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).
24 Comments
TheResearcher · 20 February 2026 at 17:27
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
Eileen Nugent · 20 February 2026 at 22:27
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.
skefs · 20 February 2026 at 23:47
“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.
Obvious · 21 February 2026 at 02:33
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?
21percent.org · 21 February 2026 at 13:34
“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.
TheResearcher · 21 February 2026 at 14:07
“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.
21percent.org · 21 February 2026 at 16:46
“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.
TheResearcher · 21 February 2026 at 17:22
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.
Raven · 22 February 2026 at 10:04
“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.
TopCat · 21 February 2026 at 05:21
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!
Anonymous · 22 February 2026 at 05:38
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?
Yucash · 22 February 2026 at 07:14
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?)
21percent.org · 22 February 2026 at 09:20
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.
TheResearcher · 22 February 2026 at 10:00
“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.
21percent.org · 22 February 2026 at 10:20
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.
- · 22 February 2026 at 14:35
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.
TheResearcher · 22 February 2026 at 17:09
“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
21percent.org · 22 February 2026 at 17:20
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
TheResearcher · 22 February 2026 at 17:38
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.
SPARTACUS · 21 February 2026 at 10:03
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!
Anon · 21 February 2026 at 18:10
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.
MUSKETEER · 21 February 2026 at 19:01
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!
Saturn365 · 21 February 2026 at 19:41
“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?
Jay · 21 February 2026 at 21:38
Scott Mandelbrote is a CTO — he was appearing as a witness for the claimant. So he is describing it as he experiences it.