The Guardian has just published an article on the endemic bullying and harassment in some Cambridge University departments. It is here.
Toxicology, Pathology, Cancer Research UK, Oncology, History, Physics, Earth Sciences and Astronomy are named as amongst the worst performers. (We still do not have data at departmental level for some known problematic departments like Engineering or POLIS or architecture).
None of this will be a surprise to the staff who work at these places.
Interesting is the quoted response of the university in the Guardian article.
The spokesperson for Cambridge added: “The university strives to provide an inclusive and supportive working environment where all staff feel valued.”
He said that the university had introduced a new code of behaviour and updated its dignity-at-work and grievance policies.
It would be natural to expect a response from the individual responsible for this sector, Prof Kamal Munir, the Pro Vice Chancellor for Community and Engagement. He is the public face of the University for this matter. His website boasts of an impressive list of media appearances: BBC, CNN, Wall Street Journal, BusinessWeek, Wired, Financial Times, The Guardian, The Tribune and several others. He would seem to be an adept media performer.
At least internally to the University, it would also be natural to expect a response from the Director of Human Resources, Ms Andi Hudson. When appointed, she said: “I don’t want HR to be seen as something that happens in the centre. We are here to support the whole community“. Does she have any proposals to improve matters? None have been communicated to the University.
Instead, the University puts up an anonymous individual who parrots vacuities: “The university strives to provide an inclusive and supportive working environment where all staff feel valued.”.
This is the academic equivalent of “Your call is important to us. A representative will be with you shortly. Have you checked our website? If you wish to continue to wait, press 1 to scream into the void“.
I am keen for nominations to run as Chancellor.
If you are a member of Regent House, and wish to nominate me, please download the supporters form here, fill it in with your name & CRSID, sign & date it, and send it me at this email. It will take you < 5 minutes. (You are also welcome to use my University email to contact me).
You do not need to be registered to vote to nominate me. You may nominate more than one person. You need not be intending to vote for me, you may simply be interested in having a diverse range of candidates.
My manifesto is here
I want the university to address some of these issues, which have been long unresolved.
If you have a qualifying degree, you can also nominate me. In practice, if you did an undergraduate degree or a PhD or a Masters, then you’re almost certainly qualified.
If you did Part III Mathematics or Astrophysics, I may have taught you & you’re almost certainly qualified. Please help me stand.
Please download the same supporters form . You now also need to give a bit more information: College, date of matriculation, qualifying degree. Then sign & date it, and send it to me at this email
(Again, you do not need to register to vote if you prefer the University does not have your details).
I need 50 nominations, but the aim is to get hundreds to show the University that we now need changes, not vacuous words.
Delighted to see the Guardian take on this story.
So many of us have been waiting to see this for so long.
#Yet it is only the very tip of the iceberg alas with respect to what we all know has been happening. What is appalling is how things have gotten so much worse since 2020, when the media last cottoned on to the issue.
The media needs to be paying much more attention to what’s happening at all our universities.
The scale of the enormous mismanagement is becoming apparent.
We need fewer press stories about punting or boat races or may balls at Oxford & Cambridge, and much more serious scrutiny of what is happening to staff & students.
Well done, Anna Fazackerley & the Guardian. More please. Much, much more.
So true
press office have been working on overdrive in recent weeks to push stories to the press about the VC’s chatgpt-esque management tips, venture capital projects (investment that would have happened anyway and is vastly outweighed by disrupted grants / donations) and decision to abandon reforming the university to promote government planning agenda
flimsy spin that ignores fundamental problems in research performance, talent retention, management bloat and deficits
“Fundamental problems in research performance, talent retention, management bloat and deficits”
You nailed it!
Sadly, there are some senior individuals who are not very well suited to their positions. Hard to see how progress is possible at the moment.
The university is steadily moving in the wrong direction towards a big cliff-edge.
Those aren’t the worst departments. The worst ones did not release the data. As you note politics, engineering and architecture are famous for their poor management and staff abuse.
Agreed. We look at the numbers for some of the departments for which we have the data. They’re bad.
And we just wonder how horrific the numbers are for the departments which did not release the data
Thank you so much for speaking out on this. Your actions took a lot of courage.
Just look at how many people, including those with integrity and principles, who have not spoken up, and for reasons that I can understand.
The story is being covered in The Telegraph (paywall) & Varsity as well
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/04/13/cambridge-university-accused-of-staff-bullying-cover-up/
https://www.varsity.co.uk/news/29483
This is very similar to the story that came out of Kent recently, based on their own catastrophic staff survey:
https://www.kentonline.co.uk/kent/news/more-redundancies-at-uni-as-staff-say-working-here-is-a-hel-307861/
The survey was repeated again in recent months, but the comments were held back this time, presumably because they were even worse than the first time, if that’s even possible. This failure to fully disclose tells you all you need to know about the state of affairs there, and that management/HR are
clearly continuing to move in the complete opposite direction to what is needed to improve the situation.
Also, as noted in Peter Coles’ blog In the Dark, Maynooth University carried out a survey which subsequently was made to vanish.
“Cambridge University is not the only higher education institute to carry out a staff survey, try to bury the results when they were unfavourable to The Management, only to be forced to reveal them by a Freedom of Information request. Exactly the same thing happened here in Maynooth. Maynooth University’s “Staff Climate and Culture Survey” carried out in 2022 with the promise made to participants that results would be published in early 2023. No such results were ever communicated to staff and all mention of this survey was wiped off the University’s web pages. It was only after a Freedom of Information request was submitted by the Union IFUT that the results were released and even then they were not – and never have been – distributed to all staff. If you had seen the results, as I have, you will see immediately why the University tried to suppress them. The key measures show the management of Maynooth University in a very dim light indeed – far worse than the sector average. As well as the specific measures against bullying and harassment suggested in the Observer article, universities need to take steps to improve their general transparency and accountability. Only then would they have an incentive to remove known bullies and harassers from office instead of what that they do now – which is to promote them.“
In my Oxbridge STEM department, the staff survey indicating a surge in the number of abuse of power, harassment, and bullying cases, mostly attributable to our previous HoD, was promptly buried by our new HoD. Unfortunately, this was not unexpected, given that our new HoD obtained their chair thanks to the previous HoD, despite not being qualified for the position. Indeed, the new HoD secured a chair in a discipline despite never having published in it—a true Oxbridge miracle. The department eventually lost its most prominent academics, who grew tired of this nonsense. The previous HoD logically received one of the highest government honors for their contributions to the destruction of what used to be an excellent department.
The very same happened to us. Our previous HoD provoked near-rebellion with his out-of-control & abusive behaviour. He normally picked on women. When he stood down, we hoped some of his most serious abuses would be investigated. Instead the new Heads simply refused to allow any matters concerning the previous HoD to be discussed. We just get “It’s a confidential HR matter and can’t be discussed”
The main reason why University HR investigations are confidential is to cover up the enormous number of mistakes & unlawful actions made by HR personnel themselves.
How is that possible surely they have to release the investigation findings under FOI
They argue that it would cost too much. Some individual Heads of Dept asked for the data. This has been extracted, so it can be given out in a FOI request as it costs nothing. We have this data.
Some Heads of Dept did not ask for the data. If the Information Office has to extract the data for a department whose Head did not request it, they can then argue it’s too costly to do this.
It’s a bullshit argument.
The results of the survey should be handed to the University’s experts in occupational health and statistics. They have the skills & experience to analyse the data properly.
Unfortunately, it seems not to be possible to prise the data out of the grasp of the centre.
https://blakandblack.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Harper-Just-Us-Justice-6.28.12.pdf