsetzung, but only in the short term—for a mere 40 years or so. That kind of system doesn’t have longevity; it doesn’t work over the long term because people get fatigued and eventually lose all fear and stop taking it seriously because its a joke.
Still, maybe the irony isn’t lost on them, after all, as the management in place in many UK universities don’t seem to be thinking about the long-term sustainability of the institutions. It seems like it’s all just about reaping short-term profit and abusing staff, students, or former alumni.
If you want a picture of the future of UK higher-ed, imagine HR stamping on a human face and education—forever. Seems like that’s the unspoken sentiment at the top and ugly reality behind the façade of the “people strategy” in many of these places.