The 21 Group contacted the other Chancellorship candidates asking them to respond to Prof Wyn Evans‘ suggestion of the creation of an independent Ombudsman to investigate serious malpractices, bullying or academic misconduct at Cambridge University. The Ombudsman would also be responsible for investigating Whistleblowing allegations (instead of the Registrary and Academic Secretary, as present) and violations of freedom of speech.
All the candidates responded positively, except Mohamed El-Erian, Sandi Toksvig and Ali Azeem.
We thank Prof Tony Booth, Lord John Browne of Madingley, Dr Mark Mann, Gina Miller and Lord Chris Smith of Finsbury for their answers. We reproduce them below. Dr Ayham Ammora indicated his support on Twitter/X, but did not provide more elaboration.
In our view, the statements by Prof Tony Booth and Dr Mark Mann are the strongest, followed by Lord Browne of Madingley. Gina Miller offers support, albeit a little guarded.
Lord Smith’s statement is disconcertingly vague. He is a Head of House (Pembroke College) so he must have already encountered problems of bullying. Against this must be balanced the fact that the other Head of House, Mohamed El-Erian of Queens’ College did not bother to respond at all.
Professor Tony Booth
“I support the idea of an ombudsperson or team to speed due process into cases of harassment, bullying or other misconduct, at work, and the implementation of the University’s core principles. I think this would require a team effort representing a range of interests amongst staff and students, coming together as needed. The University does not always put into action its stated values. For example, how can the University oppose discrimination and then exclude many full-time staff from voting in the Chancellor election? It is also evident that there has been little follow through following the results of the “Staff Survey”. When informally people tell me of high levels of bullying in some areas of the university this warrants investigation with independent oversight.
There has to be guaranteed protection for those who complain of, or report about, bullying or other forms of corrupt behaviour. This is a difficult hurdle to pass since people so rarely try to gain official redress against bullying or harassment because they fear this will rebound negatively on them, through lack of advancement for example, with the perpetrator remaining in a position of power over them. An ombudsperson, or team, deals with problems once they have occurred. This should be part of a wider strategy, regularly monitored and reviewed, to reduce bullying, harassment, unfair treatment, and failures to implement the University’s values. This has to be supported at all levels of the University. It should be integrated into a university development plan, with clearly specified priorities for change, and the time scale in which they are to be achieved. In my work on the development of educational organisations and systems I focus such plans in the three dimensions of cultures, policies, and practices. Changes in culture are the foundation for the for other changes and it is here that I would hope to make the most impact, by being a different kind of Chancellor. ” (Professor Tony Booth)
Lord John Browne of Madingley
“In my experience, one of the most important responsibilities of a leader is to set the right tone from the top. Throughout my career, I have sought to use the platform I have had as a leader to set an example for others to follow.
At BP, for instance, I broke ranks with my peers by acknowledging the grave danger posed by climate change, and pledging to do something about it. I also spoke out against age and gender discrimination at a time when society was much less advanced in these areas. It is a great regret of mine that I did not have the courage to come out as gay earlier in my career. If I had, I would have been able to do more to support LGBT+ inclusion in the workplace. When it comes to the issues of bullying and misconduct, tone from the top is just as important. If the university’s leadership is seen to be turning a blind eye, the very fabric of the institution begins to be eroded.
I am happy to put on record that if elected Chancellor, the principles of transparency, accountability and justice will inform my approach to the role. I agree that misconduct cannot go unaddressed, and would make it a priority to put the points you have helpfully brought to public attention onto the Vice Chancellor’s agenda. I would also be happy to meet with you to discuss the idea of an independent Ombudsman so that I can better understand how it might work in practice. If it is the best way to address the problems you have identified, I would be happy to put my private and public support behind it.” (Lord Browne of Madingley)
Dr Mark Mann
“When I first read the articles published in the paper when you announced your candidate my first emotion was that of sadness, because though I stopped working at Cambridge 15 years ago I had hoped that it would have got its act together on this. But then I spent 2015-22 in Oxford, and I am afraid to say that the behaviours I occasionally observed at Cambridge were also present at Oxford.
We know that power that senior members of the university have in their hands. I had hoped the Postdoc Academy, for instance, might help to fix some of this by raising the postdoc community up a bit, redressing the balance, but it clearly has not. Most (as your stats show) act responsibly and fairly – I was treated brilliantly at Cambridge – but the proportion that do not is far too high.
The part of your statement devoted to this I fully support. I fully support the creation of an independent Ombudsman as well. I don’t see that Cambridge marking its own homework on this is sustainable any more. Have you scoped out how much you think it would cost to run? Whatever it is, I think it is clear budget needs to be found. I think the power should extend to fully-owned subsidiaries of the University as well. I also think we need to ensure that the bullies know what they are doing – I was never trained on anything regarding HR whilst at Cambridge, and it was clear most others hadn’t either. Again, I hope that this has improved since I left, but in any case I’d want to ensure that staff are under no illusions as to what constitutes acceptable behaviour, so training should be made available so that we reduce the cases that get sent to the ombudsman. I’d also want to ensure those who observe the behaviour even though they aren’t on the receiving end of it themselves know what to do as well. I was powerless at Oxford as I worked in a fully-owned subsidiary – separate company, separate HR department.” (Dr Mark Mann)
Gina Miller
“Having successfully increased governance, transparency and better consumer/stakeholder outcomes in financial services, charities, modern day slavery i know that such proposals require careful and deep consideration, that includes workimg with diverse voices.
An ombudsman could potentially strengthen both freedom of speech and the handling of complaints of harassment and discrimination, but it’s not a guaranteed solution. Proper funding, accessible redress and defining an ombudsman’s specific role are potential challenges.
In terms of ensuring independence from university influence is also likely to be a challenge. However, this is a very worthy proposal, amongst others, that need to be seriously actioned by whoever becomes the next Chancellor of the University of Cambridge In the meantime, there are other shorter term solutions that I would be suggesting if elected.” (Gina Miller)
Lord Smith of Finsbury
“I very much welcome the seriousness with which you’re approaching the question of institutional accountability.
As you’ll know, the OIA already performs a formal “ombudsman” role for student complaints. But I agree that it is definitely worth examining whether Cambridge has adequate independent mechanisms in place for staff (both academic and administrative), for whistle-blowers, and for those providing professional services.
These are not of course matters for a Chancellor to determine directly, but I would certainly support open consideration within the University about how we can continue to improve transparency, accountability and support for all members of our community.” (Lord Smith of Finsbury).
7 Comments
Xerxes · 6 July 2025 at 19:43
So of the three, Mohamed El-Erian, Chris Smith and Lord Browne, it’s Lord Browne who seems most open to doing something about the culture of the university. Words fail. At least some of these Heads of Houses are complicit in the cover-ups, of course.
Eileen Nugent · 9 July 2025 at 17:25
The problem is that Lord Browne’s words are not consistent with some of his past actions although care needs to the taken when discounting the words of an individual as not predictive of future actions for the specific reason those same words are not consistent with their past actions. The consequences of individuals past actions may give an individual cause to engage in a period of self-reflection and learning from past mistakes & depending on the outcome of that self-reflection/learning process – the learning from past mistakes – the individuals words may be predictive of future actions despite not being consistent with past actions that occurred before they engaged in that process of learning from their past mistakes.
SPARTACUS · 6 July 2025 at 21:02
You must be kidding Xerxes! The perpetrators of the toxic environment at UCam, complicit of the fear, bullying, mismanagement, bungled internal investigations are ALL supporting Lord BP!!!
SPARTACUS · 6 July 2025 at 22:09
Wyn Evans is the ONLY candidate senior management at UCam fears! The VC, Registrary, ProVCs, Head of HR, Regius (Head of Clinical School) and others in senior management will do ANYTHING for Wyn Evans not to be elected as Chancellor. Vote for Wyn Evans if you want to stop the rot in Cambridge!
GamblingMan · 6 July 2025 at 23:20
This election is getting very hard to call. Not sure there is an obvious favourite anymore.
I think this could be won by any of the four — Browne, El Erian, Evans & Smith.
I think the ‘powers that be’ thought Browne would scamper home, but this is going to be close.
GamblingMan · 6 July 2025 at 23:25
I discount Toksvig & Miller.
Sandi doesn’t seem to be putting in much effort. Her candidacy was always more of an enthusiasm of Simon MacDonald rather than her.
Gina simply has no connection with Cambridge in particular or universities in general. Her expertise lies elsewhere.
Eileen Nugent · 9 July 2025 at 16:53
Whilst it’s true that electing an outsider who has no connection with Cambridge as Chancellor creates an extra risk of the outsider not being able to adapt quickly enough to the environment when in post in times when extensive internal reform is needed choosing an outsider can sometimes pay off if it means that strategies for internal reform that would not otherwise have been found are found and the reform process then proceeds with greater speed than it otherwise would have thus reducing the risk of the organisation entering into greater states of organisational failure. Discounting Gina Millar based on no reasoning other than “no connection with Cambridge in particular or universities in general” makes very little sense.