Before 1988, academics in permanent posts in the UK could only be dismissed for serious wrongdoing or failure to perform their duties. This gave them strong protection comparable to tenured professors in North America. The Education Reform Act of 1988 changed this by permitting redundancies on standard ’employment law’ grounds, meaning that universities can eliminate posts if they decide to scale back or discontinue certain activities. Since then, the strength of a UK academic’s position has depended less on a concept like “tenure” and more on the governance structures of their particular institution.
A crucial feature of the 1988 framework is that redundancies must be approved by a university’s governing body rather than imposed solely by senior executives.
This is where Oxford and Cambridge stand apart. Their governing assemblies — Oxford’s Congregation and Cambridge’s Regent House — are very large bodies composed substantially of academics and college officers. In principle, these assemblies function as the ultimate decision-making authorities within their universities. Any move to close whole departments requires the endorsement of these broad, academically constituted bodies. The academic community itself effectively holds a veto.
This historical tradition of collective self-government means that employment protections at Oxford and Cambridge are arguably comparable to tenure at the elite North American institutions. Elsewhere in the UK, governance is more managerial. At all other UK universities, academics make up a smaller proportion of governing bodies, weakening the collective academic oversight that exists at Oxbridge.
As has been widely reported by the BBC and the Times Higher Education, the University of Cambridge is seeking to close its Vet School and stop the teaching of Veterinary Science. This has prompted the setting up of a campaign group, Save the Vet School , as well as an Open Letter from the British Veterinary Association.
Our concern here is not whether the Vet School should close, but rather with the dangerous precedent that the University is seeking to establish to facilitate its closure.To circumvent a vote at Regent House, the General Board of the University is mischievously seeking to discontinue undergraduate admissions, as reported by Varsity. This effectively would seal the fate of the Vet School, after the current cohort of students have completed their undergraduate course. To many Cambridge academics, this seems to be an attempt to shut the Vet School in a way that sidesteps the proper oversight of Regent House. It is an attack on what remains of the concept of tenure.
Prof Mark Holmes, the head of the Veterinary Medicine Department, told Varsity that he too has heard “almost nothing” about the decision to delay making any offers for the 2026 cohort.
He added that “the University are doing everything they can to stop the course without going to Regent House” – which is the governing body of the University – because “they know that they won’t have the votes to close the course”. Holmes described such moves as “undemocratic and uncollegiate” [Varsity]
Irrespective of whether the Vet School should close or not, it is in the interest of all academics that the proper processes are followed and there is full scrutiny of any decision. Accordingly, we urge members of Regent House to sign the Grace initiated by Dr Stephen Cowley as soon possible. If you are a member of Regent House, the Grace is accessible here.
(The image of the Vet School was taken by John Sutton and is reproduced under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic license)
69 Comments
Crooks behave as crooks! · 11 February 2026 at 12:55
What do you expect?? Regent House might stop this but the regime of the American Queen is much like having Trump running the place! And Prentice seems to think talking with the Farrage lot is a good thing! UCam is doomed!
Anon · 11 February 2026 at 13:04
This is simply mind-blowing.
If I understand the situation;
1. We have British students who want to study here in veterinary sciences (and are willing to pay substantial student fees to the university for this right).
2. However, the university is obstructing them from applying and receiving education of benefit to the country.
This would appear a clear violation of the university’s charitable status. We are required to serve the goals of education and research. That is our mission.
We are certainly not required to spend money on administration, executive compensation, delayed and over-cost IT systems or big-ticket buildings.
Socks · 11 February 2026 at 17:41
Strictly speaking the students have already applied, but are being held in limbo on whether their dreams of studying veterinary medicine at Cambridge will, in fact, come true as they hope, or instead, be dashed against the wall at a whim of indifferent cruelty
G · 11 February 2026 at 18:35
The university is being run badly and despotically. It looks to many — following the appointment of a CFO that was then reversed — that the collective leadership is failing and defective.
The university has inherited significant problems thanks to Emma Rampton & her inept performance as Registrary
The pursuit of the Vet School looks to many as though motivated by the arbitrary whim of one of the proVCs. This could be the final straw — many of these people at the top need to be swept away
SPARATACUS · 11 February 2026 at 20:59
The ‘one ProVC’ should be outed now! Who is this despicable person? Name please! Let’s shame her/him!!
TheResearcher · 11 February 2026 at 22:19
Professor Anna Philpott, the Pro-Vice-Chancellor Resources and Operations, is the only biologist of the Pro-VCs…
chloe · 12 February 2026 at 00:25
Didn’t even one of the pro VCs speak out against closure of Vet school at recent staff event, or am I misremembering
4shame · 12 February 2026 at 08:51
Not Philpott! You may be thinking of Bill Astle? He’s on the council but as a rep and made a statement that is quite revealing. It seems even those asked to approve the new site development were not told about the plan to shut down educational programmes to cover its cost.
TheResearcher · 12 February 2026 at 11:29
@Chloe,
There are four Pro-VCs:
– Prof. Bhaskar Vira, Pro-VC for Education and Environmental Sustainability
– Prof. Kamal Munir, Pro-VC for University Community and Engagement
– Prof. John Aston, Pro-VC for Research
– Professor Anna Philpott, Pro-VC Resources and Operations
Not only Prof Philpott is the only biologist of the group, but according to the University website, I would think that she is directly involved on the issue of the Vet School. The website reads:
“As Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Resources and Operations, she will lead on:
– prioritisation, distribution and use of resources across the University to optimise operational effectiveness
– integration of academic planning with resource planning
– oversight of the University’s change programmes
– oversight of the University’s IT and digital capability”
If I am wrong, it would be great if someone could correct me.
Eileen Nugent · 11 February 2026 at 20:26
Higher education systems should be isolated from other critical national systems e.g. human health systems, animal health systems, food security systems. This could be achieved by applying a protected status to certain higher education courses e.g. veterinary medicine which would mean that higher education providers cannot make unconstrained & uncoordinated cuts to specific higher education courses with that protected status during times of increased instability in higher education systems.
Any alterations to these courses being made during times of increased instability in higher education systems would then be constrained by the need to dynamically matching higher education systems to other critical systems – coordinate any changes to courses at the higher education systems level – to ensure the fundamental needs of other critical systems are continuously being met during any major restructuring of higher education systems.
This type of isolation between systems would reduce the risk of critical systems e.g. health systems simultaneously being impacted by instabilities in multiple other systems at times when also experiencing own instabilities – a situation that has the potential to generate critical systems instability of a higher complexity. The higher the complexity of the critical systems instability the greater the risk to ongoing functioning of critical systems and the more difficult it is for critical systems to advance and to deliver improved levels of service to society.
Eileen Nugent · 12 February 2026 at 09:58
When people think of independence of thought often they think of this as binary attribute – a person is an independent thinker or a person is not. This is not the most precise way to think about independence of thought not only because it suggests that independence of thought is binary attribute but also because it suggests it’s a static and immutable attribute that requires no maintenance.
Independence of thought is more like a line that has to be actively stabilised & maintained, the sharpness of which can vary. To have independence of thought and to maximally contribute to an environment where others also have independence of thought it is necessary to not yield to any form of bullying whilst simultaneously also not subjecting others to any form of bullying – a stable, sharp line needs to be in actively held in place at all times. An exceptionally detailed understanding of bullying is required to develop the required ability to be exceptional firm on bullying. It’s akin to actively maintaining intellectual core muscles to support sustained intellectual activity at an exceptionally high level in a chosen field of specialisation.
To maintain independence of thought in an intellectually rich environment where a person has a high probability of being exposed to new ideas and new thinking it is necessary to develop and maintain an ability to play with new ideas and with new thinking without incorporating anything into your own thinking. Modelling the incorporation of new ideas and new thinking into your thinking is not the same as incorporating new ideas and new thinking into your thinking. There is no unintentional incorporation of new ideas and new thinking into your thinking, all incorporation of new ideas and new thinking is intentional and done at the level of conscious thought.
This is the basis of not only maintaining high independence of thought but also of maintaining stability of self and stability of mental health in the presence of the high levels of intellectual challenge necessary to undertake intellectual discovery. I think Oxford and Cambridge do stand out in having held on to these self governance structures for their academic communities i.e. have continuously fought hard to retain the optimal conditions for members of Oxford and Cambridge to actively maintain themselves in a mental state where high independence of thought is possible.
Eileen Nugent · 12 February 2026 at 13:04
I think where independence of thought becomes particularly important is when examining new ideas and new thinking in relation to mental health. It is extremely important to be able to play with new ideas and new thinking in relation to mental health without incorporating those new ideas and new thinking into your own thinking during the play process to examine new ideas/thinking for utility and basis in fact.
The mind is continuously working to maintain the stability of a persons mental health, it has already discovered ways to do that for itself, the incorporation of new ideas and new thinking in relation to mental health that are incompatible with the ways the mind has found and is currently operating to stabilise itself has the potential to significantly destabilise a persons mental health rather than increase the stability of a persons mental health.
If a person is to move from thinking about mental health at one level of complexity to thinking about mental health at a higher level of complexity – something which has the potential to significantly improve mental stability and also allow a person to access higher levels of mental health and a higher quality of life – it is necessary to make that transition in a measured and intentional way facilitated by a safe environment where maximisation of independence of thought is possible.
Eileen Nugent · 12 February 2026 at 10:28
Those working in HR in Cambridge could attempt to continuously mentally force feed a person copious amounts of HR gobbeldy guck by involuntarily signing a person up to an automated HR training system that delivers endless streams of templated HR videos that some corporation saw fit to continuously defecate on the world to maximise their profit to work ratio but any such an attempt is likely to be met with extreme resistance in Cambridge.
Eileen Nugent · 12 February 2026 at 11:07
“Those working in HR in Cambridge could attempt to continuously mentally force feed a person copious amounts of HR gobbeldy guck by involuntarily signing a person up to an automated HR training system that delivers endless streams of templated HR videos that some corporation saw fit to continuously defecate on the world to maximise their profit to work ratio but any such an attempt is likely to be met with extreme resistance in Cambridge.”
apologies …… it’s a continuous effort to maintain that core academic standard …… independence of thought
I recommend those working in HR in Cambridge review the use of automated HR training systems to evaluate whether the delivery of generic HR training courses produced by external companies through these automated HR training systems is (i) having the intended impact on people being exposed to this HR training material and on overall culture in Cambridge (ii) beneficial to Cambridge and (iii) an appropriate use of organisational resources at a time when organisational resources are becoming more limited.
Anonymous · 12 February 2026 at 11:39
@Eileen – It is good that you brought up this particular point (in addition to the other points that you have raised). I hope your suggestion is followed, not just at UCam, but throughout the sector.
Perhaps it could go further though. For me, HR departments putting out compulsory anti-bullying training courses like this, while at the same time persecuting and even firing staff for raising genuine and serious complaints about bullying (from HR and management in particular),
is one of the most depraved things that HR departments do.
21percent.org · 12 February 2026 at 11:58
The fundamental deceit is representational: HR presents itself as a moral body when it is, structurally, a risk-management function.
This does not mean individual HR professionals are malicious (though some are). Many may sincerely believe they are acting fairly within constraints. The deception is systemic rather than purely personal. It emerges from institutional incentives: protect reputation, minimize liability, avoid scandal, retain powerful figures.
The university, as an idea, speaks of truth.
The university, as an organization, protects power.
Anonymous · 12 February 2026 at 13:03
Indeed, I accept these points, and have raised similar points previously. However, in my view, the higher up the HR and management chain one goes (and the more consequential the complaint is), the more likely they are to know that what they are doing is corrupt and abusive. I can also say with certainty, that there are cases where the abuse is personal.
While some HR staff are coming forward, which is to be highly commended, I feel that the rate at which this is happening falls far short of where we need to be. I really hope that changes.
TheResearcher · 12 February 2026 at 13:15
“there are cases where the abuse is personal”
Of course there are, namely when the victims challenge their authority. There is a lot of UCam staff who do not understand that some individuals out there do not accept being manipulated and could not care less about power differences.
Blacklisted · 12 February 2026 at 13:26
“there are cases where the abuse is personal”
Whenever an individual refuses to allow power to take precedence over truth.
Eileen Nugent · 12 February 2026 at 18:05
“Perhaps it could go further though. For me, HR departments putting out compulsory anti-bullying training courses like this, while at the same time persecuting and even firing staff for raising genuine and serious complaints about bullying (from HR and management in particular), is one of the most depraved things that HR departments do.”
Anonymous I agree, this is highly irrational HR and it is often in these situations where highly irrational arguments are being applied that high levels of cruelty are possible. It is often only when a situation is fully rationalised – with arguments at a higher level of complexity than the irrational arguments that were previously applied to the situation – that the full depth of cruelty is then revealed because replacing the irrational arguments at one complexity with rational arguments at a higher complexity can result in a 180 degree turn around on a life-altering decision made in a critical situation demonstrating the cruelty – unnecessary suffering – that was being generated by the irrational arguments.
I found HR staff sincere in wanting to be in a position to help others & not lacking in intelligence but too accepting of – perhaps resigned to – the substandard employment practices that have become ubiquitous in academia & quite unaware of the serious risks posed by those substandard employment practices to everyone in academia including to HR staff themselves. I think part of the problem is that HR staff have themselves been mentally force fed irrational arguments as part of their own HR training & it is then a struggle for HR staff to make sense of all that HR training and to implement it in the organisation because it defies both logic and common sense.
MUSKETEER · 12 February 2026 at 13:50
The disgraceful lot that are degrading UCam must go: VC, all ProVCs (obviously including Philpot), acting Registrary and all members of Council! The Vet School situation is a total disaster for which this rotten regime of the American Queen is solely responsible! Out out out out out out
Anonymous · 12 February 2026 at 17:39
Yet another act showing the lack of respect for basic democratic values. So far we have:
1. Telling constituents they are not allowed to contact their MP
2. Pressuring newspapers (including the university’s own) from publishing stories
3. Instructing staff they are not allowed to exercise basic rights of free speech
4. Openly refusing majority vote decisions from the university’s own governing body (Regent House)
5. Seeking to bypass the Regent House to shut down a prestigious academic department
6. Denying education to British citizens with a right to study at the university
7. Refusing to comply with court decisions (MacKenzie case etc)
8. Refusing to comply with FOI and GDPR
9. Whistleblower retaliation
Anything else? I feel like this is just the start of the list
21percent.org · 12 February 2026 at 18:34
10 Repeated failures to follow university policies and employment legislation
11 Lengthy grievance procedures, sometimes extending over several years, where timely resolution is critical
TheResearcher · 12 February 2026 at 19:07
12. Limiting the use of the @cam account to members so that they cannot complain
13. Screen and review the emails from members before they reach the recipient
14. Prohibit members from contacting the co-authors of their research where they are the senior and corresponding author of their own project
15. Deciding à priori the kind of topics that members can discuss when they meet
16. Give incorrect and misleading information to members on a regular basis
17. Retain the belongings of members against their will, despite knowing that the belongings are important for their research
18. Threaten members that they may call the police to discuss the alleged “crimes” of members but when members ask what they had done, they say that they are still “collating information”
19. Threaten members with further “actions” on a regular basis where the decision-making individuals of the measures have conflicts of interest.
20. Ignore the GP letters of members as well as their safeguarding referrals
….
Trust me, I could continue! I have a new measure every other week! Note that point 3, “Instructing staff they are not allowed to exercise basic rights of free speech” has many variants, namely prohibiting students/staff from contacting hundreds of members and deleting posts on Viva Engage where students/staff criticise the University (e.g., when members mention the Guardian article on how UCam deals with bullying/harassment)
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2025/apr/12/cambridge-university-accused-of-bullying-cover-up-as-internal-survey-revealed
Uncovering Now · 13 February 2026 at 11:02
The whole decision is utter absurdity. The Cambridge Vet School is the top-ranked programme in the entire country (see: https://www.thecompleteuniversityguide.co.uk/league-tables/rankings/veterinary-medicine). The students currently being held hostage had achieved their dream to gain their first step to a brighter future. That future is one we are obligated by our mandate to deliver – namely, the highest standards of excellence in teaching and research.
What you have to reflect on here is the culture of mediocrity which could even produce such an outcome. A university depends in the long run on maintaining its rankings for academic excellence. Something generations have invested entire careers to nurture, foster and grow. It shows a university that has deviated from its founding values. It is not the culture on which the university was built to become a world-leading institution. It is the culture that has eroded that legacy and is destroying its status and ranking.
This would never happen if we were being led by individuals who had a genuine passion and vocation to science. It is simply a product of ego to want shiny new buildings that one can trumpet to the press – instead of investing in young people whose quiet achievements and dedication would in future one day earn the gratitude of the lives they have changed, but deliver no immediate praise for those currently in power.
Eileen Nugent · 13 February 2026 at 13:35
It’s an irrational decision on multiple levels. Students in the UK who have gone to the significant effort of preparing themselves to meet the fundamental needs of the UK by building a skillset to match ongoing fundamental needs having selected the contribution they wish to make to meeting ongoing fundamental needs have the right to expect a continuous path to doing so i.e. societal efficiency in a society meeting its own fundamental needs. There is no indication that the UK needs less vets to be trained or any vet school to close. There are research synergies that if lost could not be replicated in other universities. This combination indicates both high dependency – current systemic functioning – and high potential – nucleation of systemic advancement events. It goes against the current self-reliance drive the strength of which is being determined by the dynamics of the current international environment.
Annoyed · 13 February 2026 at 14:48
The University is run by activists and the central administration is terrified of falling foul of the nasty, noisy, opinionated, violent leaders who have got themselves voted onto the University Council.
The solution is for the University to devolve power back to individual academics. Then we can get rid of whole levels of administration and the place will revert to a world leading institution. At the moment we are being smothered by bureaucracy and on a steady decline to a bland, conformist, middle ranking non-entity.
There is no chance of this happening because the VC and PVCs are convinced of their importance but they should be the first level of bureaucracy cut
Eileen Nugent · 13 February 2026 at 21:25
I would say that Cambridge as an organisation has a low susceptibility to activists – independence of judgment is high throughout Cambridge – the probability of it being ever being run by activists is low. I think the problem is more that in the process of trying to deliver more precise individual support – support each individual in Cambridge more carefully – Cambridge lost sight of the need to maintain collective security and it then went on to discover that the root cause for the unsustainable increase demand for more and more precise individual support was that it had lost its grip on the maintenance of collective security.
Eileen Nugent · 14 February 2026 at 01:49
I think Cambridge did manage to create a welcoming and inclusive community for a very diverse group of people for many years when as an organisation it was predominantly dealing with individuals working in the individual frame of reference trying to get improvements in the standard of individual care the university was delivering to them personally.
I think where things started to become more challenging for Cambridge was when major external stressors started to generate systems level problems at multiple levels – organisational, national, international – prompting people to move from working in the individual frame of reference to working in the systems frame of reference. This meant that in addition to individuals trying to get increases in individual care from the university for themselves they also started trying to get increases in individual care from the university for other individuals both inside and outside the university. In principle this is not a bad shift as it has the potential to significantly increase the ability of the academic community to collectively solve problems at the systems level. That could enable the academic community to function at a higher level by solving problems at the systems level both internally and externally but it does also significantly increase governance complexity and pose a significant additional governance challenge for the university.
The difficulty with working in a multi-level systems frame of reference is if the multi level systems frame of reference an individual has constructed and is working with is incomplete and/or inaccurate it can lead an individual to take unbalanced actions with the potential to generate multi-level lose outcomes – high loss at every level, no gain at any level scenarios. Also if two people are working with multi-level systems frames of reference that differ significantly then in some instances the differences may be so great that it may not be possible for the two people to reason with each other in relation to a specific topic/situation i.e.people can reach a point where it becomes impossible for them to discuss a particular situation/topic because the reasoning being applied to that particular situation/topic is mutually incomprehensible due to significant differences in the multi-level systems frame of reference each person is working in.
I think this is where considerations of more fundamental aspects of academic communities like trust then become important. Members of an academic community wanting to establish that at a bare minimum each person in that situation – where discussion on certain topics/situations become impossible perhaps temporarily but possibly permanently – can trust there is mutual respect for life and for continued membership of the academic community despite significant disagreement with respect to a particular situation/topic.
Blacklisted · 13 February 2026 at 11:06
21. Allowing rogue Heads of Department to collect personal data belonging to others (including junior female staff) through inappropriate levels of access to IT systems.
22. Creating smear campaigns and compromising evidence by allowing defamatory statements to be made and retained in written documents as (as yet) “unsubstantiated” instead of dismissed as false, malicious and defamatory.
23. Ignoring / misusing OH reports and create more health and safety risks
24. Refusing to investigate reports of work-related suicides
25. Refusing to investigate serious concerns reported about HR staff
26. Engaging in the alteration of documentation and/or evidence
TheResearcher · 13 February 2026 at 12:43
Of course, do not forget one of my favourites, telling us to keep all these actions against us confidential so that the sham investigation they promoted against us can be done in a “fair” manner. It brings together the issues of Freedom of Speech and retaliation against whistleblowers mentioned above.
Eileen Nugent · 13 February 2026 at 13:46
If a person cannot have a higher quality of life, live a longer life and choose to bring life into the world in a university then why would a person stay in a university. People go where life can flow.
TheResearcher · 13 February 2026 at 13:55
Because if they simply leave, those who damaged their lives in the said university will continue to be their and will damage the lives of others, both students and staff. It is not the victim(s) that needs to leave the said university, but the abuser(s), otherwise, the cycle will continue.
Eileen Nugent · 13 February 2026 at 15:03
Higher education that cannot sustain flow of life cannot be said to be higher education. Yes a person/group of people in a university could mount some extreme rational resistance and could temporarily protect others in a university in that way but unless all staff and students see rational resistance as a continuous exercise to keep the university in a continuously functioning and advancing state then the cycle will continue – mishandled grievances and concerns, court cases, regulatory intervention, protests, strikes, media articles with an inaccurate analysis of internal problems proposing inaccurate solutions – inefficiency that drains all the life out of a university. When all the life has been drained out of a university then it won’t be possible for a university to precisely solve some of the most complex problems for a society – carry out its unique role for society.
Once a person has analysed the organisational problems and given an organisation all the critical information necessary to improve a person has no obligation to stay in that organisation. If a person has a strong will to live and an organisation cannot demonstrate a similarly strong will to live then it is unlikely the person will stay in that organisation.
Blacklisted · 13 February 2026 at 16:26
As the VC once said in a an early speech, people are the University’s most precious asset…
Talented people, exceptional researchers, dedicated teachers, experienced administrators is what defines and sustains the reputation of the University.
They are those mostly targeted as troublemakers, by abusive HR and by second-rate, self-interested, greedy little tyrants or ineffectual acquiescent puppets, for being difficult to control and to manipulate, for pushing back against corrupt management, unsafe practices and contempt for the Statutes.
If the cycle continues for long, perhaps there won’t be much of a reputation worth worrying about anymore.
TheResearcher · 13 February 2026 at 16:47
I am confident we can invert the cycle, but multiple people need to be willing to talk about the abuses they suffered regardless the potential retaliation from the University. Once enough scandals are public, it is game over for the University. However, if we let it go and simply leave, these individuals will continue in UCam and the victims will continue to pile up.
Eileen Nugent · 13 February 2026 at 18:08
I think it’s possible to break the cycle in Cambridge – retaliation of people willing to talk in Cambridge is a more energy-intensive activity than elsewhere because there is a possibility of retaliation being met with retaliation analysis i.e. a further opportunity for people to talk … be subjected to further retaliation … analyse retaliation …. ad infinitum … or until some form of collective wisdom emerges in Cambridge that nothing new is being learned from all this energy-intensive retaliation activity and that everyone in Cambridge could have a far better quality of life if the energy currently being invested in retaliation activity was instead invested in collectively talking through organisational problems to make collective solution finding to these organisational problems possible.
Prognosis · 14 February 2026 at 12:45
In my opinion there’s a failure to put the institution first. They work on the assumption that kicking people out is necessary to save the reputation of the university. In fact the opposite is the case. It protects only the internal reputations of those persons who were responsible for abuse and misconduct. It does this at the cost of eroding the university’s reputation across the sector, because inevitably, word gets around. It is surreal fact that among many peer universities there is now a better understanding of the university’s problems and coubtless scandals than inside the university itself.
n/a · 15 February 2026 at 08:05
People are any university’s greatest asset but they treat us like liabilities
Their dream is to be left with only buildings and broken dreams
Philpot Cruela de Ville · 14 February 2026 at 09:47
When you have people without the academic, intellectual or moral abilities required to be ProVC!
TheResearcher · 14 February 2026 at 13:57
Dear Prof. Philpot(t), may I kindly ask you if your colleague Prof. Munir checked his email recently? I asked him about my belongings that are retained in DAMTP against my will since 2024 despite being critical for my research. A few months ago, I followed his advice and contacted DAMTP but received threats and “final warnings” in response after I cced him to the correspondence. Please let him know that I am happy to contact all the University Council and the Board of Scrutiny because this issue is rather urgent, several people already contacted him about it, but Prof. Munir seems to have an impressive persuasion capacity behind my back and does not allow that they forward his response about the issue to me. Thank you for your help!
Anonymous · 14 February 2026 at 16:32
I sometimes feel sorry for Kamal. He’s one of those many people who allowed himself to get roped in to other people’s scandals, but, now they are all his scandals, because of those decisions to drag cases out, retaliate, and always protect colleagues at the top, while ignoring and punishing those who were bullied. If we take him at his word that “there is no place for bullying, harassment and discrimination” at the university, then one can see only one possible outcome consistent with that. The lesson here is that the only way to prevent evil is to refuse the first compromise – if not, you will eventually become comprised all the way.
21percent.org · 14 February 2026 at 17:40
Kamal is very highly paid to lie for the University. It is unforgivable.
He is one of the people who most needs to go.
TheResearcher · 14 February 2026 at 17:56
Do not be sorry for Kamal, Anonymous. It was him who told Mr Daniel Zeichner MP that my health was the priority of “all of us,” when it had been him that had dismissed—without any investigation—the whistleblowing disclosures and safeguarding referrals made by third parties regarding how the abuses of the University were affecting my health as given by medical records, to protect the most discussed Lead HR Business Partner in the 21 Group. He knows that multiple people have tried to complain about her and are recurrently blocked by HR and OSCCA. He knows that she has conflicts of interest on many matters and still accepts that she drafts his responses to victims where she exonerates herself. He has to leave as much as she and others like her do.
D'ARTAGNAN · 14 February 2026 at 20:11
Ask Kamal Munir what he knows about the SCM/Cancer Research scandal! And how he and others keep protecting the culprits: Profs Smallman, Crookery, Teflon, Drinkalot, and ViciousWoman!
hmmmmmmmmmm · 15 February 2026 at 00:09
He’s probably the one person (besides Andi) with a hand in every single scandal. And unlike the minions taking orders from HR, he is far too senior to deny having the authority to uphold the law. If he hasn’t long since reported the whole university to Health and Safety executive and also registered as an official whistle-blower then he’s due for a lotta questions in a lotta courts… for a hella lotta time to come…
21percent.org · 15 February 2026 at 08:51
1-28 June, Bury St Edmunds Employment Tribunal, retaliation against a whistleblower
TheResearcher · 15 February 2026 at 10:21
Since when is the University and Prof. Munir in particular aware of this trial regarding the retaliation against a whistleblower? One would think that it would be sensible for them not to be involved in other cases of retaliation against whistleblowers until they manage to explain this one, but it seems we cannot even expect this from them. That is why it is key to stop this as they will continue their practices regardless the number of cases. Prof. Munir may think that by moving to another university before the scandals are out, he will avoid the storm, but he forgets that there are storms that cannot be avoided.
Please remember his words in the trustworthy campaign “Breaking the Silence,” namely “it’s important that all our staff understand our policies and what is expected of them, including what to do if they receive a report,” and then ask yourself why the person who says these sensible words does not follow the Whistleblowing Policy and refuses to promote an investigation upon a whistleblowing disclosure and safeguarding referral.
https://www.studentsupport.cam.ac.uk/harassment-and-sexual-misconduct
“We are crystal clear that harassment and sexual misconduct are unacceptable. We have an obligation to prevent it, and everyone at the University has a role to play. That’s why it’s important that all our staff understand our policies and what is expected of them, including what to do if they receive a report.”
Professor Kamal Munir, Pro-Vice-Chancellor for University Community and Engagement
21percent.org · 15 February 2026 at 10:38
The matter in Astronomy has been ongoing since 2021.
Forbes published this article on his appointment as ProVC in 2021
https://www.forbes.com/sites/karlmoore/2021/07/28/newly-appointed-cambridge-pro-vice-chancellor-kamal-munir-on-equity-diversity-and-inclusion/
Here he is quoted, saying the exact opposite of what he does
“The university as an organization could support everyone rather than a few people,” Munir elaborated. “It could become a more supportive place for everyone, and nurture more talent, rather than just some talent. Try to bring people to the same level where they get access to similar opportunities and make it part of everyone’s university life. I think everyone needs to be doing something to make the university a more equal, better, and more supportive place
In any Employment Tribunal, witnesses will be cross-examined by a KC. There will be tough questions.
More generally, any ProVC should expect scrutiny over their actions. There seems to be none (and this applies to the other ProVCs as well).
TheResearcher · 15 February 2026 at 11:16
“any ProVC should expect scrutiny over their actions”
True, but we should not need to resort to tribunals and courts. If a member of the University Council or Board of Scrutiny asks them something—e.g., evidence that the processes and procedures of the University are being followed as Prof. Munir was recently asked for—they should provide the evidence, as opposed to simply confirming verbally that they are because it is clear that the word of this people does not always correlate with truth.
Who? Me? · 15 February 2026 at 11:58
“We are crystal clear that harassment and sexual misconduct are unacceptable”. (Un-acceptable is the word, or was it unlawful?)
“We have an obligation to prevent it” (you don’t say!) “and everyone at the University has a role to play” (what’s mine? Hmm, ugh, where’s that pantomime horse, when we need it, SamLouise, what is my role?)
“That’s why it’s important that all our staff understand our policies and what is expected of them, including what to do if they receive a report” (so, that’s for “our staff”. Now, let me tell you what I do… I have HR, you know. They tell me what OUR policies say, and what’s expected of me, they advise me on what to do, including when I receive a report. Not generally though, it depends on the case. And then, when things turn really ugly, they also write the letters for me.
Right, right, they also wrote this stuff for me, about being crystal clear…)
Disgusted · 15 February 2026 at 13:05
#MeToo. Outside of the university Munir told us our complaints were being taken seriously. Inside of the university he was telling people that their complaints had been dismissed. All at exactly the same time!!!
TwinkleStar · 15 February 2026 at 13:52
God, nothing has changed!! It was the same when I was there and Kamal was telling LGBTQ+ staff that the university was committed to the Stonewall campaign – even featured their logo on its website! But according to Stonewall, the university had stopped paying its subscription long back and they were simply using it without authorization. I don’t know what has happened since or corrected the matter but none of this surprises me at all.
Anon · 15 February 2026 at 15:26
Take a look when you have a moment at the university accounts.
You can find the salaries for all of the Council there for each year.
In the 2020-21 year, there is someone listed as joining the Council as a Pro VC.
In that year, this new Pro VC was paid a basic salary of £335,000-340,000.
By 2023-24, their basic salary before benefits and pension had risen to £370,000-375,000. Not a bad deal and a nice pay boost to boot (a £30-40,000 rise).
Given the year of entry, to my awareness, the only possible individual this could refer to would be: Professor Kamal Munir.
Perhaps Diarmuid O’Brien could have been on a similar pay range. Yet he joined only in 2024, and then left a year later. He would not enter the table in 2020-21. Meanwhile, the VC is not included on that table.
All of this is public information. But to ensure no misunderstandings, I would naturally welcome any clarification as to which other Pro-VCs joining in 2020-21 this entry might refer to, in case I were mistaken.
Calculus · 15 February 2026 at 15:43
Right. So plugging in the numbers, this is someone who has taken over 4 million dollars in salary and benefits from the university since becoming Pro VC in 2020-21. Presumably Munir, but pending clarification as you say.
21percent.org · 15 February 2026 at 16:06
If a large sum of money is being paid to an individual in order to persuade him to suppress and conceal information about extensive wrongdoing, then this would appear to be an attempt to buy silence rather than address the underlying misconduct.
- · 15 February 2026 at 16:07
It would make sense if Diarmuid were at that level (as head of Cambridge Enterprise) but the dates don’t match up, as you say. In 2023-24 someone joins the Council at 185-190k salary so that entry is (or was) presumably him. But the really key evidence is that Diarmuid’s new salary at Research Ireland is 240k (euros) so just a touch higher than his final Cambridge salary (210k pounds, compared his presumed final Cambridge salary around 190-195k). There’s no way he would have left for a 1/3 pay cut.
All of that makes Munir the most likely then at 375k unless someone else is missing.
Out! · 15 February 2026 at 19:28
Nope. As of 2025, Cambridge is listed with a strike through in the Stonewall Champions list, indicating an organisation that had withdrawn its funding.
This was presumably approved by the Pro VC, and I must presume, not reinstated at any point since.
For context, the cost for Stonewall subscription is only about 2.5k a year. For the Cambridge Golden 50, it is barely close to a rounding error.
If his pay is really 375000 big ones a year – or even anywhere in that range – then frankly, I think that says all you need to know about where the true “priorities” stand.
TheResearcher · 15 February 2026 at 12:36
——— Breaking News ————-
Mr Daniel Zeichner MP just sent me an email confirming that the University had contacted him and asked to delete what I had sent him. The question is, did they just contact Mr Zeichner because they were concerned about what he could do with the data, or did they also contact all the other people who have the data? We shall see this coming week!
21percent.org · 15 February 2026 at 13:14
This is deeply disturbing — and raises very serious questions about transparency and accountability.
When you say “the University” contacted Daniel Zeichner, who exactly was it? An institution doesn’t send emails — a person does. They should be named and shamed. If you know their name, or can find it out, please tell the 21 Group
If they believed their actions were justified, they wouldn’t need to operate behind closed doors. The public deserves to know who is trying to suppress scrutiny — and why.
TheResearcher · 15 February 2026 at 13:34
I did not ask him who contacted him telling him to delete what I had sent him, but I can easily find out. Regardless, this was what the Head of Student Administration Ms Sarah d’Ambrumenil told me on February 2:
“We have written to those to whom your email was sent (or carbon copied) and asked that they delete it. If you have shared these documents further, other than to professional supporters, by blind carbon copy or otherwise, please ask any recipients to delete them and confirm that they have done so by return. For the avoidance of doubt, your sharing of this information remains under review, and we will confirm such further action as is deemed necessary.”
Yes, this is the same person who ignores my questions, sends me incorrect and misleading information on a regular basis, and even threats me about posts in the 21 Group such as in, “I have very recently been made aware of a specific blogpost and comments yesterday: A Sum of Adders – 21percent.org, this website, blog and comments will be added to the relevant information to take into consideration when reviewing the precautionary action in the future.” Why is Ms d’Ambrumenil so concerned with “A Sum of Adders”? (https://21percent.org/?p=2478) I have no clue!
I hope the 21 Group can tell us if you were also contacted by the University and were told to delete the data I regularly send you… These people are out of control!
Blacklisted · 15 February 2026 at 13:41
As a related question: why is it so important to so many people to protect the most discussed Lead HR Business Partner in the 21 Group, to cover up or ignore her actions or to retaliate on her behalf?
Sparrow · 15 February 2026 at 14:03
because their loyalty to each other trumps their loyalty to the university
TheResearcher · 15 February 2026 at 14:29
That is a good question. One reason is that she is at the centre of many scandals that are currently being hidden in Cambridge. Another, which I believe applies to my case, most people who protect her do not even know the story and what she did because they do not bother to read what I send them; they just blindly follow what others tell them to do, including the most discussed Lead HR Business Partner in the 21 group herself. Some do not have the power to do much. People like Munir, however, know exactly that she has been involved in many scandals, he can definitely do something about it, and still protects her, over and over and over. People like him cannot remain in Cambridge (or indeed in any University) in a position of power as his character is not suitable for it.
21percent.org · 15 February 2026 at 14:11
“I hope the 21 Group can tell us if you were also contacted by the University and were told to delete the data I regularly send you… These people are out of control!”
The 21 Group has not been contacted.
TheResearcher · 15 February 2026 at 14:30
My guess is that only Mr Zeichner was contacted. I will find out.
21percent.org · 15 February 2026 at 15:19
The most important thing is to find out who asked Daniel Zeichner MP to delete material
TheResearcher · 15 February 2026 at 15:34
I just asked Daniel. I think it is not hard to know who did it though.
shocked · 15 February 2026 at 13:20
Wow. So now it is official. They actually think they are above parliament. Time for parliament to set them right!