We publish a request sent to fellow candidates on the creation of a University Ombudsman by Prof Wyn Evans. Any responses received before 5th July will be published without emendation.
I’m honoured to stand alongside such a distinguished group of candidates for the Chancellorship of the University of Cambridge, and I look forward to an open, thoughtful debate about the future of our institution.
As part of that conversation, I invite you to comment on a proposal I believe is urgently needed: the establishment of an independent University Ombudsman with the authority to investigate serious misconduct and abuse.
For many, Cambridge represents a dream fulfilled — a place of learning, discovery, and excellence. But for some, it becomes a place of fear. From Nobel laureates to postdocs, lecturers to professional services staff, too many members of our community feel unsafe or unheard. That must change.
If we wish to honour the office of Chancellor, we must also commit to transparency, accountability, and justice. Misconduct cannot be allowed to go unaddressed. That’s why I am calling for a fully independent Ombudsman — one empowered to act swiftly, fairly, and with real authority. With 21% of staff facing serious issues each year, this is not a luxury — it’s a necessity.
I urge my fellow candidates to support this proposal and to pledge proper funding for the Ombudsman’s office. From day one, the next Chancellor must demonstrate a commitment to meaningful reform.
I welcome your thoughts, and would be grateful to receive any response by Saturday 5th July (just ahead of voting). I will publish all replies, unedited, on the 21 Group website.
As this is a Single Transferable Vote (STV) election, I will also be offering guidance to my supporters on second preferences. For me and many who stand with me, meaningful reform and accountability at Cambridge are not optional — they are essential.
18 Comments
Double Helix · 20 June 2025 at 13:02
Excellent initiative. It will be interesting to see which of the candidates merit second / third preference votes based on their commitment to make it happen.
AnotherLord · 20 June 2025 at 14:10
Well, Lord Browne’s response will be interesting, given his management style. Amongst the many things Lord Browne already does is this:
https://www.crick.ac.uk/about-us/leadership-structure/board/lord-browne
The reviews of the Crick at Glassdoor repeatedly mention problems with bullying
“Bullying is systemic in senior leadership and HR seem to have no control over unruly managers despite numerous complaints being raised. Little-to-no effort made for disabled employees to feel welcome or supported. HR and senior management seem to turn a blind eye to discrimination when it is a manager who is being discriminatory.”
“While many PIs are excellent mentors, others create challenging work environments, and the structure of academia, where papers and references hold great importance, makes it difficult for post-docs to speak up. This lack of accountability can leave some researchers in difficult positions without sufficient institutional support.”
It is an open secret amongst the bio-medical community that bullying is a massive problem at the Crick.
Sure, Lord Browne isn’t bothered as he races to his private jet to take him to his second or third or fourth home
Anonymous · 20 June 2025 at 15:20
A Government funded equivalent is also urgently needed, to cover all of UK academia.
21percent.org · 20 June 2025 at 15:48
Absolutely. In fact, that would be even better …
We have just seen in the University of Dundee that the senior management conspired to keep the extent of the financial mismanagement secret.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cjel3ng04q4o
“The independent report, led by Prof Pamela Gillies, found the main causes included poor financial judgement from university bosses and weak governance from the university court, which is meant to hold senior management to account.
The report found that almost £40m of ringfenced money had been spent elsewhere and there had been “a lack of real action” to address an £8m “hole” due to a fall in international student recruitment.”
To hold senior management to account, powerful (and preferably external) figure like an Ombudsman is needed.
Anonymous · 20 June 2025 at 17:49
The question is therefore how to go about getting a UK-wide Ombudsman set up.
As has already been established, a major cause of the financial situation at UK Universities is how poorly they are being managed.
In the Dundee case, it is now openly stated that ‘external economic factors’ are not the sole cause of Dundee’s problems, but rather problems with management.
In my opinion, the mismanagement leading to the bullying situation at UK Universities also goes a long way to explaining the situation that the sector now faces, perhaps more so than the range of economic factors that are routinely touted as the cause of this ‘perfect storm’.
Also, a significant amount of financial resources are wasted by HR and senior management employing lawyers and consultants to handle legitimate and compelling cases of abuse and corruption raised against them.
A new Government enquiry has been set up by the Education Committee to look into the financial crisis at UK Universities:
https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/203/education-committee/news/207465/universities-on-the-brink-education-committee-launches-new-inquiry
In my opinion, there should be a specific item added to the terms of reference to cover this theme. Perhaps there, a case can be made directly to those in a position to make it happen.
That being the case, perhaps the 21percent Group can submit a statement on this? The deadline for evidence is July 31st.
21percent.org · 20 June 2025 at 21:08
This is a good point, we will do so before July 31st
Also, a significant amount of financial resources are wasted by HR and senior management employing lawyers and consultants to handle legitimate and compelling cases of abuse and corruption raised against them.
The 21 Group has a good picture of the large number of Employment Tribunals and legal action currently taking place against Cambridge University. This is a huge waste of money & resources.
Suffice it to say, the only people this is benefiting are the partners of Shakespeare Martineau.
https://www.shma.co.uk/people/david-browne/
Eileen Nugent · 23 June 2025 at 03:22
I think different universities are currently operating in different governance regimes. One subset are operating in a governance regime where significant internal reform alone in the absence of any changes in ‘external factors’ would be enough to allow the organisation to reach a stable operational state. A different subset are operating in a regime where the governance has degraded to such an extent that significant internal reform alone could not in the absence of significant changes in ‘external factors’ allow the organisation to reach a stable operational state e.g. Dundee University. Universities currently operating in the latter regime are in the most difficult position politically as they must simultaneously admit to the need for significant internal reform to restore robust organisational governance and make a strong case for getting significant changes in ‘external factors’ from those who have the power to deliver significant changes in ‘external factors’ as both are required to reach a stable operational state.
Shakespeare · 21 June 2025 at 09:31
https://www.hrmagazine.co.uk/content/features/when-should-stress-be-considered-a-disability-at-work/
Eileen Nugent · 23 June 2025 at 01:41
This article is from 2017, it was written when there was no legal obligation to regulate work-related stress and therefore no prospect of a health and safety prosecution being brought on the basis of work-related stress regulation. The legal reasoning in this article applies in the subset of cases where people experience mental ill health in the context of objectively reasonable working conditions & the individual then asks an employer to make reasonable adjustments to what are already objectively reasonable working conditions to enable the individual to cope with a period of ill health. This legal reasoning does not apply in the subset of cases where people experience mental ill health in the context of objectively unreasonable working conditions (e.g. a situation where the working time limit of 48 hours per week averaged over the appropriate length of time [job specific] is not being observed) & the individual then asks an employer to correct what are objectively unreasonable working conditions to enable them to recover and sustain their mental health.
Eileen Nugent · 24 June 2025 at 12:22
For the avoidance of uncertainty : individuals can sustain good mental health at workloads in excess of 48 hours per week just as trained athletes can sustain good physical health at levels of physical exercise that would leave others who had not sustainably built up to those levels of physical exercise – physically burnt out & incurring health risk – if those others would continue with what is an unsustainable level of physical exercise for them as an individual. There will be individuals who have built themselves up to working in excess of 48 hours per week, who can sustainably work in excess of this limit & who chose to do so in pursuit of a self-selected aim. Society will not benefit from limits being placed on individuals who can sustainable work at these higher workloads that would prevent these individuals from achieving their full potential.
The point above is about what workloads can be demanded of an individual by an organisation, what actions would need to be taken in the event an individual experiences mental ill health & how the situation differs depending on whether the workload is above a certain limit. The main point is that if the workload being demanded is already above a certain limit & the individual starts experiencing significant mental ill health, then the individual could be in a position to demand rather than request a reduction in workload to get the workload below that limit. The individual had chosen to work above the limit as there are others in the organisation who are safely working at workloads above that limit but when the individual tries this themselves it proves to be unsafe for them as an individual, they are now requesting a workload below the limit so they can return to working in a regime at which they have previously maintained good mental health and are likely to be able to do so in future. The employer has to then adjust the workload below the limit. Individuals in that position are not invoking qualified rights – employment rights, equality act rights – they are invoking an absolute right, a health and safety right. It’s only when an individual has workloads that are already below the limit & is still experiencing or starts to experience mental ill health that the individual then starts invoke other qualified rights – employment rights, equality act rights – to get further adjustments in workload – it’s at that point that the reasonable adjustments process then kicks in.
Eileen Nugent · 24 June 2025 at 13:47
What organisations need to catch are health situations that generate an inversion of the reasonableness of working conditions – it is not unreasonable to allow an individual in a good state of mental health to choose to take on work at workloads above this limit and to continue to work at workloads above this limit whilst in a good state of mental health but it is unreasonable to continue to demand that an individual who is not in a good state of mental health keep working at workloads above this limit as a condition for them keeping a particular position in an organisation. When an organisation adjusts the workload of an individual working in the regime above the limit at the request of the individual the organisation is not making reasonable adjustments to a position with a workload within limits to allow an individual with a disability to access or maintain their employment. The organisation is acknowledging that an individual has reached the limit of their ability working at workloads above the limit, that it’s not now safe to keep the individual working at workloads above the limit & that it is now necessary to bring the workload below that limit. There is then some workload limit that an individual can enforce to protect their own health should that become necessary.
MrTulkinghorn · 24 June 2025 at 14:07
We respectfully disagree with the assertions you make. Universities retain the discretion to operate as meat grinders or as they see fit, provided they continue to fulfill their financial obligations to us.
Eileen Nugent · 24 June 2025 at 14:44
Organisational risk can become particularly acute when organisations have whole teams working in the regime above this limit delivering core organisational tasks for an organisation. If one member of the team starts to experience ill health and recognises the need to take action on workload to protect their own health, others in the team may not in a position where they can accept any increase in their own workload to compensate for the reduction in workload necessary to bring another member under the limit. Since all team members are already working in the regime above the limit all team members are always in a position where they can refuse any increase in their own workload. If the team cannot absorb the workload changes necessary to protect the health of one of the team members, that situation is not one that can be internally managed within the team & it then falls to the organisation to find a solution to that health and safety situation.
Eileen Nugent · 26 June 2025 at 01:44
MrTulkinghorn you are free to respectfully disagree with any assertions I make. It’s true, universities do retain the discretion to operate as they see fit provided they continue to fulfil all their financial obligations right up until the day they don’t retain the discretion to operate as they see fit because in continuously striving to fulfil their rapidly shifting financial obligations and to build the financial reserves necessary to weather increasingly challenging & rapidly-shifting external conditions they lost sight of the need to also continuously fulfil their rapidly shifting health and safety obligations.
They lost sight of the fact that each university member is embedded in the same increasingly challenging, rapidly-shifting external conditions the organisation is embedded in & that organisations with no effective workload management system in place leave all individuals in the organisation vulnerable to being pushed increasingly far into the overwork regime in what are increasingly challenging, rapidly-shifting external conditions. These same increasingly challenging, rapidly-shifting external conditions conditions could then simultaneously produce increasingly unusual patterns of increasingly significant personal stressors for the individual & the organisation could then end up with a subset of individuals operating in the extreme health risk regime, individuals that could be gone very quickly & with very little warning other than repeatedly raising an overwork situation.
MrTulkinghorn · 27 June 2025 at 19:37
Universities continue to serve as invaluable institutions for those of us in the legal profession. May they persist in producing complex issues and generating profitable cases that will sustain our practice and prosperity.
TomHagen · 27 June 2025 at 23:05
MrTulkinghorn,
Agreed (with emphasis on the last 5 letters)
Fortunately, most lawyers in university legal departments are complete fools. We just string the uni along, telling them they got a good case so they keep on spending, spending, spending the money.
Look at Edinburgh versus Prof Sheikholeslami. We kept on telling Edinburgh they had a really strong case. The case lasted 10 years, lots of refreshers, pre-trial hearings. It was a great little earner. And then Edinburgh lost and had to pay the Prof over 1 million in damages.
No-one cares because it is public money that is being wasted. VC, Uni Legal Dept and HR Director are hardly going to say they were taken for mugs. Hey, hey, hey
Eileen Nugent · 28 June 2025 at 22:56
I don’t disagree that legal advisors are not above applying pressure to clients to inflate the legal claims being made in a case to increase its value, especially those working on a no-win, no-fee basis for a law firm that is either eyeing growth in a particular legal area and/or struggling to stay afloat financially.
I would however expect that to be less likely in a complex case such as that of Prof Sheikholeslami. As a judging environment, an employment tribunal is not as uniform in quality as e.g. the high court which is populated by judges with more experience of judging complex legal cases, and whilst the outcome of a simple claim can be fairly straightforward to predict, for complex cases the outcome seems to be highly unpredictable – a case can turn on the exact judgment of just one critical element in a case which could have many elements all of which would need to be analysed – such cases are extremely stressful as maximum care would need to go into analysing each element of the case and any interactions between elements & they can also be extremely costly to a client if lost. Losing a high-value, high-public-profile cases is not a sustainable pathway to a high-flying high-profit legal career. Clients who feel they have been poorly advised can also take action against a legal advisor, that could be the start of a never-ending, infinite-waste-of-resources legal battle that could ultimately end a legal career.
Whilst it is true that legal advisors do profit from long drawn out legal battles, they could also derive similar amounts of profit from taking on a higher number of simpler less drawn out cases & have less stress in their life. Prolonged legal battles tend to arise in cases where there is significant ambiguity – unwritten conventions on how legal rules are applied that suddenly start being challenged due to new environmental pressures, legal ambiguity as a result of poorly drafted legislation, evidence ambiguity as a result of poor disclosure practices, responsibility/fault ambiguity where what is reasonably expected of each party in a contractual relationship is shifting.
Legal ambiguity is a better explanation for these long-drawn out cases, legal advisors are maximally financially enriched in a legal environment that has high levels of legal ambiguity but there is a higher overall stress cost to be paid by legal advisors working in such an environment, there is an increased health risk associated with working in a legal environment that has higher levels of legal ambiguity – for both legal advisors & their clients.
When statements such as “no one cares” are made, people tend to think of this as everyone in an organisation/system having the energy reserve to care & actively choosing to withhold their energy & to not care because of some will to be cruel to others as opposed to an organisation/system reaching a state where all workloads have reached such a high level that no one has any energy reserve left to deliver higher levels of care if demanded & caring then not being an option because its not physically possibly to deliver the amount energy required to deliver the level of care that is being demanded.
Freedom of Speech - 21percent.org · 22 June 2025 at 09:19
[…] part of my manifesto, I have called for the appointment of a University Ombudsman here. I have urged my fellow Chancellorship candidates to support this proposal and to pledge proper […]