Image shows common mallow by the wayside of Bury St Edmunds Tribunal.
There has been some interesting commentary on the wider matters raised by the Tribunal, for example here.
At the end of day eight, Prof McMahon completed his testimony.
Prof Evans stated in open court earlier that he regards Prof McMahon as one of the victims of the mishandling of this matter by the University.
Today, the tribunal continues with testimony from the former Registrary Ms Emma Rampton and the Business Manager for the School of Physical Sciences Ms Louise Akroyd.
Absolutely true. Researchers should be empowered to do their research, and given clear boundaries when their behavior oversteps the line. I don’t think this could happen at Caltech or Stanford or anywhere really in the States
We have seen multiple witnesses from the University’s side talking about the “culture” of IoA. Prof Peake and Ms Akroyd for example repeatedly mentioned IoA’s culture as an issue. Even Prof McMahon, despite being a key member of such a culture, talked about it. Am I right to say that none of them mentioned the culture of Cambridge University, namely when it comes to addressing reports of misconduct? Can they deny the culture of secrecy and cover ups? Do you remember the article in the Guardian in April 2025?
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2025/apr/12/cambridge-university-accused-of-bullying-cover-up-as-internal-survey-revealed
People who interacted with OSCCA and HR know that regardless of how problematic the local culture is, there is a broader issue that needs to addressed at Cambridge and urgently; the issue is bluntly obvious when one considers multiple cases from different departments and schools. To fully understand what happened in IoA one cannot ignore what happened at DAMTP, CRUK, POLIS, History, Classics, etc, etc, etc, as well as in the individual colleges as the people are largely the same.
It’s all in Athene Donald’s article from 7 years ago
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/oct/08/silenced-bullying-universities-academic
“How many of us have contemplated the cost of speaking out against bad behaviour and thought, “no, it’s not worth it”? And how often as a result do perpetrators – great and small – get away with it?”
She also says,
“I know Cambridge, my own university, is looking inward to try to tackle this pernicious problem. We are only now getting to grips with the magnitude and scope of the issue. It must be fixed.”
Really? What exactly changed in the last 7 years at Cambridge? Who can come forward and show that the situation improved, namely in her own School of Physical Sciences?
21Group is what has changed. It is the only means of change.
That is true, but that is not a change from what we call “Cambridge University” even if it was promoted by members of the University. The 21 Group is obviously with Wyn Evans in this case, but the University is not with him. Indeed, “The university denies Professor Evans’ claims and accuses him of an ‘obsessive vendetta’ against Professor McMahon.”
Correct me if I am wrong but the University has not learned anything in the last 7 years after Athene Donald’s article, did it? Incidentally, the Lead HR Business Partner of the School of Physical Sciences is the same.
The first of you to listen one of their witnesses assuming some sort of fault, please let me know because so far I heard nothing similar to that. I might be wrong though.
I don’t understand the accusation of ‘obsessive vendetta’
Vendetta implies a person has a “strong desire to harm a person or group (CED)” but Prof Evans’ intervention arose out of a strong desire to prevent harm to a person. The intervention itself – event that nucleated the case – implied the exact opposite of Professor Evans’ having a vendetta against any person. Professor Evans had the exact opposite of a vendetta in relation to Dr Tausch-Pebody, Professor Evans had a strong desire to prevent harm to Dr Tausch-Pebody.
The statutes and ordinances of the University of Cambridge run to over 1000 pages of text, that’s 1000+ pages of detailed provisions, regulations and procedures
on top of which additional university policies & procedures are layered
on top of which additional departmental policies & procedures are layered
on top of which college statutes & ordinances are layered
on top of which college policies & procedures are layered
I think it’s fair to say the University of Cambridge is a governance labyrinth
If a person is legally obliged to raise any type of significant concerns with the University of Cambridge or a person has any kind of significant complaint made in relation to them at the University of Cambridge then a person has only two options to survive with their mind in tact: become sufficiently obsessive to be able to navigate the governance labyrinth or accept being at the mercy of others who have become sufficiently obsessive to be able to navigate the governance labyrinth. There is a situational demand placed on a person to increase their overall level of obsessiveness in response to a situational risk of being treated unreasonably & unfairly due to being insufficiently obsessive to be able to navigate the governance labyrinth.
If rules are complex then no one needs to intend for a person to be treated unfairly & unreasonably for a person to be at risk of being treated unfairly & unreasonably. Complex rules = complex situational analysis = higher probability of errors in a complex situational analysis = higher probability of complex unfair & unreasonable treatment = higher probability of complex error correction being needed which could also go wrong = higher probability of being left in a compounding error situation where unfairness & unreasonableness are increasing both in magnitude and complexity as a function of time and where the probability of the situation ever being corrected and/or remedied is decreasing as a function of time.
When systems are complex, the ability to be sufficiently obsessive – i.e. the ability to drill down into the different levels of a problem and to get to grips with the details of a problem at these different levels – increases the probability of accurate situational analysis emerging and of a person getting fair & reasonable treatment, the ability to be sufficiently obsessive in a critical situation is a matter of survival in that critical situation.
Well said Eileen. That whole “obsessive vendetta” mantra is the pot calling the kettle black!
We could all be said to be victims of a lack of understanding of work-related stress regulation, victims of gaps in knowledge of how work-related stress regulation impacts mental health risk but who is there to take us out of the position of being a victim with respect to a lack of understanding, of being a victim with respect to gaps in knowledge – there is no one but ourselves – it’s up to us to build that understanding, it’s up to us to fill in the gaps in knowledge, it’s up to us to learn how to humanise ourselves in these situations – to find the truth of these situations – to autohumanise.
Ms Akroyd stated this morning that she did not take notes from a meeting between Prof Peake, Prof McMahon and her, which she explicitly acknowledges was an important meeting. She restated that she said yesterday that does not take notes from informal meetings, and yet she did take notes at DAMTP between me, Prof Colm-cille P. Caulfield in his capacity as Head of DAMTP and her, and the notes went directly to her laptop. I do not even know what to say about her statement today.
Regardless, shouldn’t it be good practice from HR staff, not least the Lead HR Business Partner, to take notes in important meetings, namely when they meet with the Head of a School and the Head of a Department? Food for thought.
The phone conversations should also be recorded. Any phone conversation taking place between University of Cambridge employees at the University of Cambridge about University of Cambridge matters should be recorded. Instead the phone is picked up to have conversations off-record that should be on record. There must be a stop to this cover up.
When asked by the claimant’s KC what was her interpretation about the HR Director Ms Andi Hudson’s description of Prof McMahon’s complaint as a “counter complaint” in an email, Ms Louise Akroyd said, among all possibilities, “It must be an error.”
One time could be explained away as “error” – but many times is a practice. And we have evidence of this happening again and again and again.
At least they admitted that someone else drafts their responses… Not sure if they realised what that means but that they said it, they did! This is the real Cambridge folks.
At least students can blame their hallucinations on ChatGPT! (This does remind us of one of most hilarious highlights of the week, though – Professor A on the stand saying xyz wasn’t important enough to remember – followed by KC’s rather deadpan: well I’m asking because it was obviously important enough for you to dedicate nine lines of your witness statement to it)
The university is prepared to leave a person in a position where the person is being blocked from raising concerns with the university – being left in a hung concerns process – but where everyone else in the university can raise a complaint/concerns in relation to the person with the university.
The university is willing to disable all of a persons self-defence mechanisms in the university – ability to raise a complaint, ability to raise concerns – whilst leaving everyone else in the university with their self-defence mechanisms in the university enabled & permitting everyone else in the university to use their self-defence mechanisms – ability to raise a complaint, ability to raise concerns – in relation to a person whose self-defence mechanisms in the university have been disabled by the university.
No exceptions are made for any person connected to the concerns the person is being blocked from raising with the university. Any person connected to the concerns the person is being blocked from raising with the university can raise complaints in relation to the person who is being blocked from raising the concerns in the university. There is no possibility of the person whose self-defence mechanisms in the university have been disabled by the university of ever being able to defend themselves from any complaint because the university refuses to engage with the person it is blocking from raising concerns and whose self-defence mechanisms in the university it has disabled other than to relay any complaints that are being made in relation to the person, it won’t permit any defence in relation to any complaint and it won’t permit a person in this position to raise any complaint.
Are Munir and Hudson on cross examination tomorrow? What’s the sequence?