The Registrary of the University of Cambridge, Ms Emma Rampton, has announced that she will step down from her role on 31 December 2025 here.
Her decision comes at the end of a year marked by considerable institutional turbulence.
This has included a disorderly Chancellorship election, a protracted and ongoing disciplinary investigation involving another very senior figure, the announcement — and subsequent withdrawal — of the appointment of a new Chief Financial Officer and repeated press allegations of bullying and harassment seemingly tolerated at the highest levels of the University.
The period was further destabilised by the unprecedented leaking of remarks made by the Vice-Chancellor about the Reform Party, taken from a recording made by an unnamed member of Council. This episode was widely seen as an attempt by internal opponents of the Vice Chancellor to undermine and discredit her leadership.
The University clearly needs to implement urgent reforms. We can’t carry on like we’ve been doing over the last five years.
This now presents an opportunity for renewal.
We hope that the Vice Chancellor will be able to secure the appointment of both a new Chief Financial Officer and a new Registrary, helping to stabilise the University’s leadership and lay firmer foundations for the next chapter in Cambridge’s governance.
27 Comments
21percent.org · 15 December 2025 at 16:03
“Emma’s influence and impact have been truly
significantruinous – whether in support of the University, the UAS or numerous colleagues across the University. She has steered Cambridge through significant periods of organisational change, including adapting the University to the challenges of COVID, and overseeing our transformation programmes in finance, research support and HR.”SPARTACUS · 15 December 2025 at 17:00
“Many careers have progressed under her insightful mentorship. In every aspect of her work, Emma has focused on the human element, building trust among colleagues and demonstrating that kindness and success are not mutually exclusive.”
Astounding!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
VC is clueless! She has to go!
Bloody right · 15 December 2025 at 17:56
Bloody right!
TheResearcher · 15 December 2025 at 17:05
UCam will not be different simply because Ms Emma Rampton “stepped down” as she has been on leave for months and the malpractices continued without her. The announcement should have been at the very least that she was sacked and that she would bring with her the Director of HR and the most discussed Lead HR Business Partner of the 21 Group.
This announcement may give the impression that things will change but note that the VC, the ProVCs, the Academic Secretary, and senior members of University HR and legal services will remain the same. Please, do not be fooled!
Jay · 15 December 2025 at 17:11
Agreed — the next to go should be her ludicrous and corrupt proteges
SPS · 15 December 2025 at 17:23
And the Peakophant
Synco · 15 December 2025 at 18:26
“Peakophant” – genius!
Eileen Nugent · 15 December 2025 at 20:27
An implicit assumption is being made that to be sacked with less financial resources is always a more emotionally painful and therefore more punishing & life-altering experience than “stepping down” with more financial resources. Sometimes the separation of people arising in a situation dwarfs every other factor in terms of the emotional pain encountered by a person in a situation. In such cases a “stepping down” has the potential to generate significantly more emotional pain, punishment & life alteration than being sacked.
21percent.org · 15 December 2025 at 20:58
Speaking generally here, a major difference is future job prospects.
If you are sacked, then another job at the same level is unlikely.
If you “step down” whilst your employer talks warmly of your significant impact, then prospects are likely to be fine.
Eileen Nugent · 15 December 2025 at 21:59
Generally speaking, future job prospects are better or certainly no worse for those “stepping down” than those being sacked. This however can also reverse in some of these situations as the emotional pain of job seeking can be higher after a “stepping down” than a sacking and the most significant barrier to future job prospects.
TheResearcher · 15 December 2025 at 21:19
@Eileen, I meant that it had to be clear that Ms Rampton has done a horrible job for years as given by the experience of multiple people, and, as a consequence, she was kicked out of the University. Such a statement would be key for me to believe that UCam is in the process of real positive change. Now, claiming that Ms Rampton “stepped down,” that she has done a great work when it is absolutely false, and even asking the Academic Secretary to step in—what he has been doing for months already because she has been on leave!—makes me strongly believe that UCam will continue exactly the same.
Eileen Nugent · 15 December 2025 at 23:10
@TheResearcher Sorry I should have been clearer in my comments above. I wasn’t specifically referring to the “stepping down” of Ms Rampton when I made them. Beyond an interaction on an organisational whistleblowing case after it had already spiralled out to control I have never had an interaction with Ms Rampton. I don’t feel it is possible to really know anything of a person on the basis of an interaction with that person that is so heavily constrained by a combination of their position in the organisation & the need for someone in their position to attach sufficient weight and give serious consideration to any legal advice given in any complex high-risk organisational situation.
It’s very difficult for me to know what to say about Ms Rampton “stepping down”.
It seems to be the case that an organisation can get itself into an organisational state where it has a major organisational problem that is then automatically assigned to someone in the organisation to solve by virtue of their position in the organisation but it subsequently turns out that the organisational problem is (a) solvable only from another position in the organisation (b) solvable only after staying in a situation being generated by the major organisational problem for years to gather insight and (c) solvable only in hindsight.
Eileen Nugent · 17 December 2025 at 03:12
It is possible to generate an organisational state with an extremely high potential for organisational cruelty to an individual that is relatively independent of the individual behaviour of people in an organisation i.e. how people treat other people in an organisation. This can occur when there is an embedded systemic error i.e. a problem with an organisations systems that if solved accurately would return the organisation to a state where the probability of further organisational cruelty to individuals in the organisation is then extremely low. Take the post office as an example. There were embedded error-generating mechanisms in its accounting system – a certain level of organisational financial disorder being continuously generated. There are accounting errors being continuously generated that if not corrected have the potential to go in favour of either side of an accounting transaction and against the other side of the accounting transaction.
There was then a subset of people in the system – Fujitsu workers – continuously acting as Maxwells agents in the system by not correcting the accounting errors being generated in the accounting system accurately and without bias. Instead any errors being generated are being “corrected” inaccurately and with bias in favour of one side – i.e. the organisation – to the detriment of the other side – i.e. the individual postmaster. Fujitsu is only interested in its relationship as an organisation with another organisation – the post office – and with the owner of that other organisation which is the government of a country. Fujitsu is not interested in its relationship as an organisation with the end users of its accounting system – individual postmasters as it thinks these individuals have no potential to have a significant impact on its future business prospects and the future job prospects of its workers.
Fujitsu is only interested in defending its reputation in relation to one party in a financial transaction and not in relation to the other party as it implicitly considers that only one party in the financial transaction has the potential to have any significant impact on its future business prospects and the future job prospects of Fujitsu workers. Fujitsu workers – Maxwells agents – are continuously doing the work to increase financial disorder being generated by the accounting system and to imprint it onto the lives of individual postmasters. Post office is then detecting the increased financial disorder being generated by the accounting system and using criminal processes that are available to it as an organisation to pursue individual post masters for the inaccurately determined financial shortfalls i.e. baking the financial disorder of its accounting system – that is actively being increased by Fujitsu workers – into the lives of individual postmasters.
Disorder generated in an accounting system occurring at the level of financial amounts that would have very little impact on the overall finances of a large organisation – post office, Fujitsu – is then being imprinted onto the lives of individuals where disorder at that same level of financial amounts has devastating life consequences. The fact that the financial disorder is being baked in to a life with a criminal process means the impact of the financial disorder on an individual life is even more devastating and life altering there is then a higher probability of imprinting other forms of disorder onto a life e.g. stress disorder, health disorder, housing disorder, psycho-social disorder. A full understanding of the organisational problem generating the organisational financial disorder, full awareness of existence external Fujitsu workers acting as Maxwells agents in relation to an organisational accounting system thereby increasing organisational financial disorder & full knowledge of the impact of that increased organisational financial disorder on individual lives is not widespread throughout the organisation. This leads to the emergence of an organisational state where the organisation is persistently and continuously cruel to individuals over decades. It is only when the existence of organisational state that is generating that organisational cruelty to individuals is recognised, the organisational state itself is accurately analysed to determine the root cause of that organisational state and the full impact of that organisational state on individuals is understood that the organisation can begin to implement an accurate organisational correction process to prevent any more of the same type of organisational cruelty to individuals in future.
It’s a similar situation with employment processes more generally in academia. HR are in charge both of administering employment processes and of correcting any errors being generated in employment processes. This is leading to inaccurate and biased correction of employment errors – i.e. to HR acting as internal Maxwells agents increasing any existing organisational employment disorder arising as a result of problems with existing employment processes – as HR are “correcting” in favour of “the organisation” to the detriment of individuals in the organisation when an employment error in an employment process could go either way. This biased and inaccurate correction of employment errors seems to be driven by an implicit HR assumption that in correcting in the favour of organisational HR staff and/or in favour of the most senior and/or most permanent academic in any employment situation that they are acting in the best interests of the organisation. This is then continuously imprinting any organisational employment disorder (and hence organisational stress disorder) onto the lives of individuals in the organisation and in some cases resulting in an unfair dismissal of an individual. Employment/stress disorder occurring at the level of the unfair dismissal of an individual that could have very little impact on the overall functioning of an organisation – of ~30,000 people – is then being imprinted onto the life of an individual where employment/stress disorder at that same level has potentially devastating life consequences.
The additional factor of an organisational default of non-compliance with a reinstatement/re-engagement order after an unfair dismissal in Cambridge has two significant impacts on the system (a) it bakes significant employment/stress disorder into the lives of individuals who have been unfairly dismissed and/or had their careers destroyed – i.e. exposed to a significant organisational employment error – as an unfair dismissal is never corrected/the academic career path is never repaired (b) it holds the organisational conditions in place for inaccurate and biased “correction” of employment errors to emerge and to continue in an organisation thus increasing any organisational employment/stress disorder in organisation and imprinting it onto the lives of individuals after which it will be baked in. With this organisational default in place there is a higher probability of HR staff being pressured by a person HR know will stay in the organisation [high probability of future interactions] to act in that persons interests in any employment situation and against the interests of a person who HR know can be forced out of the organisation never to be seen again [low probability of future interactions]. If that organisational default is left in place for a long time – >decade – it is highly likely that organisational HR will enter the organisation into a regime where significant employment errors are routinely being “corrected” in a biased and inaccurate way. This will then generate significantly higher levels of organisational employment/stress disorder in the organisation than the levels that would otherwise have been generated in the organisation without that default. Once HR has entered the organisation into that organisational regime it is then very difficult for an organisation to exit it.
This organisational default – non-compliance with a reinstatement/re-engagement order after an unfair dismissal – was put in place in Cambridge before Emma Rampton joined Cambridge from Oxford. Oxford when faced with the same organisational decision did not set an organisational default of non-compliance with a reinstatement order from an employment tribunal.
At Last · 15 December 2025 at 17:26
@21percent.org needs to submit an FOI asking how much this has cost! I bet lots of money!
21percent.org · 15 December 2025 at 17:43
Unfortunately, a FOI will fail on the grounds that the individual can be identified.
An Employment Lawyer told us this would be a minimum of 1-2 years salary.
We assume Ms Rampton is the individual on ~ £360k here
https://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/reporter/2023-24/weekly/6731/section4.shtml
So our guess is > £700k to make her go away. Of course, this doesn’t include all the legal fees, costs, etc. And as she knows where all the bodies are buried, having done much of the digging herself, she also needs to be paid to shut up.
And then there was the earlier imbroglio of the Chief Financial Officer, who would have to be paid to relinquish her job.
The total debacle must have cost at least £1m.
MUSKETEER · 15 December 2025 at 18:02
Reading the link above with statements of the VC is nauseating! Indeed although I am a seasoned musketeer I had to puke! VC has no integrity, no morals, nothing! Rampton was a horrible administrator and the American Queen, although totally clueless, must know it! So she is clearly making misleading statements! Or… well… telling clear lies! Note this is not double speak (Prentice most likely does not know what that means…!!! Doubt she read Orwell).
The scary thing is: the Academic Secretary has been named as acting Registrary! So the shit will be the same!
I wonder who Cardinal Richelieu is in all of this…
Xerxes · 15 December 2025 at 18:30
“… Rampton was a horrible administrator. …”
Agreed, she is someone who has caused a lot of grief and pain.
For the University to start healing, she is one of the heads that had to roll.
Raven · 16 December 2025 at 12:51
That the Registrary has gone is a very good start.
But will those in reshuffled positions of responsibility now apply more scrutiny? Or will they continue to protect those who are known to be at the origin of all the needless grief and destruction?
They will be busy people. Will they continue to enlist the industrious help of those who are creating the problems in the first place or take seriously the meaning of conflict of interest and put an end to the current culture of dereliction of duty?
Rescue us! · 15 December 2025 at 18:04
Lord Smith! Lord Smith! Lord Smith! Lord Smith! Lord Smith!
Wyn Evans · 16 December 2025 at 08:28
In my view, a proper assessment of Ms Rampton’s legacy must wait.
Ms Rampton — along with Dr Mike Glover — was in charge of operation of the Whistleblowing policy.
She was also instrumental in some of the events at the Institute of Astronomy and at CRUK-Cam
Once these matters have been resolved by the Employment Tribunals and Courts, we will be able to assess the information in the public domain and come to some conclusions.
TheResearcher · 16 December 2025 at 08:54
Please, do not forget to send the outcome of the cases currently in Employment Tribunals and Courts to the Vice-Chancellor Professor Deborah Prentice because she seems clueless in her views:
“I would like to personally thank Emma for the enormous hard work, dedication and expertise she has brought to the role over the past eight years, and to wish her well in her future plans… Her enthusiasm for, and commitment to, the development of people has had a hugely positive impact on many staff and the wider professional services community at Cambridge. We are very grateful for everything that Emma has done for the University.”
Who exactly are “we” in “We are very grateful for everything that Emma has done”? What a joke!
No Renewal! · 17 December 2025 at 09:49
Renewal is not possible! The oligarchy at UCam is so incompetent, malicious, self-serving and immoral that they all have to go! They have presided over the degradation of an institution of scholars and transformed it into a corporation!
Out with the whole lot: VC, ProVCs, Academic Secretary, Council, and Head of HR. They have committed countless unlawful acts, destroyed many people and programmes, and have soiled the name of the University!
TheResearcher · 17 December 2025 at 11:34
Daniel Zeichner MP already replied to me and promised to help. Please consider following the advice of the 21 Group here (https://21percent.org/?p=2983) and share your experiences with him. This will only work if many of us “break the silence” and report what UCam is doing to us so that the systemic nature of the issues are clear. The Vice-Chancellor Prof. Deborah Prentice needs to explain how UCam got to this degrading state where whistleblowing disclosures and safeguarding referrals are completely ignored, Statutes are not followed, and single individuals are forbidden from contacting hundreds of people while they hear that UCam upholds freedom of speech. Please consider reporting your own disturbing experiences with UCam so that Daniel Zeichner understands the widespread and seriousness of the situation. Thank you.
TigerWhoCametoET · 17 December 2025 at 14:52
I agree. I feel breaking the silence is the only way to deliver real change so we can protect and safeguard other people who might end up in the same scenarios and contacting our MP is the least we can do.
21percent.org · 18 December 2025 at 11:04
We strongly recommend contacting your MP with details of bullying and harassment you may have suffered at any University.
If you live in Cambridge constituency, please do contact Daniel Zeichner.
Eileen Nugent · 19 December 2025 at 00:42
Talking about these issues is likely to be more difficult for some people than others. This can especially be the case when it comes to talking about these issues to an MP – a person it is likely that you have never met before. I think it’s worth bearing in mind that whilst your MP is unlikely to know you as a person, they are likely to know and be familiar with these issues and how these issues could impact any person. The whole experience of interacting with your MP on these issues could turn out to be a lot less painful and difficult than you might expect whilst not being free of pain and difficulty.
I think it would be good for MPs to get a better understanding of the impact that these situations are having on individuals and also the knock-on impact that a prolonged, unresolved case has the potential to have on a family, a group of friends/neighbours, a local community and constituency/national public resources.
The collective task is to build effective unbiased dispute resolution mechanisms that work at speed to prevent cases crossing an unacceptable threshold of seriousness. In order to do that it is necessary to get an accurate picture of the conditions in which the most serious cases are typically arising, to identify optimal dispute resolution points in cases currently being generated with the potential to cross that threshold and also to identify the factors that are significantly impacting the probability of dispute resolution at any optimal dispute resolution points identified.
Eileen Nugent · 19 December 2025 at 01:00
Politicians are capable of learning in these types of dynamic situations, I wouldn’t underestimate the capacity of a politician to learn with speed in a dynamic situation in conditions where they themselves are being treated with dignity and respect such that they can maintain a laser focus on the issues being raised with them.