In the case of Dr Oliveira, the 21 Group awaits the outcome of the Disciplinary Hearing against him held on 13 April 2026.
After being mistreated in the School of Physical Sciences, Dr Oliveira refused to be silent. The University of Cambridge are now arguing that Dr Oliveira is being “unreasonably persistent“. Yet history reminds us that those involved in the Post Office scandal were once dismissed in similar terms — only to be later completely vindicated.
Having looked at the evidence, the 21 Group believes Dr Oliveira — like the sub postmasters — has a very strong case.
We reproduce below a letter sent on 5 July 2025 by Professor Wyn Evans to the Pro-Vice-Chancellors and Vice-Chancellor, Professor Deborah Prentice
Dear Pro-Vice Chancellors, Vice Chancellor,
The way the Human Resources Division is being mismanaged in Cambridge University is producing a very large number of victims. Unsurprisingly, the victims are not going to shut up and go away, no matter how much you may wish it
It is of course far better to resolve these matters internally and fairly. If there is no redress internally, then of course victims will pursue the matters externally, leading to much greater costs, stress, publicity & reputational damage.
In Dr Oliveira’s case, he wishes to raise a Grievance against [REDACTED], an HR Business Partner. This is being blocked. As a matter of justice, law and ethics, his Grievance should at least be heard.
I, and 3 other colleagues, have repeatedly tried to raise a Grievance against the same individual, but it has also repeatedly been blocked for spurious and untrue reasons.
Malpractice among some members of the HR department is now seriously harming the University’s core mission of teaching and research.
This should be a matter of gravest concern to all the pro-Vice Chancellors — and the Vice Chancellor.
Best Wishes
Prof Wyn Evans
After the Simon Goldhill Affair, another major controversy — this time involving the handling of Dr Oliveira’s case — is the last thing the University of Cambridge needs.
The 21 Group is also aware of a number of forthcoming Employment Tribunal cases, which are not likely to present a very reassuring picture of the University. One is starting next week at Bury St Edmunds Tribunal.
Perhaps it is time for the Vice-Chancellor and Pro-Vice-Chancellors to reconsider their course — instead of accelerating further on a trajectory towards icebergs?
(Image Credit: Photo is of the iceberg which was probably rammed by the RMS Titanic. Photo was made by Stephan Rehorek, who died in 1935)
Sssssssssh, silence please! This investigation against me should be confidential…
It can only be coincidence but the letter above was not considered in the investigation against me, nor did the complaints of my own students who contacted all Pro-Vice Chancellors and the Vice-Chancellor reporting how they were mistreated at DAMTP. And it can only be coincidence that the investigation against me promoted by the Academic Secretary started on 5 August 2025 after I became increasingly vocal internally and externally about what was happening to me since June 2023.
Some posters asked what the Fellows of King’s College are doing regarding their silence on what happened to one of their students in the case of Professor Simon Goldhill. You can ask a similar question regarding the Fellows of Christ’s College and their silence on my case. On October 2, the Master of Christ’s wrote to me and said, “as I said to Professor Evans this morning, I do expect the university to investigate that complaint [whistleblowing disclosure] impartially, thoroughly and in a timely manner. Clearly, that has not happened, but an external investigation might still retrieve something. I will make that point in person to Professor Munir.” You may ask him what he did next.
One striking thing about this case is that it is happening in real time and it is revealing the character of a lot of people who know the story and do nothing to challenge the abuses.
I disclosed the letter reluctantly and with redactions.
It seems important to me — as I said in an enjoyable meeting with Simon McDonald, the Master of Christ’s — that there is now an independent investigation into what happened to Dr Oliveira
This still seems to me a perfectly reasonable request.
Meanwhile, Varsity also published on Goldhill’s case:
https://www.varsity.co.uk/news/31493
“The Cambridge student group End Sexual Violence (ENDSV) said they were “concerned about the level of action taken by the University, particularly in relation to supporting students, ensuring safeguarding and maintaining confidence in its processes”.”
“The group continued: “While we recognise and greatly appreciate the role of OSCCA in providing advice, support and oversight in cases of sexual misconduct, this situation raises serious concerns about whether current procedures are adequate when it comes to supporting students who come forward and ensuring the wider student body is effectively safeguarded. We are especially concerned by reports that teaching duties may have continued during this process.””
ENDSV, if you are reading these posts, please read (https://21percent.org/?p=2628). OSCCA is no different than HR and gets direct advice from them. No, this is not a tale, it came directly from subject access requests.
More information has come into the 21 Group about Simon Goldhill.
It is evident that he was well-known to be touchy-feely. Lingering hands on shoulders, an arm draped too casually around a colleague, the faint brush of fingers that seemed accidental yet rarely was
A key question about that case is understanding why OSCCA/University decided to review a case that happened in a college, and why it did not conduct an internal investigation but instead jumped to an external investigation. From personal experience, OSCCA does everything they can to avoid reviewing complaints, including not following the written Student Complaint Procedure. Of course, this issue was also not considered in the investigation against me.
This was going on for years. Everyone (not only at King’s – though, especially there) knew about it and was ok with it. It was always oh, he’s just like that, needs extra hugs or whatever. They had all the time in the world to enforce a code of conduct and ensure he behave. Sadly (or as Simon might have said, ‘tragically”) they did not and the result is pain for a student, humiliation for Simon, and (justifiably) negative publicity for the university.
That they suddenly decided on a full-on investigation, when the large majority of complaints are totally ignored, says to me someone had it in for him. I note it was far more important to get Goldhill than help the victim – who never received a fee rebate, support or pastoral care. They didn’t care about her. They still do not. It is disgusting.
That is a good point. This can be read as something done to sink Simon Goldhill specifically, and not necessarily because of these kinds of behaviours, as opposed to protect students/victims from similar situations. It does not make any sense that the University got involved if what triggered it was a SCR event and I can imagine a range of excuses that OSCCA could do to avoid any investigation through them, namely “This procedure cannot be used to make a complaint relating to… College provision, for which the student should consult the relevant College policies,” as stated in the Student Complaint Procedure they have in their website. Not only there was an investigation, but there was an external investigation, and the report was leaked, at least partially, so someone was interested that this happened.
The student should understand that the lack of compensation she received was most likely not because of her specifically, but it would be done to any student under her conditions. If the University decides to compensate the victim, it will assume liability, and that the University cannot afford as the student can use that against them in court. It is unfortunate but that is how these people think. They could not care less about staff and students; the reputation of the University always comes first.
Much interesting stuff on Twitter
https://x.com/dominbydigdug/status/2044039974610170063
“Goldhill has been drunkenly chasing young students for decades, I thought everyone knew this.”
https://x.com/ProfEricAdler/status/2044030396694696168
“In 2021 Goldhill wrote a dismissive review of my book–a book that argues for a return to the tradition of using humanistic study for character development. He called the book “annoying,” denigrating it as “flag-waving humanism.” Gee, I wonder why.”
And my all-time favourite
https://x.com/Robin_C_Douglas/status/2044038414366838949
“He’s a wanker whose academic work was always overrated.”
There’s much more on Bluesky
“If you’re surprised by the Simon Goldhill news you either haven’t been listening to women in the field or you aren’t trusted by them”.
https://bsky.app/profile/elliemackinroberts.net/post/3mj2wxytw2c23
The thread that follows on Bluesky is excoriating stuff — “I completely agree that it took courage to stand up. My point is more that his behaviour had been pretty common knowledge for a long time, not necessarily in an ‘official’ capacity.”
Real questions now for (i) Fellows of King’s College, Cambridge, many of whom must have known, and (ii) Cambridge Classics Department, many of whom must have known. After all, Mary Beard seems to have spent a large part of her life inviting Goldhill to write reviews for the TLS or praising him to the skies on Twitter. Not a peep on Mary Beard’s social media channels about all this.
“Real questions now for (i) Fellows of King’s College, Cambridge, many of whom must have known, and (ii) Cambridge Classics Department, many of whom must have known.”
True. But what about (iii) the Pro-Vice Chancellor for Education, (iv) the Pro-Vice-Chancellor for University Community and Engagement, and (v) the Vice-Chancellor herself? Perhaps Professor Deborah Prentice and Professor Irene Tracey could promote a seminar on how to address sexual harassment at Oxbridge or it is too embarrassing for them?
Frankly I must say that for someone who purports to be a ‘feminist’ I have long found Mary Beard’s remarks on sexuality a bit problematic. I have no idea exactly how much she knew about professor Goldhill but all I can say is that it is rather hard to accept that many women did not reach out to her for support just as they reached out to many of Goldhill’s colleagues in classics and within the college.
I remind everyone what is the ‘modus operandi’ of the University of Cambridge: the oligarchy determines ‘a priory’ what they want the ‘outcome’ to be! The merits of the case, and in this particular instance this gladiator has no clue what those are, do NOT matter! The oligarchy that rules UCam decides: individual A is to destroy, individual B is to defend. Then the machine starts its ‘process’ with VC, Pro-VCs, Registrary, Head of Legal, Head of HR and Council contracting external players (HR consultant e.g. B3Sixty) and a compliant Responsible Person to perform the require ‘execution’. If you are ‘individual A’ no matter what you did you are doomed even if completely innocent, if you are ‘individual B’ you could be a total crook and even a criminal and no expense will be spared to protect you. To cover it all uo the oligarchy demands ‘omerta’ and if you breach their arbitrary ‘confidentiality’ you are further doomed. UCam is the Post Office 2.0! Forget about truth, equity, justice, mediation or reparation! The place is completely rotten and it stinks of decay! 800 years of history down the gutter! Very sad and frankly DISGUSTING!
“To cover it all uo the oligarchy demands ‘omerta’ and if you breach their arbitrary ‘confidentiality’ you are further doomed.”
Yes, they demand confidentiality, but from this gladiator they will not have it 😅
You are missing the real scandal. Goldhill was placed under investigation in March 2025. Why the investigation was delayed until this exact point in time, is something that will be detailed elsewhere.
He then became a tool of HR. The investigation was going to result in the usual slap on the wrist and burying of the scandal. A young woman is betrayed by the very people she thought she could trust, and who do so routinely, only to protect the perpetrator instead. Job done, until, all of a sudden the documents were leaked to the press, and story published last week.
This sounds very plausible. And very Cantabrigian.
We’d love to hear more [email protected]
Or post what you can.
So you are saying it was leaked by HR? Was he appointed RP then for another case?
@Aelian
Not exactly but you have the right idea. You will get answers to your questions in good time.
“You are missing the real scandal… The investigation was going to result in the usual slap on the wrist and burying of the scandal.”
Many of us are fully aware that is precisely what is expected to happen in Cambridge University and that is why we have been challenging the disgraceful culture of silencing and cover up of misconduct that pervades this institution as we can. The investigation against me is precisely because of that.
If someone leaked the report of Goldhill to the press, they did very well. Thank you for that decision. I hope that others follow the same behaviour and do whatever they can to challenge and change the current state of the University. The help of HR, or exHR, is particularly welcome.
Further very serious allegations now coming through to the 21 Group email accounts
It is very clear that this is a huge scandal, and only part of the story is out.
Picture of the iceberg on blog posting is very appropriate, we are seeing the tip of a big scandal
Once we have done some checking, we’ll say more
That is what is expected in a culture of cover ups. But the really striking thing is that, despite having all these and other cases hidden with the potential of causing major scandals with long-term impact to the University, its staff and students, if unveiled, the responsible for this mess continue business as usual. What a shame.
It is good to expose the perpetrator. But we also need to expose the enablers. There are scores of alumni who can attest to how they sought out figures whom they thought would believe them and protect them only to discover these “allies” were coordinating with Goldhill all along behind their backs to have them silenced.
No clemency for perpetrators
No clemency for enablers
Never ever ever ever
To find enablers, look up the powerful Fellows at King’s College in Classics, English & Modern Languages
Looks like King’s is preparing to tough it out, Simon Goldhill still listed as an Official Fellow.
https://www.kings.cam.ac.uk/people/simon-goldhill
“I am Simon and I study Greek literature at King’s. I love the ways Greek literature can change your life. I have been particularly involved in studying tragedy, and I have been lucky enough also to work with professional theatres in London to see how tragedy plays in today’s world. All too easily, you might think… I have lectured all over the world, and have done a good bit of TV and radio. But the life-blood of an academic is teaching, and King’s has proved the best place I have ever come across for this experience”
Ordinarily, Goldhill would become life Fellow on retirement in September. Big decision coming up for Provost Gillian Tett and the Fellows. This should be impossible — but don’t be too surprised if there is a “Poor Simon, how he has suffered, it was just a kiss” faction
It’s interesting how these exposés of harassers often come when retirement beckons.
It seems as academic power recedes, ability to destroy the careers of others fades, the fear of retaliation lessens & enough victims are emboldened to strike.
Nothing from Mary Beard yet? Funny, she comments about almost everything else under the sun (including somewhat disparagingly on the 21 Group).
I am Simon, and I study Greek literature at King’s — it reminds us how universal human suffering is, especially as I am responsible for a lot of it. I have long been devoted to tragedy, and to the principle that it is best interpreted under my close supervision, ideally in environments where lack of consent can be reframed as misunderstanding.
I have worked with theatres in London, which has helped me appreciate how performance and self-mythologising often overlap in modern academic life. I have also lectured widely and appeared in various media, usually to explain why the subject of me remains under-discussed.
Naturally, I remain deeply committed to teaching, which is the true lifeblood of academia, and I continue to regard King’s as an exemplary environment for meeting young students and slobbering over them. I am deeply indebted to its hierarchy, and its dignified management of awkward questions about my behaviour
.
“Ordinarily, Goldhill would become life Fellow on retirement in September. Big decision coming up for Provost Gillian Tett and the Fellows. This should be impossible — but don’t be too surprised if there is a “Poor Simon, how he has suffered, it was just a kiss” faction”
If there is such a faction within an academic community in relation to a situation like the one above what does it think it can do? Substitute its judgement on forgiveness – voluntary action – for the judgment of the member of the academic community directly impacted by the situation? Substitute its judgment on forgiveness – voluntary action – for the judgement of the academic community as a whole? Are factions the proposed basis of the maintenance of smooth academic community relations in this type of situation?
The academic community cannot control whether a student put in this type of situation by a professor would be open to being asked for forgiveness. The academic community cannot control whether a professor after putting a student in this type of situation would be open to asking for forgiveness from the student. The academic community cannot control whether if it was possible to ask for forgiveness in the situation it would also be possible to forgive in the situation.
The academic community can control whether it would be open to being asked for forgiveness in this type of situation. The academic community cannot control whether a professor in this position would be open to asking for forgiveness from an academic community in this type of situation. The academic community can control whether it would – conditional on the person directly impacted being able to forgive the situation – also be able to forgive the situation.
These are all voluntary actions.
If person wants those in power in a situation to use that power wisely then should that person later be in power in the same situation it is necessary for the person to use that power wisely otherwise it won’t be possible to balance actions in the situation and bring the situation to a state of closure.
Wow, wikipedia is very quick at updating profiles…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Goldhill
“In April 2026, it was reported that Cambridge University had recently upheld complaints of professional and sexual misconduct against him. According to an investigation commissioned by the university from an external consultancy, Goldhill gave a female student an unwanted kiss, stroked her body and put his tongue in her ear.”
There must be some glitch on the Cambridge comms website though because no matter how many times I hit “refresh” all I get is this
https://www.cam.ac.uk/people/simon-goldhill
The University & King’s College, Cambridge are in full damage limitation mode. The newspaper articles all end
“A university spokesperson said: “The University of Cambridge takes all complaints of sexual misconduct very seriously and any concerns raised by staff or students would be looked into in line with the relevant university policies and procedures, and action would be taken, where appropriate. These processes are by their nature confidential so we will not be commenting further. King’s College and Simon Goldhill have been contacted for comment.”
Expressions of grave concern, promises of robust procedures & then the familiar retreat behind confidentiality
Nothing to see here, move on along now, folks
Damage limitation? Deer in the headlights, more like! Unfortunately for King’s, things are about to get a lot, lot, lot worse …. with a whole set of dominoes set to fall
Tell us more [email protected]
We have some information we can tell you in exchange 😉
The material must be coming in droves at this point
Keep digging
Shall we wait for all this material to come out and only then contact Financial Times ccing their editor Gillian Tett and Kamal Munir, asking some clarifications about how their “UK’s best employer” addresses reports of bullying and harassment? Remember what they wrote,
“The university told the FT that it “takes allegations of all forms of inappropriate behaviour, including bullying and harassment, seriously, and we aim to stop any inappropriate behaviour identified as quickly as possible.”
https://www.ft.com/content/6ce8bb29-824b-4ce5-a459-2ead769737e2
“I have been lucky enough… to see how tragedy plays in today’s world”
Hmmmm. Hot take:
1. Why “lucky”? That doesn’t seem like a good thing, to watch a real human tragedy. That’s a horrible thing.
2. The irony here is hilarious. Someone will write a tragedy (or maybe a tragi-comedy) on this episode for sure. I guess maybe now he will see what tragedy feels like “in today’s world” when at last you are the central character.
Meanwhile in Christ’s College… Just received this email as a member of the MCR titled “Misconduct in the MCR”:
“Sent on behalf of the Dean and the Senior Tutor.
Dear Members of the MCR,
At some time between the evening of Friday 13th March and Tuesday 17th March posters in the MCR were defaced with offensive graffiti. Such behaviour is completely unacceptable, is not consistent with the inclusive community fostered at Christ’s and constitutes misconduct under the College’s Code of Student Behaviour. Any student engaging in such activity can expect to be subject to disciplinary behaviour. At present those responsible have not been identified. If you have any information about this incident please report it to the Dean (deanATchrists.cam.ac.uk), the Senior Tutor (senior.tutorATchrists.cam.ac.uk), or your Postgraduate Tutor.”
I have no clue of what is going on in the MCR of Christ’s as I have not been there for a while, but I found it striking that the Senior Tutor is concerned with the alleged misconduct of MCR students when he watched misconduct of staff and did nothing but covered it up. If readers of this blog are students at Christ’s, please ask the Senior Tutor to comment on the following notice that we have in our Buttery and what he did when I reported misconduct:
“Christ’s College has a legal duty to protect its students and its academic and non-academic staff from sexual harassment, abuse and other inappropriate or unwanted behaviour. We will take immediate and appropriate action to address any such incidents”
“… a legal duty to protect its students and its academic and non-academic staff from abuse”
Exactly. This is a legal duty.
It is good of them to acknowledge the fact.
Let us never stop reminding them of their words.
Trust me, I do. But then I receive emails that do not seem to align with these ideas. For example, on 9 December 2025 I received an email from my Tutor, something he forwarded from the Master of the College that reads:
“Please inform Dr Oliveira that my final communication with him was the Completion of Procedures letter I sent him on 2 December. He can write as many times as he likes (and indeed request or demand that others copy their emails to him to me) but I longer open or read any of his emails.”
Lord Simon McDonald does not understand that he is not embarrassing me. He is embarrassing himself, he is embarrassing Christ’s College, he is embarrassing the University of Cambridge and ultimately he is embarassing his Country as a member of the House of Lords. Remember, this is the same person who a few weeks before had told me, “as I said to Professor Evans this morning, I do expect the university to investigate that complaint [whistleblowing disclosure] impartially, thoroughly and in a timely manner. Clearly, that has not happened, but an external investigation might still retrieve something. I will make that point in person to Professor Munir.”
“Former Cambridge vice-chancellor named preferred candidate for chair of UKRI”
https://www.varsity.co.uk/news/31501
Can someone remind me what happened in Cancer Research UK some years ago? I thought there was an important Employment Tribunal case on it. Who was the Chair of Cancer Research UK at the time?
It was Professor Sir Leszek Borysiewicz
Several of the postdocs/research staff wrote not just to CRUK, but directly to Professor Sir Leszek Borysiewicz, apprising him of the situation. Relevant evidence is in the possession of the 21 Group.
Professor Sir Leszek Borysiewicz did not reply to the emails.
This is at least better than his successor as VC, who just responds to emails about problems with exculpatory nonsense drafted by the former Registrary. Relevant evidence is in the possession of the 21 Group.
That is what I thought. But shouldn’t UKRI know about this before hiring him as the chair of UKRI? I trust that those impacted by that situation will let UKRI know.
On a more pressing news, OSCCA just sent me a letter stating that the Discipline Committee found evidence of all the allegations against me. Consequence? They did not tell me yet. They told me that I can appeal, they kindly gave me an “Exceptional opportunity to provide additional information for the Committee’s consideration of sanctions,” and that this needs to be confidential.
I will send the documents to the 21 Group, and to a few other people.
“Please be aware that the allegations found were determined to be serious, and therefore all sanctions in the Student Discipline Procedure are available to the Committee, including permanent exclusion.” 😉
“Please note that whilst the procedure remains ongoing, all of the information relating to the Student Disciplinary Procedure is confidential and should be treated as such.
You should avoid discussing the contents of this letter with anyone except those from whom you are receiving professional support. It is necessary that all parties feel able to engage fully with the procedure without concern for the wider sharing of information disclosed within the investigation process.
I note that following the conclusion of the procedure, those involved may wish to discuss their personal experience of the procedure with others. However, regardless of the outcome, you should not identify or provide details that might identify any individual involved in the investigation or subsequent decision-making process.
Breaching the confidentiality of this process or breaching the precautionary action in place may have an impact on any sanction(s) imposed by the Discipline Committee.”
They really chose the wrong person to bully and harass this time. The fact they can do this to other people and that it may be a common practice, is rather disturbing.
Since it’s their legal duty to protect its students and its academic and non-academic from such events, does this also include their duty to serve the chaplain as much wine as possible until she falls…. again
@fisherman, can you please elaborate on that? Just to clarify, what the posters in the Buttery of Christ’s say is “Christ’s College has a legal duty to protect its students and its academic and non-academic staff from… unwanted behaviour.” In theory, if a member wants to drink until they fall, that is their choice, and I am not sure if the College is to blame. Unless, of course, that behaviour has consequences on others that interact with them. Does it make sense?
This is very true, however these types of rules seem to not apply to people who think they are above everyone. Which is completely wrong but it appears this is very common nowadays in the university of Cambridge, Christs College in particular.
“It is necessary that all parties feel able to engage fully with the procedure without concern for the wider sharing of information disclosed within the investigation process.”
In order for those involved in the procedure to remain able to provide incorrect information based on absolutely zero evidence (except such evidence as they may have created themselves), or to mislead investigators, or to defame and humiliate the victims whilst protecting known perpetrators and potential criminals from being outed and prosecuted, or, indeed (one does want to engage fully) all of the above, with full impunity and lack of concern for anything required by the Statutes, by the law, or by human decency, please do keep their names and modus operandi concealed…
“With respect to the sanctions that are available to the Discipline Committee to impose, these are listed in section 5.4 and 8.18 of the Student Disciplinary Procedure. For ease of reference, I have copied these below:
The sanctions listed under 8.18 are as follows:
a. Restrictions or conditions on the right to use or access University premises, facilities or services or, with the permission of the relevant College, College premises, facilities or services;
b. The amendment of academic results or the temporary or permanent removal of academic awards;
c. Temporary or permanent exclusion from membership of the University;
d. Restrictions on representing the University, or membership of University clubs or societies;
e. Any penalty considered by the Discipline Committee to be lighter.”
The sanctions listed under 5.4 are as follows:
a. To require the Respondent to pay the cost of material damages up to the amount of £250;
b. To require the Respondent to provide a written apology;
c. To require the Respondent to engage with an educative or reflective session;
d. To require the Respondent to complete a written reflection;
e. To impose a ‘no contact’ order, specifying actions to prevent interaction between the Respondent and named person(s)
Please be aware that the allegations found were determined to be serious, and therefore all sanctions in the Student Discipline Procedure are available to the Committee, including permanent exclusion.”
My favourites are “To require the Respondent to provide a written apology,” “To require the Respondent to engage with an educative or reflective session” and “To require the Respondent to complete a written reflection.” Yes, Sir!
A Professor guilty of sexual harassment is not expelled from the University and College, but a student who is “unreasonably persistent” in raising complaints that were always ignored by very many people is might be a bit too much even for Cambridge University but at this stage, everything is possible!
Back to Goldhill. Every one in the University knows that sex harassers are routinely protected. So what happened to Goldhill is not because he was a sex pest.
Goldhill must have some powerful enemies. A student could not, by herself, have organised the media operation that felled Goldhill. She must have had help. So who felled Goldhill? It must have been someone with good media contacts.
Goldhill was very active in two communities. The first is the Arts & Humanities community in the University. The second is the Jewish community. He was active in the Cambridge Traditional Jewish Congregation (which is heavily dominated by the University). CTJC has many academics & students, and it is possible that Goldhill’s poor behaviour was not just restricted to the University.
The newspapers clearly have an unredacted copy of the Report, otherwise they would not have dared publish. It’s not clear whether the student would have been given this (as opposed to a summary). The Report would be available to senior figures in HR, Head of Department of Classics or Head of School of Arts & Humanities, and senior figures in the administration (VC or pro-VCs).
This suggests either (i) senior figure in HR itself, possibly one who has left recently and is disgusted by all the cover-ups, or (ii) senior arts & humanities Professor, possibly close to the senior management and possibly also a member of CTJC. There are only a few names that are possible.
The Report would also have been available to the legal people – unredacted.
There’s no concern for the victim, nor for the perpetrator, nor for any process followed or not followed. Perhaps there was a distraction needed from a more personally damaging iceberg on the horizon.
Perhaps this was just conveniently and strategically exploited.
One iceberg is
Venue: Bury St Edmunds
London
Rumour is that there is an even bigger iceberg next month for the same department, and one that will truly capsize the entire ship.
Sssssssh! Surely that scandal must be confidential too…
I wonder how stressed HR gets when they read our posts and realize that we know what is going on in the background. And yet, they continue threatening people with sham investigations, “Please be aware that the allegations found were determined to be serious, and therefore all sanctions in the Student Discipline Procedure are available to the Committee, including permanent exclusion.”
If it’s the one I am thinking of then HR may be entirely unaware as they weren’t directly involved at the time. Legal would surely know and also the college at the heart of it, as well as the “department”
It is surely the most horrific episode of all time and simply impossible to believe that it could ever occur.
Which College scandal? Clare or St Edmunds?
Clare College? St Edmunds? There are a few with major problems…
The issue with Cambridge is that “the most horrific episode of all time and simply impossible to believe that it could ever occur” has been happening in multiple places. And for the records, HR knows everything related to human interactions. They even know about the Grace that would impose a shake-down on HR 😉
“The issue with Cambridge is that “the most horrific episode of all time and simply impossible to believe that it could ever occur” has been happening in multiple places.”
This is true. There are many icebergs. It’s inevitable that the University is going to hit one of them and be holed before the water line
Yeah, but they keep accelerating… If this did not involve many victims whose losses cannot be restored, one could even relax and see them crash while eating popcorns!
The investigation in Simon Goldhill’s case was not to protect and give voice to the student. Any person who submitted grievances to University HR and OSCCA know they could not care less about the victims and their only priority is managing reputational damage of the University and (some) senior members. The victim of Goldhill’s case eventually realized this fact when she got the outcome and the lack of support she received throughout. Nothing here is surprising for many who read the 21 Group blog. Why do we know the story then? It was clearly leaked, and the real scandal is not what Goldhill did, which in itself is already sufficiently shameful, but how the University responded to it, namely what they wanted to do with the Report. The real scandal is the cover up, what the University is willing to do to cover up misconduct. This is the thread that links all cases, Goldhill’s, in DAMTP, in Astronomy, in POLIS, in CRUK, etc, etc, etc. Very many people know about this, and look the other way and if one has to accept it.
For those who are new, check what is happening in the “Consigliere University” (https://21percent.org/?p=3097). Surely there are many journalists that are looking forward to publishing on the Consigliere University. They too have been bullied and harassed. The current situation is really a ticking bomb, but the managers of the Consigliere University did not understand it yet, and they are about to crash.
One name really does stand out
The power behind the throne, the puppet-master, the shadow ruler
The boat is about to crash in the iceberg. Regardless of their power, they are all in the same boat. Let’s see how many of them know how to swim.
If you spend too long in Cambridge, it distorts your perception of “power”. Their power, it recedes in circles, the further you get from Market Square. It is dull ebb in London. A dim glimmer in Brussels or New York. True power resides in the real world, not the academic cocoon.
Cambridge is a Small World
Like all Small Worlds, it thinks itself is the Whole World
Much like the Civil Service or the European Parliament, for that matter
Like the EU yes – but that thinking didn’t work out very well for some people
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cwyl6j8lj22o
Tell us which name please!
I am pretty sure that HR and OSCCA will tell you that it is “confidential” 🤭
It smells like a a fireman but I am not sure he is that gifted.
The same fireman recently elected College Master?
No, that is not THE fireman and it is not clear yet he will be Master of that College by the way, namely if I get expulsed from Cambridge. Most of the Fellows of that College do not yet know his history, and I am very good at telling stories.
I think the reality is more like there is nobody in charge. The captain is off doing radio shows and everyone else is just winging it from one catastrophe to the next. It’s like being involuntary strapped into a rickety roller coaster with no way out
The 21 Group has just posted in their X account how the Ombudsman failed a whistleblower at the Australian National University and one comment seems relevant. @Jelena says, “Typically for whistleblowers and victims at Australian’s universities: complaints are dismissed, ignored, victims gaslighted and/or forced to leave, the whole process often stopped at the very beginning without any outcome as if there wasn’t any report/complaint. Bystanders look away.”
Where did we hear this scenario before? Of course, this makes the question “why do we know about Goldhill’s case?” more interesting and important to address.
I know for a fact the senior leadership has been very busy today deciding on my fate 😉
“This suggests either (i) senior figure in HR itself, possibly one who has left recently and is disgusted by all the cover-ups, or (ii) senior arts & humanities Professor, possibly close to the senior management”
In either case we are talking about someone with access to tonnes of files. Not just the Goldhill one. This would be just be the first opener on the storyboard.