The 21 Group has received the following report of misogynistic bullying in a UK University.
The bully is the Director of the Research Centre, the victim is a woman on a fixed-term contract. How many times do we see this in our universities? To be a woman on a fixed-term contract is frankly unsafe in many UK universities.
Many facets of misogyny are apparent in the testimony. The bully has a history of “bullying women in junior positions to himself, including administrative staff”. Many of the women are “fearful of the consequences and career implications” and don’t pursue disciplinary action.
One woman did courageously stand up for herself. The response of the bully is the well-known pattern of DARVO, first described in Freyd (in 1997 in an article in Feminism & Psychology, 7, 22). The acronym stands for “deny, attack, and reverse victim & offender”. The bully presents himself as the victim, and those who tried to restrain him as the wrong-doers. However, with trade union help, she was able to win an internal disciplinary procedure — obviously the University is not Cambridge who always side with the bully!
But there are two stings in the tail.
First, the chair of the disciplinary panel told the victim that she had to some extent brought the bullying upon my own head by being “aggressive“. This again is familiar misogynistic territory — a man is assertive, a woman is aggressive. He shows leadership, she’s controlling. He’s committed, she’s obsessed.
Secondly, after the charge of bullying was upheld, the University made the bully Head of Department. This is very common in universities. Promotion is the reward of bullies. Universities seem to have no concerns about the safeguarding of women, or about possible repetition of bullying behaviour with new victims.
The main reason why bullying is so persistent in universities is that bad behaviour is rewarded.
“I had only been at the university for about two months when the Director of the Research Centre that employed me left amid considerable rancour. There had long been disagreements between him and the University.
I was employed on a short-term research contract, the most insecure of all contracts in the HE sector. The University renewed this many times over the 12 years it employed me, breaching employment law. It paid a five-figure redundancy sum when I retired … but that is another story.
The Director had long had been in conflict with a man who was, on his departure, catapulted into the role of the new Director. Let’s call him R. He had it in for me from day one, largely because I was the previous Director’s appointee. When I later spoke to this previous Director about R’s behaviour towards me, he suggested there was an element of racism there. I am inclined to agree. I am a white woman of Irish/British heritage who studies African history. R is of Asian heritage, and made it clear from the very start in his communications with me that he couldn’t tolerate the idea of a white woman studying African issues. That to me is anti-intellectual.
R began picking on me at every opportunity, both face to face and in emails. This involved querying my intellect; testing my knowledge; belittling and scorning me, especially when it came to Africanist scholarship issues; failing to involve me in a large funding bid for research on Africa even though I was the only staff member who studied African issues (he did not, and the bid failed).
R already had a reputation at the university for bullying women in junior positions to himself, including administrative staff. (Unfortunately, none of these women, who included a close friend of mine, took this up as a higher disciplinary level, beyond reporting it. They were too fearful of the consequences and career implications.) I responded robustly to R, both verbally and in writing, and discussed the bullying with my official mentor, a department head who did not work at the Research Centre. He in turn took it up with the then Dean of the faculty, who was a close friend of R’s. The Dean did nothing about it.
For at least a year I decided not to take this further, though I did seek union advice. For one thing, I knew it would be extremely stressful if I took action against R. He was also in a powerful position as a professor and permanent member of staff while I, as a mere contracted researcher, was not. But I began to compile a dossier of the emails and other communications that provided evidence of bullying. It amounted, in the end, to 50 pages.
Then R made a major error, and mailed the Dean and the faculty’s chief administrator, accusing me of harassing him. I responded by initiating a procedure, with union support, which successfully used the University’s own bullying and harassment policy against R. The union also advised me that the action would have to include the Dean too, since he appeared to have failed in his duty of care towards me. And so it came to pass. The University had to bring in an external, independent team of investigators. It cost them thousands. By this time, R had been forced to quit as Director because the centre’s other staff strongly opposed him and his style of management. But I had by then decided that I should pursue this action in order to stop him from bullying any other women in future. In my view, and that of others, he was a career bully.
The inquiry process was indeed very stressful. But I had excellent support from my UCU rep. The panel largely found in my favour, against both R and the Dean, who was found guilty of lack of duty of care. Though I was annoyed when the female chair of the panel told me that I had to some extent brought the bullying upon my own head because of my ‘aggressive’ behaviour towards R.
That did not stop the university appointing R to a Head of Department position shortly afterwards.”
The 21 Group thanks our correspondent, We are always pleased to receive the testimony of the victims of bullies in academia. Their voices should be heard. If you have been bullied, please use contact@21percent.org to tell us your story.
14 Comments
ProfPlum · 18 April 2025 at 09:49
Doesn’t even need to be on a fixed-term contract.
Our female Departmental Administrator was forced out by the Head of Dept because she wanted to look into serious bullying allegations against another member of staff (friend of the HoD)
Head of Dept then ensured allegations were dropped.
It’s Cambridge as per usual.
Mobbed · 18 April 2025 at 09:53
https://blakandblack.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Harper-Just-Us-Justice-6.28.12.pdf
Anonymous · 18 April 2025 at 21:42
Malicious mobbing in the workplace is a devilish scourge that must be stopped. It is well established that this is a primary instrument that management and HR ruthlessly utilise to punish and get rid of staff without due cause. It is a cowardly act by both those that comprise the mob, and those in management and HR that formulate and weaponise such a mobbing attack against staff that speak out. All those involved should be held to account, for which the only reasonable prospect for achieving this is through the Employment Tribunal system.
DestroyingAngel · 18 April 2025 at 16:22
This is very common. Instead of accepting responsibility, bullies often accuse the victim of causing the problem.
It is often employed by individuals who have Narcissistic Personality Disorder or other serious personality disorders.
Mobbed · 18 April 2025 at 19:03
“If power determines who will go, then persuasion determines how they will go. It is fairly easy to eliminate a person from any group, and persuade others to share that objective, as long as the person in power understands that it is necessary to:
1) shape perception that the target is different from others and that the difference is undesirable;
2) frame the problem in a specific manner that places the responsibility for the conflict squarely on the shoulders of the person to be eliminated;
3) elicit fear and loathing among the workforce toward the targeted employee; and
4) diminish the social support and strategic capacity of the target to defend themselves.
A useful way to understand how persuading workers to gang up on a co-worker and force them out is to take a look at how collective aggression develops in warfare and genocide. These two forms of collective violence – warfare and genocide – are not the same, because the manner in which humans organize for violence is fundamentally different in each case.
Warfare provides a framework that helps us to understand how organizations are structured, how political games are strategized and played out in the workplace, and how leadership and allegiance operate to unite a group.”
Anonymous · 18 April 2025 at 16:41
Thank you for this account.
Were any sanctions applied in this case to ‘R’ or the Dean? And if so, were they commensurate with the scale of the complaint, or at least those aspects of it that were upheld?
While ‘R’ stepped down from the role of Director, this seems to be entirely negated by the subsequent promotion to Head of Department. This implies that the outcome in this case wasn’t even added to the records of those concerned, or perhaps worse, that it was but completely ignored or was viewed as a positive.
Also, in my experience at least, male staff can also experience abusive behaviour, from female staff in positions of power, and senior academics (of any gender) can also be victims, especially when they speak out.
21percent.org · 18 April 2025 at 17:08
Our understanding is that R and the Dean faced no serious repercussions, except perhaps a mild rap on the knuckles.
We agree that it looks as though the disciplinary records of these individuals were not marked with any failings as a consequence of the complaint. The most disturbing aspect of the story is that the bully was promoted to Head of Department. Universities seem not to understand that if you reward bad behaviour, what you end up with is more and more people behaving badly. If you promote bullies, they have more power and will generate more and more victims.
We completely agree that male staff can be bullied by females in a position of power. Bullying is driven by power disparities.
And speaking out, no matter what your seniority, is absolutely suicidal in UK universities. Do not be deceived by universities saying they want to encourage active by-standing or breaking the silence about bullying. They do not want the silence broken. If you speak out, you will be punished.
There is a case involving Cambridge University coming to Employment Tribunal in June 2026 that demonstrates this very point. Whistleblowing is hugely dangerous in universities.
Anonymous · 18 April 2025 at 21:07
This case is really extraordinary, in terms of being a particularly powerful example of not only managerial staff being blatantly let of the hook, but let off the hook even after serious complaints against them were actually upheld (an almost unheard of occurrence), and then at least one of the individuals involved immediately receiving a substantial promotion.
This is possibly the most important example, that I have come across at least, where it can be reasonably proven that abusive behaviour (which may also be classed as unlawful) is being rewarded, and rewarded in a major way. This is mainly because of the very short time between the outcome of the case being released and ‘R’ being promoted to Head of Department.
Also, in my opinion, this case is well into whistleblower territory, especially given that it involves matters of gender discrimination, and that the University is actively placing individuals (that the University itself has determined to have placed other staff at risk), in a position to carry out further abuses!
*This must be exposed*, as far as legally possible, with at least the institution involved being named. This may also facilitate referenceability in upcoming Employment Tribunal cases, especially if such examples can be cited which arose from the same institution named on the ET.
There must be accountability at both institutional and individual levels, as this may be the only way to bring about real change. ETs (and press exposure) may be the only way this can happen.
21percent.org · 19 April 2025 at 06:46
For this particular case, the 3 month statute of limitations has elapsed, so it can’t now be taken to ET. We will check with the correspondent as to whether the institution can be named
There must be accountability at both institutional and individual levels, as this may be the only way to bring about real change. ETs (and press exposure) may be the only way this can happen.
This is something we strongly endorse. Only repeated batterings in the press and Employment Tribunals can cause real change in some of our Universities.
Even if Universities win ETs, as in the Dr Magdalen Connolly versus Cambridge University case, the victory is Pyrrhic.
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/blog/justice-delayed-justice-denied-early-career-plagiarism-victims
https://21percent.org/?p=1418
There is widespread revulsion at the treatment of Dr Connolly — and more early career researchers have now come forward with examples of plagiarism at Cambridge.
And prudently, some have given their stories ‘off the record’ to the press, in readiness. When the University do nothing effective (as they will), ….
21percent.org · 21 April 2025 at 23:29
The university can’t be named.
Our correspondent says “In some ways I wished the bullying and the larger issue of their being in breach of employment law (The Fixed-Term Employment Regulations) HAD gone to an employment tribunal. I fully expected that to happen eventually. The issues would then have been aired publicly, and the university named and shamed. I am a journalist as well as an academic, and would have made sure this got wide media coverage.“
Mobbed · 18 April 2025 at 19:07
“The concept of Just Us is far more powerful to humans than the concept of Justice. Just Us confers status, privilege, access to resources, and social identities that ensure success. Justice confers struggle and uncertainty, punishment and pain. Thus, it is critical for the mobbing target to understand that in genocide, the most horrific atrocities are not carried out by leadership, and usually not even by its soldiers.
The most horrific violence in genocide is perpetrated by citizens, and the most vicious acts perpetrated by those closest to the targeted group – friends, neighbors and even family members. What does this mean for the worker whois being mobbed?
If there is any one thing a mobbing target must understand to survive, it is that when mobbing commences, no matter how popular and well loved the target has been in the past, no matter how unified the “us” against “them” might have been on the shop floor when workers wailed about managerial abuses or misconduct or a bad boss, the target no longer belongs to a workplace “us.” Instead, a new “us” begins to form among the nontargeted workers, with leadership at its helm.”
AnotherVictim · 19 April 2025 at 12:18
Many thanks to the contributor for telling her story. Let’s hope it encourages more people to take a stand against bullying University professors
NonnyMouse · 21 April 2025 at 07:36
The age of the victim is not given, but as far as my observations go, middle-aged women are the most common targets of bullying in universities.
Sybelis · 23 April 2025 at 04:42
I agree with that view as regards admin staff, many of whom fit that demographic by default.
But for the academics at Cambridge it is the young ones who get fucked over.
As far as I can see the postdocs, early careers, and “fresh off the PhD” teaching staff are treated like total shit in my department. The professors think of them as disposable, worthless, replaceable rubbish to be used up and cast off as worthless once done.