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.
23 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.
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.
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 embarassment, 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!
( ) · 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.