Athena SWAN is run by Advance HE. Universities pay fees to Advance HE for assessment, application and renewal of the Athena SWAN accreditation.
Advance HE is a company limited by guarantee (as well as a registered charity). The company is owned by two bodies of the higher education sector – Universities UK and GuildHE. Their members are the Vice Chancellors or the Principals of all the UK universities.
Advance HE’s Board is listed in its Annual Report. The current Chair is Professor Mark E. Smith, Vice-Chancellor of the University of Southampton. The Board is composed almost entirely of Vice Chancellors or other members of senior management of UK Universities. Like all companies, Advance HE exists (at least in part) to make money. Its annual accounts for year ending 31 July 2024 show income of £19,194,000. Advance HE generates its income primarily through services to higher education institutions (membership fees, programmes and services, sale of educational resources, fees for events, conferences and workshops).
The Athena Swan awards are used across the globe “to support and transform gender equality”. This is a laudable aim.
The criticism often levelled against Athena SWAN is that the award incentivizes cosmetic changes rather than real transformation. The applications for awards are time-consuming, requiring large amounts of data collection and narrative reporting. More seriously, the application is entirely self-certified, so there is little to stop departments ‘gaming the system‘ or ‘making up the answers‘. Universities know exactly what Athena SWAN want to hear, and so they provide it in their applications.
Disturbingly, the 21 Group has received a number of reports of the failure of Athena SWAN to take action when provided with evidence of problems in departments on which their awards have been bestowed. We give two examples here.
Our first account comes from a postdoctoral scholar who tried to alert Athena SWAN to the serious problems unfolding in her department while she was a student:
Dear [REDACTED]
I am a recent graduate of the [REDACTED] Faculty at the University of [REDACTED]
I understand that the Bronze award lapses in the faculty this year.
I would like to share my testimony as a female student with a disability of what it was like to be part of this faculty as part of the upcoming application to renew their award.
Regards, Dr [REDACTED]
She never received any acknowledgment or response to this or further emails. In light of its stated objectives, it is troubling that Athena SWAN appears to show little interest in the personal experiences of female academics. Nevertheless, the Faculty’s Bronze Award was renewed without issue, even as the difficulties for women persist.
The second example is even more telling. Physics has long grappled with gender inequality, and perhaps for that reason, it hosts two parallel schemes. Alongside Athena SWAN, the Institute of Physics runs the Juno scheme — recently updated and sharing similar aims. This allows physics departments to apply for both, giving us a clear basis for comparison.
In 2022, a Professor at a Russell Group university wrote to both Athena SWAN and the Institute of Physics to raise concerns about the department’s award applications. Factual information in both the Athena SWAN and Juno applications appeared to contain statements that were not wholly accurate.
The Institute of Physics behaved in a truly exemplary manner. They responded immediately. They put in a lot of work, including meeting with the University. They deferred any further consideration of the Juno application until matters had been resolved.
What did Athena SWAN do? They did respond this time (perhaps because the correspondent was a Professor and not a recent grad student). In an unhelpful email, they said:
“As you are aware from our Guide to Processes, Advance HE is not a regulator and does not have powers of investigation; we are only able to consider information that is independently verifiable, for example, from an authority such as a court or tribunal or the Equalities and Human Rights Commission.
I have reviewed the information you’ve submitted and unfortunately concluded that it would require further investigation. In line with our processes, the information provided therefore does not impact on the eligibility of the Institute for an Athena SWAN award.
Thank you again for raising your concerns with us; I appreciate that this might not be the outcome you were hoping for and I hope that you are able to find a resolution to this issue soon.
All the Best [REDACTED]”
Athena SWAN seems to view its job as complete once an award is handed out, showing no concern if reality on the ground diverges from the glowing picture in the application. Extraordinarily, an award is only reconsidered if “a court, tribunal, or the Equality and Human Rights Commission” provides contrary independently verifiable information, not if an individual provides evidence of factual inaccuracies.
Ignoring people in distress hardly reflects a caring institution. And letting universities self-certify while holding complainants to an entirely different standard of proof speaks less of justice than of self-protection.
Bearing in mind Athena SWAN is run by Universities UK (an organisation formerly and more truthfully known as the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals of the Universities of the United Kingdom), perhaps little was ever to be expected other than a mechanistic, tick-box exercise.
Athena SWAN does nothing to stop discrimination or misogynistic bullying. Its main purpose seems to be to lend a spurious glow of moral authority to University administrators.
The 21 Group is interested in the experiences of others who contact Athena SWAN. Please use contact@21percent.org to tell us.
58 Comments
Jay · 2 November 2025 at 12:21
Really surprised that UniversitiesUK run the Athena SWAN, I did not know this. It’s not widely known, I think.
This is a fox in charge of the henhouse situation
TigerWhoCametoET · 2 November 2025 at 18:12
I was also surprised by this – I too wrongly believed them independent. Why isn’t this done instead by someone like THE or TES (i.e. who do the university rankings)? That would have a lot more credibility and give better incentives to make real improvements on gender and diversity.
Audit · 7 November 2025 at 14:31
Brief review of published Annual Report of Advance HE (https://www.advance-he.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2024-12/Advance_HE_Annual_Report_and_Accounts_2023-24-Signed.pdf).
1. There seem to have been a large number of resignations from the trustees around summer of 2024. While some of these might have been due to appointment expiration it is of interest that most appointees were not replaced.
2. The declared salary expenditure is £ 9.7m. However, based on a summation of the declared salaries in the table below, I could reach a figure of only £ 4.07m. This figure does exclude employers’ national insurance and pension contributions and voluntary severance, which might explain part of the difference. However the outstanding gap of £ 5.63m seems hard to explain by this alone.
3. There has been a large increase in revenue from accreditation (from £ 1.2m to £ 1.8m). This is a 50% increase year on year. I wonder the explanation for this when membership income appears constant.
4. There is a negative cash flow statement of -£ 2.4m for 2024.
5. Related party transactions statement shows some quite large sales amounts to universities with members on the board. Most notable is almost quarter of a million pounds from the University of Edinburgh. That is a substantial amount for a single institution. Janet Legrand KC of Edinburgh also serves as the Chair of the nominations committee and has been responsible for all board appointments. Meanwhile Samuel Grogan (Salford) is chair of the Peer Revieew committee and his university offered £ 184,000 in sales. There is no suggestion of wrongdoing in pointing this out, however, as it is stated clearly that board members are not paid for their service.
6. The partnership agreement with Uzbekistan, signed on 7 March 2024, is interesting. There are clearly challenges in the country in relation to EDI that need addressing. Yet the choice to prioritise this specific partner in particular – a country ranked as one of the least democratic in the world – may raise concerns from some parties.
None of these observations call in to question any individual party and most may be easily explained, but these are in summary of the information published by Advance HE.
21percent.org · 8 November 2025 at 07:14
Thanks for this forensic analysis which has a number of extremely interesting observations.
Without any suggestion of wrongdoing, we see a picture of opaque finances, uneven oversight, potential conflicts of interest and bold but risky strategic gambles with limited accountability.
TheResearcher · 2 November 2025 at 12:57
“I appreciate that this might not be the outcome you were hoping for”
Is it possible that this was actually written by university HR or Sam? At the very least, the person who wrote it went with them at the same school on how to do proper hand-washing.
21percent.org · 2 November 2025 at 13:21
From the material in our possession, we confirm that the person who wrote this is a senior employée of AdvanceHE.
To be fair to University HR, not even they have suggested they can do nothing unless they receive “information that is independently verifiable, for example, from an authority such as a court or tribunal or the Equalities and Human Rights Commission.”
It’s a truly ludicrous response. But, then they’re not interested, they just wanted to give the brusheroo to the correspondent.
TheResearcher · 2 November 2025 at 13:42
Yes, that is a shameful response, but I would not say it is worse than what we have in UCam. As the 21 Group knows, they do not ask us “information that is independently verifiable, for example, from an authority such as a court or tribunal,” sure, but it is pretty much what counts for them. Whatever evidence we send them they will ignore if they do not want to look at it, with the added consequences of wasting our time/life with numerous emails and complaint procedures to make us believe that they are actually interested and doing something about it. At least AdvanceHE says it to your face, they are not interested!
F. · 3 November 2025 at 14:01
“To be fair to University HR, not even they have suggested they can do nothing unless they receive “information that is independently verifiable, for example, from an authority such as a court or tribunal or the Equalities and Human Rights Commission.””
Agreed – but one could quite imagine “University HR” suggesting that someone else writes something so preposterous as the message quoted above…
There is a lot of drafting and helpful suggesting of phrasing going on among the university HR and Sam… And who knows, perhaps it adds some perverse amusement for those involved in abject bullying to suggest referencing the “Equalities and Humanities Rights Commission” for a communication to be sent to the victims…
SamIAm · 3 November 2025 at 14:43
Would you fake it here or there?
I’d fake it, Judge, just anywhere.
I’d forge a doc, I’d plant a claim,
I’d twist the truth — it’s all the same!
Would you, could you, in a file?
Yes, Your Honour, with a smile.
Would you fake a letter too?
Why, Louise, I surely do!
Would you fake it in the dock?
Would you sign it with a clock?
In the night or in the day?
I’d fake it every legal way.
TheResearcher · 3 November 2025 at 15:01
I was told that the song continues as follows:
Oh Louise, Oh Louise, when all the members of your School know who you really are, that you lie, conceal and manipulate, your deeds in our university will be over and many of us are looking forward to that day. Tic toc tic toc tic toc
TigerWhoCametoET · 2 November 2025 at 15:16
Evidence is provided when a report is submitted along with documentation, no? A court would never independently contact Athena Swan at all, so the implication if their position is a policy of refusing to consider independent evidence at all?
21percent.org · 2 November 2025 at 15:34
@Tiger, Yes, exactly.
Evidence, witness statements & documentation were provided by the complainants. Athena SWAN were not interested.
The disparity between the treatment of evidence supplied by the applicants (who self-certify) and any complainants (who need to have been to court or Tribunal or the Equalities and Human Rights Commission) is enormous.
Athena SWAN awards are like the Potemkin Village. They bear no relation to reality.
TheResearcher · 2 November 2025 at 15:59
It is funny that they suggest that kind of evidence as it makes their response rather ridiculous. They could have just suggested complainants to direct their complaints to their universities (assuming they had not done so) or say that they had been reassured by those universities that all procedures had been followed as other institutions like UKRI do. This is all so pathetic that it is hard to say something sensical.
Lean In · 4 November 2025 at 07:59
Personally I find it absolutely mystifying that an organisation dedicated to advancing “representation, career progression, and success for women” would ignore reports of harassment and abuse from female voices. Isn’t that exactly the reason the scheme exists? to give voice to women and overcome structural inequality?
If they really cared about gender empowerment shouldn’t they actively invite whistleblower feedback – including active bystanders and allies of all genders or orientations – prior to making their awards? In fact wouldn’t that avoid them the humiliation of delivering an award to a department – only to find, barely months later, that it was ground zero for abuse of young, women and minority scholars, about which they had already been notified?
There are no words to express my feelings about this – I find it simply mortifying.
F. · 4 November 2025 at 11:47
If a point was made by such an organisation not to rely on HR and senior management input (which will be completely devoid of and also mysteriously exempt from the required “information that is independently verifiable, for example, from an authority such as a court or tribunal or the Equalities and Human Rights Commission”) to find out the truth about provisions in place to ensure a safe and egalitarian working environment, all sorts of embarrassment (and absurdity) could be avoided!
Battleaxe · 2 November 2025 at 15:40
19 million pounds is an insane budget for what little they do. Where does the money go? If it were just a question of producing a departmental gender policy ranking via objective data one could for 5% of that amount have an excellent survey of all UK academics in relation to pay gaps, parental leave, daycare support, sexual harassment, bullying and career progression that would be the same for all institutions, involve no pointless committees and bureaucracy, and instill greater public confidence.
21percent.org · 2 November 2025 at 16:33
According to the 2023-24 annual report of Advance HE, wages plus salaries of staff total £9.8 million pounds
This money mainly comes from universities (so ultimately derives from tuition fees, Government grants and alumni donations)
SPARTACUS · 2 November 2025 at 16:35
What do you expect of an organization owned by UK universities??? They will serve their masters!!!
Jalala · 2 November 2025 at 17:12
Everyone knows Athena is just box-ticket bullshit that has no relationship to our lived experiences! For a university like ours to tout Athena awards, is like Shell and BP boasting about environmental sustainability. In other words just PR. There’s nothing behind it.
I feel sorry for the all the early career female academics on underpaid short term contracts who were suddenly turfed out because a male HOD on twice their income wanted to “close the gender pay gap” – not to mention struggling mid-career women whose research time is sucked away on vacuous Athena SWAN committees!
TigerWhoCametoET · 3 November 2025 at 10:54
My personal feeling is that SWAN comes from the right place and has probably led to net improvements overall? But it could all be done more efficiently by a neutral external audit instead of performative self reporting that sometimes results in oddities like these.
England's Dreaming · 3 November 2025 at 10:19
Reading all of the cases reported on this blog, I would like to synthesise some findings.
The foremost problem, in my view, is a management culture of refusal to admit to minor faults or errors, or take personal responsibility for them. This leads mistakes to compound to the point of systemic dysfunction and failure.
This in turn has a psychological origin that is very relatable for anyone familiar with British society – namely, an acute sensitivity to feelings of awkwardness, shame and embarrassment, especially when linked to personal failings or oversights. For visitors to our land this is often charming: and much of the time, it does provide some “internal accountability” mechanism that can prevent individuals from eventually having to admit to error, by ensuring that a person acts appropriately in advance. But, when small errors accumulate, it also can lead to devastating consequences. By the time they are detected, the entire organisation may be thick into a crisis it can no longer fix – not least of all because the number of individuals implicated in negligence will have become so large no-one is prepared to reverse course.
All of this is very different in Europe or the the United States, where there is a strong social culture of responding frankly and openly to any admission of error with a sincere plea for understanding and forgiveness. This in turn is possible because a manager whose employee comes to them with a report of personal oversight is culturally socialised to respond with understanding, respect for their courage, and a commitment to help the other person “make a plan” to improve and do better. The origins of this are likely rooted in the Christian tradition – and I genuinely believe that it is this more, than anything else, that explains why management culture in the United States, for example, is so much more efficient than here. Admit mistakes; move on. Identify the problems; work together as a team to fix them.
Sadly this is not how it works in England. When an individual – say in university HR, or middle management – notices they have done something wrong, the most frequent response is one of two things. The first – to ignore the matter entirely, in the hope things will somehow “resolve themselves” (“muddling through”). The second (if forced to respond) – to make excuses and shift responsibility to the person reporting the problem (for example, to claim to others that they are mentally unsound, behaving improperly, or otherwise worthy of being dismissed). All of these are psychological defence mechanisms on the part of the responsible agent, which serve to absolve their personal accountability or responsibilities to others. They are the key factor in British managerial failure.
As a result such a culture of negligence is endemic to the UK, and even worse in our largest organisations – government ministries, the NHS, the BBC, and yes, clearly, the University of Cambridge – because interpersonal dialogue based on respect and the search for mutual understanding, can be more easily channelled into bureaucratic rules and procedures. The psychological function of such procedures is rooted in the same need – to avoid the awkwardness of personal admission of error on the part of management. For employees and managers who know they are culpable of negligence, they offer a “way out” through externalisation – thereby absolving one’s individual duty of care, human need to express compassion, or legal obligations – in the name of following “internal procedural compliance”. Instead of responding empathetically in contexts such a response is required, employees are even instructed to do the opposite – for example, telling victims of abuse who finally find the courage to report these to Athena SWAN, or HR, or senior management, that due to rule X, Y or Z, their statements do not count as evidence, that their complaint cannot be heard, or should be referred to some other entity (the NHS, the courts, a regulatory body, some internal committee).
If you look at the cases reported to the Union or 21 Group, you will find this pattern again, and again, and again. It is replicated at every level of the system. Managers refer cases to HR; then HR either do not reply, or reply with generic verbiage; or establish some other body to handle it. Failing to find accountability internally, students and staff eventually go to OSCCA, the ICO, Athena SWAN, or funding bodies like the Wellcome Trust – only to find that these entities, too, are governed in exactly the same fashion. Each replicates a common bureaucratic indifference and culture of neglect, ignoring hard evidence in favour of cut and paste dismissals that absolve them the awkwardness of confronting those who have done wrong.
For those who have been subject to wrongdoing, the result of this organisational culture is toxic and abusive. Little by little, each act of neglect undermines a person’s dignity, sense of self-worth, and ability to function or sustain positive interpersonal relations. For it is a gross violation of a person’s dignity to tell that person, when they open up about their experiences, that their pain, their hurt, and experiences of injustice are not worth hearing and not to be believed. This, in itself, is one of the most damaging things any person can do, and often causes as much harm – if not substantially more – than the initial fault or error.
In short, we must abolish this costly, grotesque, Kafkaesque theatre of compliance. It undermines personal responsibility, compassion, empathy and common humanity. In its place we need a state of law that treats all individuals as members of a universal kingdom of ends – endowed from birth with equal right to dignity and love, and first and foremost, the right to be heard and taken seriously.
A shift in values can happen from one day to the next. It simply means making commitment to compassion, empathy, and personal responsibility, via openness, respect, and willingness to seek forgiveness – and rejecting the culture of secrecy, dismissal, and negligence towards others.
TheResearcher · 3 November 2025 at 12:21
Thank you for this post. I could not say it better. I have been in this country for 15 years and your words deeply resonate with me. For years I did not notice this pattern; I was too focused on my research and things were very well there. But when I reported a case of misconduct that could be solved in an afternoon with direct apologies as I had asked, I noticed that the pattern you described is virtually everywhere. It does not matter how much evidence you have, how many times you try. People will simply ignore you at best, and if you keep pushing it, you become abuser for displaying “unreasonably persistent behaviour” or “vexatious behaviour.” Rather than being viewed as honest and direct, you are viewed as confrontational. You get isolated, and those who had told you day after day that you were not alone, will eventually turn the other way when you finally ask their help. I deeply loved this culture. I was proud of studying and working here. I really was. However, experiencing the pattern you described really damaged this perspective. I would like to contribute to a change, and that is one of the reasons I did not leave yet, but it is not really clear what one can do when the senior leaders could not care less about the people they are responsible for and instead do everything to avoid accountability.
Anonymous · 3 November 2025 at 15:06
It’s also worth stressing that there is definitely a much darker aspect to this, and the overall situation is actually much worse, in my opinion. There is a sadistic element to the treatment that Whistleblowers receive, or victims that have crossed HR or senior management in some way, even for relatively minor disagreements etc. Sometimes there doesn’t even need to be a reason for an innocent victim to be targeted, and they can easily go from outstanding member of staff to dismissal for literally doing nothing wrong at all. This is far too dangerous to be allowed to continue. This is also an issue with many Universities, not just the larger ones.
In my experience at least, *every* member of HR or senior management that was overseeing a malicious and bogus HR process made active choices to abuse etc, when other options were open to them. This is without exception, and the higher up the HR and management chain you went the worse it got.
As noted previously, it is vitally important that more HR staff (and managers) come forward from across the sector, if they genuinely seek change. At the very least, they can help innocent victims that they know have been persecuted, as they must surely have additional evidence that can help bring about accountability.
21percent.org · 3 November 2025 at 17:00
Very interesting, especially the observations about European/US culture.
We agree that these matters usually start with a mistake, which is not acknowledged, so more and more people get dragged into the cover-up. Cambridge University certainly has this problem in a big, big way.
The University does need to move from a “blame culture” to (as you put it) “Admit mistakes; move on. Identify the problems; work together as a team to fix them culture”.
We need to encourage staff to be honest about mistakes and report incidents without fear of retribution. The shift is not easy & will take some time.
Anon · 3 November 2025 at 17:28
Agreed 100%. Current system places everyone at risk. How can organization function when there is no security the system will not turn next upon you?
Sad truth though is that people best to fix this already left. Needs radical management overhaul to put ethics first — and not mere legal compliance — which we fail at badly. Culture of complacency risks becoming self-reinforcing cycle as people leave and other universities overtake.
SPARTACUS · 3 November 2025 at 18:58
Unfortunately none of this will change at least at UCam! Oligarchy is malitious, vindictive and immoral. They protect the crooks: liars, bullies, drunkards, and dictators. Only a complete turn over of the current leadership will do! The place is rotten!
Bloody right · 4 November 2025 at 13:55
Bloody right!
( ) · 3 November 2025 at 21:57
All this may be true and yet, one cannot fight hate with hate. Disruptive empathy is the most powerful tool in the long run – to respond to hate with compassion, demonstrate the way through virtue, and appeal to moral courage. If they ignore the power of example let them know the whole world will see this fact and make their own judgment.
Anon · 4 November 2025 at 13:35
There is another danger to our culture of secrecy that is rarely stated on this blog. For the large majority of academics at Oxbridge who are decent people the culture of secrecy is undermining our personal reputations. For in a culture of secrecy everyone is tainted by suspicion of involvement in nefarious conduct. If those culpable of such acts were identified that is something which would safeguard the rest of us by showing our personal innocence as well as the identities of those who bravely have stood up for reform.
ExCam · 4 November 2025 at 14:12
True though at least as far as Cambridge is concerned anyone who wants a list of those who were brave enough to stand up for reform, a voice for victims, and protection of whistleblowers need only consult the list of those who nominated Wyn Evans for Chancellor:
https://rso.admin.cam.ac.uk/reporter/2024-25/weekly/6785/section1.shtml#heading4-3
Sadly it appears that our ruling “junta” has ignored Wyn’s 3,700 votes in favour of attempting to hound them out one by one via expensive lawyers and consultants. Though, quite where they expect that to lead, and why they think that will work to their advantage, is frankly anyone’s guess, when it surely would have been easier to seek partnership for constructive change.
Wyn Evans · 4 November 2025 at 19:07
The new Chancellor Chris Smith and myself had a meeting on 29th September on the problems facing the University with regard to staff well-being.
It was a productive meeting.
TigerWhoCametoET · 4 November 2025 at 19:39
Thank you for your courage and leadership. Many of us have heard good things about Lord Smith and for those of us who suffered in the past this is a glimmer of hope. I have never lost hope that truth and reconciliation can prevail given kindness and decency and a sincere commitment to end all this awfulness.
ForJustice · 4 November 2025 at 15:05
For sure!
Prof Smallman supported Lord BP.
Prof Teflon was with a bedfellow that is junior faculty to him.
Prof Drinkalot was on a detox ‘sabattical’!
Prof Gropewell was busy…
MUSKETEER · 4 November 2025 at 17:04
Prof Smallman, Prof Teflon and Prof Drinkalot are vicious characters! The scandal in which their are main players will eventually become public! They will then regret all they did to protect Prof Viciouswoman! Lies never win! Tic toc tic toc tic toc…
TheResearcher · 5 November 2025 at 15:17
Someone should tell Teddy and Concerned Face that Trinity College needs a Master, and I can imagine that some of the Fellows of the College will be happy to nominate them, at least Concerned Face. It is actually concerning if they get into Trinity.
Trinity College: Master; tenure: from 1 October 2026;
closing date: 15 December 2025; direct applications and
nominations submitted by Fellows of the College are
welcome further details: https://plusportal.perrettlaver.com/
or contact trinitycollege@perrettlaver.com
Brute · 5 November 2025 at 16:03
The Mastership of Trinity is very distinguished, it will go to a really top-ranked scholar.
‘Concerned Face’ boasts an H-index of 34 and a grand total of 3,872 citations after four decades of research in very active field. Trinity are more likely to employ him to disinfect the Fellow’s toilets than run the College.
IMAGINARY · 5 November 2025 at 16:40
Prof Smallman is a fellow of the college and has been desperately looking for a new job. Being Head of School carries a heavy burden: dealing with Prof Drinkalot, Prof Teflon and Prof Viciouswoman!
TheResearcher · 5 November 2025 at 18:13
IMAGINARY, I did not know who Prof Smallman was, but this post made it clear. Thanks! Interesting. From personal experience, I noted that the HR of the Schools of Prof Smallman and Prof. Concerned Face help each other in Appeal Hearings of unfair dismissal. I can safely say that the HR of Prof Smallman is not better than the Lead HR Business Partner of the most discussed case by the 21 Group, obviously related to Prof. Concerned Face. The Team of Prof Smallman (who I do not even know!) once wrote to me the following without even looking at by evidence:
“Finally, the Committee felt it would be remiss of us not to highlight it felt that on occasion, the tone and content of your correspondence was aggressive, intimidating and upsetting for its recipients. In addition, the Committee felt some allegations, regarding a lack of professionalism purportedly displayed by those seeking to support you, was frequently baseless and lacked evidence. While we appreciate this has been a difficult time for you, with many contributing factors, the Committee would like to recommend that you measure your responses and focus on the facts, rather than making unmerited personal attacks. The issue is now closed from the University’s perspective, having been properly considered, and it does not intend to engage in further correspondence on the matter. The University would like to wish you every success in your future endeavours and research.”
‘ · 5 November 2025 at 22:32
“The University would like to wish you every success in your future endeavours and research.”
Lovely. Who the fuck is the University? Sam? The Lead HR Business Partner of the most discussed case by the 21 Group? Team Smallman? THE Committee? All of the above? Or taking it in turns?
Psychologists, Linguists, Sociologists would all have a field day analysing the bloody nonsense that comes out of “the University” these days. Any volunteers for a PhD? One that focuses on the facts? There’s no shortage of material!
21percent.org · 6 November 2025 at 06:18
The only persons entitled to refer to themselves as the University are the Chancellor or Vice Chancellor.
For anyone else to do this is galloping egomania
It does seem to be a characteristic of letters ghost-written by “Sam”.
TheResearcher · 6 November 2025 at 08:34
It is well possible it was ‘Sam’ indeed. However, I forwarded some of the information to the Legal Division asked a few questions, and they never replied. How odd.
Here is the catch. When they wrote “The University would like to wish you every success in your future endeavours and research,” they did not fully appreciate that I would remain a member of the University despite what they did against me and that they would have to put up with me. It must have been a surprise!
Disgusted · 7 November 2025 at 13:35
TheResearcher – thank you for sharing this. It never ceases to disgust me when I see such material.
While obvious to most who read this blog, I would like to highlight a few critical items on what University HR and senior management mean by such phrasing (generally speaking of course, and not aimed at any specific individual or organisation):
“Finally, the Committee felt it would be remiss of us not to highlight it felt that on occasion, the tone and content of your correspondence was aggressive, intimidating and upsetting for its recipients.”
“Aggressive” – It’s curious that they chose this term in relation to written communications. I think in this case they were in a frenzy and over copied/pasted from their book of pre-prepared weasel responses. It’s usually only applied when an individual confidently, and even firmly, expresses their viewpoint in person, in a reasonable and measured way. This is not cause for complaint. The more hard evidence one has to back up their viewpoint, the more “aggressive” they will be unfairly portrayed.
“intimidating” – As above, this just means that you have sufficiently strong evidence. The stronger the evidence, the more “intimidating” you will be portrayed to be.
“upsetting” – Again, this comes down to how strong your evidence is. Of course those that have hard evidence against them of serious misconduct are upset. But this only applies to those that may have a conscience and somehow feel trapped into participating in abusive and corrupt regimes. This will not apply to all though. The more malignant individuals don’t feel upset, but rather feel further charged in attacking you.
“In addition, the Committee felt some allegations, regarding a lack of professionalism purportedly displayed by those seeking to support you, was frequently baseless and lacked evidence.”
This probably holds the record for slippery language, which is also designed to antagonise.
Let’s break it down.
“Some allegations” – So what about the rest, and likely the majority of the accusations as implied here? Is this an admission that you have a strong case?
“frequently baseless and lacked evidence” – WTF. This could mean anything, although it is safe to assume that not all of the accusations are viewed this way. They should be asked which accusations they are referring to, for the record at least. You will never get a straight answer of course, as their heads will be firmly rooted in the sand.
“While we appreciate this has been a difficult time for you, with many contributing factors, the Committee would like to recommend that you measure your responses and focus on the facts, rather than making unmerited personal attacks.”
Translation: We are of course very much aware of how this is affecting you. After all, that is the intention, and your response clearly informs us that we are on the right track and so we will continue to antagonise you accordingly. There are many contributing factors in the sense that we have recruited many individuals in this coordinated malicious attack, and are therefore coming at you from many different angles with bogus accusations. The compelling evidence of misconduct that you have presented against *specific* individuals has been viewed as a personal attack on those concerned. For the avoidance of doubt, we do not regard presenting baseless accusations against you to be a personal and malicious attack on you.
“The issue is now closed from the University’s perspective, having been properly considered, and it does not intend to engage in further correspondence on the matter.”
Translation: Your evidence has been properly ignored, except for material that we can use against you. The issue is most certainly not closed, and we are in the process of orchestrating a malicious DARVO-like attack on you, and as soon as we have our ducks in order in terms of willing participants, you will be subjected to a bogus investigation about your behaviour, which will lead to your dismissal. We do not intend to engage in further correspondence on the matter as we do not have any defence against the factual and unambiguous evidence of misconduct on the part of those you accuse. For the avoidance of doubt, we refer to the authors of this letter, and those in HR and senior management that are participating in this malicious attack, as “the University”. This is for several reasons. First, this is simply because we *are* the University, but also because we write this letter knowing all too well that it will likely be viewed later in the courts, and so we make every effort to ensure blame is deflected and diverted away from any specific individual. We appreciate that not being specific here will be difficult for any reasonable person to accept, and will likely therefore add considerably to the stress already experienced by you. But we have our methods which must be adhered to. If you need support due to our harmful actions, then we can refer you to our internal health professionals. They will report back to us and the report will be ignored, or used against you if possible.
“The University would like to wish you every success in your future endeavours and research.”
Translation: We wish to further condescend and taunt you, and make it clear to you that you will soon not be continuing your endeavours and research here, given the processes as above.
TheResearcher · 7 November 2025 at 14:26
Disgusted, thank you for your translation. I reckon I can surprise you even more. Check this one out. Once they decided to make an investigation against me for alleged abusive behaviour against hundreds of people, they sent me a letter that includes two important paragraphs:
“Misconduct that may constitute a criminal offence
The Procedure is entirely separate from any police or legal proceedings, this is an internal matter of the University based on the terms and conditions you agreed to when you became a student. However, where formally requested to do so by the police, or where the Student Discipline Officer considers that someone may be at significant and immediate risk of harm, the University may disclose information received through this Procedure to the police. Additionally, If the Reporting Person believes that a crime has been committed, they are also able to report the matter to the police if they wish. This is a different and separate process to the University’s procedures. The University does not get involved in a police investigation and will not investigate a matter at the same time that it is being investigated by the police.”
“Confidentiality
Please note that this disciplinary process is confidential and you should treat it as such. In addition to not contacting or attempting to contact the Complainant, other Respondent(s) or Witnesses, you should not discuss the contents of this letter with anyone except from whom you are receiving professional support. You will be provided with the opportunity to give names of people who may be willing to act as witnesses on your behalf in the event of a charge being brought, but please do not undermine the investigation by contacting those witnesses first.”
I hope the university does not mind that I share these sections here because I am receiving “professional support” from the 21 Group!
Disgusted · 7 November 2025 at 15:17
TheResearcher – this quoted material is shocking on so many levels.
On the first part about involving the police, while there may be situations that warrant such material, there is clearly no cause to cite it in this case, based on what you have posted.
It is clear though, that there is no actual substance to this statement. It can refer to anything at all, and refer to any individual concerned. I suggest ignoring it, unless of course you have valid reason to inform the police.
Nonetheless, and as such, it can be reasonably interpreted that this is meant to deliberately and severely shock the subject of the investigation in a manner which is abusive in my opinion, and totally unnecessary. This shouldn’t be allowed, and could constitute evidence against the University of such abuse.
On the subject of confidentiality, it’s mind boggling that they have instructed you not to speak to anyone that may be willing to support you before they have their
ducks in order, or worse, to turn any known close associates against you (a known tactic in such situations).
TheResearcher · 7 November 2025 at 15:59
After months of investigations, I asked the “independent investigator” what exactly I had done, and she told me they were still “collating information.” I am sure they will come up with something really nasty to try to embarrass me and prevent me from disclosing the background situation in public, but they will be surprised with what I will do.
The confidentiality issue is just a nonsense. I replied to the person when they sent me the letter and cced all Masters and Senior Tutors of all Colleges. The university freaked out and gave me “precautionary measures.” I talked again to more people, and they gave me “urgent precautionary measures.” I talked again and they gave me “special precautionary measures.” I talked again and they gave me a “Final Warning.” I talked again and nothing happened. I talked again, and nothing happened. After a “Final Warning” I expected a suspension or expulsion, so it can happen at any moment!
SamIam · 6 November 2025 at 08:43
She’d shuffle the pages and polish the lies,
Then beam at the Registrar with blinking eyes.
She’d stamp her own seal with a scholarly slam—
“The University? Why, that’s me!” said Sam!
When caught in a tangle of what she had spun,
She’d twist it and spin it and call it good fun!
Drafting the letters, grinning as she ran,
“Oh lawdie, what larks” laughed Sam I Am.
Anon · 6 November 2025 at 11:31
Regrettably, what has happened in these cases is that those senior figures responsible within the institution have been roped into covering for one another, protecting one another, and making the evidence of their collaboration worse. I feel sorry for the ones who were not at the core of the matter, but allowed themselves become implicated; and now, have no easy way to unwind the coils they are now embroiled into.
The false assumption guiding their actions was the belief – based no doubt on long experience – that matters would be kept entirely within the university, and hence, that their best route to save themselves, was to work within the system to double down against whistleblowers. The fault here is that matters are no longer internal and no institution (not even the royal palace!) can entirely control the courts, media, politics or civil society. Those implicated in these various messes are now behaving erratically out of desperation as they finally realise the game is up… and that even within the university, they are unable to command authority over others to protect them further.
... · 7 November 2025 at 17:58
Even when “matters would be kept entirely within the university”, there is still right and wrong, plausible and implausible, just and unjust in behaviours and decision-making about the behaviours of others within an academic community.
But somehow or other, regardless of whether inside or outside of the University walls, academics in senior positions of management have signed letters stating that what is wrong is right, what is implausible, plausible, what is immoral, moral, what is unfair, fair, what is unjust, just. As if brainwashed, under duress, or simply too self-interested to care or even read what it is they are endorsing.
Admittedly these letters may have been written in ways that could be misunderstood, by our favourite HR and legal personnel – with sophistry and illogicality slipped in here and there to smoothen over the lies, as a barrister may do in a courtroom, to get a guilty client off the hook.
With so many lies told, with fabrication and falsification seemingly such easy tools, it is quite believable that many of these senior people were at least at some point grossly misled.
And yet, an academic who judges the behaviour or work of another without looking at the evidence, without checking the evidence, without ensuring the evidence is trustworthy or lawful, an academic who endorses conclusions on the basis of hearsay, HR gossip, material “too confidential” to disclose and statements “taken as read” should be outed and thrown out of the community for that reason alone.
For having lost all sense of academic judgment. For not following standards and ignoring the Statutes.
TheResearcher · 7 November 2025 at 18:47
I agree, and I would like to add this. For those who had poor experiences with the university (or other large institutions) in the context of reporting misconduct, I understand why it is plausible to think that in some cases the academics responsible for considering your case were perhaps simply misled. The institution is very big; we likely do not know those academics and who supported them throughout the process. I honestly considered that about UCam in the past at some point. But when the problem moves to your local community, you know them all, and they are forced to take a formal position, you see the real character of these people. They lie in your face as if there were telling the truth, despite knowing that it is an absolute lie, despite knowing they changed the policies ad hoc so that they did not have to comment on your data, despite disregarding your “groundless complaints” without even looking at the evidence at all, you finally appreciate that these academics and senior leaders know very well what they are doing. The Master of St Machiavelli’s College is very proficient when it comes to these techniques. It is clear why he is the Master of a College and why he is part of the University Council.
Shiva · 7 November 2025 at 19:39
The foremost duty of a scholar is service to truth. No scholar who signs on to statements they know to be false, simply because doing so is the desire of those in power, has any right to remain a member of our community at all. Either we are a place of learning. Or we have no place in society to occupy.
SPARTACUS · 6 November 2025 at 12:27
As I said many times the place is toxic and rotten to the core. VC, Pro-VCs, Heads of some Schools, one particular Institute Director, Registrar and Head of HR are all involved in some major scandals! Some of the worst characters have already moved to be Regius somewhere else, to be College Master in Cambridge or to Head parts of UKRI. All that left and all that remain are bound by ‘omerta’. Yes, like the mafia. So tic toc tic toc tic toc. Eventually… BOOM! Court cases and Employment Tribunals will reveal all!!!
TheResearcher · 6 November 2025 at 14:30
“Court cases and Employment Tribunals will reveal all!!!”
Unfortunately, I do not think they will reveal it all, not least because many, perhaps the majority, of junior members do not have the funds to go through these processes. I hope, however, they can reveal enough, and one can always embarrass all those who crawl and hide under the next rock to cover themselves. To be sure, the “senior figures” only do what they do because there is a very large number of people who tacitly accept their practices. These people, who know and turn the other way, are virtually everywhere.
C. · 6 November 2025 at 15:24
yeah but it only takes one case though then the media will do the rest
at that point one person speaks out, then another, then another….
they are like a jugglers who juggle candles while standing atop a crate of dynamite
SumofParts · 6 November 2025 at 18:29
Or one MP breaking it in parliament, one US news outlet, one disillusioned individual with access to the files … There’s a thousand ways to wake in the morning and find the candles have dropped that they can’t control and never really thought about because all they have is an outdated playbook.
21percent.org · 6 November 2025 at 18:57
The 21 Group already has a list of a few sympathetic MPs, which we can provide to individuals battling universities. If you know of any MPs interested in helping with this issue, please let us know.
We are planning on making an appeal to a cross-party selection of MPs to highlight systematic abuses in the universities
(We have no information on whether Daniel Zeichner is interested in this area — use contact@21percent.org to tell us if you have any positive experiences of him assisting with problems involving the Cambridge University)
2x2 · 6 November 2025 at 20:37
Some issues that gets MPs going: why is taxpayer money is going into bailouts, why are VCs grossly over-paid, why is public money spent on lawyers and consultants instead of educating our kids, why are UK universities slipping in the rankings, why “Oxbridge corridor” instead of the north (especially for Labour MPs facing challenge from Reform). With fees going up lots of parents (read: voters) also sensitive to financial waste and corruption issues. For university towns student vote is important and that can leverage addressing the broader issues with those constituencies.
TheResearcher · 6 November 2025 at 18:12
When you think that things could not be worse, you realize that even the Chaplain and the Nurse of a college are involved in the farse. What a shame, really.
The Next Post Office Scandal: Our Universities - 21percent.org · 8 November 2025 at 06:52
[…] There are many similarities between what is happening in our Universities and the Post Office scandal (as the poster ‘England’s Dreaming‘ has noted here and here). […]