University HR departments are facing the end of times.
Longstanding practice has been to lie, dissemble and cover up. This reduces most victims to pulp.
In a small minority of cases, the victim takes external action. Then an insurance policy protects senior managers against legal claims. Cases are settled with costly payouts, legal bills and non-disclosure agreements (NDAs). These practices fostered a long-standing culture of impunity, allowing senior figures — heads of house, departments, faculties schools, senior administrators and HR business partners — to do what they want. They could act without fear of reputational, career or financial consequences.
This rotten era is ending.
Employment Rights Bill
Universities are partly covered by existing legislation on Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs) or confidentiality clauses. But, the forthcoming Employment Rights Bill (including its provisions like Clause 22) will extend protections more widely. Any confidentiality / non-disclosure clause in a contract between an employer and a worker that prevents that worker from making an allegation or disclosure about harassment, bullying or discrimination will now be void.
This applies to current and former workers and current and former NDAs. We will be able to find out what has been hushed up in the past.
For students, it’s more complex. Students are generally not “workers” under employment law unless they also have a contract of employment, so Clause 22 likely does not directly apply to them in their capacity as students. However, the Freedom of Speech Act (2023) does apply to students in sexual misconduct & harassment cases, as well as offering broader protections to criticise universities.
Duty of Candour
The “Hillsborough Duty of Candour” (sometimes called “Hillsborough Law”) isn’t yet in full legal force, but the Government has committed to introduce it. It is now receiving a lot of press attention. The proposal stems from the calls after the Hillsborough disaster to impose a legal duty of candour on public bodies & public servants: i.e. a requirement to be open, honest, and co-operate fully with inquiries, investigations, etc., and to not mislead or obstruct the truth.
The new proposals will certainly apply to public servants, councils and the police.
This ground breaking bill will make the whole country a more truthful and just nation. (Bishop of Liverpool)
Universities in England are generally public institutions in many respects (especially the publicly funded ones), but whether that automatically makes them “public authorities” under a given statute depends on the legal definition in that statute. If the new law defines “public body” broadly, universities will be included. If the definition is narrower (e.g. only certain types of governmental functions, or only the civil service, police, local authorities), then universities might not be included.
We should contact our MPs and insist that UK universities are included in Hillsborough Duty of Candour Laws.
Properly implemented, this legislation could be transformational. It’s absolutely typical of the UK’s public institutions (including the universities) that those at the top spend most of their days lying to protect each other and the institution’s “reputation”.
70 Comments
Alaric · 18 September 2025 at 06:42
Who’s that in the pic?
Is it ‘Fireman Mike’ saving Cambridge University?
TheResearcher · 18 September 2025 at 08:15
Fireman Mike will be one of the first to run away when he realizes that he can get burned.
Veritas · 21 September 2025 at 00:28
He’s the hero we all deserve
Yippy ki yay · 21 September 2025 at 22:55
Burn well motherfuckers
SPARTACUS · 18 September 2025 at 07:22
The end of times has to arrive quickly! Universities are increasingly run by an oligarchy that is totally disconnected from the faculty and students. Cambridge is a paradigmatic example: VC, ProVCs, Registrary, Head of HR, Heads of School, a few ‘chosen’ Heads of Dep and Institute Directors, run the place in total disregard for the Statutes and the Law. Their modus operandi is consistent: with any given case or claim they (the oligarchy) decide a priori if a given culprit is to be destroyed or exonerated. The system then springs into action to ensure the desired outcome is arrived at and to cover it all up using confidentiality, intimidation and their deep pockets. The whole thing is corrupt and unlawful but nobody in power cares. It is the Post Office repeated again and again! Time to say: ENOUGH!
Bloody right · 18 September 2025 at 10:46
Bloody right!
Paul Pharoah · 18 September 2025 at 16:44
I used the analogy of the Post Office scandal when informing my colleagues in the School of Clinical Medicine of a disgraceful research misconduct investigation against a colleague. My colleague had to spend a six figure sum defending themself against allegations that were easy to prove were false before finally being exonnerated after their research group had been destroyed. Those responsible for bringing the allegations and investigating them got away scot free (and in some cases promotions).
Eileen Nugent · 19 September 2025 at 23:45
It’s extremely sad to hear of an organisational fault ripping through multiple peoples lives and depriving them all of hard earned opportunities to work on medical challenges for society.
SPARTACUS · 18 September 2025 at 08:09
Clarification: by their deep pockets I mean the University Chest. The oligarchy does not spend a personal penny. It is very different for the chosen victim: they will personally have to cover their legal costs even if that means ruin! Indeed the oligarchy will destroy many of their chosen victims precisely by knowing they can outspend them using our money ( yes the Chest is ours, not the oligarchy property!).
21percent.org · 18 September 2025 at 08:43
This is a very important point, which provides a public interest defence for this blog & the many postings on it.
The money that is being squandered by our HR/Legal Depts & our senior management is public money.
It is either money from tuition fees, money in overheads from research grants or money derived from donors.
HR & Legal don’t bring in money, they waste it. We provide the money for their lavish salaries and expensive lawyers.
Neither the Government nor students nor donors will approve of their money being thrown away in this manner to defend poor management from exposure of their mistakes. It is a major scandal with national & political implications.
The sheer gargantuan waste of public money by university senior administrators is one of the reasons why the Labour Government has been so unsympathetic to the plight of universities and not made more funding a priority.
SPARTACUS · 18 September 2025 at 08:50
21percent your post seems to indicate that the University has been threatening and intimidating you! Is this correct? If yes this is another massive scandal! I believe the UK is still a Democracy?
SPARTACUS · 18 September 2025 at 09:18
21percent silence in relation to this post has one meaning: UCam has been threatening 21percent! The press must be told!!!
Wyn Evans · 18 September 2025 at 09:31
The only person who has threatened me with disciplinary action is Nigel Peake.
The huge mismanagement of the School of Physical Sciences would then become public knowledge.
There are multiple victims in multiple departments.
Eileen Nugent · 18 September 2025 at 10:46
The physics department ignored two sets of whistleblowing concerns in relation to the department failing to act in ways which were consistent with student interest from two different whistleblowers – one related to financial support for students, the second related to student safeguarding and preventable deaths. Both individuals in that department had to report concerns to the Office for Students and both were dismissed by the department after they started raising concerns. Both sets of concerns were reported under the same head of Department – Professor Andy Parker – who is now head of a Cambridge college.
Details of the first whistleblowing case are here :
https://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/reporter/2019-20/weekly/6577/section6.shtml
I reported the second case to the Office for Students. I also raised concerns in relation to staff treatment in the physics department with The Health and Safety executive as those concerns were also ignored by the physics department and the University. There was very little engagement with any of the concerns at the level of the department and the organisation despite some of the concerns relating to serious safeguarding issues. The university seemed to have no insight into its own organisational behaviour and the profound potential impact its behaviour could have on its students and staff – life-altering psychological damage and the loss of a valued member of the community.
The university as an organisation doesn’t seem to see people as people with their own life and their own agency, it seems to see people as objects – playthings with no life and no agency – which seems to be why it so casually disregards the lives and agency of those it employs and teaches and is as an organisation less able to effectively protect life. This lack of insight of its own organisational behaviour seems to be the reason the organisation acts in ways which put people in these extremely dehumanising situations.
I spent years raising concerns to comply with a legal obligation to the university. It was the most stressful experience of my life and I came very close to not being alive. I did what I felt was the right thing to do – my only regret is the impact doing that has had on my own family – my only hope for the future is that taking these actions will prevent others from being treated in these dehumanising ways by organisations in future.
21percent.org · 18 September 2025 at 11:04
Eileen, many in the University have enormous respect for the stand that you took and are deeply saddened at the high personal cost
Eileen Nugent · 18 September 2025 at 12:22
If an individual is too persistent in raising concerns the university will eventually resort to attempting to invert that situation and say that in persistently raising public interest concerns an individual is engaging in some form of harassment as a way to avoid dealing with valid public interest concerns. At that stage the life of the individual is then at risk – health, livelihood, accommodation can all be on the line – and it is not possible to shield your family from the impact of that situation. The net result of this mishandling of public interest concerns is that organisational faults are left in place to worsen over time and to negatively impact more and more lives in future. In taking this approach the organisation is then unable to change and unable to improve itself to continuously build a better university.
In the current system individuals who are sensitive to systemic faults and are therefore in a better position to take actions that are in the public interest are expected to sacrifice their own lives and that of their own families in exchange for keeping the dream of “building a better society” alive for all other individuals and their families in future. In practice it is not possible for this dream to become a reality unless the system itself is willing to change. In order for the dream of “building a better society” to come true, systems have to learn how to handle systemic concerns in humane ways when concerns are raised.
The way the university handles concerns is highly irrational, if as an organisation it does not change how it is handling concerns it will not live a long life as an organisation – it will die as an organisation. If the university cannot see that it is unacceptable to put an individual in a position where they are being asked to sacrifice their own family to do what the organisation – through its legal obligations – is demanding of that individual then there is no hope for the university reaching a more sane state. If the university wants to survive in the longer term it’s time to deal with the concerns in a humane way.
It’s time for the university to change, time to put words into action, time to start addressing these concerns.
Anon · 18 September 2025 at 12:23
My department is in the same school as Eileen’s. I have experienced and continue to experience mistreatment at the hands of those in charge, which has been life-threatening, life-changing, and of a cruelty for which there are no words.
Heads of Department seem to have lost all ability to act independently of HR advice and interference. That advice is dispensed maliciously, in the interest of self-protection, and with intent to bring about increasingly serious detriment to those who raise concerns, each time they raise concerns.
The “personal” understanding of the wording of university processes and policies on which the advice relies is entirely against Statute C [UNIVERSITY OFFICES AND EMPLOYMENT IN THE UNIVERSITY] para 3, in particular (c)
“3. This Statute and any Ordinance made under this Statute shall be construed in every case to give effect to the following guiding principles, that is to say:
(a) to ensure that members of the academic staff have freedom within the law to question and test received wisdom, and to put forward new ideas and controversial or unpopular opinions, without placing themselves in jeopardy of losing their jobs or privileges;
(b) to enable the University to provide education, promote learning, and engage in research efficiently and economically;
(c) to apply the principles of justice and fairness”
There is an urgent need to take the ongoing threats to staff well-being resulting from HR interference and malicious advice in the School of Physical Sciences very seriously indeed.
Eileen Nugent · 18 September 2025 at 12:36
No matter where the concerns go externally – regulators, courts, press – in order for the concerns to have any real impact the University has to take action. Internal actions have to be taken for things to improve in the University. These concerns should go in front of Regent House, otherwise nothing is ever going to change in the University.
No to NDAs · 18 September 2025 at 14:15
In my opinion we are long past the point where the situation at our Universities has any hope of being fixed by trying to convince HR and senior management to change their ways through internal debate. This toxic culture is now too entrenched for that, and the overall scandal will need to be fully and vigorously exposed in the courts and the press. That may eventually have an impact.
TheResearcher · 18 September 2025 at 16:30
Eileen, I made a notification at the Office for Students (OfS) on how OSCCA and the Office of Independent Adjudicator (OIA) plan outcomes of investigations from students against Cambridge, and what documents the university should not submit to avoid accountability. I sent OfS the phone calls between OSCCA and OIA because phone calls made to OIA are recorded and you can request them through subject access requests. I have all the calls about me. Do you know what OfS did? They ignored it. I asked my college to make a notification on my behalf knowing the evidence I had sent them. Do you know what my college did? My college ignored my request.
What needs to happen is simply this: the scandals must be public as soon as possible. Only when a sufficient number of scandals is out, and the reputation of the university is seriously damaged, the senior management will wake up. It is very distressing because those who remain at Cambridge will see the reputation of their institution going down, but that will be necessary so that it can go up again, hopefully managed by honest people. The current leadership is dishonest and a bunch of cowards who isolate people to prevent that others in the institution know what they do. I repeat what I have said multiple times: confidentiality is the best ally of this scourge. Ignore their threats as much you can and speak about the abuses you experienced or witnessed.
The School of Physical Sciences, with the most discussed Lead HR Business Partner by the 21 Group, is in a disgraceful state. Please, ignore their threats or “requests” of silence!!!! They cannot afford gagging everyone.
21percent.org · 18 September 2025 at 17:02
There needs to be an independent and external investigation into the running of the School of Physical Sciences.
It’s a dumpster fire
And what is even more alarming is the Staff Culture Survey suggests that some of the departments in the School of Biological Sciences are worse.
TheResearcher · 18 September 2025 at 19:25
The reason they do not want an external and independent investigation is obvious. They know exactly what they have done and cannot afford exposure, namely the scandals that are piling up in the background. If that was not enough, they even dare to tell us, “I would repeat to you again previous reminders about the inappropriate manner of your correspondence, not least the baseless personal attacks on the integrity and professionalism of members of the University.”
I already warned the most discussed Lead HR Business Partner of the 21 Group that the next time she contacts me with more lies and manipulatory emails, my reply will go to the entire School of Physical Sciences. The same regarding her direct line manager. I am absolutely tired of these people who for some reason think everyone should fear them.
TheResearcher · 18 September 2025 at 08:23
What we really need at this stage is public scandals. More laws are important, but they take too much time to implement and the number of victims will continue to raise, namely when victims are not aware of practices that many of us experienced.
What we really need urgently is that the 2 scandals that the ProVCs and Press Office are addressing reach the large public very soon. If they can be gagged still, the circus will continue.
Renewal · 18 September 2025 at 17:54
I have reluctantly reached the same conclusion. The issue here is that the university has consistently failed to provide any form of neutral, fair internal process to handle complaints that are obviously in breach of our own rules and our broader legal requirements and instead put us at risk of breaches by the things we are being asked to do. Public disclosure will make us all safer – whether a victim of internal misconduct who has been denied due process or a bystander whose pleas to address these matters is being ignored time and time and time again.
TheResearcher · 18 September 2025 at 20:51
I can safely say that I am likely the person who tried to reach more people within the university, and no wondered I was diagnosed with “Unreasonably Persistent Behaviour.” I have tried all doors you can imagine, even The Sainsbury Family Charitable Trusts, but Lord Sainsbury was always busy. All doors got shut, literally all. Because I did not let it go, the only solution the university found for me was to create after 28 months of neglect a counter story to silence me where now I am being investigated for abusive behaviour against all those I contacted and ignored me for over two years. I am now denied of raising any form of formal and informal complaints, and I have to be silent regarding the investigation against me “to enable a full and fair investigation to be carried out.” I am looking forward to receiving any follow up from that “investigation” to share it here because I could not care less about their “urgent precautionary measures.” Yes, I have already told them that directly. The worst thing one can do in these conditions is following the enforced confidentiality. If they want to investigate my very bad behaviour and potentially calling the police to discuss my “crimes” (yes, they wrote that!), surely, I can make my “crimes” public.
I am absolutely sure we need public scandals for these people to wake up, but not one or two, we need a large number so that counter-narratives of “defamation” do not fly. The current state of this university is appalling, and only public exposure will make a difference at this stage. If anything, public exposure will alert potential victims about Cambridge’s crisis.
Renewal · 18 September 2025 at 21:26
I can tell you for a fact that you are not the only one because I have seen similar petitions and pleas from victims at other schools who took this approach. Have no illusions that they all know this culture of abuse of students and early career staff is endemic and have chosen to ignore it. Senior people did try to raise the issue and they were ignored or told lies as well.
TheResearcher · 18 September 2025 at 22:32
“Senior people did try to raise the issue and they were ignored or told lies as well.”
I can say that I contacted—and continue to contact—very many people on a daily basis, both from the university and the college, regardless the precautionary measures against me, and I am constantly ignored. The only people who have listened to me were the 21 Group, and incidentally I ended up discovering that most people involved in my case were involved in the most discussed case by the 21 Group. Whistleblowing disclosures and safeguarding referrals based on GP letters that explicitly implicate the University of Cambridge in the abuses have been ignored. Masters of Colleges and Senior Tutors too have ignored all these issues and instead of addressing the farce that this university is at the moment and standing by victims signpost them to their GP, the college nurse or encourage them to calling 111.
Do you remember that on September 13 I wrote in “The Master of St Machiavelli’s College” the post, “Ironically, in the buttery bar of St Machiavelli’s College by the Master’s Lodge there is a large digital signage that reads: Public Notice, St Machiavelli’s College has a legal duty to protect its students and its academic and non-academic staff from sexual harassment, abuse and other inappropriate or unwanted behaviour. We will take immediate and appropriate action to address any such incidents.”?
I learned today that St Machiavelli’s College now has 3 posts of this in the buttery!!!!!
SPARTACUS · 18 September 2025 at 22:26
It is not just students and junior people. World leaders in their field have similarly been treated by this horrible toxic place! The oligarchy in Cambridge acts like the Post Office did! They think the same way and use the Chest to cover their legal costs. VC, ProVCs and all senior management have to be fired!
Renewal · 18 September 2025 at 23:33
Absolutely. What unites all the cases is victims who were either junior, female, ethnic minority or studied outside of Cambridge (or UK entirely), and were seen as “not knowing their place” because they had been too successful. It is a culture of mediocrity and resentment. The victims were senior too when they met other criteria of discrimination and the case ypu refer to is widely known around the world.
21percent.org · 19 September 2025 at 07:40
We think this is a good point. There are deep currents of racism and misogyny in how Cambridge University HR operates
Many of the victims are female or ethnic minority or outsiders
This is accompanied by performative applications to Athens SWAN or the Race Equality Charter by the University that try to game the system
The applications often contain untruths about how the University behaves — they would be caught by ‘Duty of Candour’ legislation
The 21 Group plans to coordinate action against any further applications by the University to these bodies until matters have substantially improved
ExCam · 19 September 2025 at 08:16
Essentially it functions as an “old boy’s club” in which the core membership profile is someone who is old, white, male, and above all, has spent their entire life (perhaps since undergraduate days) at the university. The rest of us have to “prove” that we too belong in the club.
There is another aspect to this, however, that has not been properly discussed here. That is the fact that if you are a person who falls short on say one essential criterion – you are an ethnic minority man, white woman, or transferred to the university after a successful career or studies elsewhere – then you are far, far, far more likely to find yourself asked to “stick the knife in” against a colleague or student who has raised a legitimate report of abuse and misconduct regarding one of the “club” members.
That this is so is no accident. Doing so functions as a form of “loyalty test” – to prove that you too belong up there with the rest of them.
Along the way they will reassure you that this is “how things are done around here” and that “everything will be fine”, because these matters are always resolved and no-one is ever exposed. But beware such lies. The times are changing and when it rains, it floods.
Anonymous · 19 September 2025 at 09:52
ExCam, that is so true. I feel a very insidious feature of this whole system is the way members of staff from minority and gender-diverse backgrounds are the ones called on to provide “cover” for those in charge (as witnesses, RPs or statements and letters). My feeling is that this is no accident. It is because we are seen as offering them protection by virtue of our backgrounds. This is not as often discussed as it ought to be.
TheResearcher · 19 September 2025 at 10:23
I largely agree with these concerns, but I want highlight that some of the main responsible for the current chaotic state of the university—Vice-Chancellor, Registrary, Director of HR and Head of OSCCA—are not part of the stereotype “old, white, male,” and it is not clear to me they make their judgements based on that stereotype at all. They simply seem to have a different moral system where it is acceptable to conceal and manipulate information to prevent reputational damages broadly construed.
Anonymous · 19 September 2025 at 12:27
ExCam raises an excellent point. This is an insidious and widespread problem.
A Head of School once attempted to recruit me onto a group ambush of a senior Professor. I politely told it where to go (note the deliberate use of the word “it” here). Of course, this upset the Head of School who then went full psychopath on me instead. I’ve truly never seen anything like it, and I do not use this term lightly.
I should also say though that I personally have not seen any particular trend as far as victims are concerned, in terms of gender, age, ethnic background, junior vs Professorial staff, etc. All are potential victims. On the other hand, this also applies to perpetrators, in my experience at least (although, I admit that the ‘Old Boy’s Club’ mentality may be more prevalent in much older Universities, but may not be the national average).
The overall issue of corruption and abuse of power is a nationwide problem in Higher Education.
Anon · 19 September 2025 at 11:13
I fully agree. There is a culture of entitlement, resentment and exploitation, coupled with an insidious perversion of very valuable policies which are meant to protect, not expose to detriment and injustice. This needs to be talked about much more openly.
LjdW · 19 September 2025 at 14:18
Social class the other big factor. There is this big sociologist who left the university a couple of decades ago and when he was asked why he left said that as a working class kid he always thought getting here meant he had finally arrived, but then afterwards, found out he would never join the inner circle no matter how much he published or what accolades he achieved. He never sold out by poshing up his accent and assuming the cultural capital of the elite and reckons this fact alone really irked those who had.
No Future · 19 September 2025 at 19:18
Social class is the elephant in the room, the spider in the web, the thread that ties it all together.
The culture of inherited arrogance and disdain, the belief that titles matter more than achievements, the marginalisation of minorities and outsiders, the expectation that staff should work without enough pay to provide a roof over their heads, the network of favours and nepotism, the priority of “politeness” over addressing abuse, the expectation that they will never have to face the law, the system of hierarchy and seniority, the disdain for practical accomplishment, the attitude that it is better to write or talk about invention, than actually build, invent, or innovate.
Not just Oxbridge · 19 September 2025 at 20:48
Sounds like Kent.
Go West · 20 September 2025 at 12:08
“The culture of inherited arrogance and disdain, the belief that titles matter more than achievements, the expectation that staff should work without pay, the priority of “politeness” over addressing abuse, the system of hierarchy and seniority, the disdain for practical accomplishment”
Sounds like the whole of the UK to be honest. I am glad I left.
Anonymous · 21 September 2025 at 16:58
What’s happening in Kent would make your jaw drop.
21percent.org · 21 September 2025 at 18:31
We are interested to hear what is happening
Anonymous · 19 September 2025 at 12:39
Does the 21 Group have any further details on these insurance policies that cover senior managers and HR? For example, who offers them?, what exactly do they cover (just lawyers fees, or does this include pay outs at Employment Tribunals etc)?, and would they cover a perpetrator retrospectively if they left a given institution, etc. I think this topic is worth exploring further, alongside the harmful assistance being provided by external lawyers and corrupt investigators to the overall problem.
TheResearcher · 19 September 2025 at 12:58
There is now a vacancy for “Senior HR Business Partner” that states:
Key Responsibilities
• Lead, motivate, and develop your team to ensure a high-performing, customer-focused approach to service delivery.
• Develop and implement HR and workforce plans that meet the strategic needs of the Department, School and University
• Provide expert advice and innovative solutions to senior stakeholders on complex HR issues, including case management, policy development, and organisational change.
• Partner with senior leaders to deliver transformational HR initiatives that foster an inclusive and engaged workforce.
What You’ll Bring
We are looking for an HR professional with:
• Exceptional leadership and people management skills, with the ability to inspire and develop high-performing teams.
• A deep understanding of HR practices, including advising on employment law, managing complex cases, and driving organisational change.
• A proven track record of building trusted relationships with senior stakeholders, influencing decision-making, and leading on high-profile HR initiatives.
• A commitment to fostering an inclusive workplace and delivering people-focused solutions.
• Familiarity with working in complex matrix organisations
What we offer
This is a unique opportunity to contribute to the success of a globally renowned University while working at the forefront of academic excellence. You’ll enjoy:
• A collaborative and supportive work environment.
• Opportunities for professional development and career progression.
• Access to a vibrant community of leading researchers and industry partners.
Please, consider applying for this exciting opportunity! I would contact HR and ask if my CV is competitive but, unfortunately, I am forbidden to contact them again (perhaps for life!), namely with uncomfortable questions.
Xerxes · 19 September 2025 at 14:15
Key Responsibilities
• Write workforce plans that will be ceremonially launched at an Away Day, quietly ignored within a month, then weaponised in the next restructure.
• Provide “expert advice” on case management, which mostly means stitching up the victims
• Partner with “senior leaders” on “transformational change” that transforms precisely nothing.
What You’ll Bring
• Charisma sufficient to inspire your team. Dead-eyed resilience and lack of conscience sufficient to endure back-to-back grievance hearings.
• Encyclopaedic knowledge of employment law, so you can know exactly which tribunal precedent the University is breaking.
• A deep commitment to “inclusion” and “work-life balance” even as the committee on equality, diversity and inclusion meets at 5am on a Tuesday morning in a wheelchair-inaccessible room.
What We Offer
• A “collaborative” work environment where collaboration means CC’ing everyone in the School to cover your backside.
• “Professional development” such as attending a day-long workshop on Microsoft Teams while your inbox erupts in grievances.
• A vibrant academic community, where your main contribution will be helping the Head of Department choose the next victim
• The privilege of being the invisible duct tape holding together the world-class reputation of a university that pays you in lanyards and wellness webinars.
TheResearcher · 19 September 2025 at 14:48
I am not sure if they will like your sarcasm, but if you tone it down just a notch, perhaps they will not notice. Consider applying please because we desperately need more HR Business Partners in this university, as if we did not have enough. I am not sure if they have longer leave periods than other staff, but one thing I noticed in those I know is that they are on leave every other week, and this is a trend I found in different departments and schools. I never understood why really. Perhaps this is absolutely fine.
Vox · 20 September 2025 at 11:34
“they are on leave every other week”
Our administrative overlords have accomplished communism
Sadly the rest of us have reverted to feudalism
SnakesAnd(L)adders · 19 September 2025 at 17:22
“A deep understanding of HR practices, including advising on employment law…”
…that’s advising the in-house lawyer? Who doesn’t seem to get it quite right?
TheResearcher · 19 September 2025 at 17:49
That is a good point. I thought they meant that the ideal candidate should have basic knowledge of employment law that academics typically do not have, such as the 3 months deadline that an employee has to make a claim after being dismissed, so that they can delay internal appeals beyond that date, and when they receive the ET3 form from the Employment Tribunal, they can say the former employee could have done a “Google Search” instead of trusting them and waiting for internal appeals to finish. I am pretty sure that the Lead HR Business Partner of the most discussed case by the 21 Group has this important skill and can even produce witness statements! I miss her very much.
SPARTACUS · 20 September 2025 at 08:37
Looks at The Times UK University rankings!!! UCam and UOx out of the top 3 for the first time ever! Toxic environments have consequences!
21percent.org · 20 September 2025 at 08:49
Absolutely no surprise to anyone at Cambridge University
Our hugely destructive Human Resources department has played a big, big role in the fall
No sign yet that anyone in the complicit senior management team has understood
TheResearcher · 20 September 2025 at 09:06
I reckon that the senior management is more concerned with other kinds of news and if they leak to the public. Regarding these rankings, they will simply say that rankings fluctuate, and it is the result of many factors. But institutional corruption where they are directly involved, if nothing else for ignoring the pleas of many members, will be harder to explain.
Xerxes · 20 September 2025 at 10:05
The Academic Secretary was asked about the fall in the rankings at the last ‘town hall’
His reply was a classic 😉
SPARTACUS · 20 September 2025 at 10:47
ERC Starter Grants 2025: UCam got 2 (two!!!!). This is totally scandalous! Probably ranks UCam out of the top 25 in Europe!!!!!
Peter · 20 September 2025 at 10:55
The Spectator known for its balanced writing, blames the unfair drop in public school acceptances. HR and EDI policies and State funded educated academics are obvious to blame too!
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/oxfords-decline-and-fall-is-no-surprise/
“This decline must at least partly be blamed on the universities offering ‘contextual offers’ or using ‘contextual data’ in assessing applicants who may have lower grades. It appears to be under this flawed system that the president-elect of the Oxford Union, George Abaraonye, got into Oxford with just ABB in his A-Levels.”
Vox · 20 September 2025 at 11:31
No wonder when HR are blocking staff from applying for grants
>>
they are paid millions in order to further bankrupt the university by undermining fundraising
>>
It’s a disaster
Castor · 20 September 2025 at 11:59
The Spectator is right to point to a lack of meritocracy at Oxbridge. But at least when it comes to academic hiring the main problem is not “diversity” but rather one of nepotism, arrogance and corruption.
LSE for all its faults (and there are many) is at least more meritocratic in that they hire good people and reward them financially.
We are run by a bloated and corrupt bureaucracy that has plucked the golden goose free of all its feathers and now begun killing the geese.
Peter · 20 September 2025 at 12:14
Thank goodness Oxbridge are not the top of every league. Many OxBridge educated or trained researchers are employed in other UK universities. This is great success story.
No University can be top of every league table in the 21st century. Please lets not take the University sector in the UK back to the privately educated macho male dominated higher education sector of the mid to late 20th century.
Cambridge was equal tops in the recent UKRI Future Leaders fellowship awards in the announcement from earlier this week.
https://www.ukri.org/news/ukri-announces-winners-of-120-million-future-leaders-fellowships/
It was top in Europe for ERC Advanced grants in this announcement from June this year.
https://www.edtechinnovationhub.com/news/cambridge-researchers-secure-most-european-research-council-advanced-grants-in-latest-funding-round
“Cambridge researchers secure most European Research Council Advanced Grants in latest funding round. Eleven Cambridge academics have been awarded prestigious ERC grants, leading all institutions in the 2025 allocation.
The University of Cambridge, in the UK, has received 11 Advanced Grants from the European Research Council (ERC) in the latest competition, the highest number awarded to any institution. The ERC, part of the EU’s Horizon Europe program, funds senior researchers conducting long-term, high-risk research across disciplines.”
The list of celebratory successes that are due to the inclusive Cambridge research environment is a major success for the UK, and all staff and students in Cambridge.
21percent.org · 20 September 2025 at 12:24
The imbalance of resources towards Oxford, Cambridge & London Universities is a grave problem
In fact, we only need to look at what is happening to the Welsh & Scottish Universities to see that the policy is a serious threat to the integrity of the United Kingdom. There are likely to be closures or mergers in Scotland & Wales in 2026
The North of England is also treated shabbily.
One of the disastrous policies of the present Govt is the apparent wish to create a Silicon Corridor between Oxford and Cambridge (a pet enthusiasm of Lord Vallance).
Even more public money is being poured into one of the richest parts of the UK.
21percent.org · 20 September 2025 at 15:44
Comment on UKRI Future Leaders & Cambridge
Eileen Nugent knows a lot about this. She may want to comment.
Our understanding, based on what happens in the School of Physical Sciences, is that the University only puts forward applications to UKRI for the Future Leaders Scheme from individuals already holding offers of Lectureships or open-ended positions.
This no doubt is technically legal, but it is not in the spirit of the scheme — which is to create new positions for those who do not have them.
Rather Cambridge University is actually reducing the number of such new positions
It is easy for a postdoc to test this by writing to a Dept and asking for support for next years scheme, and then posting the reply here!
Caveats: (i) it is possible that the policy in other Schools is different, (ii) of course, the winners deserve generous congratulations (irrespective of what policy is being pursued by the Cambridge University).
TheResearcher · 20 September 2025 at 12:32
Xerxes, where can we find that ‘town hall’? I am planning to contact the Academic Secretary soon for another topic and would love to share some thoughts on his perspectives about this particular topic. Yes, I may be expelled for that.
Anon · 20 September 2025 at 14:55
First of all, let us take a moment to congratulate LSE, St Andrews and Durham for their excellent performance. At a time when UK higher education is under pressure, we must always celebrate research excellence, a positive staff culture, and student satisfaction with their academic experience where they exist and commit ourselves to learn from the best. For too long these universities have been seen as playing second place to Oxford and Cambridge.
Second of all, let this be a learning experience for all of us. For years now, members of this group have again and again tried to alert the university leadership to the problems we are facing with staff retention, bullying, and financial mismanagement. We have done so not from a place of bitterness at our own experiences nor those of our colleagues (some of whom have since left for these other universities) but from a genuine desire to avoid losing our place at the top.
While we must celebrate the performance of the UK’s new top universities, I think I can speak for many of us when I say that we feel deeply saddened to see how we have lost our own place at the top, when this is the outcome we all wanted to avoid for so long.
Let us learn from this shock and let this be the urgent wake-up call we need in order to reform and do better.
* · 20 September 2025 at 15:10
“The list of celebratory successes that are due to the inclusive Cambridge research environment is a major success for the UK, and all staff and students in Cambridge.”
Each and every one of the academics who have successfully applied for an ERC Advanced grant or been awarded a fellowship have every right to be proud of their achievements and deserve the respect of their community.
Their achievements have nothing to do with any “inclusive Cambridge research environment”. They are certainly not a reflection of any current supportive environment for high achieving academics. Nor should those individual successes be used to mask the real difficulties for applicants and grantees to get any matching support from their institution for the accolades they have received from external funding bodies.
These individual successes are being achieved in spite of, not because of.
newsflash · 20 September 2025 at 20:06
Seems Oxbridge is fast becoming the place for the rejects not good enough to qualify for admission to Durham or St Andrews
Eileen Nugent · 27 September 2025 at 01:20
Comments on the future leaders fellowship in Cambridge :
Comparison: Cambridge versus UCL in the first 7 rounds
Round 1 – Cambridge 2 – UCL 5
Round 2 – Cambridge 2 – UCL 10
Round 3 – Cambridge 1 – UCL 7
Round 4 – Cambridge 2 – UCL 6
Round 5 – Cambridge 8 – UCL 7
Round 6 – Cambridge 0 – UCL 4
Round 7 – Cambridge 4 – UCL 4
Total : Cambridge 19 – UCL 43
UCL wins the future leaders fellowship competition, it’s a knockout!
Cambridge/UCL Difference in fellowship awards integrated over first 7 rounds = 24
Cambridge/UCL Difference in grant income = 24 x ~ £1.5 million = ~ £36 million.
Financial loss in income arising from the Cambridge UKRI future leaders policy =
£36 million.
This loss is relative to UCL whose policy for applications to this fellowship differed in that UCL allowed fixed-term staff to apply.
It pays £millions to not unnecessarily exclude all your fixed-term staff from applying for an excellent career development opportunity!
It’s also legal to not subject your fixed-term staff to less favourable treatment or detriment under The Fixed-term Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2002 – bonus!
Visigoth · 19 September 2025 at 14:25
Partner with “senior leaders” on “transformational change” that transforms precisely nothing.
Reimagining Professional Services LOL
SPARTACUS · 20 September 2025 at 16:53
Fact: a holder of a recent ERC Adanced Grant at UCam has his lab and group destroyed by the oligarchy and barely survived as a person. Demonstrably false allegations were raised and those that started the falsehood and those that acted as compliant Responsible Person were rewarded by the oligarchy! The place is toxic and rotten!
TheResearcher · 20 September 2025 at 17:22
I would be game if a few of us come together to write a book on how the University of Cambridge changed our lives. “Breaking the Silence” campaigns are curiously missing the view of the victims. I reckon that book would be a best seller and we could even donate any profits.
SPARTACUS · 20 September 2025 at 15:10
‘Peter’ who are you? You sound like someone working for the oligarchy!
Bloody right · 21 September 2025 at 18:33
Bloody well said, bloody right!
Voices of the Victims - 21percent.org · 28 September 2025 at 09:29
[…] an earlier thread, the poster called ‘TheResearcher’ made an intriguing […]