Cumulative page views for the 21 Group blog are shown. It’s fair to say that the Tribunal is generating much interest. Half of all sessions since the launch of the site happened in the last 6 months.
The matter has now been picked up by the Daily Mail here.
Tribunal continues today with further cross-examination of Prof McMahon.
If you comment, please do so factually and respectfully
Any comments that have been temporarily held back will be released after the end of the Tribunal on the grounds of Freedom of Speech.
When the dust settles (or perhaps sooner) there is certainly a debate to be had about standards of higher education governance. In theory the Council are Trustees of the charity, and responsive to the Regent House (university members): but it seems they have allowed the Executive to act without appropriate authority in many instances requiring their consent (e.g. regarding the case at High Court last year). Legally it is the Council where responsibility lies hence one wonders whether this fact was clearly understood by or explained to the Trustees themselves.
That, and the fact that a large share of regents voted for Wyn in the Chancellorship race last year. It all raises the question, of – who is it that truly represents the university? The lawyers and their nameless PR spokespersons? Or Wyn and the students and faculty in this group? Who really has the right to say that they are Cambridge?
Right. The University of Cambridge and all of its colleges cannot exist without the students and faculty. Wyn received so many votes because people want a leader who supports the collective good.
From the Emperor Has No Answers blog post on this website:
‘Once individuals are earning several hundred thousand pounds a year more than the rest of us, they begin to behave as though they are worth it…. It is typical for such highly paid individuals to refer to themselves as ‘the University’. In truth the University is all of us.’
I just posted this new link in the previous post as I had not noticed a new one was out. I think it is fair to say that there will be a lot of news about this case in the next coming days, which unexpectedly, the University did not see it coming…
https://streamlinefeed.co.ke/news/cambridge-astronomy-institute-plagued-by-misogyny-and-bullying-tribunal-hears
“Broader Implications for Elite Academia
The trial peels back the curtain on the insular, highly hierarchical nature of elite global universities, where tenured professors and departmental directors often wield unchecked power over contracts, funding, and the careers of junior staff. For academic institutions worldwide, including rapidly expanding research hubs in East Africa, the Cambridge saga serves as a grim warning about the dangers of prioritizing academic prestige over fundamental workplace safety.
When mechanisms for reporting abuse fail, or when whistleblowers are perceived to be punished for speaking out, toxic behaviors become institutionalized. The outcome of the Bury St Edmunds tribunal will have profound ramifications, not just for Evans and the Institute of Astronomy, but for the broader movement demanding accountability and gender equity within the highest echelons of the STEM fields.
As the legal teams prepare their closing arguments, the scientific community watches closely. Whether the tribunal sides with the whistleblower or the university administration, the reputational damage to the Institute of Astronomy has already been starkly illuminated.”
Thanks for this link. It’s a good article. I wish there was an author’s name. Hope the person writes more.
Vice Chancellor Vennells, back in the days when only 3 people commented in the 21 Group!
https://21percent.org/?p=966
Oh, the night is my world
City light painted girl
In the day, nothing matters
It’s the nighttime that flatters
In the night, no control
Through the wall something’s breaking
Wearing white as you’re walkin’
Down the street of my soul
You take my self, you take my self-control
You got me livin’ only for the night
Before the morning comes, the story’s told
You take my self, you take my self control
Another night, another day goes by
I never stop myself to wonder why
You help me to forget to play my role
You take my self, you take my self control
-Deborah Prentice
Kind of amazing when you compare the 350,000 views for this blog to the 1,600 views of the university’s “dignity at work” youtube video (comments disabled!) Guess people have decided for themselves who to trust.
And probably half of those too were just redirects from someone satirising it in one of the comment sections here…
I believe you mean the humiliation video… it is always a good opportunity to paste it for people to remember who the individuals involved are, namely in case it is their first time in the 21 Group…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pizOGdQK4tE
8 likes and counting…
This video must be AI.
It’s a complete joke.
I read on this blog about Dr Magdalen Connolly being bullied for reporting plagiarism and Cambridge saying the bullying was separate and, basically, didn’t count.
Cambridge is excellent at putting out false narratives that say the opposite of complaints they are receiving. They seem to do this to create public bias against the complainants in case those complainants ever go public. So as they are bound to confidentiality agreements, Cambridge churns out this rubbish to start a false narrative that undermines theirs.
Bullying at Cambridge? It can’t be: look at this video.
I once followed the dignity at work procedure. I wrote in. I was invited to talk to a member of the group. I spoke to them. They were shocked at how poorly I had been treated (I can’t currently remember which of several incidents I put the effort into reporting this way). And in conclusion they told me that there was nothing she could do. She would report this to the panel, but essentially that was the end of the matter as far as the lack of dignity I was being shown at work was concerned.
So there are some decent people… who are utterly powerless to make anything resembling a difference.
Is there any update on the witness schedule?
I think Rampton is going up for cross examination tomorrow.
That is the first of the senior administrative officers up for questioning.
Yes, confirmed in court. I think I heard it’s Rampton, then back to Akroyd
The Lead HR Business Partner Ms Louise Akroyd claimed today that she does not keep notes of the informal HR meetings she is involved and the advice she provides therein.
This was a very unexpected statement for me given that she did write notes in the meetings with me at DAMTP, and directly to her laptop she brought with her. Perhaps the KC of Wyn Evans can ask her tomorrow if she remembers any exceptions to that statement she did today.
The Uni really did not see this coming? New article from Daily Mail:
“‘Wicked’ university boss blamed for being part of culture of misogyny at prestigious astronomy institute which saw female colleagues hounded out, tribunal hears”
https://www.dailymail.com/news/article-15908225/Wicked-university-boss-blamed-culture-misogyny-prestigious-astronomy-institute-saw-female-colleagues-hounded-tribunal-hears.html
The good publicity continues…
“A Defining Moment For Cambridge
The University of Cambridge has spent centuries building a reputation as one of the world’s great centres of learning.
Its graduates have won Nobel Prizes, transformed scientific understanding and shaped political history.
Yet institutions are judged not only by their achievements but also by how they respond to criticism.
The tribunal has not yet reached conclusions regarding the allegations before it. Cambridge and those accused continue to deny wrongdoing, and the legal process remains ongoing.
But regardless of the eventual verdict, the proceedings have already exposed deep divisions within one of Britain’s most prestigious academic communities.
The case raises fundamental questions about how universities handle complaints, support staff and protect those who speak out.
For an institution devoted to the pursuit of truth, those questions may prove as significant as any scientific mystery explored within its observatories.
The challenge facing the University of Cambridge cannot be solved through equations, telescopes or theories of the cosmos.
It is a challenge of trust. And the outcome may shape not only reputations, but the future culture of one of the world’s most influential centres of research”
https://theeyeofmedia.com/cambridge-university-faces-claims-of-misogyny-and-bullying-amid-whistleblower-retaliation/
The Eye of Media blog post you cite makes a key point. Why is an institution dedicated to the pursuit of truth covering the costs of individuals found guilty of defamation? Is that not the exact opposite of its entire mandate and reason for existence? Isaac Newton would be turning in his grave!
A similar question was asked multiple times in the last few days in Court, and to multiple people, but they all deflect to the Insurance Company that alleged decided to do it, as if the Insurance Company had not been told of the case by the University and encouraged to take the case. Surely, if the University did not want to cover the cost, the Insurance Company would not insist!
Even if Prof McMahon was accused of defamation while worker of Cambridge University, Wyn Evans too was the target of defamation while a worker of Cambridge University and had to pay his own costs. It is rather striking that the University does not accept this double standards…
There is that but also, aren’t insurers generally strict on what claims they accept, especially where there is admission of fault? Something truly doesn’t add up about all this.
Indeed, one must acknowledge the oddity of a university holding a policy defending the publication of harmful falsehood (when the credibility of the academy depends precisely upon the renunciation of falsehood). It would be analogous to the judiciary having an insurance policy against criminal charges against its members (even when such allegations are upheld) or the Bafa (British Accounting and Finance Association) having a policy to protect members found guilty of accounting fraud. The mind boggles.
If it were just a matter of insuring against an allegation, that might be explicable, at least, somewhat (though arguably even that too should be a policy paid by the individual practitioner). The odd thing here is about a policy of indemnifying people believed to and then found at court to have actually committed the act, and then, continuing to protect them professionally. If that kind of thing happened in, say, the medical profession then it would be a huge public scandal both for the insurer and the hospital or clinic. The tabloids would be on it non stop and politicians too.
There was a post on here about how the university hires super expensive lawyers to shut down whistleblowers. So they are spending public funds on silencing people who come forward for the collective good.
It seems also like a form of intimidation. If you think about it, how can a whistleblower prevail against the best defamation lawyers in the UK and a university with endless (public) funds?
Wyn’s case and perseverance seems extraordinary. The obstacles he must’ve faced all this time and still kept going. Now the case is being heard.
If Cambridge treated McMahon’s grievance statements as falling within his employment role (such as to justify the decision to pay his legal costs from its insurance policy), how is that not an admission of vicarious liability? I doubt they would seek to argue that the policy grants a generic “license to defame” as another commentator has put it here.