Nothing surprises us about university HR departments any more.
Last week, The Times and Personnel Today reported an extraordinary story. A famous UK university, which is currently implicated in a case involving allegations that a senior professor sexually harassed a female colleague, has been granted complete anonymity by an Employment Tribunal judge.
The university requested the confidentiality order, citing concerns about safeguarding its reputation and that of its staff. The judge approved the request, but did not provide any legal justification for the decision.
We do not know which university this is. There are some obvious clues in the story, so the gagging order was likely a complete waste of money.
First, the university is very wealthy with an international “reputation” that it needs to protect. Of course by “international reputation“, what is really meant here is “donors“. This suggests that the University is likely at the very top of the Russell Group and probably a member of the Golden Triangle of London, Oxford and Cambridge (one of these universities is particularly famous for sex pests).
Secondly, this is very unusual. The Professor at the centre of these allegations is no ordinary Professor. After all, Oxford University despatched Prof Soumitra Dutta, the Dean of the Saïd Business School, for sexual harassment only a few weeks ago, whilst the names of other professorial sex abusers at the London School of Economics, University College, London, Cambridge University and Oxford University have been widely reported in the press.
A university would not go to such trouble and expense to gag the name of any old bog-standard Professor.
We surmise that (i) the individual is at or close to the most senior levels in the University — perhaps a close colleague of the Vice Chancellor, or a pro Vice Chancellor, or the Master of an Oxbridge College; or (ii) the individual is an academic with a very high media profile whose name would be instantly recognisable to the public as the face of the institution.
The judgment has alarmed those campaigning for open justice. It is one thing for dodgy financiers or oligarchs or Andrew Windsor to use gagging orders. We expect no better of them. It is quite another thing for a prestigious and distinguished university to use public funds to do this:
“There are no circumstances in which an institution such as a university should be granted anonymity in this way. To do so represents a gross breach of the principles of open justice. Public confidence in the judicial system depends on transparency. This drift towards secrecy must be resisted and reversed.” [Sayra Tekin, legal director of the News Media Association]
The hypocrisy becomes even clearer when we see this is clearly at variance with the Athena SWAN principles. For example, Oxford and Cambridge Universities openly brag of their silver Athena SWAN awards. The awards are completely meaningless if it can be shown that such institutions are gagging the victims of sexual harassment.
The female victim of the harassment is appealing the judgment.
This is an appeal we must win.
The illustration is Professor Rath (Emil Jannings) looking lecherously at Lola (Marlene Dietrich) in The Blue Angel.
20 Comments
21percent.org · 21 October 2025 at 09:44
If the victim is reading this blog, we encourage her to make a crowd justice appeal for money
https://www.crowdjustice.com
There is a clear public interest in appealing this truly disgraceful verdict.
TheResearcher · 21 October 2025 at 10:09
“The university requested the confidentiality order, citing concerns about safeguarding its reputation and that of its staff.”
This is so shameful. No wonder people are afraid of reporting abuse if even a case like this in a university is silenced by law. Did they actually use the word “safeguarding”? Universities like UCam that ignore safeguarding referrals from their staff and students that build on extensive medical evidence should not even use that word.
I hope this and related decisions can be reversed urgently.
LegalEagle · 21 October 2025 at 14:05
The case recalls a similar legal dispute from 2019, when a Employment Tribunal issued secrecy orders shielding the identity of a prominent public figure accused of sexually assaulting two female staff members. The affluent public figure resolved the allegations privately, agreeing to pay the women substantial sums on condition that they sign non-disclosure agreements barring them from publicly discussing what had happened. We still do not know who this person was, he is referred to as Mr X in all documents.
Guess this is what will happen here — we will never find out the true identity of Professor Gropewell of Lustbridge University. He is obviously too important for his name to get out.
SM · 21 October 2025 at 14:13
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/law/article/wealthy-businessman-mr-x-who-paid-off-sex-accusers-wins-secrecy-order-l269xdh9m
21percent.org · 21 October 2025 at 14:18
This is a shocking article.
One of the women had claimed that she was attacked and orally raped in Mr X’s private office. She described in a witness statement how she was “paralysed with fear, terrified, disorientated and used like a rag doll, totally incapacitated and unable to escape”. Another woman described how she was groped by Mr X at his country residence. She said: “I felt numb, I kept thinking that this job was my independence that I had worked so hard for.”
….
The Times has fought a legal battle for more than a year for the right to report the case but a senior judge ruled last month that in this case the protection of the millionaire’s “honour and reputation” took precedence over the principle of open justice under which reporters are deemed to be “the eyes and ears of the public” in the courts. Mr Justice Soole, sitting at the employment appeal tribunal, acknowledged that the case involved “allegations of sexual offences” against “a public figure with a well-known family name” which are “entirely denied”.
TheResearcher · 21 October 2025 at 14:14
If I understood correctly, in that case the victims accepted to sign an NDA. I did not understand that the victim in this new post accepted to sign an NDA, and I really hope she does not. Luckily, the University of Cambridge tells us that they do not use NDAs, “The University does not use non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) or confidentiality clauses. We are committed to ensuring staff and students are not prevented from discussing their experiences of harassment or sexual misconduct.” See “Freedom of Speech” here,
https://www.studentsupport.cam.ac.uk/harassment-and-sexual-misconduct
SnapDragon · 21 October 2025 at 14:22
That is a total fucking lie. They threatened to sue me unless I signed an NDA and that was recent. This was about serious abuse by School and senior HR. They are fucking liars.
TheResearcher · 21 October 2025 at 14:50
What a surprise, UCam makes false statements!??!?! I can assure you that they will not try that with me. I am actually looking forward if they do because I will be able to share it here.
Bloody right · 21 October 2025 at 17:16
Bloody well said, bloody right!
Anonymous · 21 October 2025 at 19:52
On what grounds did they threaten to sue you unless you signed an NDA (assuming
it’s safe to say)?
21percent.org · 21 October 2025 at 17:21
A big difference is Mr X used his own money for the gagging order, whilst Professor Gropewell is using public money.
Universities should not be using tuition fee/donor money for such completely improper purposes. It is a serious abuse of power, and unlikely to receive approval of either politicians or the public.
It’s worth noting that Cambridge has supported the legal costs of serious wrongdoers before. A good example is events at the Institute of Astronomy in 2021. The University supported a Professor — later identified by the Commissary as the principal wrongdoer in events — in his legal costs.
TigerWhoCametoET · 21 October 2025 at 17:27
Was the case against the university or the professor individually? If the latter it would surely be corruption?
21percent.org · 21 October 2025 at 17:36
From the wording of the Report in the Times, the case is against both.
The fault lies both with the alleged perpetrator Prof Gropewell and the University of Lustbridge that failed to safeguard the victim.
Agreed — this is corruption. Public money diverted to private ends.
TheResearcher · 21 October 2025 at 17:34
“later identified by the Commissary as the principal wrongdoer in events”
You were lucky that the Commissary replied to you! I am still waiting for a reply from him since 3 July! I trust that Mr Elias will reply to me eventually, hopefully before I am suspended or expelled.
21percent.org · 21 October 2025 at 17:38
The University ignored the Commissary as well.
TheResearcher · 21 October 2025 at 17:45
What a place…
Wary Canary · 21 October 2025 at 21:33
Professor Gropewell’s identity will eventually be known —the truth can’t be silenced.
Oxon · 21 October 2025 at 14:06
Oh yes. Unrelatedly I would be happy to give you a list of historic sex perpetrators at Oxford. One passed last year… yet had a widely known predilection for the boys fresh from freshers’ week.
21percent.org · 21 October 2025 at 14:16
Please do send in confidence to contact@21percent.org
IMAGINARY · 21 October 2025 at 19:57
To Prof Gropewell you can add:
Prof Drinkalot who together with Prof Teflon are serial bullies at large in the School of Disease. Prof Smallman is the Head of School and provides support for these rogues.