What does it take for Cambridge University to expel a student?
(a) making threats to kill a fellow student?
(c) setting fire to a fellow student?
(d) sending emails?
We thank Dr Nuno Oliveira for his testimony below.
I know the answer — because it happened to me.
I am one of the very few students ever expelled by University of Cambridge — recently ranked the UK’s best employer by the Financial Times. On 30 April 2026, I received a notice from the Office of Student Conduct, Complaints and Appeals (OSCCA):
“With immediate effect, you are permanently excluded from membership of the University… You will not be able to complete your PhD … You will not be able to return in the future.”
That was the outcome of an “investigation” launched after I raised complaints about harassment and research misconduct by senior academics — complaints that were never addressed.
Instead, after 36 months of persistence on my part, those involved — and those who had enabled the cover-up — produced witness statements against me. Statements I was never allowed to see.
The issues began in the Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics (DAMTP) during my time as a postdoctoral fellow. Yet the consequences were imposed on my part-time PhD in a completely different department, History and Philosophy of Science (HPS) — one with no connection to the original misconduct.
The University took my job and my research, disregarded the terms of my UKRI grant, ignored every complaint I filed and provided misleading information about my rights
It failed to follow its own whistleblowing and safeguarding policies.
I was placed under sweeping “precautionary measures,” effectively silencing me by barring me from contacting senior leadership, HR, and colleagues by email. It prevented me from speaking to co-authors on my own research and restricted my discussions with a senior professor willing to help. Even my personal belongings — essential for my research — were withheld.
And throughout it all, the list of people aware of these events grew: the University Council, General Board, Board of Scrutiny, Proctors, and College leadership. No one intervened.
What stays with me is not just the lack of support — it’s the message that silence sends.
It tells those responsible that they are untouchable. It tells others that speaking up comes at a cost.
Over the past three years, I have learned how reputation management can eclipse truth. How institutions protect themselves first. And how easily individuals can be erased when they challenge power.
Still, they failed to break me.
If anything, this has only strengthened my resolve to speak out—so others do not have to endure the same.
This is not just a personal story. It reflects a deeper failure across UK higher education.
An institution celebrated globally for excellence has, in this case, demonstrated something else entirely: poor governance, lack of accountability, and a system where hierarchy overrides truth.
The 21 Group applauds Dr Oliveira for his persistence and courage.
29 Comments
Karma · 7 May 2026 at 07:10
HR need to resign now. Immediately.
Physicist · 7 May 2026 at 07:18
The scale of problems at the School of Physical Sciences means that there is huge job ahead for the new Head of School.
Darwin College must be looking on with some nervousness
TheResearcher · 7 May 2026 at 09:37
“The 21 Group applauds Dr Oliveira for his persistence and courage.”
Please understand that it is necessary more than persistence and courage to have reports of misconduct from senior members fairly addressed at Cambridge University at the moment, after all one can be accused of “unreasonably persistent behaviour” in the end and be expelled for telling facts that were never addressed. I already described how this disturbing experienced impacted me and my health in previous posts, namely in (https://21percent.org/?p=3449), and thus I will share something else below.
Many months ago, a very senior member of Cambridge told me that he knew very few people who had openly challenged institutional misconduct, namely in universities, and had ‘survived’ and by this he meant in terms of health but also academic reputation. He put me in touch with one person he knew and I met him. This person, a very senior Professor in another University, indeed openly talks about bullying and harassment in academia, namely on the impact of Non-Disclosure Agreements. What people do not know is that he too had signed a Non-Disclosure Agreement in his previous university regarding a report of misconduct he had done and that had largely been covered up. When I met him, I could immediately see that he still carried the weight of signing that NDA and for accepting the reference letters from those people he knew were dishonest.
This is the real reason why I was expelled. There is absolutely nothing that Cambridge University can do to silence me. There is no money they can offer me to prevent me from openly challenging the degrading situation we currently are at Cambridge. This is a kind of power that a powerful institution like Cambridge University is not used to encounter. For those who do not understand the timing, I had to be expelled before June, because several people involved in the case of Astronomy were also involved in mine at DAMTP. It would be very concerning if the people who wrote ‘witness statements’ against me were to be shown dishonest and incompetent in a public trial. These managers know that I will speak, that there is nothing they can do to prevent from speaking, and the only thing they had left was preventing from speaking as a member of Cambridge University.
For those who are considering reporting the misconduct they experienced or witnessed, note that you may have a strenuous path ahead if you have to face the individuals I had to at Cambridge University and other institutions, but it will ultimately reveal your real character. I could have finished my degree in silence, and that is what the university and college wanted. I chose not to be silent, and I do not regret it at all.
As you can imagine, my story is not over yet, but ssssssssh for now, it is confidential! 😉
SPARTACUS · 7 May 2026 at 10:23
This gladiator knows absolutely no detail about the case of Dr Oliveira. But having said that it is struck by the brutality and asymmetry of the outcome! What could possibly justify this expulsion? Was Dr Oliveira violent towards fellow students, teachers or senior leadership? If the answer is YES then it surely must be in the public interest that UCam spells it out in detail! If the answer is NO then UCam is not commiting an injustice! It is acting in an unlawful and possibly criminal way. Being expelled as a student is an academic death sentence! How can it be possibly justified? Is Lord Smith content with this? I can no longer expect that the American Queen and her cronies have any dignity or compassion left so asking them is a total waste of time. UCam has lost its compass! It is a pit of rot and decay! It stinks of corruption and lack of any form of integrity!
TheResearcher · 7 May 2026 at 11:13
“Being expelled as a student is an academic death sentence”
I am planning to put it in my CV by the way, and will get some merch with something along the lines “I was expelled at Cambridge University for reporting harassment and research misconduct.” I will finish that PhD anyway, do not worry, even if I have to start it from scratch!
Lord Smith knows about my situation since before he was a Chancellor as I contacted all candidates at the time and he was one those who replied. Moreover, Lord Smith has been cced in all the emails, namely those sent to University Council, General Board, Board of Scrutiny, and many others. No one raised their voice, literally no one. This is the real Cambridge that most people do not know.
101 · 7 May 2026 at 10:34
36 months seems like a massive drag on everyone’s time. Their job is to intervene early and achieve resolution and they obviously aren’t doing that. Regardless of the details there is obviously a basic lack of managerial accountability. In the private sector they’d fire any case manager who left a case that long. Their KPI would be speed of resolution and bad KPIs would see the case officer moved out first before any member of staff faced consequences.
21percent.org · 7 May 2026 at 11:51
This is a very good point (though 36 months is not long for Cambridge, there are cases going on much longer than that).
But your point is absolutely correct — these cases are grotesque failures of HR. They simply should not be happening.
HR’s job is to sort things out quickly and make sure things don’t escalate.
And also as you say, this wouldn’t happen in the private sector. The HR manager responsible for this would be sacked.
TheResearcher · 7 May 2026 at 12:15
To clarify, 36 months was not the investigation against me. 36 months includes the reports I had done prior to the investigation against me, reports originally done in DAMTP about people from DAMTP but that then got escalated to University HR (who were advising DAMTP on how to respond to my reports) and OSCCA (who were being advised by University HR). For very many months, they gaslighted me or simply ignored what I said and did not run an investigation against those I had complained about. As I became increasingly vocal, namely externally to MPs and journalists (ccing Cambridge leadership), they decided to bring together all those who I had complained about, asked them to produce ‘witness statements’ against me, and these became facts even though I was never allowed to see or challenge the statements. Of course, the investigation against me ignored all the complaints I and third parties had done against the individuals who were never investigated and wrote witness statements against me.
The investigation against me started in August 2025. I received the report of the ‘Discipline Committee’ on April 13 giving me the “extraordinary” opportunity to provide information including medical evidence, when Cambridge University had not done anything except ignore all the information I had sent them, including the letters from my GP, and on April 30 I was expelled. This is the timeline. However, in parallel to this story, we have a Professor who was shown to sexually harass a female student, he continued to teach after the investigation’s report was produced, multiple women came forward to raise concerns about his conduct, and it is not even clear at this stage after several months the report was known if he will have a disciplinary action. The situation is so bizarre that it is hard to believe, but it is very real!
Blacklisted · 7 May 2026 at 11:29
The aspect that ought to be of very significant concern to us all, is the highly personal and retaliatory nature of this conflict. The (trademark) brutality and absence of proportionality has already been noted.
At times on this blog, the grotesque measures taken against this student seemed to happen almost in real time, as and when he spoke up about a particular individual in SPS HR, about conduct on their part which would and should have merited expulsion a long time ago, were they not shielded from investigatory and disciplinary action through their allegiance and collaboration with the legal team.
The University thus enables individuals in advisory roles to become executors on their own terms, and to involve and entice those with a responsibility to ensure that such gross misconduct and conflict of interest never happens, to contribute instead to the execution by allowing their names and their positions to be misused and their witness statements to be written for them.
TheResearcher · 7 May 2026 at 13:01
You are right. This is indeed a very personal and retaliatory conflict. All the people who complained about me, all without exception, those who wrote ‘witness statements’ I never saw (with the exception of one that was uploaded by mistake by a person who damaged many people in the same School), were exactly the individuals I had complained about and who were never investigated themselves. It is a very personal and retaliatory conflict because I exposed their behaviour against me and others, and I will continue to do so with or without Cambridge membership. Of course, the key question is who in the “University” allowed them—or encouraged them—to do that after many months of seeing my own complaints being ignored. To be clear, this was not a decision of the 10 individuals who complained about me, but someone else above them who told them that was the best solution in this particular case. Their hope was that investigation would silence me, at least during in degree, but it did not work as planned…
CURIOUS · 7 May 2026 at 13:24
Dr Oliveira has been expelled. His expulsion letter with a justification for this severe and final disciplinary measure cannot be ‘secret’! Can Dr Oliveira please post the letter here, including who signed it.
TheResearcher · 7 May 2026 at 14:15
If the 21 Group lets me post it here, I will. There is nothing confidential about my case, despite all the efforts of Cambridge University and many of its senior managers.
21percent.org · 7 May 2026 at 16:30
The 21 Group believes in freedom of speech. The 21 Group notes the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act makes it illegal to restrict disclosure of bullying or harassment allegations
TheResearcher · 7 May 2026 at 17:34
OK then. Shall I copy/paste the text here? It’s 9 pages…
I should say that this particular letter with the ‘outcome’ does not have the names of the people who complained about me except those who I am still forbidden from contacting—yes, despite not being a member the “University” still wants to prevent me from contacting hundreds of people—a much larger number than those who complained about me. It includes the person who signed the letter, of course, but this information is not as relevant as one may think. The person who signed the letter is Ms Rose Garner Secretary who presents herself as the “Secretary of the Student Discipline Committee” but it is a Senior Case Handler of OSCCA, and, importantly, managed by a person who complained about me, the Head of OSCCA Ms Nikki Bannister.
The full list of people who wrote ‘witness statements’ against me is Dr Mike Glover, Mr Kris Cressy, Dr Alex Pryce, Ms Nikki Bannister, Ms Neya Omar, Ms Louise Akroyd, Professor Colm-cille P. Caulfield, Professor Raymond Goldstein, Ms Rachel Plunkett and Mr James Wilcock. Equally important are the names of the “Discipline Committee” that made the decisions, the Chair, Professor Graham Virgo (Professor of English Private Law, Master of Downing College), the Regent House member Professor Karen Ottewell (Professor of Contrastive Rhetoric and Written Articulacy, Lucy Cavendish College) and the Student representative, Mr Matthew Copeman (Cambridge Student Union Sabbatical Officer). I would think that they needed external member(s), but what do I know about Cambridge processes and procedures. Regardless, I pointed out that Professor Virgo had conflicts of interest and this issue was not addressed.
CURIOUS · 7 May 2026 at 17:46
Post the PDF of the full letter. 21percent can help you do so.
TheResearcher · 7 May 2026 at 17:59
Sure. I will contact the 21 Group and hopefully it can be done. I can imagine many people getting really upset with that idea as after all it is “confidential” 😉
Note that some of the things written there are incorrect and misleading and were left there to prevent me from sharing the documents. They clearly do not know me.
DO IT PLEASE! · 7 May 2026 at 17:11
Post the PDF of the letter!
Eileen Nugent · 7 May 2026 at 14:27
Dr Oliveira tried to reason with an organisation as a person at a point in time when that organisation was in no fit state to reason with a person as an organisation.
A person in a fit state to reason with an organisation as a person being expelled from an organisation in no fit state to reason with a person as an organisation while the person is trying to reason with the organisation as a person is a completely different outcome to a person in no fit state to reason with an organisation as a person being expelled from an organisation in a fit state to reason with a person as an organisation while the organisation is trying to reason with a person as an organisation.
If a person is in a fit state to reason with an organisation as a person & is expelled by an organisation in no fit state to reason with a person as an organisation while trying to reason with the organisation as a person then it is possible for the expulsion to strengthen the resolve of a person to speak up and for a person to emerge unbroken as happened in Dr Oliveira’s case. That is by no means a guaranteed outcome as there is typically an asymmetry of the impact of an unreasonable organisation on a person as compared to the impact of an unreasonable person on an organisation.
This is what it ultimately comes down to in these cases – was the overall set of organisational actions taken with respect to a person reasonable or unreasonable in the circumstances of the case.
Reasoning with an organisation as a person is completely different task to reasoning with a person or a group of other people as a person. To reason with an organisation as a person it is necessary to understand the organisation as a distinct entity separate from the group of people who happen to be leading the organisation at one point in time. It is necessary to understand the character of the organisation before proceeding with any challenging interaction with the organisation. It is necessary to understand the organisations governance structure, the legal constraints the organisation is under, what the organisation can and cannot do in a situation, what approach to getting the organisation to a more reasonable state has the highest probability of success, what due pressure looks like for an organisation in a given situation.
Dr Oliveira has emerged unbroken and with a strengthened resolve to speak up, no NDA was signed, no financial compensation was taken, one academic career path built together with one academic community might have been blocked but Dr Oliveira is off to find another academic community to build a different academic career path together with …. I too applaud his persistence and his courage …. his character reminds me of the character of another ….. not a person …. but a distinct entity nonetheless.
Eileen Nugent · 7 May 2026 at 14:53
If I had a PhD student under my supervision in this position I would take the case to Regent House but this is why I am no longer a member of Cambridge or in academia because it’s no longer possible to reason with a university as a person without generating prolonged – years long – unnecessary conflict.
Eileen Nugent · 7 May 2026 at 21:03
I am not referring to the conflict generated during the whistleblowing situation I encountered as unnecessary conflict because I think organisational compliance with the legal obligation to regulate work-related stress is genuinely difficult to understand both for an organisation and for a person. I think Cambridge has the highest potential of any organisation to work out how to comply with that particular legal obligation in a rational & common sense way.
I mean all the unnecessary conflict involved in surviving in academia which is not something specific to Cambridge. If a PhD supervisor is not being treated fairly & reasonably in academia themselves then it’s much harder for that PhD supervisor to create an educational environment for PhD students where PhD students are treated fairly & reasonably in academia.
SPARTACUS · 7 May 2026 at 18:44
“Dr Mike Glover, Mr Kris Cressy, Dr Alex Pryce, Ms Nikki Bannister, Ms Neya Omar, Ms Louise Akroyd, Professor Colm-cille P. Caulfield, Professor Raymond Goldstein, Ms Rachel Plunkett and Mr James Wilcock.”
ALL TO DESTROY A STUDENT!!!! UNBELIEVABLE!! How can they sleep with their conscience????*
TheResearcher · 7 May 2026 at 19:41
@SPARTACUS, the list of people involved is actually much bigger, namely if I include people from college, but the most senior people (apart from Dr Glover) decided not to be directly involved in this expulsion because they have already enough problems, namely because of Astronomy… Can’t you spot who is missing from that list that should be there?
As you will see if the document with the final decision is uploaded, I am even forbidden from contacting Ms Emma Rampton who “stepped down” as Registrary in and no longer works for the University since December, and Ms Alice Benton who retired many months ago… This is a completely new level of surrealism.
BlackDeath · 7 May 2026 at 19:46
Think Neya Omar has gone, she’s no longer listed on the plague ship!
https://www.physsci.cam.ac.uk/school-office-contacts
TheResearcher · 7 May 2026 at 20:23
Ms Neya Omar was HR Business Partner at the School of Physical Sciences and was directly managed by Ms Louise Akroyd. She left recently indeed, but before she did, she submitted a “witness statement” against me. This person is no different from Ms Louise Akroyd for those who know Ms Akroyd. Surely learned a lot from her, including sharing documents to parties who could not read them. The concept of “confidentiality” is a complete joke in Cambridge and that is why I no longer follow it, regardless of their attemtps otherwise.
Note that if you search these people now, several of them changed position in Cambridge, some were Heads of Department, Senior Investigators at OSCCA, or HR managers in Medicine, but moved on to other rules. They are still around though.
TheResearcher · 7 May 2026 at 20:24
roles
Confused · 7 May 2026 at 20:05
This does seem like a remarkable amount of time and energy to produce the rather shameful outcome of expelling one of our students, when considerably less energy and time were required to meet, apologise, and then, god forbid, think about how to get someone’s study and research plans back on track, as a university is supposed, in theory, to do.
TheResearcher · 7 May 2026 at 21:33
You should know that my original complaint at DAMTP (June 2023) only asked direct apolagies. It could have been solved in 10 minutes, but instead the “University” (read in this case, University HR) decided to cover it up. 36 months after, and involving very many people, including all the senior leadership of UCam because they all know about this, several MPs and other externaal bodies, the “University” decided to expel me as a student when the issues had nothing to do with my student status. If this is not mismanagement, I do not know what mismanagement is. The boat continues in route towards the iceberg and it is moving fast (https://21percent.org/?p=3509).
Eileen Nugent · 8 May 2026 at 01:20
The problem is : people can avoid conflict with the university for many years by making adjustments for the university but eventually the stressors can become too abnormal to avoid this new legal obligation to raise work-related and/or education-related stress concerns especially if in any kind of safeguarding or governance role.
If have already made adjustments for the university over many years to avoid conflict with the university because it looks like a very difficult organisation to challenge based on other cases then at the point forced to raise health and safety concerns the case could already be in an advanced state of seriousness and the university is then unlikely to offer any mediation so it becomes very difficult to minimise conflict with the university from that point forward.
The university places very little value on mediation & on organisational actions to actively minimise conflict with people. It’s too used to people – especially early career researchers – making adjustments for the university while it stays in an unreasonable state i.e. people taking actions to actively minimise conflict with the university. It currently lacks the ability to work together with people to maintain working relationships in the event of any organisational problems.
TheResearcher · 7 May 2026 at 21:12
Please let’s not forget that we should all be proud with this ranking!
https://www.ft.com/content/6ce8bb29-824b-4ce5-a459-2ead769737e2
Either proud or humiliated. I feel the latter, but many in UCam feel the former, namely Professor Kamal Munir who forgot to mention this investigation to Mr Daniel Zeichner MP when he reassured Mr Zeichner that my health was the priority of “all of us.”