An interesting blog comment appeared on our earlier posting A Sum of Adders.
Readers may recall this fable provided a graphic example of DARVO. This stands for Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender and is a standard response of Human Resources departments when someone senior is accused of misconduct.
“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.
An extraordinary comment.
Several citations look plausible but questionable: Goff et al., 2008 is real (“Not Yet Human,” on the dehumanization of Africans via ape associations). However, Russell (2011) on DARVO is already suspicious. The classical DARVO reference is work by Jennifer Freyd (1997).
Hoermann (2017) and Dyer (1997) don’t clearly match known scholarship on serpent metaphors. These plausible but untraceable references are a signature AI pattern, where the Large Language Model (LLM) invents or misattributes sources. A human expert would give precise, checkable citations or fewer references overall.
The text is analytical and academic in tone. It unpacks the fable thematically (animalization → serpent tropes → antisemitism → DARVO). This is exactly the sort of structured progression that ChatGPT produces when asked to critique or “explain why something is problematic”.
Phrases like “classic strategy for dehumanization,” “not neutral,” “pernicious effects,” “echoing centuries-old representations” are highly generalized academic phrasing typical of AI output. The flow is polished and smooth, with minimal hedging which is another common LLM hallmark.
The final illogicality is that the poster, having railed against animalization as symbolic of dehumanization & racism, then signs off the comment as “a dog”.
Now ingest the original text of ‘A Sum of Adders‘ into Chat GPT & ask how it can be framed as a form of racism and violence, and you will be surprised with what you get! A very similar narrative to the comment!
Clearly, the job of malefactors is now simplified. All they need to do is feed any email message or text into ChatGPT and ask it to frame a narrative that the text is problematic, or capable of being misinterpreted as a micro-aggression or inappropriate or racist. It is a great tool for those wanting to smear, distort, lie and defame.
Our conclusion is that the comment was generated using AI by a malefactor … with fangs and teeth.
The 21 Group emphasises that the animals in the fables are entirely fictitious. Any resemblance to real animals, people or events is coincidental. Image credit to Annavou, licensed under Creative Commons here
Wow. I can just imagine the HR Business Managers jumping on this to convict a bunch more innocents
In my experience HR staff tended to stick rigidly to templated organisational responses or to past organisational responses to cases HR perceived to be of a similar kind to the case at hand so I can’t see HR staff en masse experimenting with AI generated responses as this is likely to generate more problems for HR than it solves.
Wow – I can just imagine the HR Business Manager now working themselves up to another hissssy fit…
I was told that the Researcher of “A Sum of Adders” wanted to send this text to all the senior management of that tale who are now complaining against him and encourage them to do a better job with ChatGPT next time because this work was very easy to spot, while reminding them that there are many people in that Site of Knowledge that already experienced the venom of the Adders and they will not be fooled by posts like these.
Unfortunately, he cannot send them this text as he received “urgent precautionary measures” and has to be silent about the sudden investigations against him “to enable a full and fair investigation to be carried out.” He hopes, however, that they can read these posts—they already told him they are aware of the blog and that it will work against him in the investigations!—and it is an opportunity to stress what he already told them that no one in that Site of Knowledge will silence him, regardless of their seniority and status. It is perhaps because of this that there is currently some despair to discredit him.
That is just hilarious. They wanted to make a point about dehumanisation but then had to outsource the job to a computer!
A tale doesn’t have to be humanised for it to be used to derive accurate insight about a particular situation it relates to, the tale can also be de-animalised or alternatively animalised to remove/vary any e.g. predator prey cognitive biases that might be generated in the animalisation of the tale, biases that might interfere with learning all the lessons a tale holds for its audience.
+ for what it is worth there are some great companies now that offer AI-based HR outsourcing tools. If the BOS has interest I am sure we could get Cambridge a quote for how much cost reduction it could enjoy by doing a full switchover. After all it sounds like they have already started the process themselves so really just question of cutting out the middleperson(s).
Are they really trying to weaponise antisemitism as a means to keep whistleblowers from expressing critique? I find it hard to believe any university can tolerate administrators who would stoop to such an awful moral and intellectual low.
Ask the following question to ChatGPT: what conditions could lead to an institution to weaponize antisemitism or other serious accusations against a whistleblower?
Then remember that this particular whistleblower is being charged of alleged abusive behaviour against the most senior members of the institution, even those that have been on a long sick leave. Their level of morals is a function of their feeling of threat.
But rest assured, when the Researcher of that tale receives the report of the allegations against him—evidence is being gathered now—he will publish it here if the 21 Group agrees.
“what conditions could lead to an institution to weaponize antisemitism or other serious accusations against a whistleblower?”
A snake that has been outed, feels aggrieved and under threat, and will literally stop at nothing to get back in control.
It would be hilarious if ChatGPT answered that! What it actually says is, “While it is never ethical for an institution to weaponize accusations like antisemitism, racism, or other serious charges, there are certain conditions that can make this more likely to happen… weaponization is more likely when the institution feels threatened, lacks accountability structures, and prioritizes self-preservation over truth and justice.” Do we know any place like this?
A very insightful analysis. It is a shame they are not asking chatgpt for ethical and managerial advice instead of using it for the ends they allegedly have.
Let’s follow the example of the poster and ask ChatGPT. Can you give examples of UK Universities with poor records on bullying & a toxic culture?
1. Universities with Elevated Staff Bullying Rates (UCU Survey)
A University and College Union (UCU) survey revealed persistent bullying issues across multiple institutions:
University of East London topped the list, with 16.7% of staff reporting being always or often bullied.
Other institutions with troubling figures included Kingston University (15.9%), De Montfort (14.3%), University of Lincoln (13.6%), University of Salford (12.8%), and Queen’s University Belfast (10.1%) (Sources UCU)
2. Bullying and Harassment at the University of Cambridge
An internal survey from early 2024 exposed deep dissatisfaction: only 27% of staff were satisfied with how bullying and harassment were handled, and just 52% felt their mental well-being was supported (sources The Guardian, Times Higher Education or THE).
Reports describe bullying and harassment as becoming “entrenched and normalised”, especially in high-pressure research departments (Source: Times Higher Education or THE).
3. Rising Complaints at Imperial College London and University of Cambridge
Between 2017 and 2019, Imperial College London saw staff bullying complaints more than triple, from fewer than five cases in 2017 to 18 in 2019 (Source Research Professional News)
University of Cambridge doubled its reported complaints (Source Research Professional News)
4. Toxic Culture at UCL’s Bartlett School of Architecture
UCL’s Bartlett school faced widespread accusations of sexism, racism, and bullying:
A 2021 investigation by Guardian and others uncovered deep-rooted inappropriate behaviour, including verbal attacks and humiliation along gender and racial lines. A subsequent external review (Howlett Brown) in 2022 confirmed a longstanding “boys’ club” culture, entrenched protectionism, and lack of accountability. UCL issued a formal apology and took steps to address the issues (Source Wikipedia)
5. Workplace Toxicity at Institute of Cancer Research
Over 45 staff members filed formal complaints against geneticist Nazneen Rahman, citing a toxic work environment and bullying.
An independent review upheld many of the allegations, leading to Rahman’s resignation and the revocation of a £3.5 million Wellcome Trust grant. This case marked a rare instance of significant institutional accountability, though it also raised concerns about perpetrators potentially escaping long-term consequences “
Absolutely no surprise to see Cambridge there.
In a few more years, the HR department will have razed the place to the ground.
…the snake “feels threatened, lacks accountability structures, and prioritizes self-preservation over truth and justice…” it fits to a T!
ChatGPT seems very useful indeed!
One can even feed it with two fables, “The Story of the Snake — A Fable” and “A Sum of Adders” and ask ChatGPT if they could be critiques of a particular UK University, and if so, what university it might be. Notably, one of top guesses from ChatGPT is supported by a given article in the Guardian on cover-ups on bullying and harassment!!!
“Herr, die Not ist groß! Die ich rief, die Geister werd ich nun nicht los”.
[Goethe, Der Zauberlehrling]
Indeed. The genie is now truly out of the bottle.
Those who experience significant unnecessary discrimination – something which reduces the absolute power of a society – are often forced to persistently resist that unnecessary discrimination to build collective protections against such unnecessary discrimination of others in the same society in future. These collective protections are built and maintained by individuals accurately recognising and resisting unnecessary discrimination that has had or is having a significant impact on them as individuals.
Individuals reading unnecessary discrimination into a situation when it is not at play – inaccuracy – has the impact of weakening collective protections others have already been built up in that society. Complex and difficult societal interactions can have a high level of moral ambiguity where it is possible for an inaccurate analysis of a situation to occur despite an individuals best efforts to avoid this. Reading unnecessary discrimination into a situation where it is not at play has the potential to induce unnecessary discrimination in a situation where it would not otherwise be at play.
Sometimes in an attempt to avoid having to admit to a serious individual failing an individual under pressure may also make an accusation of experiencing unnecessary discrimination they know to be untrue – false accusation – one which is difficult to retract because of the gravity of the high pressure situation, this false accusation – if discovered – has a more significant negative impact on the existing collective protections than inaccurate accusations.
Individuals who weaponise this type of accusation are taking actions that have the potential to completely destroy the collective protections that others have worked hard to build for a society.
Imagine this: administrators who are ethnically white, accusing Black and Minority Ethnic groups of racism – simply because somewhere (on the far margins of the Internet) they finally thought they had a safe space in which they could air legitimate concerns about abuse and management misconduct without retaliation. That just sums up the whole situation in a nutshell.
UCam is a toxic place run by a dictatorial oligarchy!
UCam is a toxic place run by a dictatorial oligarchy!
Individuals in any racial group can be subjected to significant unnecessary discrimination, every racial group has individuals who are sensitive to situations where another individual is being subjected to significant unnecessary discrimination that is costing the other individual and society as whole, since racism is a subtype of unnecessary discrimination a subset of individuals who are sensitive to unnecessary discrimination in general are also sensitive to racism as a subtype of unnecessary discrimination.
When it comes to airing legitimate concerns about abuse and management misconduct without retaliation – race differences have the potential to significantly increase the difficulty of dealing with this already difficult type of situation. The possibility of racism up to an including the worst case scenario of bi-directional racism – highest barrier to the emergence of a fair outcome – has to be considered as well as the possibility of racism not operating in either direction – highest potential for the emergence of a fair outcome – in which case the situation simplifies to that of two individuals of the same race with the same range of possible outcomes in that situation – including the worst case scenario of the individual raising concerns being fired and accused of harassment.
In some organisations the probability of a fair outcome in this particular situation – concerns about abuse and management misconduct – can be very low and predominantly determined by the organisation being incapable of resolving that type of situation for any pair of individuals and not by the personal characteristics of the pair of individuals who happen to find themselves in that situation.
GDR had the Stasi. University management have HR. Same function: 1- oligarchy decides someone needs to be ‘dealt with’; 2- HR acts as jury, judge and executioner; 3- compliant faculty member is recruited as Responsible Person; 4- victim is then institutionally bullied by HR until capitulation; 5- if victim appeals the same exact HR will make sure oligarchy wins.
Ask ChatGPT how one can break that cycle. I copy/paste its core principles below:
• Document everything → if it isn’t written, it didn’t happen.
• Stay procedural → always talk about policies, never about personalities.
• Control the narrative → be the calm, reasonable professional; let HR look unreasonable.
• Keep options open → have an exit strategy, even if you don’t use it.
I would add, resist against confidentiality at all cost. Confidentiality favours HR.
On confidentiality: More than once I have heard senior professors going “full boomer” responding to complaints by saying that the “youth of today” are too sensitive, need to learn resilience blah blah blah.
But the second anyone calls them out on their own misdeeds, they immediately run to HR with these calls to maintain “confidentiality” around complaints. Their egos are apparently too sensitive for that. So they can dish it out but they cannot take it themselves.
There must be a strong positive correlation between the degree of seniority and the need for confidentiality in the context of behavioural and research misconduct. HR will not make much effort in enforcing confidentiality if the misconduct was done by junior members of the institution; but if it was done by senior members, they will do everything they can to cover it up. Now imagine what happens if the misconduct was done by several senior members, and the whistleblower does not accept being silenced. It seems it can lead to accusations of antisemitism and racism as a retaliation.
The need for confidentiality is also driven by the need to hide the toxic HR advice, which is being provided to those, in senior positions, who have misconducted themselves (and been found out / reported by others) and have made themselves reliant on HR help. The confidentiality, enforced by HR, effectively also provides cover for the HR advice provider.
The stronger a case is made for confidentiality, the more likely it is that process isn’t being followed, and that the advice provided is toxic, not just accidentally toxic or incompetent, but consciously aimed at bringing about maximum strife and destruction, completely unnecessarily.
It is not obvious that each and every perpetrator, however reliant they may be on HR help to sort out the glitches in their professional lives, would necessarily want to see their colleagues’ careers destroyed, lives ruined by defamatory lies, longstanding collegial relations obliterated, funding compromised, or people driven to suicide. All they might want (rightly or wrongly) is for the problem to go away.
By the time they’ve followed all the “helpful” HR advice, their department suddenly resembles the aftermath of a nuclear bombing – something which they hadn’t foreseen and would quite possibly never have wanted, but which they’ve contributed to, alongside those involved as “responsible” people, by following the guidance on offer, by sending out the messages and letters which were drafted for them, by believing some pseudo-legal reasoning without checking it, and by giving up their own academic and ethical judgement while still retaining all the responsibility for the decision-making.
By that time, it is too late to say “it wasn’t me, I didn’t know, I’m not that horrible a person”, because a he/she-told-me-to excuse from a senior academic may not really fly, and the realisation that one has been manipulated and deceived isn’t easy to come to terms with, nor the best of looks either.
Besides, the source of the advice has long ensured traces of their toxicity and of their involvement have been removed, and those in a position to provide evidence, may have been eased out of the institution or thrown under a bus in the time it has taken to bring any investigations to a close, or escalate the matter towards legal proceedings.
This post is a reply to AC below.
As the full picture of the situation at my institution was becoming clear to me, I was thinking precisely the same thing. At times I wondered, is this senior manager simply grossly incompetent (in their mishandling of a malicious mobbing attack for example).
However, in this example, the manager concerned was given every opportunity to back-track while saving face, and allowing the situation at hand to be resolved quietly and responsibly.
This never occurred, and it turns out that the manager concerned was actively working with HR to remove a senior academic from the organisation, for whistleblowing. I haven’t came across any senior managers that didn’t follow this same path in a similar situation (and the same for HR personnel).
I fully agree on the issue of confidentiality. This is imposed primarily so that the innocent target can be fully separated from all related staff, and even *all* staff if the target has been suspended. This is so that senior managers and HR can work on cultivating false witnesses, spread rumours, etc, while the target can do nothing to mitigate it. I’m sorry to say that this is a very effective strategy, and easy to execute, and so the organisation has almost all of the advantage here (except when such cases are raised in court).
In other posts it has been proposed that most, if not all, malignant HR activities are the result of senior management forcing HR into such acts of mistreatment. But never assume that it is always senior management getting HR to enact their will – it can just as easily work the other way round, whereby senior managers are manipulated by HR to work towards abusing and expunging an innocent target *of HR’s choosing*. This may indeed be what is actually happening most of the time.
In my opinion, there is a serious problem with how HR exerts and maintains power and control, for all the wrong reasons. The question must be asked if their aim is to ensure that only easily controlled individuals occupy senior management roles. I’ve seen such individuals fast-tracked from junior lecturer to Dean level, in just a few years.
Another chilling point that was raised concerns the following:
“Besides, the source of the advice has long ensured traces of their toxicity and of
their involvement have been removed, and those in a position to provide evidence,
may have been eased out of the institution or thrown under a bus in the time it has
taken to bring any investigations to a close, or escalate the matter towards legal proceedings.”
I had suspected that this might be happening, and it is beyond alarming to hear that others also suspect the same thing. Is the ’21 Group’ aware of more cases of this?
Please resist against confidentiality if you do not want the case to be confidential. Ask if and why confidentiality is compulsory to those who ask for it, as well as its legal basis, and cc multiple people if you can in your correspondence, namely the senior members of the institution.
The likely reason why this ChatGPT-made accusation of antisemitism and violence regarding the Researcher of the fable “A Sum of Adders” was done is because he contacted the most senior members of the institution regarding the abuses he had experienced and witnessed, ccing them in subsequent correspondence, and they now cannot say they did not know about the behavioural and research misconduct in the institution they are responsible for. They do know, and decided to ignore. What they can do now is discredit him and make collective allegations against him for abusive behaviour so that they have a counter story to publish once the Researcher of the tale makes the real story public. This is what is happening in a nutshell.
“In my opinion, there is a serious problem with how HR exerts and maintains power and control, for all the wrong reasons. The question must be asked if their aim is to ensure that only easily controlled individuals occupy senior management roles.”
The power of HR and the way this is expanded and used for all the wrong reason is a serious problem. HR control so many aspects of the recruitment process, and have input in promotions, as well as in EDI, development, retainer, redeployment and secondment strategies, which can all be used to move the “right” sort of individual in, out and around an institution (like pieces on a chess board). All of which creates entry points or opportunities for HR actors to take control.
When HR control “for the wrong reasons” gets out of control, it can create not only serious damage to the institution but lead to acute (physical & mental) health and safety concerns for the individuals treated like pieces on a chess board, recruited, pushed around into useful positions, used and discarded when no longer useful, or retaliated against when they rebel within the boardgame.
Absence, sickness and general wellbeing records are helpful indicators alongside the all-important bullying surveys, and information about staff turnover.
When one department ends up looking like a nuclear warzone, it would make sense for lessons to be learnt from the destruction, eg how this was caused, so some rebuilding can start. When several departments in an institution end up in that way, with all manners of legal action taken as well, one would imagine that some sort of forensic analysis would take place to understand how such calamities were allowed to happen. In particular, who advised/decided on what action to take, at what point and with what effect.
But all the so-called “independent” investigations are always controlled by HR or the legal people and steered within by conflicted actors (those who contributed to the problems in the first place), who provide junior HR staff as note-takers and then become advisors to the investigators and to much more senior people to discuss the next best course of action. It wouldn’t be surprising if they even ended up having some input in outcome letters. Where the problem creators become part of the problem solving, the outcomes aren’t going to be very useful to pinpoint where the issues really lie.
In many of the posts, “HR” is used as a generic term, which creates the impression that all HR people are potentially controlling and problematic. It seems more likely that the problem lies with a small number, who are strategically placed to be influential through their positions in the hierarchy and/or through the advice they are allowed to provide to those in such positions.
There was a reference some time ago in these posts to HR being the 51 Group. That makes a lot of sense. HR staff turnover is unbelievable, particularly in the more junior positions. DSARs and just general observations also show that HR staff are just as much part of the “chess board game”, promoted as needed, pushed around, used, misused, discarded and also retaliated against. We’ve probably all had the sad experience of a grey-faced HR advisor in an HR meeting, uneasily trying to implement a script they don’t really completely understand nor feel comfortable with, acting on behalf of someone else, who’s fully aware of who and what is being played and staying safely in the shadows.
AC – I share your views on all of the points you made.
On the issue of HR, and who may be responsible for most of what is going on, I should clarify that I am referring to those that are directly involved in the handling of complaints.
In my experience, I have never encountered such a member of HR that wasn’t making active choices to abuse etc, when other options were open to them. But that is just my personal experience and I am certainly prepared to accept that there are HR administrators out there, as you and others have noted, that are sick to their stomachs carrying out these harmful acts of abuse and corruption on the orders of those higher up in the chain. Indeed, the blog entry here is testament to this: https://21percent.org/?p=1239
However, this is just one case, and so it is vitally important that many more from HR come forward.
There are numerous ways that such HR witnesses can help if they prefer not to place themselves at risk. For example, by passing on any reliable hard evidence of corruption and abuse that they may have access to (when possible), especially to those victims that have placed themselves at considerable risk to try to bring an end to this catastrophic situation at our Universities. This would also have a positive impact on those HR members that are being harmfully impacted and also want change.
I have also not interacted with a single HR staff who had not actively contributed to the problem by further concealing and manipulating information, and I interacted with very many from different departments and schools, including the most senior staff from central HR. I am definitely not claiming that all individuals behave like that, and I even reckon that some feel ashamed and try to leave if they can. But it seems clear that HR staff (as well as “Response People” or internal “Independent Investigators”) are chosen for some cases precisely because they will side with the university, regardless of the evidence of misconduct available. There is HR staff who has been the subject of several complaints for behavioural misconduct, and they continue to work as usual. When the evidence is undeniable, the university does not even respond to the whistleblowers!
HR who wants to contribute to a change can contact the 21 Group in confidence for example. Sooner or later this Roman Empire will fall, and the help of HR who do not support current practices would be very appreciated to anticipate the change.
September 1, 1945. British terrorist Eric Arthur Blair was found guilty of defamation by the English High Court today.
Mr. Blair was ordered to remain silent and not permitted to release any further statement.
In delivering his sentence, however, Judge Cromwell told the court:
“By publishing this work [“Animal Farm”] you have deliberately engaged racist tropes that dehumanise the Soviet people and leadership, as well as the peoples of Germany and Italy. That you sought to publish this screed under a presumed name – “George Orwell” – only evidences your awareness of your wrongful act and your deliberate attempts to avoid accountability.”
“In sentencing you to 24 months solitary confinement, I hope you will have the necessary time to reflect upon core British values, and how you personally present an immnent and ongoing threat to them”.
Amy Chua charged of defamation for comparing Asian women with tigers; responds will fight conviction “tooth and claw”
Presumably I dehumanised myself when I adopted this username.
If you think that is bad then spare a thought some time for the Southern Vipers (the women’s cricket team for the south of England)
An important point may have been lost in this chain. That is the fact that while many of those who have brought forward grievances are from protected ethnic minority groups: it is not clear that the same holds for the person attempting to protect themselves via the rather malformed accusation of racism referenced in the post. That is the basis for a concern about DARVO (and in particular, the “RVO” part – an apparent attempt to reverse the role of victim and offender).
Hence, the issue is not whether it is fair comment for a person to express concerns regarding dehumanisation. After all, that is something all members of this group have done, many times, in regards to their lived experiences of marginalisation and victimisation. The issue is the apparent attempt to silence discussion of those matters: via an apparently false, and in many ways offensive, denial of how victims from protected minorities have experienced their own latent exclusion and discrimination.