The Figure illustrates the growth of the 21 Group blog, showing the number of unique user sessions recorded each month since it was launched.
It now attracts around 13,000 sessions per month — an impressive figure given the blog’s specialised subject matter.
At this level of traffic, we are advised that the site could potentially generate some income through online advertising, though only modestly (perhaps around £1,000 per year).
That said, we have no plans to monetise the blog. It is inexpensive to maintain, and we believe it serves an important role in holding universities to account and giving voice to the disenfranchised. We mention it merely to benchmark its success.
We would also like to remind readers of our comments policy. We support freedom of speech, but reserve the right to remove comments that are abusive or defamatory. If you choose to comment, we recommend using a VPN. We do not disclose the identities of commenters to any third party.
If you would like a comment to be removed, please contact us at [email protected]. We have, on occasions, removed or redacted comments at users’ requests. We also give criticised individuals the right of reply.
We welcome contributions for blog posts and are keen to highlight the experiences of those who feel let down by universities, in the UK or elsewhere.
“At this level of traffic, we are advised that the site could potentially generate some income through online advertising, though only modestly”
At this rate, namely after the most emblematic cases get fully public in the next coming weeks, the potential income can only increase with time. It could be used, for example, to organize public sessions where victims of bullying and harassment in universities willing to speak could “Break the Silence.” Or to cover the costs of the book/website discussed here (https://21percent.org/?p=2729). More than ever, we need these initiatives!
The next iteration needs to be to set up a semi-open, semi closed reddit style discussion forum, in which users from different universities and departments can more openly contact one another, share their stories and evidence, and organise in a space where that is arguably more comfortable than having to jump straight to fully public discussion in front of the whole world.
That is a really great idea — if we could get that up and running, it would be a game changer
Thank you. The site is a solitary candle in the darkness.
Let there be light.
First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they attack you. Then you win.
It’s amazing that no-one thought of this before. I know many ECRs at Cambridge who don’t comment but read the blog and now they know what will happen if they make a Grievance. It really has been so influential in Cambridge in “Breaking the Silence”
“It’s amazing that no-one thought of this before.”
Most people who experience abuse in Cambridge either accept that is how it is and let it go and/or accept NDAs and/or simply leave Cambridge to avoid further problems. I trust people understand that there has been resistance to the existence of this site and those who openly criticise the University and disclose their identity such as me get retaliations from the University. The investigation against me explicitly mentions my posts in the 21 Group as evidence of “defamation” but, obviously, they ignored the fact that truth is a complete defence against defamation claims, and that I have not said anything in the last 36 months that is not true. I am not advocating that people should behave the same I did. It is up to them. It was my choice so that others could see what the University is willing to do to silence and break members to cover up misconduct. However, and coming back to your point above, these initiates and responses come at a personal cost that not everyone is willing to pay, which may help to explain the limited number of initiates in the past. Hopefully after the upcoming employment tribunal cases, namely the one in June, people will better understand the need for platforms like this and the motivations behind those who created.
There’s a lot of silent suffering among ECRs. If the university just said to people honestly that the deal is that you work here 1-3 years and have zero prospect of continuation, but still, can use this as a stepping stone in your career and we will support you with that, that would be fine, and produce a stream of ECR alumni who were happy and on good, even great terms with the university. But the broken promises, dishonest communication, lack of contractual or career clarity and support, exploitation over grants and teaching hours, and brutal retaliation have produced the opposite, almost a kind of “anti-alumni community” that instead of wanting to help it from positions in industry, government and the broader academy, feel they have outstanding scores to settle.
“If the university just said to people honestly that the deal is…”
Unfortunately, this expectation is not realistic in a culture that rests in secrecy and cover ups. The words quoted below will resonate with all those who engaged with the University in topics that can affect institutional reputation:
“Cambridge academics have accused the university of “maximal obfuscation”…”
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2026/jan/31/cambridge-university-accused-obfuscation-arms-investment
I did not know that 1300 members contributed to this action, suggesting that even in Cambridge enough people can be mobilized when it is necessary. I guess the question is what the tipping point is, how far are we from it, and what can be done for the same issues do not happen over and over:
“Dr Peter Hutchinson later resigned from Trinity Hall in November 2019 after more than 1,300 staff and students protested and it later emerged that he had published an erotic novel about students the year nearly a dozen complaints of harassment had been made against him.”
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-58396360
“Dr Peter Hutchinson later resigned from Trinity Hall in November 2019 after more than 1,300 staff and students protested …”
Given the grotesque stupidity of our HR, I am surprised they did not launch 1,300 separate investigations into staff and students on the grounds that they were bullying Dr Peter Hutchinson.
Don’t worry they did a great job of upholding the policy:
https://www.bbc.com/news/education-50089170
Meanwhile, in other news, here’s the latest from BP, where the Chairman has just been forced out over multiple allegations of staff bullying and behavioural misconduct.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cjrppppwvwlo
As the FT continues: “He became the third BP chief executive to leave the company under a cloud since 2007, when Lord John Browne stepped down following revelations he had lied to a UK court”.
I think the university really dodged a bullet by having Lord Smith instead of Browne as Chancellor.
“the university really dodged a bullet by having Lord Smith instead of Browne as Chancellor”
True, but the fact that Browne could be worse than Smith, does not make the latter good. Given the amount of scandals engulfing Cambridge at the moment and those about to be public, having someone apparently prone to scandals like Browne could actually sink the boat faster and the institution could properly reborn perhaps with a new Chancellor. We spent months with the hope that Smith would do something about the current situation, multiple people contacted him directly, and as far as I know, the looked the other way as all the others who were contacted before.
The Chancellor doesn’t have a huge amount of executive authority, he’s the Chairman not the CEO. I think the issue is that he does raise issues with the CEO (VC) but somehow they aren’t addressed. Of course in a public corporation that would typically mean shareholders pressuring the Chair to replace the CEO with someone more hands-on and willing tp take personal risks to turn the company around. In the case of Cambridge there’s a bit of a governance problem because while in theory Regent House members are like the shareholders, and elect the Chancellor, they do not have the same direct capacity to force the Chair to action, even when the management has ignored majority vote decisions by the Regent House and/or failed to publish the accounts on time (the leadership salary report that was due in late Feb). BP in that sense is far better governed, indeed it is a sign of that being true that they have replaced so many CEOs in a timely fashion.
This is our impression, the Chancellor does raise issues but the Vice Chancellor seems to prefer the advice of others. Hence, the debacle over the Vet School.
I am afraid I do not believe that the Chancellor of Cambridge University is powerless when/if he really accepts and acknowledges that there are serious problems in his institution. A Chancellor who has indeed tried his/her best to intervene by contacting the VC and other senior leadership but was ignored, could always step down in protest and could report those attempts to address the problems to the press. Such an action would likely create a major pressure on multiple people to either step down or at least accept external intervention such as an external review of HR (and OSCCA!) practices.
Correct me if I am wrong, but Lord Smith was not particularly excited with the idea of appointing an external Ombudsman, which was originally proposed by Professor Evans.
“21 Group helps Cambridge avert major leadership scandal”
You joke but this is actually true – imagine the chaos that would have erupted if Browne won the race. The Guardian would have had a field day and plenty of other papers had scores to settle over their BP coverage. Smith likely only won because Wyn entered the campaign and this saved the university from a much bigger and likely quite immediate press fiasco.
True but he would have then moved fast to implement corporate governance reform, perhaps picking up slack from the VC to bring stakeholders on board for the changes needed. I’m sure his time at BP gave him plenty of experience dealing with rival bureaucratic factions and doing the hard work to get them into consensus over institutional redesign.
An interesting observation — but Browne had just too much baggage from tuition fees. His election would have caused a serious rift in the University.
The tuition fee debacle is looking more and more like a catastrophe, with almost everyone unhappy.
This includes: students, parents & families, educators, academics and many politicians — mostly centered around concerns about debt, intergenerational fairness, and access to education.
“We are excited to announce the IoA’s new “Seminar Stroll” initiative.
These are short, regular walks that will take place shortly after the Wednesday seminars. They provide a space for chatting, reflection, and enjoying the Madingley Rise foliage & fauna. This is a low commitment opportunity for getting outside the office, making new connections, and reaffirming existing ones.”
We are excited to announce an Employment Tribunal, over an entire month, 1-28 June, sadly involving no foliage & fauna, but a space for chatting and reflection surely about the IoA, albeit on a quite different scale.
From the chart it looks like we passed the event horizon some time last month… and things are now getting a tad spaghettified @@@@@ — .