Dr Bernhard Fulda is a College Teaching Officer (CTO) at Sidney Sussex College, University of Cambridge. He is also Affiliated Lecturer in the Faculty of History. In 2023, he applied for a permanent University Teaching Officer (UTO) position in Twentieth-Century German History in the Faculty of History, but was not appointed. (The successful candidate was external to the College system).
Dr Fulda took Cambridge University to Employment Tribunal. He alleged that the Faculty applied an informal provision, criterion or practice that disadvantaged CTOs in hiring for UTO posts, which he argued amounted to indirect age discrimination under the Equality Act. He claimed that such a practice was entrenched over many years and disproportionately affected older CTO applicants, who tend to be more senior than many external applicants. The University denied there was any discriminatory practice and maintained that appointments were made solely on merit.
The Employment Tribunal concluded that Dr Fulda’s evidence had not met the legal test for indirect age discrimination with this judgment.
The Tribunal write-up offers a fascinating insight into how UTO appointments really operate at Cambridge. It should be essential reading for anyone considering applying to an academic position in any department. It reads like a C. P. Snow novel, updated for the 2020s, with its betrayals and double-crosses, and its portrayal of how power isolates and morally compromises individuals.
The 21 Group has no doubt that there is a practice that acts against CTO applicants, based on evidence from departments other than history. It is described picturesquely by Scott Mandelbrote of Peterhouse thus:
He goes on to suggest that the idea that CTO were ‘helots’ (one of a class of serfs in ancient Sparta whose status was below that of a free Spartan citizen – presumably, by analogy, a UTO) was “increasingly replaced by the realisation that CTOs might not only be teaching slaves but also useful cash cows who could add to the faculty’s (and university’s) performance in research provision and funding at no extra cost”. He asserts that, “Appointment of an incumbent CTO brought neither benefit to the professors, nor the faculty, nor the university. It benefited the individual (in terms of status and earning potential) as well as the individual’s college, which now saved most of the salary” [Scott Mandelbrote, quoted at para 28 in judgment ]
Comments ascribed to a number of senior figures in the history faculty — “perhaps good enough to be a CTO, but not a UTO” … “CTOs are not necessarily good for a UTO post” … “there would be no benefit to the Faculty in appointing someone [a CTO] who we already have” … “Why would I ever appoint a CTO? We have them already” — ring true. They are consistent with similar expressions made by senior figures in other lectureship appointments elsewhere in the University.
The gig economy that ultimately drives this is articulated crisply by Prof Adam Tooze (now at Columbia University):
Professor Tooze says that by the time he arrived in Cambridge as a UTO in 1996, appointment to a UTO or CTO position was largely a matter of luck and timing and that the borders between CTOs and UTOs were still relatively porous but that over the last 25 years declining real levels of teaching income and the substantial growth in postgraduate numbers who need teaching, together with a shift towards research funding, has led the Faculty to become, “increasingly dependent on casualised labour and a new hierarchy of auxiliary teaching has emerged enabling the Faculty to continue functioning as “not normal” … paid by the University at low piece rates (or, for many tasks, unpaid), College-employed CTOs allow the Faculty to deliver its core functions, in an organisational context of overwork and underfunding.” [Adam Tooze, quoted at para 38 in judgment ]
In our view, the Tribunal put too little weight on these economic arguments, apparently accepting contrary statements: “Professor Arnold went as far as to suggest that academics really don’t have a clue about budgets as finances are controlled centrally, and the economics are not on their radar”. If so, the Tribunal was being asked to accept that those entrusted with shaping the Faculty’s future were doing so in ignorance of the material consequences of their decisions.
Even if true in the past, this is about to change very radically with the introduction of ‘Enhanced Financial Transparency’ throughout the University (see Report of Council here). The reality is that academic hiring decisions inevitably shape — and are shaped by — resource constraints, teaching needs and long-term strategic priorities. Departmental economics will be absolutely central to UTO appointments in the future.
The judgment highlighted multiple shortcomings in how the University handles recruitment and related processes.
Administrative Failures and Procedural Weaknesses
The Tribunal acknowledged that its conclusions depended heavily on a single recruitment exercise because: “the 2023 recruitment exercise provides us with the only detailed and documented account of how recruitment exercises within the Faculty are handled.” The absence of well-maintained documentation is a common feature of many of our problems at Cambridge University. The Tribunal noted significant gaps in the underlying evidential framework used to evaluate recruitment fairness:
“there is no further data available to us to evaluate the statistical significance… we do not know how many other applicants there were for each position or what percentage of CTO Applicants were short-listed for interview compared to non-CTO Applicants [quoted at para 22 in judgment ]
Universities are expected to maintain recruitment metrics, including application numbers, shortlist rates and appointment rates, to monitor equality outcomes.
Even more damaging were the Tribunal’s comments on the haphazard and lackadaisical nature of the interviewing process:
… we consider the scoring system that was used to shortlist applicants was not fit for purpose even if, as Professor Eisner explained at Tribunal in relation to the scoring exercise undertaken two weeks later following the candidate interviews, the scoring was intended to capture the Committee’s initial individual views to reduce the risk that one or more voices might unduly influence any initial assessment of the relative strengths of the applicants. Whilst we accept that this was a laudable aim, the scoring guide described above detracts from the advertised selection criteria, since it directed the Committee members’ attention away from the criteria, encouraging a focus instead on the rather nebulous question of whether and, if so, to what extent each candidate was “worth interviewing”. In our judgement, the guide potentially supported an idiosyncratic approach in which each member of the Committee was effectively left to define for themselves what attributes made a candidate “worth interviewing” [quoted at para 58 in judgment ]
The word “idiosyncratic” is well chosen. The shortlisting process permitted individual committee members to substitute their own subjective and inconsistent criteria for the formally advertised selection standard.
Lack of Transparency
The Tribunal stressed the importance of probing how decisions were reached: “there is a need for careful enquiry as to how a group has come to its decision and what was in the minds of the decision makers.” Here, as often happens in Cambridge University, the process was not properly recorded at the time and had to be reconstructed years later from fallible witness recollections rather than contemporaneous evidence.
Comments attributed to committee members — suggesting bias or informal preferences — were not consistently documented or objectively verified. Equally troubling, some allegations and contextual evidence were left inadequately explored. As the Tribunal noted:
“[It was claimed that] the successful candidate in 2017 was not appointed on merit but because she and Professor Arnold were former colleagues at Birbeck University, it is all the more surprising that Professor Arnold was not questioned further … , specifically regarding the non-discriminatory explanation he provides as to why the two CTO Applicants were not shortlisted” [Para 35 in judgment ]
Deficiencies in Equality Monitoring and Institutional Self-Assessment
A serious governance failing identified in the judgment was the University’s inability to provide meaningful comparative recruitment data. The Tribunal noted explicitly: “we do not have any information… to undertake some comparison… or… evaluate the statistical significance”. Without such information, neither the Tribunal nor the University itself can determine whether apparent disparities reflected legitimate academic selection or structural bias. This absence of systematic monitoring is particularly striking given the stark raw statistics noted by the Tribunal:
“Four CTO Applicants were successful… with just one successful applicant between 2004 and 2023.” [quoted at para 21 in judgment]
Such figures would normally trigger internal institutional review in a well-run organisation.
Employers have an obligation to monitor hiring outcomes systematically and identify potential barriers to equal opportunity. The University should be maintaining and publishing robust data on applicants’ comparative success rates, demographic breakdowns, as well as comparisons with similar institutions (such as Oxford and other Russell Group universities).
Without such data, an institution cannot robustly evaluate potential disparate impacts or monitor the fairness of recruitment outcomes — including discrimination against any protected characteristics (age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage/civil partnership, pregnancy/maternity, race, religion/belief, sex, and sexual orientation).
As the 21 Group knows, this lack of data is in many cases deliberate. Who hasn’t experienced yet how the Information Compliance Office deals with Freedom of Information requests or Subject Access Requests when the information has the potential to affect the reputation of the University? There is always a reason for redacting important data, for not providing any data we asked, delaying the review, and gaslight claimants throughout the process. I have experienced these practices over and over again because the University (and College) know what I will do with the data.
Most often, the only thing that victims have left is speaking about their experiences. If we keep the abuses to ourselves, the abusers will continue their practices with others, and UCam has shown time and time again that they will continue if they are not stopped. Limiting the access to available information and keeping incomplete records of what can work against the institution, is just two of the many malpractices that exist in UCam and most likely in many other UK Universities
The risk of taking a lower autonomy role in academia is that those in higher autonomy roles in academia might then start applying all sorts of irrational arguments to justify their own irrational actions of not applying merit-based judgments when considering whether to appoint a person in that position to a higher autonomy role. “perhaps good enough to be a CTO, but not a UTO” … “CTOs are not necessarily good for a UTO post” … “there would be no benefit to the Faculty in appointing someone [a CTO] who we already have” … “Why would I ever appoint a CTO? We have them already”. The option of appointing a CTO to a UTO position and then acquiring a new faculty member through the CTO position being vacated seems not to have crossed the minds of those doing the appointing.
It is only when you see a person go from being a CTO in Cambridge straight to being a full Professor at a university with a higher global ranking than Cambridge that you realise how deficient it is possible for the judgment of internal talent in Cambridge to be. A CTO could be not given a UTO position in Cambridge one week and be given a UTO position at a higher ranked university at a higher grade than those who interviewed them in Cambridge the next week.
“perhaps good enough to be a CTO, but not a UTO” … “CTOs are not necessarily good for a UTO post” … “there would be no benefit to the Faculty in appointing someone [a CTO] who we already have” … “Why would I ever appoint a CTO? We have them already”
Yuck
Institutional elitism masquerading as meritocracy.
There is something very, very, very, very wrong with a university that refuses to pay staff an extra 1-3,000 pounds in salary for promotion to UTO position, but, will happily pay 100,000-300,000 pounds to take them to court and destroy their lives. How can they not see how disgusted everyone is by Cambridge?
“How can they not see how disgusted everyone is by Cambridge?”
It is a good question — and there are some forthcoming Tribunals where the University’s behaviour is utterly repellent. Let’s hope the stories get into the public domain & the University’s behaviour is greeted with the revulsion it deserves.
How can they not see? How did the Post Office senior managers not see? Remember the Post Office boss who talked of ‘subbies with their hands in the till’
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/apr/12/ex-post-office-boss-alan-cook-wrote-of-subbies-with-hand-in-the-till-inquiry-hears
It is revealing of the complete contempt with which the Post Office senior management felt towards the sub postmasters (and of course hugely ironical because it was not the sub-postmasters who ripped off the Post Office but the senior management).
The senior management/HR/Legal at the University have the same contempt for academics.
They regard Regent House as an obstructive body preventing reform, dominated by academics motivated entirely by self interest (“hands in the till”). Why else are they trying to circumvent it over the Vet School?
They regard academics as the cause of the University’s weakening financial position, but (as with the subbies), it is the reverse that is true.
We are not at rock bottom yet.
“We are not at rock bottom yet.”
Exactly. And for two key reasons. Not only most cases are not yet public, but also because these people continue business as usual. The cases will continue to pile up for sure because the current managers do not have what it takes to address the situation. They showed time and time again that they are not fit for the job, being incompetent at best but dishonest in many cases. It is impossible that the VC and ProVCs do not know what is going on and they do have the power to intervene if they want to promote change. It is impossible that Heads of School do not know the scandals that happen in their own School, and as they often work as “Responsible Person” or participate in panels of Grievances from other Schools, they have a good idea of what is happening across campus, and yet, they do nothing to stop it. These are the people who should be asked “How can [you] not see how disgusted everyone is by Cambridge?” I already asked similar questions to many of them, namely if they did not feel ashamed of the situation, and they never replied. I eventually realized that people who do not have my values do not necessarily feel ashamed by the issues I do, but still, the situation is becoming worse and worse and they act as if they did not know or were not responsible.
“It is impossible that the VC and ProVCs do not know what is going on and they do have the power to intervene if they want to promote change. It is impossible that Heads of School do not know the scandals that happen in their own School, and as they often work as “Responsible Person” or participate in panels of Grievances from other Schools, they have a good idea of what is happening across campus, and yet, they do nothing to stop it“.
Agreed. The corruption is well-known to everyone at high levels in the University.
One of the ways around it is they all define their roles very narrowly.
For example, the VC will look at an Article IX Appeal in the narrowest possible focus. She does not care if there has been wrongdoing. She is only interested in finding an interpretation of the Statutes & Ordinances that can justify inaction.
Then she can claim she has carried out her “role” fairly.
That is too elaborate for our VC. I doubt she knows the Statutes, Ordinances and Orders she needs to consider and uphold when she receives a formal representation under Statute A IX. What she (or her assistant) does is to send our representations directly to the Legal Services to find a way to ignore the issues, which is consistent with the fact that the author of the response I received from her was actually the Director of Legal Services. However, it is disingenuous to think she does not know that this is being done. She does know, and she chooses to ignore it. I cannot say this regarding all cases, but I can say with 100% certainty she did it regarding my case.
I get increasingly distressed with myself when I say that “the University” did x or y, as it is not the University that does anything but a range of incompetent, and in many cases truly dishonest, people who do, and then claim that their views represent the “views of the University.” These people are not even brave enough to assume their own positions and need to hide behind the reputation of an institution, so my prediction is that many of them will break psychologically when the scandals become increasingly public and it is clear they did not act as they should have done.
“These people are not even brave enough to assume their own positions and need to hide behind the reputation of an institution, so my prediction is that many of them will break psychologically when the scandals become increasingly public and it is clear they did not act as they should have done”
The last ones standing will be the lawyers. Pantomime horses (minus their rear ends).
They won’t break psychologically, they’ll ensure others do, from the comfort of their legal privilege.
While taking a salary and sanctioning payment for silence, for sham investigations, for the redaction of their own actions from the history of this institution’s decay.
An Article IX Appeal is designed to handle a situation where the problem is not with the statutes and ordinances themselves but with a contravention of the statutes and ordinances. The VC and/or Commissary then has the power to declare whether something has gone wrong in the organisational handling of a situation by evaluating the handling of the situation using the existing statutes and ordinances to check whether the statutes and ordinances have been followed.
It does not cover a situation where there is a problem with the statutes and ordinances themselves and where a precise contravention of the statutes and ordinances would produce a better – i.e. fairer and more reasonable – set of outcomes in a situation and also yield more precise information about how the statutes and ordinances themselves could be modified in order to handle a particular type of situation that could arise in the university again in future. An Article IX Appeal to the current VC doesn’t cover the current situation where the current statutes and ordinances are falling short in a particular type of situation arising the university, such an appeal therefore does not give the current VC any new power to handle the current situation.
Article IX currently also prevents the Commissary from looking at any individual employment dispute on the basis such dispute is regulated under the provisions of the Education Reform Act 1988. It also prevents the Commissary from looking at any individual student complaint on the basis that it could be reviewed by an independent adjudicator. There is no provision in the statutes and ordinances for either the VC or the Commissary to review a single individual case and/or group of individual cases that are potentially indicative of the existence of a wider university fault or failing. The Commissary is a potential source of the most precise legal advice in the university e.g. the last Commissary previously served as Chief Justice of England and Wales i.e. there were few the university who would have been better placed to make judgements on any university situation that required exceptional levels of legal insight.
“10. (a) Nothing in this chapter enables or requires the Commissary to hear any appeal or to determine any dispute regulated under the provisions of the Education Reform Act 1988 about a member of the academic staff of the University as defined in the Statutes, which, being a matter regulated under the said Act, concerns the member’s appointment or employment, or the termination of that appointment or employment. The Commissary has no power to disallow or annul any Ordinance made under or having effect for the purposes of the Statutes in relation to matters regulated under the said Act.
(b) When (a) is no longer needed, this section may be repealed by Grace.”
Every precise internal legal advisor to the university appears to have been knocked out in this situation either through conflicts of interest – head of legal or any external legal advisor advising head of legal and by extension the university in this situation – or through the statutes and ordinances limiting those with the highest legal insight from accessing the information required to scrutinise a legal situation for the university – Commissary. I would say not only is (a) above no longer needed it is also problematic in this situation because it prevents the commissary from independently judging situations of significant gravity for the university and therefore knocks out a whole layer of exceptionally precise internal independent legal advice in the university.
When it gets to the stage in an organisation where everyone agrees that the current rules are not working then it’s time for everyone in the organisation to work together to generate a more optimal set of rules with a higher probability of working. Sticking to rules that are not working is not going to fix any of the problems existing rules were designed to fix – it will just result in rules that are unable to fulfil their purpose of being rules i.e. being useful in the fixing problems and not the source of additional problems.
Non payment of wages is not unusual for an employer in the UK but non-payment of wages by an employer worth billions followed by emails from the organisation to the person the organisation put in that position informing them of bonus payments to everyone else in the organisation for work done during a particular time – a global pandemic – except for the person being subjected to non payment of wages for work done during that same time is highly unusual.
Blocking access to equipment in a dispute is not unusual for a university in the UK but blocking a person from accessing equipment the person themselves bought with funds they themselves secured with their own research efforts followed by the organisation emailing the person the organisation put in that position for years to request that they administer sharing that equipment with everyone else in the organisation but themselves it highly unusual.
Some organisations have an extremely strong perfectionist streak something which can make it harder for the whole organisation to accept the reality of a situation, that life is not always in an ideal state, that life is sometimes far from being in an ideal state but nonetheless it is still there – real life – demanding to be lived independent of its state of perfection.
When I took the University to Tribunal, I could not afford a solicitor. This meant I could ring up David Browne of Shakespeare Martineau directly. I spent hours on the phone to him. And every hour cost the University another £400 😉 The university settled in the end, but not after lots of money was spent!
The university pays £400 an hour to its solicitors? That’s insane!
So within the first few days of contesting a case they are already deep in the red, and then, by how much are they down by the time they get to trial? How is this not published in the accounts and which committee audits this?
I don’t think there’s any review body. There was an insurance policy at some point, though that makes me wonder why they threaten to make victims liable for costs ( as then in fact, there were no such costs?)
There are multiple insurance policies. Insurance companies are not known for their charitable instincts, they routinely threaten costs
Of course, the premiums on the insurance policies will rise as the university makes more and more extensive use of the policies.
It is a murky area. It is not clear whether there is adequate (or any) oversight of legal costs. It is also unclear how many employees & students end up litigating against the University.
“When I took the University to Tribunal, I could not afford a solicitor. This meant I could ring up David Browne of Shakespeare Martineau directly.”
“There was an insurance policy at some point, though that makes me wonder why they threaten to make victims liable for costs”
I find these statements very concerning, not least because I was repeatedly told that if I wanted to have a legal representative or ask legal questions, I would have to pay it from my own pocket. Even basic questions our Legal Services did not answer claiming that they only give advice to the University, but, incidentally, later I learned through subject access requests they gave advice to senior professors of DAMTP about my case.
Can someone tell us where staff and students can learn about the insurance policy mentioned above and in particular if victims can benefit from it? I am happy to ask around and see where this leads us I would not be surprised if the University threatens to make victims liable for costs to limit potential legal actions against them, as opposed to actually having the power to make victims liable for costs. Many victims cannot afford a solicitor and the University knows that, so the fact in some cases they allow their legal firms to help claimants, but in other cases they do not, needs clarification.
Some of these questions will be addressed explicitly in the Bury St Edmunds Tribunal 1-28 June 2026
The University permitted a self-admitted liar and defamer to claim legal costs on its insurance policy. This is public money (tuition fees, research overheads, donations) that was used to defend baseless allegations. It was sanctioned by Legal Services.
The running of the Legal Services department is a national scandal.
Again, we urge that no-one remain silent about the multiple scandals at Cambridge University — tell everyone in your department, tell the 21 Group, tell journalists, tell the press, tell MPs.
When staff and students bring forward reports of legal violations, they routinely choose to protect management, and cover their costs as they retaliate against “lesser” members of the university community. That is not anywhere in the statutes. It is a betrayal of the university in its own name and at unconscionable cost. We are the university not they.
“we urge that no-one remain silent about the multiple scandals at Cambridge University — tell everyone in your department, tell the 21 Group, tell journalists, tell the press, tell MPs.”
I keep asking this because it is really the only way to deal with the University of Cambridge and its senior leadership at this stage. They have lost their sense of dignity and humanity. Please do not follow their enforced confidentiality because not only it will work against you as a victim—it helps them to conceal and manipulate information in the background—but prevents naive victims from knowing what they should expect. It is really important that victims speak up about their experiences and overcome fears of retaliation. If a large number of victims speaks, Rome will fall.
An institution that is not rooted in secrecy and cover up of misconduct does not advice “It will very rarely if ever be appropriate to alert the media” or alike as UCam does: https://www.hr.admin.cam.ac.uk/sites/default/files/whistleblowing_policy.pdf
Under section 43J of Public Interest Disclosure Act:
Any term that attempts to prevent a worker from making a protected disclosure is legally void. This means a policy would likely be unlawful if it: (i) suggests employees are not allowed to go to the media, (ii) threatens discipline for lawful protected disclosures, (iii) misleads employees into thinking media disclosure is never protected, (iv) fails to acknowledge statutory whistleblowing rights
This has been pointed out to Prof Kamal Munir.
This wording is problematic and almost certainly unlawful — all to be revealed at Bury St Edmunds Employment Tribunal, 1-28 June
Professor Kamal Munir… Please remind him this part: “Breach of confidentiality in either an informal or formal resolution process may give rise to disciplinary action under the relevant disciplinary procedure. The confidential nature of the proceedings will be maintained provided this does not compromise either the investigation, any health and safety requirement, any legal, contractual or regulatory obligation of the University, or any issue related to the safety of participants in Research.”
https://www.cam.ac.uk/sites/default/files/procedure-for-the-handling-of-an-allegation-of-research-misconduct-20260212.pdf
Long-story short, if Prof. Munir dismisses—without any investigation—whistleblowing disclosures and safeguarding referrals based on detailed medical evidence that show that UCam became an unsafe place to students and staff, it is surely reasonable that they seek external help and describe the state of the institution that ignored them.
Don’t think judges will be very convinced by university stance here…. especially when courts can order for disclosure of all of this anyway?
Cambridge University — like Prince Andrew — thinks itself above the law. It is not interested in what judges think.
Making a pubic interest disclosure in Cambridge is like making music in music hall, baking in a bakery, playing football on a football pitch …. the particular music being made might not be to everyone’s taste, some may be unimpressed with the quality of the baked goods, an overly aggressive tackling style on the football pitch may draw the attention of a referee but public interest activity itself is unlikely to fail to find a resonance in Cambridge.
I don’t think the problem is that Cambridge thinks itself above the law. I think it’s more that Cambridge is in a position to make its own independent judgment of the law. When the law is fixed this is not a problem as Cambridge will then find its own relationship with the law to produce a set fair and reasonable outcomes i.e. it will self-regulate with respect to the law to continuously take organisational actions that no court could object to.
A problem arises when the law is in a state of high flux because it is then continuously stuck in a process of making its own independent judgement of the law – i.e. burning significant organisational energy. The introduction of work-related stress regulation as a health and safety obligation seems innocuous but the potential impact of the workers rights bill pails in significance to the potential impact introduction of this new legal obligation to regulate work-related stress. This new legal obligation has the potential to transform how whole organisations operate and to enable whole organisations to access much higher states of organisational performance. It makes it possible to handle public interest disclosures in a rational and efficient way to continuously drive improvements at the systems level.
Don’t think that logic is working out very well for the Andrew formerly known as prince
This Tribunal case is an extraordinary tale of an institution in decay. The place is literally falling apart and consumed with self-preservation at all costs! This case alone probably cost the University large sums. In the meanwhile the rankings show a continuous decline. The institution is doomed!
The university is clearly falling short of professional standards, and it is right that people are angry.
The scenario that worries me is that eventually a day will come – perhaps ten, perhaps twenty years from now – when the university has at last sunk to the range of middle-tier global universities, and instead of people calling these things out, people will simply shrug their shoulders with rolled eyes, as the tale of the university’s decline has become academic lore, and by that point, no-one expects anything better or has any reason to care.
The American Queen is intrinsically corrupt! She knows she is not doing her job but she does not care! 500K is too much to not take! So she just carries on with her cadre of Munirs, Philpots, Hudsons and Co! They will ruin the place! They are already destroying it and soiling it! Bunch of miserable sods! Hope all rot in the sewage they generate every day!
“CTOs might not only be teaching slaves but also useful cash cows”
There it is. This is how they really think.
That is a Cambridge academic, Scott Mandelbrote, caught saying the quiet part out loud.
And now, written in black and white.
For a university that waxes about “collegiality” and “respect”, let’s reflect on this for a moment.
We are not citizens to them – only “slaves”.
We are not human beings to them – mere “cows”.
Cattle.
They really talk like this. They really think like this.
Even though we now teach their classes, write their proposals, and basically, are doing their entire job.
Once this feudalism ends, who is it that really needs to go?
“There it is. This is how they really think.
That is a Cambridge academic, Scott Mandelbrote, caught saying the quiet part out loud.
And now, written in black and white.”
That is how one Cambridge academic really thinks. Cambridge academics have a strong tendency to do their own thinking – tend to have acquired a Cambridge-specific survival skill – which means inferring anything about the thinking of one Cambridge academic based on the thinking of a different Cambridge academic has a low probability of yielding any additional useful information. Who knows what thinking might emerge from the mind of a Cambridge academic – some don’t even know what thinking might emerge from their own minds themselves.
Students in Cambridge will error correct the talk of a Nobel Prize winner and be right, stand up in the middle of a lecture to precisely criticise the lecture material & then instead of walking out they will sit down for the rest of the lecture, teach the lecturer a lesson by demonstrating a better understanding/command of the learning material than the lecturer themselves in front of all the other students.
The idea that one can infer anything about the thinking of every Cambridge student from the thinking one Cambridge student or one Cambridge academic sees fit to put forth to the world on social media is only believable to those who have never seen the inner workings of Cambridge.
Some people encounter a whistleblowing situation and enter into whistleblowing mode for the duration of that situation whereas in Cambridge there exist people who operate permanently in whistleblowing mode.
Scott Mandelbrote is a CTO — he was appearing as a witness for the claimant. So he is describing it as he experiences it.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-02-22/oxford-university-leader-calls-for-sex-harassment-policy-improvements
“The University of Oxford’s leader has instructed legal experts to propose improvements to its harassment and bullying policies, according to a person familiar with the matter, after a string of allegations about failures to protect female students and academics from inappropriate behavior. At a meeting several days ago, senior figures from the university’s colleges were told that Oxford’s vice-chancellor, Irene Tracey, had asked staff with legal expertise and the registrar, a senior university official, to make recommendations, said the person, who declined to be identified because the matter is sensitive. Tracey did not respond to a request to comment.”
Is our dearest Vice-Chancellor Deborah Prentice aware of what is happening in Oxford? The best improvement to our processes and procedures is not changing policies but instead get rid of incompetent and dishonest people who ignore the policies we have.
(in)competent and (dis)honest people who ignore the policies we have
We have received information not yet in the public domain about Prof Irene Tracey, the Vice Chancellor of Oxford University 😉
Let’s just say it is worth journalists keeping a very close eye on what is happening in Oxford
“At a meeting several days ago, senior figures from the university’s colleges were told that Oxford’s vice-chancellor, Irene Tracey, had asked staff with legal expertise and the registrar, a senior university official, to make recommendations”
This is the problem – that they try to solve things internally, when everyone has already has had a hand in the scandals. It all just amounts to shuffling deckchairs on the Titanic and failing to take clear and obvious decisions. Eventually they will realise (like King Charles) that the only solution is to cut off the perpetrators, welcome outside scrutiny, and ask outside actors for help. The only question is how far the ship sinks while they prevaricate and postpone.
Agreed. Irene Tracey is asking the institutional perpetrators of the institutional collusion how to best to overcome the institutional collusion they have been perpetrating.
It is a farce worthy of Kamal Munir himself
If Irene Tracey was serious, she would sack the Registrar and those in Legal Services who organised the cover-ups over decades.
I feel it is horrible how institutions use women to gloss over harassment reports from female students and scholars. I mean not that it is not just as bad when it is a man doing that instead but still, makes my heart sink in to my shoes.
It is worse I think. I don’t want to imply any sexist double standards so please let me be clear here that this view is because of the sense of betrayal it creates. young women felt they could trust a woman in charge and appeal and open up and so that makes the confusion and hurt so much worse when the response is the same silence and brushoff as with men. In some ways it is easier when you simply have to fight or break up and that’s that. what is more emotionally devastating for victims is the gaslighting, false hope, unexplained silences, hot and cold treatment, false procedures, insincerity, lies, backbiting.
Men are primarily the aggressors in sexual harassment cases.
However, it is noticeable that very senior administrative/managerial positions at both Cambridge and Oxford are now occupied by women. Both Oxford and Cambridge have female Vice Chancellors, they both have female Registrars (prior to 31 Dec 2025 when Ms Rampton resigned). All senior positions in the Human Resources department in Cambridge are occupied by women, and many in Oxford are occupied by women.
In those circumstances, it is surprising that there has not been more progress on protecting women in Oxbridge. We can understand & acknowledge the sense of betrayal.
I just came from a meeting with a senior member of the University who sits in several Committees and who literally told me this: “The shit will hit the fan in the next couple of days. Stay tuned.”
While promising, I heard this before. I do not think we should just sit and wait. We have to step up, and the minimum victims can do is reporting our experiences of abuses to a range of players internal and external to the University. Please consider reporting what you experienced because the position of the victims will be much stronger if a large number of present and past members reports what they went through. Tribunals and courts are slow and at best victims can get monetary compensations. What we urgently need is an external review of the performance of HR, OSCCA and the senior leadership to prevent further damage. This is a key moment for members to show what they want and what they are willing to do to achieve it as change in this institution will not come out of the blue. Thank you.
The shit has already hit the fan.
Just look at all the resignations from Oxford in the past 6 months.
Look at the Rampton resignation at Cambridge.
None of this is coming to an end.
It is coming to a head.
The Oxford scandals were building for a long time then one article in Bloomberg produced the whole cascade.
It was inevitable.
Everyone knows they are dancing on the abyss.
Tick tock.
Credit for bringing matters in Oxford to public attention belongs to (i) a few very persistent (female) Fellows and (ii) Layla Moran MP for OXWAB, who started asking questions of the VC
We need to do the same in Cambridge
A lot of people behind the scenes have been doing our part because we know what is right. An email here, nudge there, whatever you can do inside a system like this. All any of us need is to one day see justice done, and know, if only to our own conscience alone, that we helped to make the change
As the 21 Group knows, Daniel Zeichner MP already contacted Cambridge, at least to ask about my case, but it was the Pro-Vice Chancellor Prof. Kamal Munir who replied to him, not the Vice-Chancellor Prof. Deborah Prentice. Prof. Munir sent Mr Zeichner ZERO evidence of what he claimed in his response, and even dared to argue that my health was a priority of the University of Cambridge, when it had been him who dismissed, without any investigation, the whistleblowing disclosures and safeguarding referrals made by third-parties about the abuses of a range of senior staff against me.
While we have people with the sincerity of Prof. Munir replying to MPs and pretend that nothing is happening, UCam will not change and will sink further.
This is a pattern for Munir. We have emails of him telling people outside the university that he was addressing bullying complaints while telling the victims the exact opposite.
How many more are yet to come forward?
And yes: the playbook of portraying victims as mentally unwell when the cause is the perpetrator is classic abuse behaviour.
@XX, if the victims of UCam who were ignored by Prof. Kamal Munir contact Mr Daniel Zeichner MP and report what happen to them, Mr Zeichner will not be indiferent to the name Kamal Munir. When I received the email that Munir sent to Zeichner about me from Zeichner, I replied to him, and cced the leadership of UCam, including Munir himself. I can assure you that Prof. Munir did not like what I wrote.
****BREAKING NEWS *****
Hearing of complete chaos at Shakespeare Martineau as they grapple with multiple ongoing cases caused by widespread problems with Cambridge University’s toxic HR
They’re overwhelmed with cases., They can’t even complete the basics of disclosure & witness statements.
.
I confirm that I have been giving a lot of work to Ms Danielle Humphries from Shakespeare Martineau… She should thank the most discussed Lead HR Business Partner in the 21 Group and her friends!
Another two early-career researchers have just started legal action against the University.
This rate, Cambridge University will become a Legal Services division with a small teaching & research operation attached.
Terminal rot! 800 years down the sewers!
“Another two early-career researchers have just started legal action against the University.”
An institution that does not assume faults but instead covers up malpractices will invariably continue these practices. These managers have not had any incentive to change because their model has been working fine for years and their morals does not prevent them from continue. They isolate individuals, gaslight them, and threaten them if they continue to complain. The problem arrives when these individuals continue to complain regardless the measures against them and become increasingly vocal to the outside. If a sufficiently large number of people overcome the fears of retaliation and report their experiences, to courts, tribunals, and a range of other players, sooner or later the situation will become unsustainable for our beloved management. It is just a question of time because they showed time and time again that they do not have what it takes to address the problems.
Are all the university cases being handled by just one junior solicitor? Surely not humanly possible for one person to work the caseload for a whole organisation?
The scale of problems at Cambridge University can be judged by the following
At one time, the University used mainly Shakespeare Martineau for its legal problems
It’s now using with Bristows, Mills & Reeve, Farrer & Co, Carter Ruck and DWF as well as SM.
The scale of wrongdoing is such that the University needs a bank of employment law firms to cope
How many cases does each handle? That means the total number must be huge… Presumably all charging £400/hr, day in, day out?
Sounds like whole system has crashed
No one on deck
Icebergs ahead
Enjoy the final waltz
In the meanwhile Lord Smith keeps playing the lyre! Does he not see Rome is burning??
What shall one do when we contact the Commissary asking for a review of our formal representation under Statute AIX considered previously considered by the Vice-Chancellor, and his assistant (Governance Administrator, Ms Andrea Temple) does not answer our questions, starts a new thread with the exact same “subject” where the previous email exchanges were deleted and tells you that she had already answered our questions, while in parallel removes people from cc despite we asked multiple times for not doing it? Comments and thoughts are welcome as I can try a different approach to see what they do next… I wonder if the Commissary is actually reading the emails and material that I send but instead what they choose to send him.
Regardless, I honestly do not understand why they keep using the same practices with me as if I had not been through this over and over with HR, OSCCA and the senior leadership!
The university doesn’t even hide the fact that the Commissary is a sinecure role with no function!
This is – word for word – what it says on the Cambridge website (https://glossary.lib.cam.ac.uk/term/commissary):
>> For a brief account of the history of the office see E. S. Leedham-Green, ‘The duties of the office are negligible, but its honour is considerable’, Cambridge 26 (1990)11–15.
Now let’s dwell for a moment on that remarkable sentence:
“The duties of the office are negligible, but its honour is considerable”
You certainly do not hit on a formulation like that just by error or random chance.
I think, in one sentence, it summarises everything wrong with the university’s approach.
Duties exist only on paper while the personal title is all that anyone cares for. And alas that applies across the board. Those holding senior office want the name and the recognition – but not the profound duties, work or obligations they entail. That is why everything is passed off to third parties to handle with no auditing or overview.
“I wonder if the Commissary is actually reading the emails and material that I send but instead what they choose to send him”
Yes, that is a very good question.
What is the phrase they use, a “full and fair investigation based on all the evidence *available*?
Evidence that is not *available* because it was made to disappear through redactions, text removal, text alterations, truncations or by simply falling under the proverbial desk, won’t be taken into consideration, even where it would have contradicted the conclusion that was drawn.
The murder weapon was in the pond, but that was fenced off for the duration of the investigation.
Where legal personnel are involved, it becomes a matter of ensuring that there is no evidence of their awareness of problematic information. Following rules in a system then becomes the guiding principle, not giving effect to justice and fairness.
If the Commissary operates within a system which stipulates that they are not to consider any submission which was made directly to them, then there is no (professional or moral) obligation to consider anything that was not “passed to correct people via correct channels within the instructions an administrator may have”.
There is no moral dimension, nor is there an intention to determine the truth. It is purely transactional within a “system” that devolves the responsibility of its own failure to itself, as well as being clearly at odds with the mission and values of the institution it is meant to serve.
That is why one has to finish the email with, “Please confirm that the Commissary is fully aware of all these email exchanges and how you are addressing my questions.” Let’s see the reply…
I seriously doubt the Commissary Sir Patrick Elias is aware of all this. It is pretty clear that the University does not want to answer my questions, such as who are the people who will have access to the material, and why they choose Dr Regina Sachers as the person who engages with the Commissary if he has any question about the actions of the University instead of the acting Registrary, Dr Michael Glover, as it should be. The latter would actually be very appropriate in this case because Dr Glover found the time to raise a grievance against me for my “abusive behaviour” using a “Special Ordinance,” but if you actually check that Ordinance, he did not follow it properly. Incidentally, he forgot to tell me that I could appeal directly to the Pro-Vice Chancellor for Education within 5 days namely regarding the precautionary measures the University applied against me… and forgot to send the material to the University Council and the General Board as this particular Ordinance requires. It reads:
“Any precautionary measures imposed under this Special Ordinance shall be reported to the College of the person on whom they have been imposed, and to the Council and the General Board, at the earliest opportunity.”
How odd, UCam is not following its own policies…
Of all the people involved in Grievance resolution in the University, the Commissary is the only one with any sense.
He is independent, legally incisive, intellectually gifted & is willing to criticise the University.
Of course, if he does criticise the University, then the University will just ignore him. Why should people with absolutely zero legal training or insight (like Deborah Prentice or Kamal Munir or the HR Committee or Andrea Hudson) listen to a very distinguished lawyer?
What is true is that the Higher Education Act (2004) states:
The visitor of a qualifying institution has no jurisdiction in respect of—
(a)any dispute relating to a member of staff which concerns his appointment or employment or the termination of his appointment or employment,
(b)any other dispute between a member of staff and the qualifying institution in respect of which proceedings could be brought before any court or tribunal, or
(c)any dispute as to the application of the statutes or other internal laws of the institution in relation to a matter falling within paragraph (a) or (b).
So, if the matter involves something that should be decided at Employment Tribunal, the Commissary (or “visitor”) is prevented from action.
The issue here is if the Commissary is fully aware of what we send to him via the Governance Administrator, or only the part that the University decides to send him. I have been ccing him directly in my emails, of course, but the University keeps removing him from cc… I would be surprised if he agrees with how the Governance Administrator is addressing my questions but perhaps I am really wrong.
It would be extremely serious if the University is misleading or misinforming the Commissary.
Indeed, but not necessarily more serious than other actions that the University has been doing in the past few years. I am sure the 21 Group can think of some!
People who do not follow the policies of their own institution and cover up misconduct with incorrect and misleading information again and again and again, while threatening members if they do not let it go, can do everything.
This is how it goes. The Commissary says the University fucked up royally, but did not break its own rules. You then get a letter like this:
Dear Dr Victimised,
Thank you for your letter, in which you helpfully invited me to reconsider matters that have already been very thoroughly not reconsidered.
As you note, the Commissary has clarified that he lacks the authority to intervene in employment matters, which is extremely useful, as it allows the responsibility to return neatly to me. I’m in charge of the procedures which produced the outcome in question in the first place. This elegant circularity ensures that no external disruption need occur.
While the Commissary did offer several observations suggesting that the University’s procedures might benefit from substantial improvement, he also confirmed reassuringly that the decisions already made under those potentially improvable procedures were, in fact, made according to those same procedures. It would therefore be quite inappropriate to revisit them now, as that might create the troubling impression that procedures exist to produce fair outcomes, rather than merely to be followed.
On that basis, and in the interests of preserving procedural consistency above all else, I am pleased to confirm that the matter is considered closed. This closure is, of course, entirely procedural, and should not be mistaken for resolution.
Yours sincerely,
DavidDebbie
The University of Cambridge was ranked the UK’s top employer in the Financial Times!
https://www.ft.com/content/666c93da-7872-4d75-a8b4-bb146f7f88a6
If you think that it could not be more surreal, then wait. Our staff hub has a small report regarding this issue that reads, “Welcoming the recognition Professor Kamal Munir, Pro-Vice-Chancellor for University Community and Engagement, said: “I am very proud of this important recognition in the Financial Times, which reflects the hard work of many colleagues. We are committed to continually improving the working environment and supporting academic and professional excellence.””
FT knows all about the scandals. I note they didn’t cover this in a story because they know the results are wrong and that Munir himself is due in court. They largely sampled on university management (FT readers) and that’s why the results are what they are. This result is a direct continuation of the Golden 50 story. The results reflect employers that reward their management, not ordinary staff.