A UK University has been using gagging orders to silence victims of sexual harassment at Employment Tribunals, as noted in The Times and discussed here.
In 2021, Al Jazeera carried out a landmark investigation into sexual harassment at the University of Oxford. This forms parts 1 and 2 of their ‘Degrees of Abuse‘ series available here.
(Incidentally, why was it left to Qatar-based Al Jazeera to do this? Where are the UK journalists and broadcasters? Oh, of course .. they want their sons and daughters to go to Oxbridge or they want to become Masters of Colleges.)
The investigation identified two Oxford professors (Andy Orchard and Peter Thompson) accused of sexist behaviour, drunkenness and sexual harassment. Andy Orchard is alleged to have abused power over younger researchers and students, with a “personal reputation … as an alcoholic and a sexual predator”, according to Cherwell. Peter Thompson has been accused of drunkenness, making sexist comments and behaving inappropriately with students, especially in social settings. Concerns about his behaviour had been raised as early as 2017 by students, who questioned his fitness to teach. In 2020, two students and five staff members lodged further complaints. According to Cherwell, Oxford ultimately upheld allegations of excessive alcohol consumption and sexual harassment.
Al Jazeera‘s investigation also drew attention to the persistent weaknesses of UK university grievance systems, exposing the dissonance between the confident public assurances institutions make and the reality experienced by those who report misconduct.
‘The Faculty’s Statement of Values claims one of the goals of this department is “to create an environment in which everyone – at every academic level from undergraduate to professor, and among professional and support staff, regardless of background and identity – can fulfil their potential.” A hostile environment plagued by years of inappropriate behaviour and sexist comments cannot be one in which people fulfil their potential. The “supporting principles” listed on the same page (like the aim to “eradicate inequalities,” ensuring “events are welcoming and inclusive,” and recognizing that “there are no excuses for treating any colleague or student with a lack of respect”) are meaningless. [Student at Oxford]
The evidential threshold in University internal disciplinary systems is exceptionally high, and Al Jazeera reported that many complainants felt let down or even re-traumatised by the process. One PhD student, anonymised as Harriet, said she was sexually assaulted and lodged a formal complaint with Balliol, only to be told the college would take no further action because she declined to go to the police. Another student, Millie, described the procedure as opaque and distressing, and said she would never subject herself to it again.
In the wake of the Al Jazeera investigation, Oxford University should have acted swiftly to strengthen student safeguarding and overhaul its handling of sexual harassment allegations, particularly in cases involving known repeat offenders. They did not.
From my experience, I can only conclude that the History Faculty hates women. On the basis of my experience and that of a number of my peers, it also has demonstrated a shocking contempt for its students, their worth and welfare and has been much more concerned with maintaining the status quo and the status of its lecturers over the welfare of its students. I have experienced first-hand this culture of silence and the heinous tactics the faculty has been ready to stoop to ensure it is maintained at all costs. It is my experience that the History faculty’s statement of values has more to do with fiction that reality. It is also my experience that the History Faculty is not a safe place for students with concerns or complaints quickly dismissed, covered up and misconduct condoned by the faculty (or more precisely, the core group which effectively controls the faculty). I note that in my case I was bullied, degraded, harassed, victimized, gravely mistreated, and smeared when daring to raise concerns about misconduct in the faculty under the chairmanship of the very same individual – and core group of individuals- who have maintained Peter Thompson in place while being fully aware of his behaviour.” [History Student at Oxford]
Problems are continuing.
In June 2024, Cherwell reported that a departmental investigation had upheld harassment allegations against a professor — and former Pro-Vice-Chancellor — at the Sir William Dunn School of Pathology. The complaints described inappropriate sexual remarks, unwanted advances and unsolicited kisses, occurring both in laboratories and at social events. Yet the outcome was strikingly lenient: the professor received only a verbal warning and remained in post, continuing to teach.
In August 2025, Oxford’s Saïd Business School saw its dean, Professor Soumitra Dutta, resign following sexual harassment findings reported by Bloomberg and discussed here. His appointment had already raised questions, given that he had abruptly quit his Deanship at Cornell’s business college in 2018 amid similar concerns.
The 21 Group has since been contacted by additional students and staff naming Oxford professors facing allegations of the most serious kind, including sexual assault and rape. We are aware of several ongoing grievance procedures and Employment Tribunal cases. Why is this still happening?
I complained about my experience as a postgraduate student in the Faculty. Prof [REDACTED]’s main response was to tell me about the sex lives of lecturers in the faculty. Fascinating as these stories were, they exemplify the attitude that prevails regarding staff misconduct against students: one of complacency, apathy, disinterest, lightness, even slight amusement. Duty of care to students does not exist. [Student at Oxford]
Oxford’s reputation on sexual harassment stinks out the entire HE sector
83 Comments
TigerWhoCametoET · 15 November 2025 at 07:56
Thank you for sharing. Is a new Degrees of Abuse series coming out with the new cases?
21percent.org · 15 November 2025 at 08:06
We don’t know whether a new Degrees of Abuse is planned.
We do know that a UK journalist has been investigating sexual harassment at Oxford University for a number of months. An article is expected shortly, reporting new cases. (As usual, the journalist has been receiving letters from ferocious lawyers like Carter-Ruck, paid for by public money)
It’s noteworthy that Al Jazeera are interested in what is happening at UK Universities. They are more interested than many UK broadcasters.
If we can’t get UK newspapers willing to report our stories of misconduct, plagiarism and abuse, we can and should approach Al Jazeera.
There’s enough for a multi-episode series on Cambridge University alone.
Anon · 18 November 2025 at 11:11
It is staggering these issues could only be debated by the British public thanks to disclosures via media platforms based outside of the UK – such as Al Jazeera (Qatar), X (United States), or The Intercept (US / Brazil).
That in itself is an indictment of the current UK legal environment yet consistent with the record of the Post Office scandal. Already in 2011, the BBC was ready to break that story but sent legal threats based on falsehoods (https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-67884743). Only Private Eye had the courage to maintain coverage yet the result was to delay justice and subject further victims to abuse.
IMAGINARY · 15 November 2025 at 10:07
‘Cambridge breeds bullies best.’
Indeed! Sometimes they are also drunkards… e.g. Prof Drinkalot!
‘Oxford has more sex pests.’
Well, Cambridge has Prof Teflon, now Master of St Judas. He has incredible powers- Prof Smallman and the American Queen think he can have a junior faculty lover and that such is not a conflict of interest!!
MUSKETEER · 15 November 2025 at 10:12
Cambridge excels: it has women in the Faculty that are serious bullies! Ask the Head of HR about Prof ViciousWoman (a.k.a. Prof KnowsNothing, also known as Prof PoisonChalice).
Oliver · 15 November 2025 at 18:34
It may be that Cambridge and Oxford have similar numbers of sex pests, but Cambridge hides them better.
The only prominent Cambridge sex harassment case over the last decade that hit the media is the Peter Hutchinson matter
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/cambridge-university-sexual-harassment-trinity-hall-college-peter-hutchinson-students-a9162556.html
But, I suspect this is because Cambridge HR is ready to cover up anything
TheResearcher · 15 November 2025 at 19:29
“this is because Cambridge HR is ready to cover up anything”
Cambridge HR is indeed responsible for many things, but surely not all things and it is not alone when it comes to concealing and manipulating information as a response to reports of misconduct. The behaviour of people from OSCCA and the Information Compliance Office for example is equally as bad as HR’s. Check (https://21percent.org/?p=2628) and/or (https://21percent.org/?p=1608) for example. Importantly, all these people continue behaving as they do because a very large number of people in Cambridge, the most senior leadership and others less senior who should be able to at least support victims, know their malpractices and look the other way. The reason they look the other way despite being cced in unambiguous malpractices, I eventually realized, is that they do exactly the same thing when they have to choose between the position of senior and a junior member. They conceal and manipulate as all the others. This is the culture that is accepted and promoted in the University of Cambridge, it is virtually everywhere, and I could not find it more shameful. The good news is that we can always embarrass them in public and remind this scam that there are people out there who they cannot silence or manipulate regardless of how much they try, their titles and reputation. Please do not let that they silence you with enforced confidentiality and other tactics as that always works in their favour.
MUSKETEER · 15 November 2025 at 19:00
Cambridge hides the rotten toxicity it has fallen into! The current regime is incompetent, malicious, corrupt, dictatorial and anti-academic. The whole lot needs to be exposed. They are a disgrace not worthy of 800 years of history!
Kittle · 15 November 2025 at 19:51
Reading Orchard’s profile (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Orchard) it is hard to believe how he could still be working at the university some 4 years after the whole Al Jazeera coverage.
What is most problematic about that is the signal it sends to others. Basically that the university will tolerate similar behaviour in future like a sort of ‘green light’ on this kind of conduct.
21percent.org · 15 November 2025 at 21:04
Prof Orchard is a Fellow of the British Academy. The British Academy states on its website (https://www.thebritishacademy.ac.uk/about/regulations/)
Fellows are elected for distinction in, or for their commitment to, research and scholarship and, upon their election, are expected to obey the Academy’s regulations and to maintain the highest standards of scholarly and professional conduct. For example, this includes refraining from the following:
i) Abuse of office as an elected Officer or chair or member of a Committee
ii) Interference with the due process for the distribution of grants, selection of lecturers, award of prizes etc.
iii) Interference with the due process for election of Fellows
iv) Failure to declare a material conflict of interest
v) Causing damage or loss to Academy property or resource
vi) Making a public statement, without authorisation, purporting to be in the name of the Academy
vii) Inappropriate behaviour (eg bullying, discrimination or sexual harassment)
viii) Financial impropriety.
It has been repeatedly pointed out to the British Academy that Orchard should be removed from the Fellowship, but nothing happens. The British Academy’s rules are just for sitting prettily on its website — not for action
We have earlier blogged on the British Academy here (https://21percent.org/?p=1004) with regard to another serial bully and harasser who was found guilty of serious research misconduct (Prof Corinne Hofman, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corinne_Hofman)
Eileen Nugent · 17 November 2025 at 00:27
I find it difficult to understand the constellation of organisational responses from Oxford and Cambridge. Both of these universities had an employer justified early retirement policy which meant that both of these Universities thought nothing of hounding academics out of their jobs earlier than other UK universities to achieve “intergenerational fairness and improvements in diversity” – unfair dismissals in an employment tribunal were not a concern in this context.
They did this to academics who treated others with dignity and respect and in doing so did nothing as individual academics to limit “intergenerational fairness and improvements in diversity” because every person they interacted with in an academic context – including those under their supervision – was given a fair chance to prove themselves in academia and to advance in their chosen academic specialisation.
Yet when the same universities are faced with a case where there is clear evidence that an academic is not treating others with dignity and respect and in doing so that individual academic is doing things that do limit “intergenerational fairness and improvements in diversity” because not every person they are interacting with in an academic context – including those under their supervision – is then being given a fair chance to prove themselves in academia and to advance in their chosen academic specialisation, very little is done.
21percent.org · 17 November 2025 at 08:37
Allegations in some of the sexual harassment cases are criminal offences.
It’s astonishing that universities see their primary role is to cover up, provide legal support (from public funds) and protect the “brand” name
TigerWhoCametoET · 17 November 2025 at 10:47
How does it protect the brand to provide legal support out of public funds to such individuals? I feel that has exactly the opposite effect? I would think any PR company would advise immediately drawing a line in the sand, expressing regret, and committing to do better in future.
Parity · 17 November 2025 at 14:31
It is reasonable for an employer to provide legal support to protect against potential false claims but before doing so they are meant to first investigate and obtain sufficient evidence in their favor because the moment they cover costs for a person who is accused they are signing on the reputation of the organization to the acts of that individual. Plus they are also supposed to treat all parties fairly so if the accuser is an employee or student so that should entail providing equal legal support to both sides until the case is heard because anything else is discriminatory. In fact if they had reason to think the accuser was in the right then they should be providing legal support for them only and not the other way around.
21percent.org · 17 November 2025 at 14:36
This will be a key point in the Employment Tribunal at Bury St Edmunds from June 1-June 28th 2026.
21percent.org · 17 November 2025 at 14:35
@Tiger, it’s a fair point
The widespread use of public funds to support or protect compromised figures by Universities is not very well known.
How much are Cambridge or Oxford University paying in legal fees each year? Where is this broken down in the accounts, so we can see what is being paid for?
We don’t know. But in Cambridge’s case, we doubt the figure is less than £5m each year. Carter-Ruck are not cheap. It’s possibly even about £10m — in other words, a significant fraction of the deficit.
Universities are very secretive organisations.
Nc · 17 November 2025 at 14:46
It’s just like the post office scandal where they paid £100m of public money to lawyers to fight a case for just £60m of damages. That was corruption on every level.
TheResearcher · 17 November 2025 at 16:02
Parity, “they are also supposed to treat all parties fairly so if the accuser is an employee or student so that should entail providing equal legal support to both sides until the case is heard because anything else is discriminatory” does not apply to UCam. The Legal Division, including its Director, repeatedly told me they would not address my questions—for example, about the legal basis of UCam not complying the Terms & Conditions of my UKRI Fellowship or the breaching of confidentiality agreements—while subject access requests showed the Legal Division gave advice to senior members of my department. Hopefully, discrimination is not tolerated in UCam!
Eileen Nugent · 17 November 2025 at 12:49
I don’t understand the current thinking in universities. Universities have an academic hierarchy but they also have a safeguarding structure and some positions e.g. head of department are embedded in both the academic hierarchy and in the organisational safeguarding pyramid. What this means is that depending on an individuals position in a safeguarding pyramid a safeguarding concern raised in relation to an individual can then relate to a larger number of people – an integration needs to be done over the number of people downstream in the safeguarding pyramid.
Universities seem to think they can hire people with safeguarding expertise and leave all the organisational safeguarding to that subset of people in the organisation i.e. they think they can make the necessary safeguarding changes without much impact on the academic hierarchy and/or academic culture. This is what you see currently in academia – denial of the reality of a situation they are faced with, failure to appreciate constraints of organisational responses.
“[x’s] defense was that as [x] suffered from a mental condition, drinking was necessary.” I have no way of verifying the truth of this statement so I would like to make a general point rather than reference a specific case where I have no way to assess information accuracy. An individuals response in one of these situations needs to be evaluated not just in terms of a possible defence in e.g. an employment tribunal but also in terms of what that response says about the individuals ability to safeguard themselves – something which is particularly important for an individual occupying a place higher up in the safeguarding pyramid. If it is a case of an individual being left to drink themselves into a state of physical ill health something which over the longer term has a knock-on impact on mental health and ability to maintain employment – there may then be no net beneficiary of that situation being left in place.
Eileen Nugent · 17 November 2025 at 14:36
I think there are significant challenges here. Organisations are now getting legal obligations to build effective collective organisational protections against sexual harassment for everyone in the organisation. What this means is that there is now the potential for a case to arise within an organisation where the victim is not then in control over whether the case goes to the police having disclosed information to others. This is then an extremely high-risk situation for a victim.
Eileen Nugent · 17 November 2025 at 23:01
These situations are extremely toxic – generate amounts of stress that are highly likely to have a significant health impact. Significant stress is already inherent in one of these situations before any investigation begins. The real challenge in one of these situations is therefore is to take continuous action to minimise the additional stress that is building up during the investigation until the investigation concludes at which point the situation itself stabilises and the stress of the situation starts to become limited at some stress level.
Ensuring that all sides have access to specialist legal representation ensures that the situation is handled with the maximum care possible during any investigation, this is what removes as much stress as possible from an already extremely toxic situation. This consideration is purely a practical one – limiting the stress generated in a situation whilst the situation is being investigated limits the potential for further harm in the situation offering the maximum health protection in the situation.
bb · 15 November 2025 at 21:26
There is also this Oxford case. Newspapers reported allegations that an Oxford physics professor (Prof. Peter Norreys, Univ College/Physics) had behaved inappropriately toward a junior researcher; Norreys denied the claims.
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/education/article/oxford-don-denies-junior-researcher-s-sex-claim-9pwr6wpjr?
It went to Employment Tribunal before a settlement was agreed.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5eeb603f86650c2d320ac633/Mr_M_Levy_-v-_University_of_oxford_-_3300251-2017.pdf
MUSKETEER · 15 November 2025 at 21:28
Prof Corinne Hofman- a woman and a serious bully! They do exist out there and at UCam! Prof ViciousWoman is a prime example! Prof Smallman knows her well- she is very publicised in his School! He is one of her champions and supporters!
IMAGINARY · 17 November 2025 at 14:12
From Eileen Nugent above:
“[x’s] defense was that as [x] suffered from a mental condition, drinking was necessary.” I have no way of verifying the truth of this statement so I would like to make a general point rather than reference a specific case where I have no way to assess information accuracy. An individuals response in one of these situations needs to be evaluated not just in terms of a possible defence in e.g. an employment tribunal but also in terms of what that response says about the individuals ability to safeguard themselves – something which is particularly important for an individual occupying a place higher up in the safeguarding pyramid. If it is a case of an individual being left to drink themselves into a state of physical ill health something which over the longer term has a knock-on impact on mental health and ability to maintain employment – there may then be no net beneficiary of that situation being left in place.”
WOW! I wonder what UCam say about Prof Drinkalot???
Eileen Nugent · 18 November 2025 at 01:49
These are high-risk situations that need to be carefully managed, like any other high-risk situation that people encounter in a job role – high-risk lab work, driving – people are expected to be sober when taking decisions connected to this type of high-risk situation should they encounter it in their job role.
MUSKETEER · 17 November 2025 at 16:22
The legal bill to protect Prof Drinkalot, Prof Teflon, Prof ViciousWoman, Prof Crookery, Prof Bullshitmore, and their School head Prof Smallman must run into £1 Million or so!!!
Anon · 17 November 2025 at 17:35
It is an incredible scandal if the scale of bills racked up by university legal services account for the operating deficit, or even simply a significant part of it.
Why is this information not freely available in the public domain? As a public sector organisation no-one should have to speculate on how much money the division are spending. Perhaps it is a lesser sum, or perhaps even larger. But either way these accounts should always be published for the benefit of the general public. Those are part of the generally accepted guidelines for accountability in public service organisations. Such rules exist for a reason, namely, to prevent the misuse of funds by individuals seeking to protect their own reputations at the expense of the university, and incentivise a more efficient use of public resources.
If we have learned anything from the Post Office disaster (which is yet to be seen), it is that large organisations with a public service mandate must be subject to the same rules of transparency and accountability as those under the direct authority of ministers and civil servants.
Anonymous · 17 November 2025 at 20:00
Universities are supposed to make this available if requested under FOIA, and some do provide it. When requested for this purpose, it is usually a significant fraction of any deficit for that year. This has already been highlighted in other Universities.
It seems UCam flat out refuse to provide it though, along with anything else of any degree of sensitivity. You can see the canonical response here, to this specific question:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/university_spending_on_consultan#incoming-2528487
Just out of interest, I searched for ” “University of Cambridge” AND legal AND fees “, and the response is wild, especially on NDAs.
Anon · 18 November 2025 at 11:15
@Anonymous thanks for this. What is shocking about that document is that their response implies two things:
a) They had never conducted any audit into excessive spending on consultants; and,
b) Even on FOIA request were not prepared to spend the minor sum of money required to conduct such a review.
This is shocking because every organisation should be doing this as a matter of general accounting best practice.
Eileen Nugent · 18 November 2025 at 12:28
An information request for the overall amounts spent on legal advice and external consultancy could work. Asking for that detailed a breakdown could be barrier problem to getting any information, it’s significantly more work to generate and the university may not want to reveal its exact sources of e.g. legal advice to an individual where the intent behind the information request is unclear.
One thing to also bear in mind is that some individuals will be paying for their own independent legal advice in some of these university-generated situations. This can be the case for individuals with low to no individual fault in the university-generated situation. Some individuals are wiser, in a position to pay for independent legal advice and know that this is the safest course of action in some of these university-generated situations so as to guide their individual responses in ways which minimise the risk of generating significant amounts of stress in an already stressful university-generated situation. The total spent on legal bills in some of these university-generated situations may not then be on the university books.
TheResearcher · 18 November 2025 at 12:48
“This is shocking because every organisation should be doing this as a matter of general accounting best practice.”
Anon, it seems you are new to the culture of UCam! I would be very surprised if they did not have the data, in the same way they must have regarding safeguarding referrals as I reported in (https://21percent.org/?p=2909). They simply do not want to send the data and guess what, there is not much you can do because ICO has limited powers and UCam knows that. Once you interact with Dr James Knapton (Head of Data Protection), Dr Regina Sachers (Director of Governance and Compliance) and the DPO (unknown person hired from Trilaterial Research to pretend the DPO is independent) of UCam, you realized that all this is a waste of time and they will keep hiding compromising information. If you complain, they will ignore.
Anonymous · 18 November 2025 at 16:52
Indeed, it’s truly shocking how any University can brazenly refuse a FOIA disclosure on the basis that it would take more than 18hrs at £25/hr to complete, yet will literally spend millions in legal fees and consultants etc to prevent information being released. A quick search on the whatdotheyknow website lists countless examples of this particular tactic being used.
From what I can see, typical refused requests are very simple and include an applicable date range. Nonetheless, if any given case like this was presented to the ICO in isolation, then the requestor may still only have a 50/50 chance of being supported by the ICO.
If anyone has had a request refused in this way by their University, then perhaps immediately resubmit the same request but with the date range reduced by 90% or even 95% or whatever. When they block this too, then they are effectively saying in writing that the original request would take 10x 18hrs to complete, or 20x 18 hrs etc. Good luck to the ‘data holder’ in explaining that one to the ICO.
Perhaps the only way to get Universities to rethink their approach to FOIA disclosures is for requestors across the sector to immediately take up every such case with the ICO, and perhaps with this approach in mind.
TheResearcher · 18 November 2025 at 17:08
What UCam really needs are major scandals in the media exposing a series of malpractices that the senior management recurrently does, related to data management and many other issues. Until then, they will continue what they do best, to conceal and manipulate, and will most likely laugh at our posts. The good news is that even with all their power, they cannot intimidate everyone they want. The other good news is that there are many ways to embarrass them, namely in public events.
isis · 17 November 2025 at 18:34
The Times reports on the Dutta scandal
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/education/article/oxford-don-quit-after-harassment-inquiry-632fn9mrm
“Professor Soumitra Dutta, 62, “stepped down” in September as head of the Said Business School shortly after Oxford’s inquiry concluded he had harassed the woman on three separate occasions. He denied harassment and no financial settlement was paid.
The female academic had previously asked Dutta if he would restrict access to the business school for a male colleague she had accused of raping her.
The man was interviewed by police over the allegation, but detectives decided not to recommend charges in the case. The female academic is seeking a judicial review of the police decision.”
21percent.org · 17 November 2025 at 18:39
The 21 Group is aware of two further & different current Oxford sex scandals
They are in different departments. The alleged offences are criminal, including rape.
Oxford University is busy paying tonnes of money to lawyers to hush the scandals up.
1752 · 18 November 2025 at 12:56
I don’t know the details about these new cases. But a fair comment I think is this. If they’d handled the Degrees of Abuse cases properly back in 2021 then they probably wouldn’t be dealing with so many cases now because that would have sent a clear message that times have changed and the old ways must end.
21percent.org · 18 November 2025 at 15:35
This is a very fair point.
Colleagues at Oxford tell us that there were hopes in 2021 that this would happen but that the University pulled back.
SPARTACUS · 18 November 2025 at 12:52
I have read all of this and many good points are being made. It is also obvious that even writing under pseudonyms many rogue individuals are named also with use of pseudonyms. This shows how much FEAR there is.
But I want to repeat a point I have made many times:
1- the University oligarchy in any internal conflict or dispute decide A PRIORI whose side they are on.
2- once they decide that, the chosen ‘victim’ is doomed internally. No matter what the merits of the case, the oligarchy has decided already!
3- the oligarchy will then deploy all means at their arbitrary disposal (HR, Legal, external lawyers/barristers) into supporting their position.
4- the chosen victim obviously cannot match the University pockets and in 99% of the cases gives up or is destroyed.
5- the above worked well for years and since there are no checks and balances the bill for the University has spiralled out of control.
The problem for the University is that as a result of 1-5 they are now a rogue and totally rotten organisation. Only people hungry for power want to join the oligarchy and hence their decisions get more and more problematic and frequently become unlawful. Now Tribunals, Courts and the Press are the only hope!
Experience · 18 November 2025 at 13:17
Internal processes are a joke. The script is always to reverse the accusation on the accuser and deliver a “he said she said” whitewash. No-one is ever held to account. The goal is to avoid ever doing so. The result is to perpetuate further injustices.
312 · 18 November 2025 at 14:20
“The result is to perpetuate further injustices”
…so HR are never out of work (“these silly academics just cannot get on with each other…”)
And the few really dangerous HR nutters are never out of subjects to abuse and mentally torture.
At the end of the day, there something in it for everyone (bar the unfairly accused): the management who want to get rid of a subject on their blacklist, the rogue academic who wants to disable the competition, get their own back for something or other, or detract from their own unprofessional or criminal behaviour – and HR who will delight in making the process as painful and destructive as possible – sometimes for all involved, and with special attention to the one on the blacklist, who will be hunted down like an animal.
Eileen Nugent · 18 November 2025 at 22:40
There is nothing in it for the organisation – there are 35,000 people who there is nothing in it for and who are likely to feel nothing but the negative impact of an inefficiently regulated organisation, there is nothing in it for the public.
312 · 19 November 2025 at 07:57
“There is nothing in it for the organisation”
Fully agree. The problem is the few egomaniacs, self-interested, entitled and anti-academic people who believe they are the organisation.
TheResearcher · 18 November 2025 at 16:49
SPARTACUS, to be clear, not everyone is afraid of mentioning the names of this people, all of them without exception. However, as you may know, if we mention their names and their misbehaviours, that can create problems to the 21 Group. As I mentioned in the past, I could not care less if the University sues me as they will quickly realize that they cannot take much money from me, and they know they received several whistleblowing disclosures and safeguarding referrals made by third parties about my situation and they ignore them all. Ask the Pro-Vice-Chancellor for University Community and Engagement Prof. Kamal Munir because he knows it very well!
Luckily, Prof. Munir really cares about us, as he highlights here:
https://www.breakingthesilence.cam.ac.uk/breaking-silence-university-statement
“The University is committed to creating and maintaining a safe, welcoming, inclusive and diverse community that nurtures a culture in which we treat one another with courtesy and consideration. All members of the University community must be able to thrive without fear of sexual violence, abuse, coercive behaviour or related misconduct… All members of the University community have an individual and a collective responsibility to ensure that their professional relationships are sensitive to the imbalances of power that exist within any organisation, and to promote a culture of inclusivity.”
I am looking forward to seeing Prof. Munir on the street and tell him what I think about this!
- · 18 November 2025 at 17:32
Some issues people are struggling with… if you believe that then why opt to spin cases out and go to court (when the entire tribunal system is predicated on a good faith commitment from both sides to achieve resolution)? Why refuse to engage with Acas conciliators? Why not investigate complaints fairly from the outset? Why rely on power imbalances in resources in the attempt to run people out? Why not spend university funds on teaching and researcher development? Does anyone believe that the university is a place people can thrive without fear of retaliation and has anyone even bothered to find out?
+ · 18 November 2025 at 17:36
An empathetic workplace requires more than mere empathetic communication. If it is just kind words in the absence of genuine empathetic feeling or acts in some ways that is actually worse?
TheResearcher · 18 November 2025 at 18:22
A key lesson you get from UCam once you have a problem is that the entire system is based on deception. They want to make you (and their sponsors) believe that they care but they—read, VC, Pro-VCs, Academic Secretary, Registrary, Director of Health and Safety and senior HR/OSCCA, to cite a few—could not care less. Once you realize that, and they can no longer manipulate you, you become a target as SPARTACUS explained above. The real lesson, however, comes from all those who told you for months how they rejected the behaviour from the senior leadership, but then do exactly the same locally when they are forced to choose between people with different social status. These are the worst of all, and they are very widespread. Cambridge does not just breed bullies best but incentives a culture of concealing and manipulation as a way of living.
21percent.org · 18 November 2025 at 19:56
It’s why external oversight and external reform are the only viable paths to fixing Cambridge (& other UK universities).
Eileen Nugent · 18 November 2025 at 20:57
The level of care is encoded in the system. The current defaults in the university of Cambridge suggest that a low level of care is currently encoded in the system. The default established after an unfair dismissal that went the whole way through an employment tribunal process and went against the university was to ignore the unfairly dismissed persons preferences for a remedy and to do whatever the university wanted to do in that situation irrespective of the differential impact on the unfairly dismissed person of the different possible organisational responses.
These are group decisions – an individual in an organisation can be capable of delivering a higher level of care in an organisational situation and can vote in a group decisions in ways that are likely to increase the level of care in the system – but that can make very little practical difference in the overall level of care encoded in the system and in the organisational response after an organisational has already established an organisational default position like the one above.
I think the reason why that particular organisational default – not caring about the remedy preferences of people who have been significantly impacted by an organisational problem – is so sticky in Cambridge and why the level of care in the system cannot easily be increased is that the majority of people in Cambridge still believe that this default organisational position is what is necessary for Cambridge to maintain its competitiveness. In practice that organisational default position seems to have lead to the emergence of organisational conditions where a decline in competitiveness is possible because the impact of the default being in place seems to be that the organisation has effectively severed a critical internal feedback loop necessary for continuous organisational improvement. This much is clear when you try to give any critical internal feedback to the university.
XX · 18 November 2025 at 14:48
The Telegraph joins in the slamming of Oxford University
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/11/17/oxford-don-quit-claims-harassment-female-colleague-upheld/
Cato · 18 November 2025 at 17:51
It actually gives me a lot of hope to see the Telegraph of all places taking these matters seriously. Thank god somewhere in the British establishment decency and integrity still prevail! Perhaps at least the Oxbridge alumni among the editor- and readership understand what the management does not? The best way to help the university turns things around is to have open public debate, free speech, and a frank dialogue about these matters because sweeping things under the rug … only produces a lot of lumpy rugs.
Cowcross · 19 November 2025 at 09:07
The Cherwell link in the OP (https://www.cherwell.org/2024/06/14/oxford-university-panel-cleared-professor-to-keep-teaching-after-department-investigation-upheld-harassment-allegations/) is worth reading in full.
It reveals a lot about how our internal systems fail students and colleagues who come forward. After the investigation upheld complaints the matter was sent to an “internal panel”. It took only evidence only from the accused, refused to disclose its proceedings, and let them off with a “verbal warning” (!!!)
TheResearcher · 19 November 2025 at 10:16
“The Panel’s proceedings are not shared with those submitted complaints as it “concerns a confidential matter between an individual and their employer.””
“The University does not comment on confidential employee matters.”
Confidentiality is used an abused to conceal and manipulate information. This is a recurrent theme in institutions such as UCam. Even if victims or alleged abusers do not want confidentiality, UCam will try to enforce confidentiality to make sure the decision the University wants—i.e., the result they decided à priori following SPARTACUS—is implemented smoothly and without the interference of the community at large. Once you experience this once, their strategy of using confidentiality as they do becomes very clear. The really striking thing is how they keep doing the same thing over and over, even to those who already know the strategy, and expect they comply with the requested confidentiality!
Riverrun · 19 November 2025 at 11:03
“There were 226 days between the first student’s complaint on the 28th November 2022 and the results of the Dunn School’s investigation”
This is lightning speed compared to Cambridge!
Cases often takes years to complete… we need a resilience prize for those who make it to the 1000 day mark in one piece
Wyn Evans · 19 November 2025 at 11:20
I raised a Grievance against a very senior member of Human Resources on 30 November 2022.
It is still ongoing, 1085 days later.
Is this the record?
Eagle · 19 November 2025 at 11:45
Utter insanity. Whatever the circumstances that seems like negligence – an act of omission in defiance of all reasonable expectations producing risk of foreseeable harm.
TheResearcher · 19 November 2025 at 12:20
“I raised a Grievance against a very senior member of Human Resources”
I cannot even raise grievances, use Statute A IX or contact hundreds of members of the University, including ALL senior leadership and “Any HR staff from the University of Cambridge.” But at least I am a member of the College of the Vice-Chancellor and have access to all their support. You can all imagine how lucky I am!
Anonymous · 19 November 2025 at 12:35
There is a case at the University of ‘KK’ that lasted about 4 and 1/2 years, from the point when the Whistleblowing Professor raised serious concerns about a Head of School (which inevitably becomes as issue with HR too, as they scramble to cover it up), to when the Professor was unlawfully dismissed for raising those concerns.
Anonymous · 19 November 2025 at 14:16
I should also say, in the case above, one of the main reasons why they let the situation go on as long as it did, was not because they were giving the Whistleblower opportunity to defend themselves, but rather to probe for anything they could use against the victim, to wear them down, and to attack their career.
At this stage, they know they are locked in to the case being brought to court, so paying the victim that bit extra in salary for this purpose, is worth the investment from their point of view.
In this case though, it seems that they reached some sort of theoretical limit and gave up wasting any more resources on trying to eke out any kind of case against the victim to cover up the real reason for what they were doing, so just threw their hands in the the air and finalised the dismissal.
If those controlling the process are among the most depraved and sadistic of their sort, they may even taunt the victim further by saying ‘this has clearly gone on too long and so you cannot possibly be integrated back into your position here’.
Anon · 19 November 2025 at 12:07
You are not alone. My understanding is that other cases have also passed the 1,000 day point as well.
Eileen Nugent · 19 November 2025 at 12:30
3rd June 2021 – 1,630 days
Eileen Nugent · 19 November 2025 at 12:50
I left the whole organisation on 27th June 2024 – 3 years, 1100 days – after the original work-related stress regulation health and safety concerns we raised.
Eileen Nugent · 19 November 2025 at 13:28
In my case I think it was the complexity of the situation that was the most significant barrier to faster handling of the situation and to finding a resolution to the problems that were being raised in a reasonable timeframe.
I made the decision to leave the collegiate university completely at the three year mark. I made that decision to leave the organisation because I couldn’t rebuild and then maintain my health in that situation. When you are in working conditions where you can maintain your health your body can consistently deliver a stress response when any area of your life demands one – after three years of being in this situation not only could my body not deliver a stress response anymore I was also faced with increasingly abnormal work-related stressors that others weren’t being faced with because of being left in that unresolved situation.
Eileen Nugent · 19 November 2025 at 14:15
Doesn’t matter how much support you have in the colleges – as soon as you take a non-renewable fixed-term university lectureship in Cambridge, don’t convert it to a permanent lectureship and try to stay in Cambridge afterward to finish some work to get a permanent lectureship elsewhere, Cambridge sets a default for you of “remove person from the Cambridge system” which is basically “dismantle all Cambridge support for this person” but since you might have no other environmental support at that stage this is basically a “hit persons career destruction button” default. If Cambridge has made multiple mistakes in your employment where you could have a claim for permanence in the university lectureship role – this existing organisational process is just then turbo-charged.
Other organisations like Janelia Research Campus have recognised that this is systemic fault – i.e. there are no beneficiaries when this is done to people – and have mechanisms in place to transition people from one environment where they can really push themselves on e.g. uni-focus research performance but if this becomes unsustainable for either the person or the organisation – i.e. the person cannot match to the environment – they are given time and support to shift gears into another environment where a different performance profile is possible, one that suits the person better and fits the current demands in that other environment.
TheResearcher · 19 November 2025 at 15:38
“Doesn’t matter how much support you have in the colleges”
It does matter if you are a student. For example, there is a famous sign (now 3!) in the Buttery of Christ’s College that states, “Christ’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 suppose that other colleges have similar signs and policies. If the abuses concern members of your college, then the college has the duty to address the abuses and protect you, instead of covering up the abuses. But even if the abuses are not caused by members of the College, Cambridge College are responsible for the wellbeing of students generally and, therefore, cannot simply wash their hands when abuses done by University staff happen on their watch, namely when the Masters of the Colleges are members of the University Council and are fully aware that the University ignores multiple whistleblowing disclosures and safeguarding referrals based on detailed medical evidence done by third parties about those abuses, or representations of one of their members following Statute A IX of UCam directly to one of their Fellows. In these cases at least, Colleges cannot simply look the other way.
Economist · 19 November 2025 at 15:56
If 1000 days is typical then as an independent country we would rank 165/184 in the world for the speed of our case management – perhaps narrowly ahead of Egypt and Pakistan though sadly trailing behind Syria, Venezuela or Sudan. (https://www.indexmundi.com/facts/indicators/IC.LGL.DURS/rankings)
Eileen Nugent · 19 November 2025 at 17:01
“Doesn’t matter how much support you have in the colleges” : Sorry I should have been more careful in the wording, sometimes you are conscious of the fact that the scale of the systemic fault you are encountering means that it is highly likely the situation will remain unresolved and will result in the complete erosion of all the support you have in the organisation irrespective of the level of support that you had in the organisation going in to that situation. I think it is also possible for a student to encounter a situation of this kind.
In most situations a person could encounter in an organisation the support a person has in an organisation makes a significant difference but in some rare situations it ultimately may not matter how much a person has in an organisation because the situation has the potential to erode even the strongest of support for a person in an organisation and at that point there is the very real possibility of the situation being left unresolved and of being on your own with a situation until you can find a way to initiate a sequence of actions that could lead to a resolution of the situation.
Eileen Nugent · 19 November 2025 at 20:27
I should define what I mean by being on your own with a situation – it means your own judgment of a situation differs from the organisational judgment of a situation and you are prepared to act on your own judgment of a situation rather than to rely on the organisational judgment of a situation – this different from being alone and not having anyone to support you.
This can happen for a number of reasons including the situation generated being particularly complex in which case any judgment of a situation might have to be carefully checked in a legal process and a person – e.g. litigant in person – could be on their own with a situation until such point a person who the nation relies on for their exceptional judgement – a judge – makes an evidence-based independent judgment of the situation. At that point in time it’s likely the situation will be resolved through whatever resolution options are available at that stage of a situation, options which might differ from those that would have been available at earlier timepoints in a situation.
I think it’s less likely for a student to end up in this position because others are more likely to intervene in student cases.
Eileen Nugent · 20 November 2025 at 12:29
“You are not alone. My understanding is that other cases have also passed the 1,000 day point as well.”
When an organisation is functional, HR and management handling its grievance processes are mainly deal with proportional responders, these are people who raise grievances more frequently about problems including systemic problems when they are at an earlier stage and having less individual and organisational impact, proportional responders are more likely to be influenced by HR and management handling grievances processes and if the grievance processes generate a significant amount of work for them they are in a position to give up.
When an organisation reaches a highly dysfunctional state HR and management handling its grievance processes also start also dealing with all-or-nothing responders, these are people who raise grievances less frequently about problems when they are at a later stage and more serious i.e. systemic problems having a significant individual and organisational impact, all-or-nothing responders are less likely to be influenced by HR and management handling grievance processes and will keep going with a grievance even when that generates significant amounts of work often because they are not in a position to give up – legal obligation, personal constraints.
I think this is what catches organisations out, the proportional responder organisational protection barrier is breached and nothing happens so HR and management handling grievances think it’s OK to carry on with the poor practice that has built up in the organisation leading to a breach of the proportional responder protection barrier, they think that the poor practice that has built up is paying off because more and more people are dropping grievances and it takes a while to realise that an organisation has transitioned to activating its all-or-nothing response protection because its proportional response protection has failed. HR and management handling grievances try the same strategies with all-or-nothing responders but all-or-nothing responders will just keep going, keep pushing on through for the organisational reset to get the organisation back to a more functional state.
SPARTACUS · 19 November 2025 at 11:18
UCam is even worse than this! When very rarely (so rare it seems like a miracle) the oligarchy loses an appeal (e.g. their a priori determined outcome is reversed by the University own internal process) they then use the confidentiality clause to deny their victim the right to clear his or her name!! This is exactly what this gladiator knows is happening in the School of Clinical Medicine/CRUK scandal!!
Anonymous · 19 November 2025 at 12:24
Occasionally, extremely improbable events do indeed happen, although not necessarily for the benefit of the innocent victim that is being targeted.
I’m aware of a case at another University, where a Professor was targeted for dismissal. There was no evidence for this of course, and so not even the Appeal panel could possibly play ball, and overruled the dismissal. Presumably, the self preservation instincts of the Appeal panel outweighed fulfilling the perverted desires of the small group of senior HR and managers that were pushing through the dismissal.
This same powerful group simply ignored the Appeal panel finding though, and sacked the Professor anyway. This has been happening in the courts too, were Employment Tribunal rulings to reinstate the unfairly dismissed victim are ignored by the University. How can this happen? Because the lawyers overseeing the case in court will go right back to those powerful few that made it all happen in the first place, including hiring the lawyers concerned. Why would these few change their minds?
As covered on this blog previously, there is a small group of perhaps just a few individuals that are calling all the shots in dismissal cases against Whistleblowers or those that speak out against HR or senior management. If they want you out, then you are out.
There is another case, against a Whistleblowing Professor, at the same University. The DARVO attack was truly beyond farcical and the panel could not possibly recommend dismissal, but the chosen few in power who were pushing everything through, took over the case and sacked the Professor anyway. No evidence or even reason needed.
Folks really need to realise how easy this is for them to do, and how dangerous academia has become. Human rights and dignity are of no concern to those responsible, nor are the consequences for the victims and their families. There is also no concern for those caught up in the scam, who are led into being part of the abuse machine and illegal dismissals, and so are now just as culpable.
Charity · 19 November 2025 at 14:58
We are lucky to have people like you who are willing to share their experiences. You are protecting people who are at an earlier stage and could otherwise easily have been fooled by false promises and deceitful practices. Now at least they know what to look out for in terms of their usual bag of tricks like unreasonable confidentiality requests, secret meetings, using conflicted parties, retaliatory investigations, senseless delays, poison pill letters and peddling false rumours. The more and more hard evidence that comes through the better.
Anonymous · 19 November 2025 at 16:14
Thank you. There is so much more to share btw, which is so much worse. I don’t think folks would believe me with a lot of it, if I didn’t have hard evidence to back it all up. My view, and that of many others that contribute to this blog or have come forward in some way, is that the cycle must stop. For that to happen though, it may continue to get worse for a period, as certain individuals are exposed and hopefully held to account in the courts and press in the next 12-18 months, from the various cases that have been mentioned so far. So for those early career researchers that are quite rightly deeply concerned about their futures in academia, hang in there, and stay tuned.
Anon · 19 November 2025 at 18:50
Keeping good evidence is important. One of the truly bizarre things – that almost protects the university at first – is how some of the behaviour is so reprehensible, that when victims reach out for help, it has the effect of them being disbelieved and dismissed as unhinged or paranoid (“surely it cannot be so bad?”). But there is good documentation now of some truly horrific practices. The thing that disgusts me most is how they interact when planning to destroy a person – it is all very friendly and chatty, like good friends planning a prank.
Eileen Nugent · 19 November 2025 at 20:41
I think this is a good point Anon. When an organisation goes through a series of major external stressors – the whole organisation can end up in a highly dysfunctional state something which needs to be recognised and corrected to get back a more functional state, what this means is that the worst-case scenario for individual case handling can be like nothing anyone has ever seen before – it’s off past scales. The individual case is not then unbelievable because it didn’t happen as the evidence proves otherwise, the individual case is unbelievable because it’s like nothing anyone has seen before.
Nc · 20 November 2025 at 10:28
>> The thing that disgusts me most is how they interact when planning to destroy a person – it is all very friendly and chatty, like good friends planning a prank
Oh yes. Lots of exclamation marks and emojis.
Anonymous · 20 November 2025 at 11:37
Anon – “The thing that disgusts me most is how they interact when planning to destroy a person – it is all very friendly and chatty, like good friends planning a prank.”
I couldn’t agree more. I’ve witnessed such extreme nonchalance and coldness to those individuals overseeing bogus dismissal processes, which I find truly chilling, and I don’t say that lightly. In one of the cases above, one of the panellists actually fell asleep as the Whistleblowing victim was presenting evidence. They didn’t even have any questions such was the pre-determined nature of the proceedings, and seemed to be just a typical Monday morning sacking to them. Btw, I’m guessing that the academic community will be shocked when they find out who Professor Sleepy Head is …
Eileen – In my personal experience at least, panellists overseeing malicious dismissal processes are fully aware of what’s going on, but they just don’t care, or are bound to follow through on the pre-determined outcome that’s been set, or both. For me, one of the most important outcomes of a forum like this blog and others, and coverage in the press and the courts etc, is that all of academia will eventually know the full reality of what’s going on.
Z00 · 20 November 2025 at 11:56
“The thing that disgusts me most is how they interact when planning to destroy a person – it is all very friendly and chatty, like good friends planning a prank”
The person no longer has a name, just initials. It’s complete dehumanisation.
But they’ve time to get on their high horses about “animalisation” https://21percent.org/?p=2593
Eileen Nugent · 20 November 2025 at 13:01
“Eileen – In my personal experience at least, panellists overseeing malicious dismissal processes are fully aware of what’s going on, but they just don’t care, or are bound to follow through on the pre-determined outcome that’s been set, or both.”
This doesn’t surprise me Anonymous – there are any number of misconceptions or combinations of misconceptions that people on these panels could have that could lead to that level of carelessness in the treatment of a person placed in that type of dismissal situation by an organisation in a dysfunctional state.
Eye4 · 20 November 2025 at 12:52
“The thing that disgusts me most is how they interact when planning to destroy a person – it is all very friendly and chatty, like good friends planning a prank”
The contrast between their group communications and how they respond to victims is stark. To the victims the emails are all deadpan and “severe” like they are “performing” the role of “manager who takes their duties seriously.” But at the same time they message among each other in a completely nonchalant fashion. They do not give a fuck, even thinking it appropriate to cross-communicate social plans while figuring out how to screw someone.
Eileen Nugent · 20 November 2025 at 13:52
I think care does need to be taken when an organisation is evaluating what to do in cases of people falling asleep in meetings – some people are narcoleptics so it would be known in advance that they can fall asleep in any situation and if that happens in a meeting, the meeting would then have to be paused and the organisation would need to make some adjustments.
When it comes to an organisation dealing with one of these high-risk, high-stress situations the organisation might judge that someone with narcolepsy could fulfil their duties through other critical organisational tasks. Some critical organisational tasks like teaching curriculum overview operate on longer timescales and someone periodically falling asleep in a meeting can be accommodated with no impact on the outcome of the teaching curriculum review process and with the person making as full a contribution as everyone else to the outcome whereas if someone falls asleep while another person is disclosing an extremely sensitive issue that could have a significant impact on the individual disclosing the sensitive issues and on the organisational handling of the case – it could damage trust and confidence to the extent the organisation cannot then work with the individual disclosing the extremely sensitive issue to find a resolution. In this case the organisation would need to prevent this from happening again in future rather than try to accommodate this and storing up the potential for further organisational problems of the same type in future.
In some cases a person falling asleep can be a one-off, they are in the early stages of becoming ill but don’t want to drop out of an important meeting and in other cases people are having difficulty managing a chronic health condition e.g. diabetes. The thing to bear in mind is that in some of these situations – a person falling asleep in a meeting can have a similar type of psychological impact on another person to a person showing up in a hospital A & E and seeing the person triaging them fall asleep mid triage – it has the potential to increase distress in an already distressing situation.
Anonymous · 20 November 2025 at 14:44
Eileen – You’re right to point this out, but in the case above, it wasn’t due to any of those things. You can trust me on that. The individual hadn’t even bothered to read the case materials provided by the victim being targeted for dismissal. Nor had the Chair for that matter. They just weren’t interested, and the event was conducted with malignant and corrupt buffoonery at a level that was off the scale.
In my opinion though, in such very high stakes events where an individual’s career is about to be ended and all that entails, if there is an underlining medical condition that will significantly impair a panellists ability to perform the task, then that person has an obligation to recuse themselves from participating on that occasion. Not that that would have made any difference here, as they would have been swapped out with another puppet.
Eileen Nugent · 20 November 2025 at 15:21
People are now spending >10 years of their life in an unfair dismissal situation, > 1/3 of a working career and one case alone is costing an organisation > £2.5 million (enough to endow a permanent academic post) – falling asleep whilst giving testimony in court proceedings on the exact details of what happened in a meeting that you fell asleep in is not something a judge will accept, at some point the person is going to have to wake up and try to figure out what is going on in a situation if they are on a panel to evaluate the situation on behalf of the organisation – whether it’s waking up in these meetings or waking up to the sound of a judges gavel, it’s up to them.
Jx212 · 20 November 2025 at 16:09
‘even thinking it appropriate to cross-communicate social plans while figuring out how to screw someone’
Interesting observation. I think the writing style they adopt with victims is meant to create this impression that the process is professional and neutral.
But the reality is that there is a core clique of people inside the system who all know each other, spend time together and owe each other favours over a really long period of time.