Once upon a time, a Researcher discovered a rot in the roots of Knowledge.
So he did what any honest creature would: he spoke. First in whispers, then in reasoned letters, he petitioned the Owls in their towers — the Senior Professors, the Heads of School, the Pro Vice-Chancellors, the Registrar, the Vice Chancellor and even the great Chancellor of the Forest. He asked, not for vengeance, but for truth: Would someone — anyone — examine the facts?
But the Forest was still. Not one voice stirred. The Owls blinked. The Foxes turned their coats. The Toads reflected on the immense difficulties.
Then came the Adder.
The longest and most venomous of them all, he was cloaked in polished civility. You never see his strike — only the sudden sickness that follows. It was he who turned the tale.
The Adder hissed that he was the wronged party. The Researcher’s cries were not reasonable cries for justice, but the obsessive coils of unreasonably persistent behaviour.
So now the tale has twisted: the Adder has filed a Grievance — yes, against the one who spoke out about research misconduct.
And who shall investigate this strange reversal? Why, Slither & Company, a firm so independent it never fails to nod.
The Adder invoked the Sacred Charter of Conduct:
In keeping with our commitment to transparency and academic freedom, students and staff must express any concerns in a manner fully aligned with our institutional values by refraining from any form of criticism or dissent.
The Charter does not say that whistleblowing — reporting academic misconduct — is forbidden, but rules, like snakes, can be made to twist.
And the Adder has many friends skilled in interpretive contortion.
The 21 Group thanks our contributor and emphasises that this is a fantasy. The animals and events in this story are fictitious. Any resemblance to actual events or real animals is purely coincidental. The image is a 15th-16th century Aztec coiled serpent sculpture from the Metropolitan Museum of Art reproduced under Creative Commons Attribution — see here
45 Comments
ASilk · 6 August 2025 at 08:30
The Adder might be getting into some legal hot water.
The Researcher made a Whistleblowing (or Protected) Disclosure. Retaliation against a whistleblower is contrary to Employment Law.
If this were the NHS, the Adder might never work again under Wes Streeting’s recent proposals
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/jun/27/managers-who-silence-whistleblowers-will-never-work-in-nhs-again-vows-streeting
TheResearcher · 6 August 2025 at 08:43
I was told that the Researcher of that tale also contacted the Commissary, the Board of Scrutiny, the University Council, the Proctors, the Academic Secretary and obviously, all the whistleblowing team, including the Chair of the Audit Committee…
He was initially diagnosed with “Unreasonably Persistent Behaviour” and was ignored. But as he persisted, the diagnosis turned into “Abusive Behaviour,” and the institution informed the Researcher that he is now going to be investigated by an “external” party. Incidentally, they also told him that the investigation had to be confidential and that he could not share the letter where he is being coerced to stop talking about the topic. The Researcher replied, ccing all the Masters and all the Senior Tutors of all the Colleges of the institution and respectably highlighted that the investigation will be public. Surely, all those who now charged against him will have a good explanation for why they ignored the Researcher for over two years.
Luckily, this is just a tale!
SPARTACUS · 6 August 2025 at 11:16
This tale can be a metaphor for several real stories. Some will surface once litigation progresses. The School of Clinical Medicine has been the location for a major scandal resulting in the destruction of a world class research program and the total decimation of a leading laboratory. Stay tuned since details will eventually emerge. Truth always prevails!
Bloody right · 6 August 2025 at 12:30
Bloody right!
TheResearcher · 6 August 2025 at 12:56
There are surely many common patterns across the institution of the Researcher of the tale because, I was told, people from different Departments and very different divisions, both for staff and students, behaved the same way when they interacted with the Researcher, as if they all read the same script. Conceal and manipulate information whenever possible. Be evasive to uncomfortable questions or simply do not respond to them. Remove very senior members from Cc when what you say can compromise them in the future, even if they are responsible for addressing the topic in the institution. etc Who writes the script when all the senior management is involved as in the case of this tale? The Researcher once asked the Director of HR if he could do one of their personal development courses or at least if she could send him the handbook that is provided to the HR Business Partners of the institution when they are hired. Incidentally, the Director of HR never replied!
Biologist · 6 August 2025 at 13:13
“The School of Clinical Medicine has been the location for a major scandal resulting in the destruction of a world class research program and the total decimation of a leading laboratory”
Interesting! I can add to that:
The School of Biological Sciences has been the location for a major scandal resulting in the destruction of a world class research program and the total decimation of a leading laboratory.
SPARTACUS · 6 August 2025 at 13:15
As this academic gladiator has said before this is what happens:
1- a member or members of the oligarchy decide a faculty member (or researcher) is to be destroyed.
2- said member of the oligarchy gets other members to agree to destroying the culprit.
3- Registrar and Head of HR start the process of execution.
4- VC, ProVCs and others in top management agree to the ‘process’.
5- the victim is ground to despair and left to fight the University oligarchy on his/her own and incurs in huge legal costs that eventually lead to his/her ruin. Oligarchy has all their legal costs paid for by the University Chest.
American Queen VC is very happy with all of this. In her regal role she is happy to travel 1st class and enjoy free luxurious room and board.
TheResearcher · 7 August 2025 at 18:52
I was told this morning that the Researcher from this tale was given “urgent precautionary actions” and has until Monday 11 to present his representation. What were the “urgent precautionary actions”? I was told that he cannot contact the senior members of the institution, nor talk about the investigation against him. Hilarious.
For all of you who submitted complaints and had to wait months for any action to happen in your Seat of Learning, it turns out that this institution can be extremely quick when they really want to shut someone up. Even in August when most people are on Holiday! What does the Researcher of the tale know that is concerning so many people, virtually all the senior management of the institution now against him? It is just concealing and manipulation of information, but on a very large scale.
SPARTACUS · 7 August 2025 at 20:12
Just resist! UCam oligarchy is behaving like the mafia! Omerta is their demand. This corrupt regime will eventually destroy the University! American Queen VC is behaving worse than Trump!
TigerWhoCametoET · 7 August 2025 at 20:59
I must say, it does feel like this is the final death rattle. Everyone now knows what is going on. They surely know this is their last throw of the dice.
SPARTACUS · 7 August 2025 at 21:17
The only hope is that Chancellor Lord Smith will not wish for his 10 year tenure to be stained by the rot and decline! He has to follow the Statutes to the leter and exert quiet authority! He is the statutory Chair of the University Council. So he needs to use his role as Chair to rain in the American Queen VC and the grossly incompetent VCs, the viperine Registrary and the highly compromised and frankly corrupt Head of HR! I am afraid they all need to eventually go. Radical but necessary! Or the rot and decline will slip out of control! Lord Smith please save the University of Cambridge!
TheResearcher · 7 August 2025 at 21:25
This situation is so surreal that is hard to believe. The Researcher was told for months that his complaints could not be addressed because were not the result of his “student experience” and that he could not complain as staff because he was no longer employee after being made redundant. The Complaints Office for students could even afford not replying to him at all! But suddenly, all the senior members agreed to charge against him even though the issues have nothing to do with his “student experience.” He could not complain regarding malpractices of others, regardless the evidence he had, and now the senior members—virtually all!—can do it against him and in 4 days. Even people who have been in sick leave for a while presented charged against the Researcher! What a tale…
WiseGuy · 7 August 2025 at 21:59
They are all charging together (even the one on sick leave) because they want to break you. Stay strong.
There are plenty of people who know about this scandal and can name the guilty ones.
TheResearcher · 7 August 2025 at 22:30
The Researcher was so persistent and talked to so many people over these 27 months that that they had to request people with conflicts of interest to actively participate in the process, such as the Academic Secretary and the Director of Health and Safety. They literally run out of senior people!!!! Luckily, this is just a tale…
WiseGuy · 8 August 2025 at 06:38
Luckily this is just a tale!
Otherwise how do the Head of School and the HR Business Partner who started the wrongdoing sleep easily at night? The Vice Chancellor is now widely regarded as a total disaster — a completely inappropriate appointment wildly out of her depth. She was probably chosen for this reason by those who want the malpractices to continue.
Luckily this is just a tale!
TheResearcher · 8 August 2025 at 19:44
Actually, who started the wrongdoing was the “very distinguished Professor” in “The Story of the Snake — A Fable” who was the mentor of the Researcher. He was the first to cover up the case of harassment. He asked the Researcher not to speak to HR initially as he would talk to them directly first and also asked the Researcher not to speak about the case to anyone. The Researcher accepted. What makes a person who contacts so many senior members of the institution now, including all Masters and Senior Tutors of all Colleges, accept confidentiality in 2023? The reason was simple; the Researcher fully trusted the “very distinguished Professor” after 8 years of close interactions with him. The “very distinguished Professor” is likely laughing now with everyone against the Researcher, and he too is charging against the Researcher. It is because of this that the Researcher cannot, and will not, accept more confidentiality “requests.”
Luckily, this is just a tale!
SPARTACUS · 7 August 2025 at 21:34
Speak up! The Guardian and The Times and Spectator will have a field day with this! UCam oligarchy must be toppled!!
TheResearcher · 7 August 2025 at 21:52
It is exactly because they all realized the Researcher will speak that they want to charge against him very quickly to be able to say to all those journals that he was the one being investigated and not them… They also want to say that to his sponsors, who are both British and American. So far no one said that the Researcher was lying, but I trust it will happen. The fact they expect the Researcher will be silent is epic.
Why must he be silent if all the senior members are charging against him? There is a good explanation. The Researcher was told today, “While the investigation and procedure is ongoing there are necessarily limitations placed upon those involved to enable a full and fair investigation to be carried out.” Full and Fair Investigation? Seriously, what a joke. The fact they expect people just accept being manipulated in silence seriously goes beyond my understanding.
SPARTACUS · 7 August 2025 at 22:23
This is always their ‘strategy’! In a major scandal in the School of Clinical Medicine currently under litigation what the oligarchy did is exactly the same: 1- they plotted to destroy a faculty member with demonstrably false allegations; 2- once their own process showed the allegations were false they then used confidentiality to suppress the fact the faculty member had been exonerated. This is their way and that is why mediocrity is replacing meritocracy in the School of Clinical Medicine. Presiding over it a senior Professor that lacks integrity and moral compass. Frankly disgusting and the result so far in the destruction of a world class research programme and the decimation of an internationally aclaimed laboratory!
May we hope that Chancellor Lord Smith will use his statutory authority to say: enough!
TheResearcher · 7 August 2025 at 23:50
I would not be so certain that a single individual can do much when virtually everyone else is pushing in the other direction. Note that this is not just HR. The Researcher is being charged by HR, VC, ProVCs, Registrary, Academic Secretary, Senior Professors, Heads of Divisions, … it is a very long list! And they gave him 4 days to respond. But it is interesting to note who they left out of their list who the Researcher had also contacted, namely the Commissary, the Chancellor, the Board of Scrutiny, the University Council, and the Proctors. But I suppose they can always add more people if the Researcher does not keep the confidentiality “to enable a full and fair investigation to be carried out”!
21percent.org · 8 August 2025 at 07:57
The 21 Group is aware of 25 separate ongoing legal cases against the University. Almost certainly, there are more, perhaps many more. Some are in the Employment Tribunals, but there are a number proceeding at Higher Courts. There are students and staff (from professional service staff to senior Professors) all litigating against the university.
The full extent of the institutionalised abuse by HR will become clear over the next year. The full extent of the costs involving many of these actions will also become obvious.
This is at a time when University budgets are under pressure. HR bring in no money, they attack successful research groups and bring them down, actively destroying income streams, actively vandalising and terminating careers. The damages will be enormous.
There is an ongoing Grievance against someone very senior in HR since 2022.
It has been running for 3 years & the University have not been able to dismiss it because what was done was clearly an extremely wrong action. No-one external is going to vindicate the action. The internal person who tried — after HR/Legal put the frighteners on him — is now on long term sick leave. This will all become public because of ongoing litigation.
The end of this nightmare for the University is close at hand.
Gas Station · 8 August 2025 at 08:42
Individual journalists at the Times, Guardian, Telegraph and FT all possess one or another piece of this jigsaw. The race is now on to show who can deliver the big pager that reveals the full picture.
Cervantes · 8 August 2025 at 09:28
other part of this is all the blocked research grants + donor funding
hundreds of millions of pounds that would have supported new hires / research labs / studentships at the university
accounting of total true net cost must be gigantic.
TheResearcher · 9 August 2025 at 14:10
The Researcher refused to submit the last report of his Grant from the largest public funder of research and innovation in the country until his original report of harassment was accessed. The consequence for the Researcher is that he will not get funding from them for life. The consequence for the Host Institution is that they need to give back the full amount of the grant—£300.000—to the funder. Interestingly, the Researcher also sought the help of the funder regarding his experience and his student’s, sending them evidence of the malpractices. The funder said that had been reassured by the host institution that all processes and procedures had been done properly and thus would not act. The Researcher persevered and was eventually charged again of Unreasonably Persistent Behaviour. Incidentally, the CEO of the funder is a Professor of the Institution of the Researcher, who knows very well the “very distinguished Professor”.
HenWelfareAdvocate · 9 August 2025 at 14:59
“The funder said that they had been reassured by the host institution that all processes and procedures had been done properly and thus would not act.” Hilarious 😉
Hen Welfare Advocate: “I’ve been reviewing the henhouse reports — injuries are up, disappearances are frequent and morale among the hens is low.”
Fox (in Charge of Henhouse): “All the hens adore me. They tell me so every evening before my dinner.”
Hen Welfare Advocate: “Curious, because some of them can’t be found the next morning.”
Fox: “Let me assure you. All processes and procedures for health and safety of the hens are being followed. “
Bald truth · 9 August 2025 at 15:56
So many problems, and all the damage they cause in the academy, could be solved if current academic directors, HoDs, and HR directors were either fired or prescribed finasteride.
TheResearcher · 9 August 2025 at 16:44
To be fair, that was not the most surreal response from the sponsor.
When the Researcher sent them evidence that the Host Institution had not complied with the Terms & Conditions of the Grant, and that reminded the funder that they were responsible for public funds, the funder’s response was simple: the precise definition of the Terms & Conditions is a matter to be discussed between the Host Institution and the Grantee. When the Researcher asked to the Executive Chair—at the time Pro-Vice Chancellor for Research in the Researcher’s institution—in a public event of the funder if she knew what conflicts of interest are, all the panel got really embarrassed and no one responded. The result of this question? They removed the Researcher from their mailing lists so that he does not attend other public events and asks more uncomfortable questions…
Scoop · 8 August 2025 at 09:34
Another newspaper has a hugely damaging story incoming.
Press are circling the badly wounded animals.
The University’s Malcolm Tuckers are on the job. Too many scandals though to hush up
Modesto · 8 August 2025 at 16:35
What saddens me is how the damage is entirely self-inflicted. The scholars who had grievances initially raised their concerns modestly and politely, put faith in internal processes, made quiet petitions for their concerns to be addressed.
Yet the managers and administrators responsible for ensuring a good research and work environment proved negligent in responding or upholding appropriate standards in the first place.
TheResearcher · 8 August 2025 at 10:54
Breaking news! The Researcher was just told he will not have 4 days to present his representation and the “urgent precautionary actions” are in effect from now!
Anon · 8 August 2025 at 13:27
They’re all reading this blog…?
JayZee · 8 August 2025 at 13:36
My thoughts too. It’s like seeing the most senior level of the University becoming deranged in real time …
All that was needed was an apology. Instead, it looks like another case heading to the law courts and the newspapers. Rank incompetence.
Baffled · 8 August 2025 at 20:26
I get that the whole “never apologise” rule stems (most likely) from a desire to avoid any form of legal responsibility.
In and of itself that might be considered as a reflection of a poor management culture and nothing more (after all, apologies are a key part of how organisations learn and grow – and a good employer would always square up to their legal responsibilities).
But what is perplexing is how irrational this becomes from the perspective of the initial goal – i.e. simple financial self interest. In the UK employer legal liabilities are generally fairly modest (compared for example to countries like France or the United States) and could easily be covered. And yet, to avoid this, the institution is more than happy to spend considerably larger sums on legal fees, and press and PR support, to deal with the consequences of failing to do right to staff – to say nothing of the phenomenal uncosted drain from fruitless appeals committees, drawn-out grievance investigations, sickness, and lost research funding and income from staff who are held in limbo.
21percent.org · 9 August 2025 at 05:01
It is baffling. The direct costs must run into millions each year. As you correctly point out, this is likely dwarfed by the lost opportunity costs.
And to what end? No organisation that treats its staff as badly as this can possibly hope to prosper
TheResearcher · 8 August 2025 at 13:58
I do not think so, but if that is the case, there must be a misunderstanding because this is just a tale!!!! No one would ever do the things mentioned here! This is just a tale!!
The Researcher was told earlier today that he had broken the enforcement that he had been placed, i.e., not contacting anyone regarding this issue except his college Tutor. The Researcher had been told to not disclose the issues with anyone while the investigations were ongoing, and that he could not contact the VC, all ProVCs, the Academic Secretary, the Registrary, all HR, multiple Heads of Division, all the senior academics of his previous Department where he had originally reported the case of harassment in June 2023 and where “The Story of the Snake — A Fable” happened, and others not even specified. What happened today for the “urgent precautionary actions” to take immediate effect? The Researcjer replied to a message where one of the individuals mentioned above was in cc. He replied ccing everyone, obviously, because there is no reason to exclude people from a response. Shortly after, he was accused of contacting that person because he had included him in cc and thus failed to follow the instructions “to enable a full and fair investigation to be carried out”!
I am sure you all want to know what are the “urgent precautionary actions” right? Not very clear, but set closer to the main one: “I take this opportunity to confirm that if you were to be suspended from your studies then this would require you to stop engaging in your PhD studies, stop engaging in any activities available to you as a current student of the University or representing yourself internally or externally to anyone as a current University student. It may also limit other services or facilities that you had access to as a University student, although your access to wellbeing and support services would continue.”
The Researcher of the tale is curious to know what his College will do, not least because the VC is a Fellow from his College. But I repeat, this is just a tale!
Brass Monkey · 8 August 2025 at 11:24
I suppose they could threaten some people some of the time and that way keep them silent – but threaten all people all the time and you get this as a result.
TheResearcher · 8 August 2025 at 14:45
I just read this post and wondered if this applied to the institution of the Researcher:
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/free-speech-rules-to-protect-academic-freedom-come-into-force
The Researcher has made a comment in Viva Engage a few days ago after a Lead HR Business Partner of his institution had encouraged staff to fill another survey. The Researcher simply encouraged the person to read this article before suggesting more surveys (https://www.theguardian.com/education/2025/apr/12/cambridge-university-accused-of-bullying-cover-up-as-internal-survey-revealed)
Several people contacted the researcher thanking him to make that post. A few hours after, however, the post was deleted by the institution. Luckily this is just a tale!
SPARTACUS · 8 August 2025 at 20:49
Time for scandals to start coming out in the newspapers! American Queen VC and her gang must be exposed for what they are: incompetent, inept, corrupt, vacuous, corrupt! A total disaster!
TheResearcher · 8 August 2025 at 22:10
I agree. But it is necessary a large number of stories to come out so that the general public can understand the recurrent behavioural patterns by themselves. The reason the Researcher was forbidden to contact all the senior members of the institution is to prevent him to say in the future that he contacted them, and they did nothing as they should have done. It is a form of protection, as they got themselves in some knots with the Researcher. If you can still interact with them, please do tie them in as many knots as you can!!!
Bloody right! · 8 August 2025 at 21:58
Bloody right!
Carrie · 9 August 2025 at 16:10
The broader story here is about the decline of yet another once-great British national institution.
Cambridge is going the same way as the NHS, Royal Mail, British Leyland, and the BBC.
The cause was always the same.
Poor management, short-termism, and a total deficit of basic accountability.
The country produces brilliant inventors, artists, scientists and innovators of all kinds. Then they wither and die within our dysfunctional organisational culture.
TheResearcher · 9 August 2025 at 17:06
It is important to highlight that this story is just a tale and that “The animals and events in this story are fictitious. Any resemblance to actual events or real animals is purely coincidental.” As the Researcher was told not to talk about the charges against him from all the senior management, he would be in real troubles if he had shared this information with someone else. He is trying his best to be silent, and only told these issues to all the Masters and all the Senior Tutors of the Institution. He understands that silence is important “to enable a full and fair investigation to be carried out.”
Calm · 29 August 2025 at 15:00
I was shocked to stumble across this piece of ‘fable’, and even more surprised that it is published and endorsed by a supposedly reputable professor. He cannot have been unaware of the various well-documented racist tropes, particularly those relating to animalization and serpentine metaphor, deployed here in ways that have a long and ignominious history in Western literature and discourse.
Animalization is a classic strategy for dehumanization, frequently used as a rhetorical device to suggest that particular groups or individuals are less rational, trustworthy, or moral than “human” actors. Animal metaphors are not neutral: they operate, often unconsciously, to signal difference and inferiority, with a substantial literature cataloguing the pernicious effects of this trope across race, class, and gender lines (see Goff et al., 2008; Smith, 2011). The “Adder” as antagonist in the fable is depicted as not only threatening but inherently duplicitous and malicious, echoing centuries-old representations of marginalized groups — especially in Western writings about Jews, Africans, and others — as serpentine or reptilian (Gilman, 1991).
The trope of the serpent as a symbol of duplicitous evil and dangerous cunning, generally applied to Jewish people in a vicious twist to the Garden of Eden story, has been repeated for centuries in racist colonial and antisemitic literature, used to associate targeted groups with inherent treachery and poison within a community (Hoermann, 2017; Gilman, 1991). The snake’s capability to “strike unseen” and provoke “sudden sickness” operates as a metaphor for perceived insidious harm wrought by racially or ethnically othered “outsiders”, projecting fears of infiltration and contamination (Dyer, 1997). It is not coincidental that this imagery is marshalled at precisely the point where the narrative pivots to depict the Adder, initially cast as accused, as deftly re-inscribing himself as victim – a classic DARVO trope used to invalidate the testimonies of actual victims and redirect blame (Russell, 2011).
Of course, this is “just a fable” and I am sure “The Researcher” will protest that his racism is inoffensive as it only attacks “fictional” people. Still, I thought it worth sharing the academic literature as it casts a different light on his supposed naive innocence and the claimed irrationality of those who object to such treatment. Subtle violence is still violence.
Yours, a dog who can hear the whistle.
21percent.org · 30 August 2025 at 17:37
Response here https://21percent.org/?p=2593
They have fangs, they have teeth - 21percent.org · 30 August 2025 at 17:34
[…] An interesting blog comment appeared on our earlier posting A Sum of Adders. […]