This is Gillian Tett, Provost of King’s College, Cambridge. The image shows her at a Financial Times party in 2014. (Image credit: Financial Times licensed under Wikimedia Commons)
Two Fellows of King’s College have been found guilty of sexual misconduct, the classicist Prof Simon Goldhill and the geophysicist Prof Herbert Huppert.
Readers of the blog will be familiar with the Simon Goldhill Scandal (see for example here and here). His behaviour was well-known in the Classics Department and covered up. Similarly, the Herbert Huppert Scandal (see here) was an open secret at his College, Department and even the Royal Society.
In an article in The Times, Gillian Tett is quoted as saying
“I came to King’s with a personal commitment to build a community where every member is valued, protected and treated with dignity. The recent reporting has been deeply painful — for those directly affected, and for all of us who care about this community.
“I am grateful to those who have had the courage to come forward. I want them to know that they are heard, and that action is being taken. I am personally committed to ensuring that every member of King’s is treated with dignity and respect.” [Gillian Tett]
These are powerful words — and, crucially, they have been matched by action. Simon Goldhill and Herbert Huppert are no longer Fellows of King’s College.
It is hard to recall a comparable moment in Cambridge.
For years, we have heard fine words from the University’s senior leadership. What has been lacking is meaningful action — replaced instead by delay, deflection, and, so often, quiet institutional cover-ups.
We must make this moment count.
On Monday, our focus will be at Bury St Edmunds Employment Tribunal. This is another shocking case, another watershed moment.
Thanks to the principle of Open Justice, the proceedings of the Tribunal can be viewed by all interested. The witness statements and bundle will be available electronically as well. Please watch if you can, though the details are upsetting.
Cross-examination begins at 10.00 am.
Where did you read that Goldhill is no longer a Fellow of King’s?
https://www.kings.cam.ac.uk/people/simon-goldhill
If you infer consequence by virtue he resigned from his university post, it is not clear to me the intervention of Dr Tett on that. Regardless, I would be interested to know where Dr Tett said those words quoted in The Times, and what was her audience.
Goldhill has resigned his University position. If he has resigned his University position, he can no longer be an Official Fellow of King’s College.
He can be some other class of Fellow. For example, he can be made a Life Fellow at King’s, or a Bye-Fellow, or Senior Research Fellow, though all seem unlikely
We suspect the website has not been updated yet — let’s check next week. Our guess is the webpage will be gone.
Note that regarding Huppert, the Times article regarding the actions of king’s explicitly says “A college spokesperson confirmed that Huppert had been subject to disciplinary measures and was “no longer a fellow or member of King’s College,” while the same was not yet said regarding Goldhill as far as I know, but correct me if I am wrong.
We’d need to look at the Statutes of the College to be sure, but our belief is that if Goldhill is no longer a holder of a University position, his Official Fellowship has ended.
Maybe some more knowledgable on the Statutes of King’s College can tell us.
Although Goldhill “resigned”, it’s obvious that he was about to be pushed.
Yes, I understand, and I doubt that he wants any affiliation after all the negative publicity he had. My point was that it is not clear how Tett contributed to the resignation. I would be more willing to believe that he was pushed by the University so that a disciplinary action against him is no longer needed, and the University does not need to admit that they expelled him. His resignation really helped the University because, as you know, UCam can only expel students with unreasonably persistent behaviour 😉
The bar for being a hero at Cambridge is pretty low, but I guess Tett was smart enough to see in advance where all this is going and that if she wants to survive this she needed to make clear that wherever HR, VC and Pro VC end their journey, she sure as hell won’t be joining for the ride.
Agree totally! She only spoke when the two King’s College fellows were already ‘dead’. Easy to be brave at that stage.
That’s the difference between academics and heads of house. Academics depend on the university for everything, salary, funding, everything. They have no hesitation in overlooking the murder of a student, or one of their own colleagues, out of sheer fear, hypocrisy and cowardice. That is now clear.
“Academics depend on the university for everything, salary, funding, everything. They have no hesitation in overlooking the murder of a student, or one of their own colleagues, out of sheer fear, hypocrisy and cowardice. That is now clear.”
Indeed.
“That’s the difference between academics and heads of house.”
I was not yet persuaded that Tett did anything about these cases, but one thing is clear to me, if she is a hero because she intervened, not all heads of house are. Ask the Master of Christ’s College Lord Simon McDonald what he has been up to for months. Believe it or not, he is no different from Kamal Munir. One of his students was expelled for reporting misconduct of senior staff and Lord McDonald did not even contact him, while a few months before he had said this to the student:
“as I said to Professor Evans this morning, I do expect the university to investigate that complaint [the complaint from the student that was never investigated] 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.” Lord Simon McDonald, 2 October 2025
Lord Glossover was once much better than this:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/nov/14/dominic-raab-was-warned-about-his-behaviour-by-top-foreign-office-official
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpqwlwndj9yo
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/dominic-raab-bully-simon-mcdonald-b2224725.html
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-62047883
All principled interventions by Simon McDonald. Since he came to Cambridge, he’s been an inveterate upholder of the rights of bullies. Cambridge’s grim aura of repression — think Bucharest in the 1990s — has descended upon him.
“Since he came to Cambridge, he’s been an inveterate upholder of the rights of bullies.”
I am willing to accept that the cover up culture of Cambridge changes people, not all people of course, but many may change. This view does not seem to apply to Lord Glossover as he had plenty of opportunities to reflect and intervene positively, but either looked the other way or made the situation even worse. I thus more easily believe that he brought this character with him to Cambridge, than that he was changed by the institution.
Next time people see Lord Glossover, ask him what will happen to the Fellowship of the Respondent of the Employment Tribunal case that started earlier this month who is a Fellow from his College, and if she had reported conflicts before joining the Fellowship in 2024. After all, this Employment Tribunal case is expected to have major media impact that may affect the reputation of the College, not least because a few weeks before a student from the same college had been expelled after reporting misconduct.
Lord McDonald’s comments in the BBC interview about the Pincher scandal are interesting:
“I think they need to come clean. I think that the language is ambiguous, err, it’s sort of, err, the sort of telling the truth and crossing your fingers at the same time and hoping that people are not too forensic in their subsequent questioning. And I think that is not working.”
This is exactly what is happening in the University, and why people are sucked into the lies and misdeeds of others at very high level.
Those who then dare to be forensic in their questioning, which is what one would expect to happen in an academic community – perhaps even with some reasonable persistence – are made to pay for it with brutal retaliation.
In agreement with MUSKETEER, that really marks the end of 800 years of scholarly excellence.
“sort of telling the truth and crossing your fingers at the same time and hoping that people are not too forensic”
That is exactly the problem! Academia is full of bullshitters who just play with words without knowing anything of substance, and our humanities departments are absolutely full of it. Even back in the days of The Postmodernism Generator (look it up) this was already true – today you can pop out their nonsense at 100% fidelity 24/7 just with a simple AI prompt.
If I ever have to sit through another vacuous talk or video on “bullying and harassment” from a Pro VC who systematically ignores and retaliates against whistleblowers as a matter of policy – or a simpering talk on AI from someone who has never written a single line of code in their entire life – I think my brains are going to explode. No more BS and word-waffle.
@Raven, In an email sent directly to me, Lord McDonald wrote on 2 October 2025:
“As a member of our community, we care about your welfare. This has been made clear to you on many occasions. We treat you with the same courtesy and respect as any other member of our community.”
A few weeks later, on 9 December 2025, the same Lord McDonald wrote this text full of “courtesy and respect” about me and sent it to my Tutor:
“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.”
I really hope that he makes a better job as a member of the Remuneration Committee of UCam than he is as Head of House, but from what you guys report, it is not clear that is true!
https://www.governanceandcompliance.admin.cam.ac.uk/university-committees/remuneration-committee
There are plenty of Fellows who are guilty of sexual harassment and remain at their Colleges
Eg Mary Hockaday at Trinity Hall has shown no such determination to remove such Fellows.
Excellent … if you are on the train with the HR, the VC and the Pro-VC from Community & Engagement, disembark immediately.
This train is going to crash. Maybe even this week.
Bullies and harassers never stop until they are exposed for all to see.
On the day of total transparency there will be no more secrets.
For whatever its worth I believe it is genuinely naive to believe a journalist will help fix UCam. We are a UNIVERSITY made of scholars, researchers, teachers and students. Universities have always been run by its Faculty (obviously taking into account student’s views). Cambridge needs to be saved from its rotten, and frankly corrupt, oligarchy and return to its 800 year ethos of excellence, rigour and integrity! The current regime of the Anerican Queen, after the Little Canadian lawyer, is incompetent, inept, immoral and disastrous. UCam needs refounding!
Your link to the Huppert blog post is dead, was the post removed? Can it be reinstated.
We think the link it is now working
We received a complaint from Shakespeare Martineau about the final paragraph & have re-worded it so as to ensure complete clarity.
How are Shakespeare Martineau involved in protecting harassers? Would that be the same Shakespeare Martineau which Cambridge paid to deliver training seminars on how to break up pro-Palestine protests?
https://www.arabnews.pk/node/2606410/world
Shakespeare Martineau are one of the big players in supporting Universities in law cases
https://www.shma.co.uk/sectors/education/higher-education/
Scroll to the end of “Our Higher Education Experts” and you will see Paul Greatrix, for many years the Registrar at Nottingham University
The same Nottingham University where our friends and colleagues are facing redundancy because of gross financial mismanagement of the University’s resources
I think the link of Huppert is not working yet, but I am surprised that SM was unhappy with that sentence and did not bother with the start of the post with the explicit link between Cambridge University and the Consigliere University… I have the gut feeling that a major reason why I was expelled was because I encouraged the University Council, General Board, Proctors, Board of Scrutiny and others to check what was about to happen in the Consigliere University. Why is that a problem? 😅
I have been having the pleasure to interact with SM as staff and as student!
Thanks, working now we hope.
Many controversies involving Paul Greatrix, so this says a lot about SM as an organisation.
The main one – and rather pertinent to the stories on Cambridge yet to break – involve use of police by Nottingham University to harass students and whistleblowers. In May 2008, under the watch of Paul Greatrix, MA student Rizwaan Sabir, who was writing about counter-terrorism, was reported to police after downloading materials relevant to his research.
After his release, the Registrar refused to engage with Sabir’s concerns. Lecturer Dr Rod Thornton later published a 112-page paper alleging that University management was responsible for the wrongful arrests and had then sought to discredit the men. Rather than engage with Dr Thornton’s legitimate concerns, Thornton was suspended in 2011, again under Paul Greatrix as registrar.
The following year, in 2012, The Observer reported that West Midlands police had “fabricated” elements of the case. Sabir was awarded £20,000 from Nottinghamshire Police for false imprisonment.
Paul Greatrix joined Shakespeare Martineau in August 2025.
There is an extremely serious scandal involving the use of the police to arrest a Cambridge academic after false allegations were made
Currently, little can be spoken of this — but we expect this matter to break later this year.
No-one will have told Prof Prentice about this, we guarantee 😉
I wouldn’t be so sure about that. At a minimum the head of legal services had to be briefed and regularly updated, and he would have an obvious duty to have briefed the VC, I think from an early stage.
I think that what the 21 Group meant is that no-one will have told Prof Prentice about this in such a way that can be tracked and later shown that she knew it and did nothing to prevent it. But I may be wrong… Someone should ask her in the next coming days when she shows up at the Bury St Edmunds Employment Tribunal. I wonder who will bring her there. Professor Munir, Lord McDonald or Mr Parsons?
I think if the VC does not know about these matters, that is bad. And given the relentless positivity of the relevant ProVC, she may not realize how bad it is
However, if the VC does know about them and is doing nothing, then this is far worse, she is directly implicated and she is going to end up either resigning or bring forced out.
“relentless positivity of the relevant ProVC”
As xc noted here, “Munir is the ProVC for Lies.”
https://21percent.org/?p=3747
But we already learned from high court hat head of legal David Parsons, the VC, Rampton and Munir were all in the “Gold Team” managing the encampment injunctions. So obviously they would all have known. Otherwise she’d know by now and have fired them all too just like Rampton.
A “deadman switch” is a mechanism whereby, if a whistleblower loses access to their personal computer or phone, for any reason at all, then all material and documents in their online archive are set to “go live” on open web links, TOR, torrent and email lists following a specified time – say a week, a fortnight, or 30 days. The timer setting would be clear
Shakespeare Martineau (and its predecessor SGH Martineau) have been used by Cambridge in almost all of its employment litigation. So if they are pressuring Wyn over some completely unrelated blog post, then the only plausible theory is that they are now worried about publicity over involvement in this case too.
To give one example, in MacKenzie v University of Cambridge, an the unfair-dismissal / re-engagement saga that ran to the Court of Appeal (EWCA Civ 1060), Cambridge’s counsel Clive Sheldon QC was “instructed by Catherine Savage and Andrew Adams of Shakespeare Martineau”, and the firm is named as acting for the University in the related High Court judgment (MacKenzie v University of Cambridge [2017] EWHC 2698 (Admin)).
The scale of problems at Cambridge University can be judged by the following
As you say, at one time, the University used mainly Shakespeare Martineau for its legal problems, specially employment litigation.
It’s now using with Bristows, Mills & Reeve, Farrer & Co, Carter Ruck and DWF as well as SM.
The scale of problems is such that the University now needs a bank of employment law firms to cope.
How much exactly is Cambridge spending on law firms? Previous thread says the figure is buried in the “other operating expenses” line of the budget, and that is now over £1.2bn a year. If the spending on legal advice over just one issue (the C4P protests) came to £1.4m what on earth is the total for all these companies combined?
Bristows should be looked at urgently! They are worse than SM! I called them the bullying law firm. I have seen some of their exchanges shown to me by colleagues and their level of legalised intimidation is disgusting! I also hope under FOI we all will find out how much the University has paid them in the last 5 years. Please @21percent make the FOI request! My guess is the bill runs into millions!
Unfortunately, there is no way that the University’s Information Compliance division will respond positively to such a FOI request by a member of staff or even a journalist
What is needed is to get MPs interested in making the request. We may be quite close to the point that MPs will have to take an interest in what has been happening
Members of UCam, please understand that the University’s Information Compliance division will not give you the data you ask for after submitting a SAR or FOI if they are afraid of what you will do with the data. They will invite to complain to ICO directly, namely in time-sensitive cases. Remember this illustrative case (https://21percent.org/?p=1608) where it is noted that Cambridge Legal
“sued University of Cambridge and Dr James Knapton, Information Compliance Officer, for refusing to disclose an employee’s personal data in breach of GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation) resulting in a pre-hearing settlement and the provision of previously withheld information.”
Dr Knapton remains as the Information Compliance Officer after this, and has done the same with me when I asked information that Professor Kamal Munir and Dr Michael Glover hold about me. I can share with you a long list of excuses he and his colleagues give to prevent the sharing of information, and the same is true for FOI requests. An institution that rests on secrecy and cover ups cannot afford sharing data that expose these practices, namely when they know the individuals intend to publish them.
Also see https://21percent.org/?p=2925#comment-3287
Non adherence to GDPR is common practice across the sector.
“The University has estimated that the time required to locate, retrieve and extract the information you have requested would considerably surpass 18 hours of staff time charged at £25 per hour, and therefore that your request exceeds the appropriate limit of £450 as set out in the Freedom of Information and Data Protection (Appropriate Limit and Fees) Regulations 2004.”
Yes, I got this one too. The direct line manager of Zoe Allwood is James Knapton…
Let me get this straight. They spend up to beyond a million pounds fighting individual court cases – but their budget limit for handling FOIs is 450 quid? That is less than one hour of time/fees for many in their sprawling legal squad.
I’d love to know what Knapton thinks about all this. I mean, presumably he knows all the cases and I seriously doubt he is on 500 quid an hour like the lawyers get.
That is what we have to put up with yes. And if you appeal to the DPO, it is a complete waste of time. But then the question is, what shall a person who understands this do? Ignore it and look the other way, or reporting it? Unfortunately, most people choose the former.
Well, I guess if anyone from the GDPR office turns whistleblower and then gets a settlement, we will know from some kind of multi-million addition to the annual statement of severance payouts. Surely they’d be terrified of them letting all their material loose if they left unhappy.
Our lab was closed after a 4 year investigation based on false allegations that were not upheld upon appeal but it was too late for the lab. We had a total of 3 internal investigations and one external investigation by a barrister (KC no less) – all based on the same allegations. Lab members have all lost their jobs because of this investigation which no one has apologise or even acknowledged. So under FOI, I asked for a copy of the barrister’s report – full report – rejected, redacted report – rejected and finally a summary of the conclusion – rejected. Dr James Knapton wrote “I have considered all the circumstances of the case and have concluded that the FOI Manager was correct to refuse your request for the reasons given. You appear consider that the public has the right to know the outcomes of investigatory processes into individual members of staff, who necessarily would be identifiable from any redacted copy of the information even if others’ identities could be masked. However, I do not consider that such disclosures would be fair and lawful under the terms of data protection legislation. In the circumstances I have nothing to add”.
Who was he actually protecting – I doubt if it was our lab as we would all like to know the truth.
and yes – he encouraged me to go to the ICO!
The ICO is barely an email auto-response – the real ICO is called: Guardian, Times, Times Higher, Telegraph, FT, Bloomberg, Daily Mail, X and LinkedIn.
Careful, “It will very rarely if ever be appropriate to alert the media”!! 😂
https://www.hr.admin.cam.ac.uk/files/whistleblowing_policy_06_04_26.pdf
Of course, James Knapton does what Regina Sachers allows him to do.
There are other players across the HE sector. There was an extraordinary comment added to an article in THE a few days ago (and I hope there is more to come…):
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/universities-unable-investigate-misconduct-top-staff-bik
See comment #3 – most interesting…
Investigating bullying and harassment by the law firms, and naming and shaming the repeat offenders, has to be the next step for this campaign. In theory they claim to act on instruction but we know that is bollocks – in practice they are the ones with the playbook and who “advise” their clients what to do, I expect quite often against their own client’s initial ethical hesitations.
Varsity has not yet covered Evans v Cambridge University + others, but at least we now know that “University begins divestment from banks financing fossil fuels”
https://www.varsity.co.uk/news/31759
What is the most sustainable way to get to Bury St Edmunds Employment Tribunal from Cambridge? I was expecting an answer to this question but unfortunately, the issue is not mentioned…
I want to clarify a point which came up earlier – are the acting solicitors on this case Bristows or Shakespeare Martineau?
I ask because if it is the latter, then what we are looking at here is a situation where:
1. The two respondents (Emma Rampton and Deborah Prentice) are the two individuals responsible for the decision to crack down on civil right of protest last year (the “Gold Team”), along with Munir and Parsons, that was repudiated at High Court – and to be specific, the decision to ban Cambridge for Palestine campus activism while leaving other organisations unaffected.
2. The barrister, Akua Reindorf KC, formerly pursued an investigation in to Palestinian academic Dr Shahd Abusalama, who eventually dropped the charges, but not before Abusalama had launched counter-accusations of victimisation against Reindorf for the manner in which the investigation against her was conducted.
https://novaramedia.com/2024/11/04/a-palestinian-academic-thought-her-ordeal-with-her-employer-was-over-then-it-reached-out-to-the-jewish-chronicle/
3. Shakespeare Martineau are the company paid by Cambridge to advise on its anti-Palestine policies (implemented and aborted last year on order of High Court) – building on their advice to Cardiff, where “staff and students could now face prison and unlimited fines for holding protests on large stretches of their campus”.
https://libertyinvestigates.org.uk/articles/uncovered-uk-law-firm-coached-universities-on-how-to-obtain-sweeping-protest-bans/
Surely that alignment cannot be coincidence? I mean, it would seem more of a conspiracy theory to think this somehow happened by chance than to think it did not? Given the incredible improbability of getting three actors together who all had the same history and on the exact same issue that got Cambridge in to such a mess last year.
The acting solicitors on the case are Shakespeare Martineau.
How do we get a link? And when are Rampton and Prentice going to be examined?
The schedule of witnesses will be finalised on Monday. The Claimant’s witnesses are always cross-examined first, so it is a reasonable supposition that Rampton & Prentice will most likely be interviewed the following week (Jun 15th onwards)
Please contact Watford Employment Tribunal to request the access link. The email address is [email protected]. The case is Evans v Cambridge University and others (case numbers: 3307960/2023 and others).
Watford are now responding promptly. However, if you have already contacted the Tribunal, but have not yet received a link, please email us at [email protected] — we will sort the matter out.
The Judge has a strong commitment to open justice, which is to be applauded.
Is everyone asleep at the wheel? I simply cannot conceive that Oxford would allow Irene Tracey to be placed in this position
It is intriguing.
Who is making the decisions about this case at the University end?
At Cambridge the norm is to form a small and entirely ad hoc committee typically consisting of the primary perpetrators and their legal goons who manage the case and strategise on how to cover up, including issuing orders to stay silent and isolate the victim as best as possible for as long as possible.
If you have evidence of this then please share it. At a minimum professional ostracism in response to protected acts is an act of victimisation but could also be investigated as harassment.
In many other Universities this ‘committee’ is already there. A common term for it is the ‘Executive Group’ (a very small group made up of senior management, usually the VC and their deputies or Pro VCs, and the Director of HR).
The process of removing a whistleblower starts with just a few individuals from this group. They control the dismissal of whistleblowers all the way from protected complaint to dismissal.
This ‘execution’ takes the form of a series of ‘disciplinary’ processes (make no mistake – no actual evidence of misconduct is required), and if this doesn’t work then they move on to dismissal for ‘Some Other Substantial Reason’ (i.e. a legal framework that’s routinely abused for the disposal of whistleblowing staff and other victims, when there are no actual grounds for dismissal – highly illegal of course).
Ostracism is indeed a key aspect of this process and starts early on. That may take the form of removing the victim from all committees and groups etc, facilitated by spreading disinformation to the victim’s immediate peers, to outright suspension, and even banning them from campus like they were dangerous criminals (it won’t matter if the victim has been working there for years without
a single complaint).
This series of required HR processes are always chaired by someone from this tight Executive Group to ensure that it goes in the direction that the original controllers want it to (the favour to be returned later of course). As noted above, the VC and the Director of HR will be part of this group too, so when the victim reports the blatant corruption to them or other senior parties, it always gets referred straight back the Director of HR.
All too easy.
At Cambridge it is the “gold team” – Prentice, Munir, Rampton (presumably now Glover), Hudson and Parsons.
@C4P
Like attracts like. Who can be surprised to see the enemies of human rights and the Open Society all lined up in a row?
The oligarchy is making the decisions! The American Queen is clueless and pathetic but £570,00/year is a lot! She just plays along! Chancellor is useless! He should step in! Wyn Evans has already won! But hei everybody will now see the stupid Prentice grinn!! 🙄
I understand the positive and negative considerations for academics taking on HoD, Faculty/School and more senior roles, but it is important to be clear on the approaches and behaviours we need in our HE leaders. I read about the late Professor Ross Anderson, mentioned in a comment on the previous blog, and who submitted a complaint a few years ago on behalf of academics who wish to continue in post or similar, past the age of sixty seven. A person with even part of his range of approaches to colleagues, as detailed below, is what HE leadership needs –
‘Ross was not just applying behavioural economics to computer science. He knew computer science, psychology, philosophy, business management, economics, maths, physics, politics, vast knowledge about multiple diverse cultures, and he played at least one musical instrument…Furthermore–and perhaps more importantly for his status as a legend–his humble nature, approachability, and accessibility were extraordinary given his career. Ross would always make anyone feel involved and welcomed. If anyone’s interested in learning how to make STEM more inclusive, you must learn from Ross’s example and life. His emotional intelligence was extraordinary. He was a master of “know your audience” when the audience already knows him. Not many who reach his status, or have his career path, would show such characteristics.’ [Khaled Baqer (March 2024) ‘In memory of Ross Anderson’ Cambridge, England]
Two further comments on the Anderson.love website are typical of many, many such comments and memories recorded there, following his death –
‘Ross broke down barriers. He treated everyone as equals, from the undergraduate intern to the visiting professor. He loved to bring people together from all walks of life. He saw the opportunity to learn from everyone he met. He loved nothing more than a robust argument; the opportunity to debate an issue at length.
He was a brilliant mentor, colleague, and friend to me and many others. His impact has been considerable in so many ways. He will be greatly missed.’
[Alice Hutchings]
‘He was as gracious as he was intimidating. Ross was a groundbreaking scholar who fought the good fight. He was relentless in his efforts, seemingly fearless of the powers he challenged. That was inspirational. Look, I would tell myself, “here is a serious scholar who is not afraid to take clear positions on critical issues and speak truth to power!” [Alessandro Acquisti]
Ross was a hero and his spirit lives on through 21 percent. If we have learned anything from U.S. academia after a year under Trump, it is that a lot of people talk about activism and resistance – but weren’t prepared to live those values in their daily lives or careers when they themselves had something to lose. Ross never was afraid and we should not be either.
Many bad actors.
Eyes swarming all around me.
Maybe get a job?
Maybe one of the vacancies about to open up in the senior executive team?