The Vice Chancellor’s recent statement was first sent as a pdf to selected colleagues.
The pdf metadata show the pdf was created by Sally Valletta from a Word document owned by Sally Valletta generated on 11 August 2026 at 16:57:52 BST. The signature is neither a vector/digital-signature object nor a handwritten annotation. It is a JPEG image embedded in the Word-generated PDF.
Given the recent statements about ghost-writing of letters at the Employment Tribunal Judgement, it is reasonable to ask a straightforward question: did Professor Deborah Prentice actually write this statement?
The statement reads:
Dear colleagues
I fully understand the concerns being raised across the University and well beyond it, regarding Jason Arday’s appointment and I share them. I know there is anger and anxiety around this damaging and difficult case. The highest standards of academic excellence have been a core principle at Cambridge for many centuries, and this is reflected in the outstanding research and teaching we see here every day. We are committed to maintaining those standards.
We will now investigate the circumstances around his appointment by the Faculty of Education back in 2022 and his time here in Cambridge since his appointment nearly four years ago. That investigation, as you say, should be thorough and transparent, and will be carried out independently by senior academics from within and beyond Cambridge. It will take time for this work to be done thoroughly, as you will understand, but the work must begin as soon as possible.
The findings will then inform a review of the process for the appointment of senior academic roles. As you are fully aware, appointments to senior academic roles, as in the case of the Faculty of Education and Jason Arday, are currently led at Department level.
I note that Durham and Glasgow Universities have announced that they are also investigating the circumstances surrounding the appointment of Jason Arday to academic posts there, and that Jesus College has accepted his resignation from his fellowship.
In addition, the University’s Research Policy Committee will review the Misconduct in Research policy. As you know, the current approach in UK higher education is for the institution where plagiarism allegedly took place to carry out the investigation itself; we followed that approach in this case. We need to understand if there is more we could do when serious allegations are raised in relation to our own academic standards at Cambridge.
In light of the focus on this troubling case and the widespread commentary around it, I want to be very clear that we do not need the outcomes of an investigation to clearly and loudly affirm that our staff of colour are highly valued, for their scholarship, their achievements, and the contributions they make to the institution and the wider academic community. This particular case is an aberration and should not be used to cast aspersions on their work or the legitimacy of their roles at Cambridge.
The desire for quick answers and rapid responses is understandable, but we need to allow these reviews to complete their work effectively so we can learn from any mistakes and, where needed, improve our processes. Alongside these efforts, we also need to continue supporting one another in our work, and
across our collegiate University.Yours sincerely
Professor Deborah Prentice
There are serious problems with this statement. Most obviously, it is at least three weeks too late.
More importantly, it investigates the wrong thing.
The central question is not simply how the Faculty of Education appointed Jason Arday in 2022. It is what role the University’s central administration played in that appointment, its subsequent promotion, and its response when concerns about his record were raised.
Two Pro-Vice-Chancellors, Professor Kamal Munir and Professor Bhaskar Vira, were heavily involved in promoting Arday’s appointment in the context of Cambridge’s institutional anti-racism agenda. The University’s announcement of his appointment makes this unusually explicit.
Jason Arday is an exceptional scholar of race, inequality and education. He will contribute significantly to Cambridge’s research in this area and to addressing the under-representation of people from socio-economically disadvantaged backgrounds: especially those from Black, Asian, and other Minority Ethnic communities. His experiences highlight the barriers faced by many under-represented groups across higher education and especially at leading universities. Cambridge has a responsibility to do everything it can to address this by creating academic spaces where everyone feels they belong. We are making extensive efforts in this regard – including the expansion of the ‘Get In Cambridge’ programme which provides financial support to address systemic disadvantages and the lack of social and educational capital which often constrains the ability of minority ethnic students to continue with their education. A great deal remains to be done and Jason’s expertise will inform and enhance these ongoing endeavours.” (Prof Bhaskar Vira)
That matters because the Vice-Chancellor’s statement largely outsources responsibility for the appointment to the Faculty of Education while saying almost nothing about the central administration’s involvement.
That is difficult to reconcile with the public record.
A BBC film crew does not ordinarily materialise simply because a professor at a faculty asks it to. The extensive media operation surrounding Arday’s appointment appears to have involved the University’s central communications machinery, operating under senior leadership. Given the scale of the publicity and the way Arday’s appointment was presented as a landmark statement of Cambridge’s commitment to inclusivity, the role of the central administration demands scrutiny.
Yet the Vice-Chancellor’s proposed investigation does not appear to address it.
Nor does the statement address the alleged cover-up.
Why were concerns not investigated in 2023, when they were first raised by Professors David Harris and Martyn Hammersley? Who knew about the plagiarism allegations? Beyond Professor Hilary Cremin and Dr Rhys Morgan, who within the University was aware of them, and when?
Then there is the extraordinary episode involving Times Higher Education. In 2025, who paid for the Carter-Ruck letter sent to Times Higher Education in an apparent attempt to pressure journalist Jack Grove into abandoning questions about Arday’s academic record? Did Arday receive assistance or advice from Cambridge in pursuing that course? The Carter-Ruck correspondence has since been released, and its contents raise questions about what the University knew and what role it played.
There is also the question of the police complaints. Who reported Jack Grove and Professor Harris to the police for alleged harassment after they began asking questions about Arday’s record? Professor Harris’s complaint was dismissed by Devon and Cornwall Police. Grove, meanwhile, was subjected to a four-month Metropolitan Police investigation before being told that there would be no further action — while also being warned not to question Arday again because of the alleged impact on his mental health.
As a matter of public record, the Director of Communications at Cambridge, James Helm, was formerly with the Metropolitan Police. That fact does not establish any connection between him and the police investigation, but it is plainly something an independent investigation should be capable of examining.
Then there is the University’s response at the end of July, as the scandal began to break. Who authorised the Cambridge spokesperson who told Retraction Watch that Arday was a “victim of a vile campaign to undermine his credibility”, that he had been cleared of “allegations of plagiarism regarding his thesis and journal publications”, and that his critics were motivated by “racism”?
That is particularly troubling because, by that point, substantial evidence concerning the allegations was already in the public domain.
These questions go directly to the conduct of the institution. Instead, the Vice-Chancellor’s statement focuses on the Faculty of Education, the appointment process and the general principle that Cambridge should maintain high academic standards. Those things are not irrelevant. But they do not answer the central questions.
Who knew? Who acted? Who authorised what? And who decided not to investigate?
An investigation that does not follow those questions into the central administration will not get to the heart of the matter.
The Vice-Chancellor’s statement therefore looks less like an investigation into what happened than an attempt to draw a line around what will be investigated.
There is a further reason for concern: the findings of the Employment Tribunal in the case brought by Prof Evans against Cambridge University, Prof Richard McMahon, Ms Emma Rampton and Prof Deborah Prentice.
Prof Prentice gave sworn evidence concerning the thoroughness with which she had dealt with Prof Evans’s appeals. The Tribunal did not accept that evidence.
It found:
443. We reject the evidence of Professor Prentice as we find the response was not drafted with the assistance of Ms Rampton, rather we find that it was written solely by Ms Rampton and then presented to the Vice Chancellor as a fait accompli. Professor Prentice had very little to do with it, save for putting her name to it.
And:
951 We were troubled by how this decision was reached as we understand that Professor Prentice’s outcome letter was drafted by someone else, however we do not know who, yet Professor Prentice told us that she had undertaken a full review of the papers. That was incredibly unlikely that Professor Prentice would have been able to undertake a full review of the considerable documents in this matter given how quickly the grievance was dispensed with and also what we assume would be her incredibly busy workload in someone of her seniority.
952. We were not satisfied that there had actually been any sort of review of the papers, rather we found that the complaint was summarily rejected
The kindest interpretation of the Tribunal’s findings is that Professor Prentice was mistaken or unreliable in her recollection of events. The more troubling interpretation is that documents were presented as the product of her own review when they were not.
Prof Prentice’s evidence was given on oath.
The Tribunal found Prof Prentice, Prof Richard McMahon and Ms Emma Rampton responsible for retaliation against a whistleblower. This is highly relevant when assessing the credibility of assurances about an investigation into institutional failures.
56 Comments
Richard Powell · 13 August 2026 at 09:06
Shouldn’t “irrelevant” in the concluding sentence actually be “relevant”?
21percent.org · 13 August 2026 at 09:10
Thanks, fixed.
- · 13 August 2026 at 09:37
“The findings will then inform a review of the process for the…”
Blah blah blah. The error of managerialism is to assume that if you just add one more rule, one more committee, one more review stage, one more HR functionary, it will solve the problem.
It will not.
All you have to do is fire people. Others will notice, and be more careful not to make their same error themselves.
Anonymous · 13 August 2026 at 10:26
My comment here refers to the more general issue of knee-jerk covering up of highly illicit and illegal conduct from the leadership at our Universities.
How many times have we heard phrases like ‘we will look into this and review the process or ordinance accordingly’ being put forward as their only course of action to address the very serious issues raised? This is made far worse when the ‘reviewers’ are those being implicated!
There is never any actual accountability, certainly not among the leadership, nor even the pretence that this will be considered.
The HE sector is now in such a cataclysmic state that we must now demand full accountability for the individuals concerned, either through internal processes (obviously not likely), or the law of the land. Let’s try this approach and see how it goes.
MUSKETEER · 13 August 2026 at 09:52
The actions of the VC described above are par for course.
She acted exactly in the same way in relation to the ongoing oncology/cancer reserach scandal in the SCM:
1- signing letters she had clearly not written herself
2- failing to look at complex matters independently and accepting what was presented to her by others as a fait acompli
3- promoting mediocre people with pathetic CVs into prominent roles and publicising them on the central University webpage
Dr Prentice is incompetent, does not conduct the expected due diligence in complex matters and fails to act as expected of what in effect is a CEO on a gigantic salary and considerable perks. She must resign and so does all the current senior leadership and management team.
Jay · 13 August 2026 at 09:55
Maybe I could draft letter of resignation for her? Surely, Emma Rampton would be happy to, as well. She is a great drafter of other people’s letters
Wellington · 13 August 2026 at 09:59
Resignations needed, a complete overhaul is warranted
Munir, Vira, Hudson, Gardner, Helm, Morgan all need to be booted out. Any others?
Tom · 13 August 2026 at 10:01
Why all the complaining? Debs has certainly got the University in the news, 24/7. Our media profile has never been higher.
TheResearcher · 13 August 2026 at 10:08
Who is Ms Sally Valletta, you may ask? It is an admin managed by Dr Regina Regina Sachers, the Director of Governance and Compliance. The letter was unlikely drafted by Professor Prentice because her automatic message still reads “Out of office until 22/08.” People should not be surprised by this ghost-writing and how they do not even bother to check the metadata of files that exposes they. A few months ago I reported here in the 21 Group that the letter I had received from the Vice-Chancellor was actually drafted by the Director of Legal Services Mr David Parsons as given by the metadata of the file. It seems that even after these practices were exposed in open court, they continue with them.
The 21 Group asks several important questions, namely:
“Who knew about the plagiarism allegations? Beyond Professor Hilary Cremin and Dr Rhys Morgan, who within the University was aware of them, and when?”
I can confirm that Professor John Aston, Pro-Vice Chancellor for Education, and the Office of Student Conduct, Complaints and Appeals (OSCCA), knew about these issues, at least since 24 September 2025. OSCCA not only knew about them but applied “Special Precautionary Measures” against me one day after I asked Professor Aston about the shameful behaviour of Carter-Ruck.
TheResearcher · 13 August 2026 at 10:24
Pro-Vice Chancellor for Research, sorry for the typo.
And the person from OSCCA who knew was the Head of OSCCA, Ms Sarah d’Ambrumenil as it was her who wrote to me on 25 September 2025 with more threats
oops · 13 August 2026 at 10:29
‘OSCCA not only knew about them but applied “Special Precautionary Measures” against me one day after I asked Professor Aston about the shameful behaviour of Carter-Ruck.’
That sounds like the next big news headline right there.
TheResearcher · 13 August 2026 at 10:39
This issue and many others are now with the Office of the Independent Adjudicator (OIA), and I asked them to copy in any correspondence with me the following:
– University Council,
– General Board,
– Board of Scrutiny,
– Proctors
– Director of Legal Services Mr David Parsons
– Ms Nicola Lediard from Shakespeare Martineau
– University of Cambridge and Anglia Ruskin Mental Health Student Service (UCARMHSS)
– 21 Group
– Cambridge MP Mr Daniel Zeichner MP
– the journalist of Times Higher Education (THE) Mr Jack Grove
as well as the Appeal Committee that decided my expulsion as a Cambridge student:
– Professor Gemma Burgess (Chair)
– Ms Liz Osman
– Professor Caroline Warman
I asked OIA to not forget to cc in particular the Vice-Chancellor Professor Deborah Prentice, and the Pro-Vice Chancellors directly involved in my case, namely Professor Kamal Munir, Professor Bhaskar Vira, and Professor John Aston.
42 · 13 August 2026 at 11:17
At least the current letter is no longer signed by the infantilising ‘Debbie’ but by ‘Professor Deborah Prentice’. The letter itself is hilariously defensive and patronising – certainly would not be out of the question to have been written by a member of the team who cannot understand that in a self-governed university the administration is held to account by the academics. Having said this, there is no reflection on any institutional wrongdoing at all, no humility and no sign of any scope for improvement. Good riddance, I hope, for Debbie and her fan club.
EliteProject · 13 August 2026 at 10:08
This has been making rounds.
It tells you what the Uni really is and who runs the show, and foe whom.
https://danielstaetsky.substack.com/p/who-created-jason-arday?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=252cy9
:-) · 13 August 2026 at 10:26
“Has she drafted her Resignation Letter yet?”
Probably not, but sounds like Sally Valletta has a draft ready for her just in case 🙂
Pedant · 13 August 2026 at 10:35
Whoever did write it is not a good or precise communicator.
The first sentence tells us that she “fully understands” and “shares” the concerns being raised regarding Arday’s appointment. Its use of commas is not ideal, but nor is its lack of restriction. She is claiming to understand fully and to share *all* the concerns being raised about Arday’s appointment. I find that claim unlikely, and worrying.
The first two sentences are written in the first person singular, and then there is a switch to the first person plural. It is unclear what this distinction means.
The next paragraph contains “as you say” and “as you will understand”. Who is leading here? “I” or “you”? And to whom do “I”, “we” and “you” refer?
We then move on to “as you are fully aware”. I am not sure to whom it was intended that this letter be sent. In some departments it was sent to undergraduates as well as more senior staff. I doubt all are fully aware that appointments to senior academic roles are currently led “at Department level”. Indeed, I was under the impression that generally the School has significant input.
We then soon find an “as you know”. This style really is dreadful. I thought the VC was committed to maintaining standards (first paragraph).
Intriguingly we are told that Jesus College has accepted Arday’s resignation, but not that the University has. So some conspiracy theorist is likely to question whether it has. Afterall, a public statement on the Good Law website is not actually the usual manner of initiating resigning an Officership.
The ending of “we also need to continue supporting one another in our work” does not fit will with the findings from the ET of how well senior management supports people. Perhaps “start” would have been a better word the “continue”?
As for the low resolution, highly-compressed and JPEG-mangled signature, at least no-one could misuse it to commit financial fraud, so it shows some grasp of cyber security.
JJ · 13 August 2026 at 10:43
Is it AI generated ? Some signs it is AI assisted.
1. Repeated institutional phrases: “thorough and transparent,” “as soon as possible,” “learn from any mistakes,” “improve our processes.”
2. Very carefully balanced sentences.
3. Repeated use of abstract nouns: concerns, standards, circumstances, investigation, findings, process, approach, allegations, outcomes, commentary, efforts.
4. Some sentences are grammatically polished but semantically cumbersome, which is a common feature of AI-generated corporate/institutional prose.
5. The response moves through a predictable sequence of acknowledgement, action, reassurance, patience.
6. Phrases such as “I want to be very clear”, “we need to understand if there is more we could do”, and “where needed, improve our processes” have a distinctly generic crisis-communications flavour.
After all, plagiarism is ironic in a response to plagiarism concerns 🙂
'I see dead people.' · 13 August 2026 at 23:06
This blog post is bloody good at identifying the ‘ghosts.’ Ghosts = the obstructionists behind the obstructions. But Ooooooooo what a tricky word is plagiarism in the ghost writing context. If someone GHOST WRITES a letter, or, say, a grievance, and someone else presents it as his or her own original work, is that not a case of PLAGIARISM?
'I see dead people.' · 13 August 2026 at 23:21
May I ghost write my work if I am a prof, or a student?
May I hire an ex Metropolitan Police employee as my Communications Director if I wish to poltergeist investigators by sending the rozzers to rap on their doors?
Does Cambridge have an aberration or APPARITION problem where its I-AM-NOT-ACCOUNTABLE senior leadership and GHOST WRITING is concerned?
SpeakingOfRidiculous · 13 August 2026 at 10:45
This tells you everything you need to know: whoever drafted this is a DEI hire themselves.
‘This particular case is an aberration and should not be used to cast aspersions on their work or the legitimacy of their roles at Cambridge.’
How the hell does she know that this is an aberration? Has she already investigated? Maybe it is a rule? Has she reached the conlcusion already?
Soumise · 13 August 2026 at 11:09
“whoever drafted this is a DEI hire themselves”
Though I support greater diversity in higher education (Cambridge still has a dismal record on this front — and seems almost entirely run by white middle-class women) I have reluctantly come to accept the truth in this.
If you look within the communications team, HR, and the leadership you find many individuals who, whatever their personal niceties, are clearly in a role that is well beyond their depth, were hired and promoted too fast on DEI criteria, and consequently — are ill-suited to handle a challenge like the one they have been given.
The entire Cambridge handling of recent weeks reveals a leadership structure and personnel that is not fit for purpose. A “DEI audit” would, regrettably, turn up many names up and down the hierarchy who simply do not merit their current position yet, and now, at the very least need support from a meritocratic hire or consultant.
Anon43770 · 13 August 2026 at 13:14
Just to clarify one practical matter: Sally Valletta is listed as an EA for the VC. So, to me that suggests that the VC could have actually drafted it and the EA typed it up. That would be consistent with a standard CEO and EA arrangement, and is considered to be fair practice. I entirely agree that it would be different if the letter writer were anyone else than an EA, PA or the signed author.
poindexter · 13 August 2026 at 13:26
Fair point. I note the use of the expression “persons of color” (corrected to “staff of colour”) suggests an initial draft by someone writing in California English. It also suggests that this original author – presumably, Professor Prentice – has still not, after three years, taken the time to acquaint herself with the standard terminology of British academic English (in which “BAME” is the conventional jargon). That, in turn, raises doubts about how many meetings or discussions on the topic of diversity and inclusion she has really had during her post-2023 England sojourn.
I finally note with sadness how depressing it is to have to speculate on the author of a pithy statement from the grammar and wording. It does rather seem akin to 1980s speculation from official communiques of the USSR as to which supreme soviet leader was alive and holding sway behind the closed walls of the Kremlin.
21percent.org · 13 August 2026 at 13:38
It is fair to say evidence is inconclusive.
Cammunication · 13 August 2026 at 10:49
I have an explanation for the sliding from “I” to “we” to “you”.
Initially this was most likely an email drafted in response to the staff letter of last Friday, asking for an investigation. Obviously. I mean, that’s what the content addresses after all.
Hence the phrasing, “that investigation, as you say”. It is the investigation referred to in the letter, and the reply is being sent to its authors collectively, or, most likely to Priya alone.
Then at some point (after or before hitting “send”, who can say) it dawned on Debbie or her minions that the letter would almost certainly be leaked at some point, even some point soon, and that it might not be ideal if her first “sign of life” since last month came in the form of a leaked communication.
Therefore, it needed to be turned in to an “official” response, and pronto.
In the good old tradition of Cambridge non-transparency and communicative minimalism, the initial idea was obviously to have it as a letter within the university, to be emailed haphazardly across departments: I imagine the initial list was small and they gradually realised it needed to expand.
Finally they realised that this would only guarantee it leaking to the press, so they also put it up as an “official” statement on the website.
Without, of course, fixing any of the grammatical issues to address the new audience – because, hey, why bother?
21percent.org · 13 August 2026 at 11:14
The letter in response to the faculty who signed Priya’s letter and the announcement on the webpage are identical, save for the omission of an opening sentence
So even less care was taken!
? · 13 August 2026 at 11:25
So is this how it works? The only way to get any kind of email reply from the VC is find 99 other staff prepared to cosign your email too?
21percent.org · 13 August 2026 at 12:13
Yes, 99 other staff prepared to cosign … in the middle of an enormous media firestorm. You’ll get a reply of sorts.
The reply will be defensive & pompous statement about the cock-up being an “aberration”. So, well worth it.
Pedant · 13 August 2026 at 11:46
It does seem that those immediately around the VC are not taking much care of her reputation, something which was also evident at Bury. It is hard to imagine her lasting beyond Christmas if she really has lost the support of her own office. I wonder how she offended them?
Cambrekistan · 13 August 2026 at 12:24
This is craaaazy. She’s behaving like a tin-pot dictator in some ex-soviet republic, the whole country speculating on whether she has fled abroad or is even still alive. Where are her TV interviews? Twitter account? Regular emails to staff with the detailed action plan? Nothing at all?
21percent.org · 13 August 2026 at 13:06
Agreed — absolutely astonishing the VC was risked in this case
42 · 13 August 2026 at 12:57
That’s right – absolutely nothing at all!
anonymous · 13 August 2026 at 13:10
But she’s pocketed another 20,000 pounds or so since the letter was prepared.
The statement must be the most expensive 450 words in history.
TheResearcher · 13 August 2026 at 13:27
I do not have access to the article but some of you might?
“Vice-chancellor under pressure as University of Cambridge whistleblower wins employment tribunal”
https://www.cambridgeindependent.co.uk/education/vice-chancellor-under-pressure-as-university-of-cambridge-wh-9478288/
Independent Judgement · 13 August 2026 at 14:29
Pretty tough coverage from the local Cambridge newspaper.
Some timely quotes from the Tribunal judgement in light of the current discussion thread:
“Ghost writing was a consistent and a concerning theme throughout this matter.”
“The university’s handling of the matters referred to in this judgment was beset by repeated delay and progress was fitful with little if any oversight of the time the processes were taking, nor the impact upon those involved.”
And then the final quote from this group:
“Taken together, these events raise a fundamental question: is Deborah Prentice actually in control of the university she is supposed to lead?”
Ouch.
TheResearcher · 13 August 2026 at 14:35
News from the Chancellor Lord Chris Smith! And where? Financial Times…
https://www.ft.com/content/b1ae24bd-af8b-4d98-985a-85213213b5f0?syn-25a6b1a6=1
“In his first public comments, Lord Chris Smith, chancellor of Cambridge since last year, told the FT he was “deeply concerned” by recent events and welcomed the role of external academics in the inquiry.
“It seems to me that there are two principles that are really important here. The first is to hold fast to the value of academic integrity, and if there are credible accusations of plagiarism about any academic, they must be rigorously and openly investigated,” said Smith, the university’s ceremonial head.
“The second is we mustn’t allow this unhappy affair to turn into a mob assault on diversity in academia,” he added. “I particularly fear for the impact it will have on good Black professors and academics across the university sector.””
Note how they stress “the university’s ceremonial head” as if he had no power!!
TheResearcher · 13 August 2026 at 14:42
Am I right to say that FT did not mention their ranking again? Perhaps I missed that bit. Is Cambridge University still the “UK’s best employer” when it retaliates against whistleblowers?
“What Jason Arday did was terrible”? What about what the University did to cover it up?
--- · 13 August 2026 at 15:09
His powers are sadly fairly limited (and this is in the statues), it is equivalent to the role of a constitutional monarch more than a prime minister. Though like any good head of state he must surely be wondering if some kind of intervention is required to address more fundamental constitutional (statutory) failures revealed by the recent ET case.
21percent.org · 13 August 2026 at 15:33
Chris Smith has little power but much influence
He knew about a lot of the scandals (perhaps not Arday, but certainly Astronomy and POLIS). He did nothing
Anonymous · 13 August 2026 at 23:36
Lots of influence
Lots of knowledge of the scandals
Lots of doing nothing
Yup, I second (or third) that.
TheResearcher · 13 August 2026 at 15:54
Chris Smith knows about the scandal of DAMTP and did nothing.
He gave me an advice: Chris Smith told me to talk to the responsible in my college, which I presume he meant Lord Glossover.
42 · 13 August 2026 at 15:39
Looks like the teams are at least taking notes from this thread before emailing further. Here is an updated statement that actually appears to have gone out to all staff by email just now:
Dear colleagues,
I would like to update you on important recent events, and our response to them.
Yesterday, I wrote to concerned staff about the actions which will follow on the case of Jason Arday. You can find that here
As I set out to colleagues, I fully understand the concerns being raised within the University and well beyond it regarding Jason Arday’s appointment, and I share them. I know there is real anger and anxiety around this damaging and difficult case.
I believe that fairness, meritocracy and the freedom to raise concerns are vital to any organisation. The events of the past few weeks have demonstrated the clear need for improvement at Cambridge.
We will now investigate the circumstances around his appointment by the Faculty of Education back in 2022, and his time here in Cambridge since his appointment nearly four years ago. That investigation must be thorough and transparent, and will be carried out independently by senior academics from within and beyond Cambridge.
The highest standards of academic excellence have been a core principle at Cambridge for many centuries, and this is reflected in the outstanding research and teaching taking place here every day. We are all proud of that, and I am personally committed to maintaining those standards.
I arrived in this role three years ago and inherited a number of complex issues. To deal with these issues, institutional change is required to improve and modernise our structures. I am fully committed to implementing the changes necessary.
As Vice-Chancellor, I lead an extraordinary, self-governing academic community which operates via a highly devolved model in which many decisions are taken within departments, faculties, and institutions. I will continue to work with colleagues and committees, and I will use my leadership role to drive forward the required changes.
Separately, this week an employment tribunal has ruled against the University in favour of a staff member, Professor Wyn Evans, on a number of serious issues. The University needs to look very hard at the judgment, its findings, and what went wrong.
I have therefore taken the step of asking the Deputy Chair of the University Council and the Council’s Audit Committee to establish the terms of an independent review of all relevant University processes, with the outcome to be reported directly to the Council. This will operate independently of, but alongside, the investigation into the circumstances around Jason Arday’s appointment and time at Cambridge. I am also aware of calls from some members of our community for an audit of our HR procedures and practices, which I will ask that this review addresses. I will also stress the importance of this review proceeding at pace and concluding as quickly as is possible.
These issues began before my time, but they have come to a conclusion on my watch. I want to now ensure that they are assessed thoroughly and independently, and that we can learn from them and make the necessary changes.
Our aim must be clear: a Cambridge in which academic excellence, merit, fairness and due process are not simply principles we affirm, but standards that are consistently reflected in how we make decisions and how we treat our people.
Yours sincerely,
Professor Deborah Prentice
Vice-Chancellor
TheResearcher · 13 August 2026 at 16:01
“this week an employment tribunal has ruled against the University in favour of a staff member, Professor Wyn Evans, on a number of serious issues. The University needs to look very hard at the judgment, its findings, and what went wrong.”
What a ridiculous statement. Does she mean whistleblowing retaliation against Wyn Evans where she was directly involved and found guilty? “The University needs”? What about her own behaviour? Zero apologies, zero accountability. There has not been a single person who came forward and said, I am responsible for X or Y. None.
Who actually wrote this statement? Do we know? Surreal.
- · 13 August 2026 at 15:40
Who just got the email? It’s over. It is now all over. What a fuck up!
? · 13 August 2026 at 15:43
What is the “fuck up”?
N/A · 13 August 2026 at 16:10
who is the Deputy Chair of the University Council and the Council’s Audit Committee who will be running the other enquiry btw
Old Schools Refugee · 13 August 2026 at 16:40
According to https://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/reporter/university_bodies/section2.shtml#heading2-5 it’s Gaenor Bagley, one of the external members. Strong background in private sector HR and audit. Could be worse.
Raven · 13 August 2026 at 16:44
People have been heard.
Let’s step back.
These investigations are not something she can afford to let fail now.
Sam Levans · 13 August 2026 at 15:41
The Oncology/CRUK Trainwreck is quite remarkably similar to this case. Reading through the 162 pages of the very clear judgement, it seems to describe exactly what’s happened to the scientists who were destroyed by the medical school with the enthusiastic assistance of incompetent university HR teams.
Next year we’re likely to see the key players in Oncology and the Medical School (Maxwell/Gilbertson/Abraham) in the High Court, on a witness stand and under oath, being cross examined for hours by a competent and well briefed barrister.
Then we will see how they defend the allegations, evasions and time wasting appeal procedures of the last five years.
Themonk · 13 August 2026 at 17:25
Bagley is not ideal. I spoke to her directly about the IoA case months ago. Towed the groupthink university line to a fault and told me that Prof Evans was “a troublemaker”. This is despite me describing almost identical issues in my own troubled department.
AnAcademic · 13 August 2026 at 19:42
Themonk, if this is true, this should be conveyed to someone in Council – there must be a (one!) good apple there…
TheResearcher · 13 August 2026 at 19:54
“this should be conveyed to someone in Council”
Talk to Lord Glossover! He is in the Council, he knows everything!
https://21percent.org/?p=2655
Themonk · 14 August 2026 at 09:23
I would happily do this.
Would need to be advised of who on council might be a good apple. My trust in the overall governance of the organisation is at an all time low.
A bloke · 13 August 2026 at 22:23
This reminds me of Sir Humphrey: “A cynic is what an idealist calls a realist.” Here: “A troublemaker is what a corporate stooge calls a whistleblower.”
Big Brother is Watching Us · 13 August 2026 at 18:16
Be careful with Debbie’s all-staff email. Just told that it contains a surveillance (“tracking”) pixel so the university can monitor whoever opens it.
Have now confirmed this myself a minute ago. It seems that the “tracker” is tied to each individual recipient in order to identify any member of staff who forwards it to another person.
Be sure to view it in text only format – and never in html.
Anonymous · 13 August 2026 at 23:41
Thanks, how do we view it in text only?