UCL has long and distinguished record of failure to deal with bullying and harassment.
In 2021, Dr Christopher Backhouse, a particle physicist, was found to have carried out a prolonged harassment campaign against a fellow physicist Dr Erica Smith, as reported in The Guardian here. Dr Backhouse’s actions included: creating fake Twitter accounts in Dr Smith’s name; posting fabricated pornographic images and false claims portraying her as a sex worker; publishing her real phone number, leading to numerous unsolicited sexual advances from strangers; signing her up for far-right hate groups and fetish websites; arranging unwanted deliveries like adult diapers to her home; sending death threats and attempting to deceive police into dispatching an armed response. UCL did nothing, so Dr Smith took legal action, resulting in the following statement in open court.
In 2015, Dr Emma Chapman, then a PhD student, lodged a formal complaint against UCL astrophysicist, Dr Felipe Abdalla, for ongoing harassment, some of it occurring after she returned from maternity leave with postnatal depression. The process dragged on for nearly 21 months, causing significant stress. UCL initially offered a settlement that included a non-disclosure agreement (NDA), which Dr Chapman bravely refused as reported in The Standard here. Eventually, she settled for financial redress, accompanied by a confidentiality waiver rather than an NDA — meaning she could speak out about the case. It was an important milestone in the campaign to ban NDAs which is coming to fruition next year.
Another then PhD student in the same astrophysics group, Dr Arthur Loureiro, has described UCL as a toxic place. In a letter posted to Twitter/X, he wrote of his experiences
Unfortunately, the University continues to hide under constantly changing staff, bureaucratic procedures and policies that have only had the effect of protecting the perpetrator. Although there are excellent astrophysicists and cosmologists and others at UCL who are absolutely brilliant, fabulous people that have stood for what is right, the University itself refuses to deal with any situation like this in a meaningful way. When the going gets tough, I feel they take the easy path]. UCL’s “Report and Support” looks like nothing but a PR stunt: I reported, but they did not support. The “Zero Tolerance Policy” once on all the walls at UCL is, in practice (and I quote an email I received from a UCL HR staff) “a very high threshold”. [Dr Arthur Loureiro, posted here ]
In fact, Dr Abdalla was allowed to continue working at UCL for a further 8 years till 2023, while Dr Backhouse resigned and never faced any disciplinary action at all.
Remarkably, UCL isn’t just failing on bullying and harassment — it’s leading the way in enabling and whitewashing scientific fraud.
The geneticist Professor David Latchman and his lab underwent investigations in 2014–15. There was a disciplinary hearing in 2018. Two expert panels found evidence of research fraud in a significant number of papers (image cloning and duplication of figures) produced between 1990 and 2013. Latchman himself was not found to have intentionally committed fraud, but his lab oversight was described as “reckless,” supporting the finding of misconduct. At least six papers were retracted and two corrected. No formal disciplinary action was taken against Latchman himself.
By now, Latchman was prospering mightily in a career where “reckless oversight” is the norm — university administration. He was appointed Master of Birkbeck College from 2003 to 2023, and then transitioned to become Deputy Vice-Chancellor at the University of London. Earlier this year, Prof Wendy Thomson, the current Vice Chancellor of London, was suspended after allegations of creating a “culture of bullying and fear”. Prof Latchman is now the (Acting) Vice Chancellor of the University of London — a remarkable turnaround!
Fast forward to 2025, the pharmacologist Prof Gareth Williams now faces multiple allegations of … shall we say … “reckless oversight“. In March 2025, investigators uncovered numerous cases where data, especially spectra and microscopy images, were duplicated or manipulated across several papers co-authored by Williams and his former postdoc, Prof. Deng-Guang Yu of the University of Shanghai. These issues were first flagged on PubPeer by Sholto David and Fabian Wittmers. In response to the mounting evidence, Williams expressed his dismay, stating:
“I have been following the comments on PubPeer, and have been shocked, angered and appalled by the issues […] there can be no explanation for this other than systemic fraud.” (Prof Gareth Williams, quoted on ‘For Better Science’)
This week’s For Better Science brought more news of a fresh batch of troubling papers by Williams, this time co-authored with a different collaborator, Professor Li-Min Zhu of Donghua University, but with the same old problems. There are now over 30 papers by Williams listed on Pubpeer with issues, usually image manipulation or (the admitted) systemic fraud.
As of now, there has been no statement from UCL regarding any formal investigation or disciplinary action concerning Professor Williams. However, we imagine he’s not too worried. UCL has established procedures for hushing things up. And he can always enter university administration where his gifts for “reckless oversight” will be rapidly rewarded.
Sometimes it is difficult to find the right words for the state of UK academia …
The image is of the Wilkins Building, University College London, Gower Street, Bloomsbury, London, England. The photo credit belongs to Steve Cadman and it is licensed under Creative Commons here.
.jpg){kind=link}
No accountability, fear, exclusion, poor oversight, huge salaries. And Universities wonder why politicians won’t give them more money.
Senior leadership of UK universities are approaching ‘banker’ levels of public disdain at the time of GFC.
The quote from Arthur Loureiro is very good. (The whole tweeted letter is worth reading).
The “Zero Tolerance Policy” once on all the walls at UCL is, in practice (and I quote an email I received from a UCL HR staff) “a very high threshold”
This is exactly how it is done. The threshold to prove bullying at Cambridge is not on the balance of probabilities (civil law) and not beyond reasonable doubt (criminal law).
It is an unattainable beyond the last whisper of uncertainty. So no-one is ever found guilty of bullying!
It’s how we have ended up in the ridiculous situation of surveys finding bullying is rife, but HR can never find anyone who is guilty of bullying. Everyone at the top level of the University of the university knows this is how it all works.
I can assure you that if they want to target someone because that person does not accept manipulation or reminds them of their incompetence, their threshold for bullying and harassment is very low for that person. I have allegedly harassed all senior management of my institution, even those on prolonged sick leave, which I am not sure how it is even possible!
Of course the victim can easily be found guilty of “bullying” senior management, Heads of Department, Heads of School and the HR Director
Mice “bully” cats. Sparrows “bully” eagles. Fish “bully” the trawler men. Rabbits “bully” foxes
And a student can “bully” a Vice Chancellor.
It all makes complete sense to those who run universities
Actually… I was told that a student can bully the Vice-Chancellor, all the Pro-Vice Chancellors, the Academic Secretary, the Registrary (who is on prolonged sick leave!), all the senior HR, all senior members of his previous Department, the Head of the Education Services, the Head of the Office of Student Conduct, Complaints and Appeals, … the list is very long! But he cannot talk about these things “to enable a full and fair investigation to be carried out.”
The corrupt oligarchy of UCam will continue in its path of institutional bullying until they are stopped by the accumulating scandals and their cost! Newspapers will have field day! American Queen VC is totally inept and out of her league and the rot and decline will continue! Chancellor Lord Smith must act or become accomplice to the terminal decline!
Surely all the upcoming stories are just defamation…
I encourage all people who read these posts to ask their line managers or tutors what is the percentage of reports of behavioural and research misconduct that is upheld in their institution and note their answer. 1%? 0.1%? 0.01? Lower? It must be a tale!
Bookmaker’s Odds on Exit Year of the American Queen
2026 … Evens
2027 … 2/1
2028 … 3/1
Imagine a student began doing what Dr Christopher Backhouse did but to senior members of a university. Clearly it is possible for a student to harass senior members of a university whilst at the same time also being highly improbable – it’s a rare event.
In any bullying/harassment case, there is always the possibility that new information emerges which inverts victim and perpetrator, whilst this is improbable those handling a case nonetheless have to remain open to the possibility of an inversion occurring in every case and at every point in time when handling the case to maximise the chances of detecting such a rare event in a case with high individual impact which if missed would seriously impact trust in those handling the case to carry out full and fair investigations in future.
To have a “full and fair investigation” of a case the case itself must be relatively static. In a bullying/harassment case one practical barrier to a “full and fair investigation” can be that the ongoing behaviour in the pool of individuals connected to the case (or a subset of the pool down to one individual connected to the case) prevents the case from stabilising without which it is very difficult to carry out a “full and fair investigation”.
I think part of the reason organisations end up in an irrational position on bullying/harassment – of having a zero tolerance policy in place for bully/harassment whilst simultaneously avoiding dealing with this type of case at all costs unless absolutely forced to deal with it and given no other option – is that the organisation gets badly burned on the first case it handles after the introduction of the zero tolerance policy if it struggles to stabilise the case in order to carry out a “full and fair investigation” and that generates unconstrained amounts of organisational stress whilst also ultimately resulting in an abject organisational failure to carry out a “full and fair investigation” and handle the case to an acceptable standard.
Organisations, like individuals, tend to avoid any situation that could generate unconstrained amounts of stress where there is the possibility of the situation also ending in abject failure unless forced into that situation and given no other option. Once a zero-tolerance bullying/harassment policy is in place it’s very difficult for an organisation to remove it without its removal being perceived as an organisational signal of a backwards step on this issues. However stabilising a serious bullying/harassment case without causing significant further harm to a victim is something that requires a high level of understanding of this type of case and if an organisation cannot yet do this removing a zero-tolerance policy is potentially a rational course of action. More serious cases of bullying/harassment will rip through an organisation regardless of whether the policy on bullying/harassment is zero-tolerance or not – it’s enough to have a bullying/harassment policy and until the organisation has learned to stabilise cases of this type it makes very little sense to introduce a zero-tolerance approach as this runs the risk of overwhelming the whole organisation.
One key element in stabilising a bullying/harassment case is that the victim understands this type of case and can correctly interpret the purpose and intent of organisational actions with respect to them to accurately determine whether victim and organisation interest are aligned in the organisational actions being taken with respect to them in the case. A potential victim has the bandwidth to build an understanding of a situation an active victim may not have. A potential victim has the capacity to trust an organisation to help them build an understanding of a situation an active victim may not have. A potential victim can analyse a situation as if they were in it i.e. do the necessary learning to prepare them should they ever end up in that situation with the luxury of knowing that if they get the analysis wrong they are not immediately creating an existential risk for themselves unlike an active victim. Organisations introducing zero-tolerance bullying/harassment policies [hybrid HR – health and safety policies] with no effective organisational preparation and training is the equivalent of a company prone to many different types of fires putting a set of fire extinguishers on the wall without doing any training on fire-type/fire extinguisher compatibility.
Bloody right!
How to Identify Academic Abusers by their Speech – Ultimate “Red Flag” Guide
1. “Appropriate”. Word frequently deployed by abusive managers in any context where they need to justify violation of their staff rights and any failure to adhere to management obligations. Examples: “It would not be appropriate for me to give you that information”. “It would not be appropriate to answer that question”. “Your request will be considered at the appropriate time”.
Who defines what is appropriate? The word, of course, must never be defined. Essentially it means whatever the user does is implied to have some procedural authority when in fact there is absolutely none.
2. “Inappropriate”. See “Appropriate”.
3. “Proportionate”. Another excellent piece of HR bullshit, designed to make the user’s actions seem fair and reasonable – when in fact, they are totally out of line with reasonable norms and expectations. Examples: “the number of documents we disclosed was proportionate to the request” (true meaning: “we did not fully comply with the order – and intend never to do so”).
4. “Disproportionate” – term frequently applied whenever a victim escalates their concerns. Example: “the student’s move to contact senior management was entirely disproportionate”. True meaning: you are small and have less rights than we do.
5. Rule number one of any abusive organisation: responsibility must be avoided at all times. Never allow any document to reveal which individual was responsible for any decision, belief or action – ever! Examples: “the committee determined that…”, “the department is of the view that…”
6. The passive tense. Still, this may risk too much accountability for the systematically abusive organisation (surely there was a committee chair or department head in the meeting?) No problem! Thanks to the miracle of the passive tense, it can all simply be attributed to ghost in the machine. “It was agreed that the candidate’s complaints were excessive”. “It was determined that a decision would be taken at a future point in time”. Did anyone agree or determine anything? One thing is certain – you will never be able to hold anyone accountable until to file the whole thing to court – where someone, eventually, will be forced to show up.
Excellent!
Adding to 5 and 6, a common trick at Cambridge is for an individual to refer to himself or herself as “the University“. This avoids accountability and the passive tense (though of course betrays galloping egomania). Here’s an example:
“In the light of the above observations and given the fact that the matters complained of directly relate to highly historical matters which have been fully determined in accordance with the University’s appropriate policies and procedures, the University is not prepared to consider the issues contained within your letter of 12 December 2023 as a fresh and freestanding grievance. The content of your letter is noted although not accepted.
It is also noted that your letter indicates that you will take further action “as a result of detriments which [you] have been subjected because of raising protected disclosures” if the issues raised in your letter are not resolved. To be clear, the decision by the University not to consider the content of your letter of 12 December 2023 as a freestanding grievance is because of the reasons articulated above and not because of any disclosures which may or may not have been made by you in the past. On that basis the University considers this matter to be closed and will not be corresponding with you further on it.”
At no point does the author of the letter (very senior member of administration) take any responsibility, but repeatedly hides behind “the University“.
No individual is entitled to call themselves “the University“
Something to add to the “Red Flag” Guide not covered yet:
– The use of extensive quotations from policies (Whistleblowing, Dignity at Work, Research Misconduct, Student Complaint Procedure, etc) when the goal is to justify their practices and being as evasive as possible when nothing justifies these.
– Confidentiality, especially when we cc senior management or hamper their strategy of pushing the problem to another division. For example, if OSCCA tells us to contact HR regarding our questions, and HR does not respond, OSCCA does not find it reasonable that we report it to OSCCA and cc HR. Yes, it seems ridiculous, but it is very true.
– Never calling senior members by their names but by their position at best—like, there were allegations of behavioural misconduct against you done by the Vice-Chancellor, all Pro-Vice Chancellors, the Academic Secretary, the Registrary, all senior HR, all senior members of his previous Department, the Head of the Education Services, the Head of the Office of Student Conduct, Complaints and Appeals, etc, and your name is the only name that appears in the entire letter. If you mention their names in your own allegations, these names disappear in their answers. Similar to what was said above, but sometimes without even saying “the university” as if “your allegations” did not have a subject.
– Acknowledging minor faults to be able to say that they acknowledged something.
– The use and abuse of “misunderstanding” as a way to explain their malpractices.
…
We should write this guide and send a copy to all the senior management, obviously free of charge because they have already enough expenses with lawyers and such!
When you raise pure public interest concern with no private interest element to comply with a strong legal obligation to the university this is a very noticeable problem since you are not then initiating a case that will result in any remedy of your own situation beyond actively stabilising health state to minimise the risk of the university being held liable for a serious health and safety violation. Everything being requested in relation to your own situation is for the purposes of precise stress regulation in the public interest situation to minimise health risk whilst the public interest disclosure is being processed – something which is legally required of the university and in its best interests.
If those handling the case identify the case as a pure public interest case the university has no adversary in this situation since an individual initiating this type of case has to act exactly as they would have to act if they were a trustee of the university, do the same conflict of interest calculations (individual, organisation, public), consider the impact of their individual actions on the stability of the organisation and on all the other individuals in the organisation and the potential for any party to abuse of power in such a situation, engage on the concerns whenever anyone in the university requests engagement, contribute towards building internal capacity to solve internal problems, keep the matter confidential irrespective of whether a non-disclosure agreement has been signed, stop the case when the situation is unchanging and/or there is a rational response to the case, report to external regulators if the case is unchanging and there is no rational response to the case, take action to ensure the legal obligation to the university is complied with.
This is a completely different situation to an individual initiating a private interest dispute where an individual is free to protect their own interest and can adopt an adversarial position with respect to the university if that is what serves their own interests in the pursuit of an individual remedy. If those handling a public interest case mis-identify it as a private interest case, the misidentification of the type of case leads those handling it to mis-classify the individual initiating the case as an adversary of the university. That creation of an adversary for the university where none exists by those mis-identifying the type of case is what leads to the significant waste of organisational resources often seen in these type of cases.
Who is the adversary of the university in my case? The sole purpose of the interaction is to comply with a strong legal obligation to the university, a strong legal obligation there is no option but to comply with (health state permitting), there is no adversary of the university in such a case. It never goes to an employment tribunal and never goes to any court for the purposes of obtaining an individual remedy. It only ever goes to the external regulators and the only court it is ever going into is the high court for the purposes of invoking an individual right – article 3 ECHR inhuman treatment – for the purposes of complying with a legal obligation to the university and others in the university – and prosecuting the university for a health and safety violation. Every party in the case has the exact same interest in the case, complying with a legal obligation to the university, the university has no adversary in such a case.
The only reason a case like this comes into existence is that those handling the case fail to identify a case where the university has no adversary, since they are used to handling cases where the university has an adversary – private interest cases – they are biased towards identifying every type of case as a private interest case, that bias is what leads them to try to create an adversary for the university out of the individual but what they are really then doing is creating an adversary for themselves in a public interest case where the university still has no adversary. The reason why this eventually backfires is that it then generates conflicts of interest that are unresolvable for those handling the case because they haven’t analysed the case properly and they end up in a situation where it is very difficult for them to protect their own interests whilst complying with a legal obligation to the university i.e. they end up in the situation the individual is trying to warn those handling the case away from.
Can the university define unreasonably persistent behaviour in the context of an individual initiating a public interest case for the specific purpose of complying with a strong legal obligation to both the university and the public. A judge could ask for a definition in one of these court cases where everyone in the case is there for the exact same purpose – complying with a strong legal obligation to the university and the public. What one judge might consider unreasonably persistent behaviour in the specific context of a private interest dispute another judge could consider reasonably persistent behaviour, the behaviour that became necessary for the individual to comply with a strong legal obligation to the university and the public.
It is significant as well that when masking responsibility for unethical or illegal acts, they always refer to themselves as “the University”, but never, once do they use the proper formulation: “Cambridge University”.
This too is a psychological marker of responsibility avoidance. They know perfectly well that what they are doing is wrong. They dare not name the university upon which they are shifting the blame for their deeds. They know that this in itself would be a shame against the institution and culpability for blackening the name of Cambridge, most likely with legal consequences for defaming this proud university.
We must insist that if the formulation “the University” is ever used, one always replies by referring to “Cambridge University” or “the University of Cambridge” for the avoidance of all doubt. And further, that alumni, donors and stakeholders are made aware of their doing so and who exactly is bringing shame upon the university in this manner.
The only person who might possibly be entitled to call themselves “the University” is the Vice Chancellor, Prof Deborah Prentice.
When “the University” is used, this implies the explicit consent or approbation of the Vice Chancellor.
She after all will bear ultimate responsible for the wrongdoing.
If a civil servant sent unauthorised communications in the name of the government -to say nothing of them attributing their statements to “the United Kingdom” – this would be a most severe disciplinary offence.
Not even the Prime Minister has the right to issue decisions on behalf of “the United Kingdom”. The expected formulation is “His Majesty’s Government” or simply “the Government” because he serves at the behest of the King and Parliament. The main exception would be matters of foreign relations in which the country itself is the sovereign legal actor.
The same ought to be true at Cambridge. Even the VC only serves at the behest of the Council and Regent House, and is a salaried employee.
If it transpires that members of the administration have appropriated the right to take decisions in the name of the University without formal consultation or approval, and that have resulted in adverse legal or reputational consequences, then they must face immediate sanction for this.
This is why the Government (or dare I say “His Majesty’s Government”) must now step in to take responsibility for the UK higher education sector. That means: appointing senior civil servants who ensure implementation of such standards within our institutions as part of a comprehensive process of university governance reform.
There is clear precedent for doing so in relation to the banking system or railways. We would similarly benefit by university administrators being forced to follow civil service’s same high standards.
This would then allow the government to square the circle on the current funding crisis – in short, axing the funds wasted on external consultants, lawyers, and overpaid VCs and administrators in order to liberate resources for the core public objectives of teaching and research excellence.
There is an important point here in relation to norms of accountability. Though I am personally averse to usage of the expression “American Queen” it nonetheless expresses a legitimate critique, insofar as the Vice Chancellor is not “sovereign” but a mere servant to the university, as we all are. Hence communications should be attributed accordingly e.g. as their personal decision, or that of a specific responsible body.
Of course if I understand correctly, what we are dealing with is a far more serious misdemeanour. Namely the appropriation of the right to speak for the University of Cambridge as a whole by individual members of HR, legal services or other middle management, who have no authority to do so, and are aware of this fact, by covering up their personal attribution.
Doing so on matters of reputational and legal risk for the institution ought indeed be grounds of dismissal.
It is sadly the case that members of the academic staff too, presumably in good faith, send in their own names HR pre-written statements about e.g. “unacceptable risk to the university”. This enables HR to effectively impersonate university officers while remaining unaccountable.
I would urge all members of the academic community never to allow that to happen, and to either quote HR drafted communication, citing their source, or request that the individual sends the communication in their own name.
In most workplaces any individual found to mask a personally motivated act of misconduct (e.g. to cover up violations of internal regulations or legal noncompliance) in the name their employer would be immediately dismissed?
In most workplaces, maybe it’s a dismissal offence.
In universities, the wrongdoers get a bonus.
If you destroy a grad student or postdoc, then that is an extra point on the salary scale.
Wiping out a senior Professor and his/her research group of postdocs and students shows a real high-flier, someone potentially HR Director material.
In this connection, despite Cambridge bullying scandals all over the press, the relevant proVC got a big pay rise.
That is perhaps unfair because they are busy in writing statements to the webpages of the University. There is a new webpage for “Harassment and sexual misconduct” where ProVCs appear presenting their views, and the page does not fail to highlight the value of freedom of speech. Check it out!
You mean this page here.
“We are crystal clear that harassment and sexual misconduct are unacceptable. We have an obligation to prevent it, and everyone at the University has a role to play. That’s why it’s important that all our staff understand our policies and what is expected of them, including what to do if they receive a report.” (Professor Kamal Munir, Pro-Vice-Chancellor for University Community and Engagement)
In my experience, every singe word in that statement is untrue. Let’s give a quote back for Prof Kamal Munir.
“The purpose of propaganda is not to persuade or convince, not to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is in some small way to become evil oneself. One’s standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed.” (Dalrymple)
Yes, but I was actually thinking about the other quote, from Professor Bhaskar Vira, Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Education, “Anyone should feel able to report this kind of behaviour [harassment, misconduct or abuse] believing they will be taken seriously, trusting we will take action, and knowing that support is available.” That they will take action, I do not doubt, but it can be against you. And support is available, except when you are a student who is being investigated for bullying the Vice-Chancellor, all the Pro-Vice Chancellors, the Academic Secretary, the Registrary, all the senior HR, all senior members of a Department, the Head of the Education Services, the Head of the Office of Student Conduct, Complaints and Appeals, etc. In those cases, you should deal with the situation by yourself “to enable a full and fair investigation to be carried out.”
The real problem is that people who never reported misbehaviours, staff or students, do not know what happens next. Statements like those in the link are more than hypocrisy, but unfortunately, we only appreciate this fact after experiencing what happens once we report misbehaviours.
Bhaskar Vira, Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Education, “Anyone should feel able to report this kind of behaviour [harassment, misconduct or abuse] believing they will be taken seriously, trusting we will take action, and knowing that support is available.”
This statement from Professor Bhaskar Vira is accurate – the university will take a report seriously, you can trust the university will take action and that it will make support available. Note however that there are some things the statement does not state – it states the university will take the report seriously but it doesn’t state that it will take the life of the individual making the report seriously, it states the university will take action but it doesn’t state the university will take action that will improve the life of the individual making the report by placing safe limits on the amount of inappropriate behaviour the individual is exposed to in the university, it states it will make support available but it doesn’t state it will make support available to enable the individual to minimise the impact of the situation on their studies or that there is no chance of the individual being removed from a course of studies in the wake of reporting inappropriate behaviour.
These are the type of reassuring statements that those in positions of responsibility in universities make to lull individuals into a false sense of security. These statements encourage an individual to take action that has the potential to completely destroy an individual life because these statements lead individuals to believe that should they run into any serious difficulty they can always approach the person who made these reassuring statements and that this person will always be in a position to care for and resolve any serious difficulty for the individual. Individuals who are lulled into this false sense of security neglect the possibility of the person making the statements themselves becoming a source of harassment/abuse for the individual [Note : this comment is general and does not specifically relate to Professor Bhaskar Vira]
There is a higher risk of that happening in Cambridge than in some other universities because in some other universities when there is a serious/difficult problem of a particular type the people who are responsible for solving that particular type of problem for the university organise a meeting with anyone who is having a serious/difficult problem of that type to check if it possible to solve the problem internally whereas in Cambridge this is far less likely to happen. Cambridge seems to favour the formal legal approach of dealing a serious/difficult situation which seems to consist of avoiding dealing with the situation as much as possible until the individual gets a legal advisor at which point Cambridge then has the option of claiming the relationship has broken down and the problem is unfixable.
The best chance of getting a problem fixed in Cambridge is to be completely independent of the university. To not rely on the university for anything – independent funding, independent accommodation, private health insurance, private legal insurance. This is the position that maximises both individual power and the chances of obtaining a fair resolution in any dispute with the university. Statements from the University, Pro VC for Education, unions, senior tutors, tutors, external regulators – cannot be relied on in times of serious individual difficulties. Having to explain a serious risk to your life to person after person after person who either don’t understand how extreme the situational risk is and the need for precise situational stress regulation or who do understand but have no power to act in the situation is excruciatingly stressful and dehumanising.
If an individual happens to end up in a dispute with Cambridge, Cambridge will care about settling that dispute (fixing the problem and precisely regulating the stress in the situation) in proportion to funds accessible to the individual to pay for legal proceedings. There is a way for students to maximise their protection from harassment and sexual misconduct in Cambridge – get insurance to cover the costs of legal proceedings and maintain the power to instruct a legal advisor from the very beginning of any serious/difficult situation.
It is possible that Cambridge manages to solve a problem for an individual without a legal advisor but it is also possible that without a legal advisor the interaction between Cambridge and the individual becomes highly irrational such that a problem that is initially solvable if handled correctly rapidly becomes unsolvable because it is mishandled from the very beginning. If the latter happens in the case of an already serious/difficult problem this can lead to a situation where an individual is then beaten to a psychological pulp.
There is no organisational intent to harm in Cambridge – there is just a collection of organisational error-correction processes that don’t work. Individuals go into a grievance process with one grievance and come out with the original grievance still in tact and a new set of even more serious grievances. Individuals come out of a concerns process with more and more serious concerns than they went in with. Currently no one in Cambridge is prepared to sit down and talk through a serious problem. It seems to be going through a cultural phase where its dispute resolution capability is at a minimum.
“Wiping out a senior professor and their research group of postdocs and students shows a real high-flier, someone with the potential to be an HR Director.” This very thing allegedly happened recently in an Oxbridge STEM department.
A senior professor voiced concerns to the Head of Department (HoD) about the surprising appointment of the HoD’s unqualified friend to a senior professorship. In response, the HoD made the professor’s life so unbearable that they had no choice but to leave.
The HoD has since been promoted within the university hierarchy after leaving the department they directed in ruins. Their unqualified friend is now the new HoD. What a happy ending!
Which dept is this? We’d be interested in hearing the details (in confidence), [email protected]
What Bhaskar Vira meant to say is this:
“Anyone should feel able to report this kind of behaviour, trusting we will take action. We will act. We will swiftly investigate you, instead of the perpetrator, ensuring that the wrong person is stressed, discredited, and thoroughly unsupported. We hope to break you in pieces pretty quickly”
Most people in the University know this. The ProVCs know that most people in the University know this.
I reckon you mean most senior people know this and tacitly accept it to be able to stay in the university. Those who know and do not accept it, are pushed outside and cannot even alert new members who do not know it yet. Most if not all people who read the 21 Group know it because experienced malpractices that were not addressed. The key issue is how once can reach those who did not yet go through all this experience.
What is required as a condition to end the abuse is that one – and if done to the fullest and maximal extent, it may take only one – “little Eichmann” inside this system is finally charged, brought to trial, and exposed in detail and in full view of the world for the actions they have taken.
It is cast iron certainty that this will happen, may all other “little Eichmanns” take note.
Why not name them here?
Please do not name individuals guilty of misconduct on this blog without supporting evidence.
If you have evidence of misconduct, please let us know through [email protected].
We will then consider how best to move forward on the disclosure.
“The world now understands the concept of ‘desk murderer’. We know that one doesn’t need to be fanatical, sadistic, or mentally ill to murder… it is enough to be a loyal follower eager to do one’s duty.” (Simon Wiesenthal)
Irrationality at the level of the system rather than irrationality at the level of the individual is generating risk for individuals in the system despite a high proportion of individuals in the system being loyal to the system and eager to do their duty in the system. Individuals must acquire the ability to understand and compensate for the irrationality in the system to protect themselves and other individuals in the system from harm. The condition for ending the abuse is understanding that irrationality has emerged at the level of the system and finding a way to bring the system into a more rational state.
Anyone in a student safeguarding role in Cambridge could be asked to take part in an organisation denying a student a first opportunity for examination in the event they are severely ill at the time their final examinations are scheduled and unnecessarily sending the same student away with an unclassified degree. If student health status never permits a first opportunity for examination an unclassified degree is potentially a rational outcome but if the organisational examination processes are what never permits the student a first opportunity for examination this is both discrimination of the student on the basis of health status and a failure to accurately examine the student and uphold organisational academic standards. Cambridge is irrational with respect to both student safeguarding and academic standards.
The organisation could go looking for a “little Eichmann” for the purposes of making the other “little Eichmanns” take note. All the other “little Eichmanns” could take note and could leave the organisation. The problem is the organisational processes take no notes and can generate new “little Eichmanns” for the organisation in no time.
Cambridge is prepared to concede an unfair dismissal but is not prepared to reverse the unfair dismissal – what then is the point of having grievance processes in Cambridge?
Cambridge is prepared to fire individuals for raising concerns but not prepared to use the concerns to rid itself of its internal problems – what then is the point of having concerns processes in Cambridge?
It’s no wonder one or more little Eichmanns emerged in Cambridge, its full of internal processes are completely fucking pointless and devoid of any meaning.
For those interested, the Dr Catherine MacKenzie versus University of Cambridge case is discussed here.
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5d0c9ee92c94e061e53b3f43
An examination process that doesn’t produce an examination. A grievance process that is not capable of resolving any serious grievance because the organisation is stuck in a state of non-compliance with a reinstatement order after an unfair dismissal where people in the organisation have lost faith in the grievance process as a result of that non-compliance. A concerns handling process that is unable to handle concerns because the organisation is incapable of distinguishing between a public interest case and a private interest case & applying the concerns handling process to the former type of case instead of trying to induce the latter type of case in every situation.
Lots of pointless, meaningless activity masquerading as useful organisational work for the organisation. Is the “little Eichmann” a person, or is the “little Eichmann” an organisational state – an organisational state of incomplete examination processes that are not enabling the organisation to balance the need for student safeguarding and the need to maintain academic standards, an organisational state of non-compliance with a reinstatement order after an unfair dismissal that has caused the grievance processes to lose all meaning, an organisational state of incomplete concerns handling processes that cannot separate a public interest disclosure from a private interest dispute, resolve the more complex conflicts of interest that arise in a public interest disclosure and use the public interest disclosure to improve the organisation in the interests of the organisation and the public.
For those interested in how the university handles public interest concerns, Dr Anita Faul describes the university approach here :
https://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/reporter/2019-20/weekly/6577/section6.shtml
A rational system has a lower risk of producing a “little Eichmann” and a higher probability of identifying a “little Eichmann” and taking the appropriate action. Irrational systems have the potential to generate the same range of catastrophic outcomes as an irrational individual only writ large across the whole system.
The reason that a culture of institutionalized bullying developed is twofold. First, the university has an insurance policy against legal cases brought against senior managers and administrators. And second, the university has a history of always settling cases – often at phenomenal financial cost – shortly before trial, along with the signing of an NDA.
The effect of these two policies was to allow a culture of impunity to arise within the organisation over many decades, such that heads of house, department, faculties and senior administration (HR, Registry, Legal Services) felt secure in being able to engage in all manner of wrongdoing without any prospect of eventual reputational, career, or financial cost.
This system, however, is now collapsing, for the following reasons:
1. In the hope of saving on cost, the university began allowing the risk of cases to reach court. This has led to accelerating press interest and awareness due to their witnessing evidence of abuse and mismanagement. Plus, it has finally resulted in complicit parties facing reputational damage when their profiles appear in the newspapers (e.g. the Daily Mail feature on the Connolly case).
2. Newspapers can publish stories on the basis of public interest (the “Reynolds defence”, now formalized in the 2013 Defamation Act). The magnitude and nature of recent scandals at a national institution in receipt of taxpayer funding clearly passes that threshold. Similarly, whistleblower protection allows for greater public disclosure. This has allowed victims to come forward and feel secure in reporting their experiences, as well as newspapers to publish them.
3. The culture of impunity has grown to such an extent over time that it is resulting in acts that have crossed beyond mere financial settlement, but may entail more severe consequences for the parties involved, such as revocation of professional licenses (e.g. for in-house lawyers), memberships of professional associations and titles, and in cases of criminal conduct even judicial sentencing, together with the justified loss of professional reputation that will result once acts are revealed to the profession and broader public. As such, mere insurance against legal cost alone, can no longer fully protect abusive individuals within the organisation from facing the consequences of their actions.
4. As noted elsewhere legislation has been passed to restrict use of NDAs in certain domains (e.g. sexual crimes) and is in train to extend more broadly (to bullying across a wide variety of areas). This now renders the strategy of “settlement and silence” redundant, and is already causing potential perpetrators to rethink their collusion in organized staff abuse.
This is a superb summary.
It is a good summary. But you are missing another point…
6. At the point at which acts of misconduct coordinated by senior figures in the administration (that is within HR or legal) risk being exposed or investigated, they are more than happy to betray the very same figures they used as conduit for their actions (e.g department administrators, junior HR, heads of department, responsible persons). They can do this because they are so careful to mask their involvement by e.g. hiding behind legal privilege, instructions via phone, and refusing for their electronic communications to be disclosed via GDPR. Academics are now aware of this, and to a greater extent than most realise, ready to politely yet firmly refuse orders to collaborate in abuse.
As a number of commentators have said, this is a very perceptive post. Some additional remarks:
1 This decision coincided with the appointment of the new Pro-VC for Community & Engagement. As you mention, the Connolly case (which the University won) proved a Pyrrhic victory. It led to the name of the plagiarist being published in the press. It led to the name of the Responsible Person being published in the press. There was widespread sympathy for Dr Connolly given the University’s catastrophic handling of the matter (which does not reflect well on the Responsible Person, whether she is responsible or not). There was widespread revulsion at HR. Those who attended the Tribunal saw members of HR (who were present en masse) exulting in the destruction of an academic.
2 This is likely to be a feature of the next 12 months. There are a number of newspapers pursuing a number of Cambridge cases, some extremely serious, some just jaw-dropping! It feeds into the national story of gross mismanagement of public money by Universities. This narrative (whether true or not) is convenient for our political masters and is one of the causes of greater press interest. And of course, press interest feeds off itself.
3 My prediction is some individuals will be encouraged to pursue new opportunities elsewhere in 2025-2026. Let’s recollect Emma Stone (HR Director before the present incumbent) left abruptly and is now assisting plutocrats in the Middle East.
4 The present proposals on NDAs are the end. If the legislation is enacted in early 2026, there will be some senior individuals taking long-term sick leave to avoid appearing in law courts.
Incidentally, these senior individuals that get long-term sick leave may still be able to charge against junior members in case of need, such as when the senior management needs to act collectively against one single individual. While not wholly satisfactory, I hope it is at least embarrassing for them to have to use all their firepower towards one single student.
Organisations like UCam are in decline because incompetent crooks run it! And an American Queen VC is clueless!
When the history of this whole sorry saga is written it will be noted that this little decision (to let “minor” cases reach tribunal) kicked off the whole campaign. Though I doubt very much that was the intention (and resulted in horrific distress to victims) it was the spark that set off the whole fire.
@ Anon
It works like this
The senior management (HR and legal and registrar) identify some hapless and hungry mid-career academic whose research career has stalled (common within the university) but who now dreams of a “second wind” within academic administration where they will at last enjoy massive six-figure salaries and some prospect of earning enough for a comfortable retirement
Woo them with promises that if they only “play the game” then they too can join the golden club with university management payouts, expense accounts, travel budget and lifestyle
Hapless academic takes all the responsibility for complying with orders to destroy whistleblowers, litigants and subjects of personal disputes
If successful they are appointed and join the club. If not management sees this fact as proof of their non-suitability for the toxic world of academic destruction and denies them position and blames them for all failures
[…] is the exchange of thoughtful comments. Here we highlight a contribution from Justius in the thread here. While he or she is describing events at Cambridge University, the 21 Group has evidence that these […]
[…] only a few weeks ago, whilst the names of other sex abusers at the London School of Economics, University College, London, Cambridge University and Oxford University have been widely reported in the […]
I am impressed with this website, this is a valuable resource for those experiencing bullying.