The current issue of ‘The Reporter’ contains much of interest.
First, the Grace for an audit of the Human Resources division has been published. It is on page 7.
The Grace is intended to strengthen and improve the University’s Human Resources practices for the good of the whole University community — staff, students and the institution as a whole. It would establish an independent Oversight Committee, chaired by a legally qualified employment-law expert and including elected members of the Regent House and external members of the Audit Committee. The Committee would commission an independent external audit of HR procedures and practices, assessing their compliance with University policies and legal requirements, while also developing clear standards for good HR practice. Current and former employees, and where appropriate students, would be given an opportunity to provide evidence so that the review can consider a broad range of experiences.
The Grace also sets out a clear process for turning the audit’s findings into practical improvements. The auditors’ recommendations would be published, considered by the Oversight Committee, and then discussed with the recognised trade unions. The University Council would publish and implement an agreed plan, taking account of feedback from the wider University community, and would subsequently report publicly on what has been done. The whole process is designed to be transparent, independent and constructive, with further action recommended where necessary. Overall, the aim is not simply to examine past or present practices, but to ensure that the University develops fair, lawful, consistent and effective HR practices that serve the interests of everyone who works and studies within the University.
We hope that there are no anti-democratic shenanigans from the senior leadership regarding this Grace.
Secondly, there are notices of the three ongoing investigations (two into matters concerning Jason Arday and one into the loss of the Cambridge Whistleblowing Tribunal).
While the University describes these reviews as “independent”, there are important questions about what that independence means in practice.
The University Council is appointing the chair and establishing the panels, yet there is no clear commitment to real involvement by the wider academic and staff community in selecting either the chair or panel members. There is also no assurance that academics, professional staff, trade unions, or others with relevant experience will have a substantive role in shaping the investigations. Without such safeguards, there is a risk that reviews intended to examine institutional culture and practice become largely internal exercises involving senior management, HR and individuals already closely connected to the University’s existing problems.
There are also important questions about transparency. The University has committed to publishing the terms of reference, but it has not clearly committed to publishing the full reports, evidence-based findings and recommendations. Nor is it clear whether current and former staff and academics will be invited to contribute evidence, whether submissions can be made confidentially, or whether those affected will have a meaningful opportunity to respond. A report that is ultimately submitted to Council but not published in full would provide no real assurance to the wider University community.
If these reviews are genuinely intended to restore confidence and improve institutional practice, independence should mean more than appointing an external chair: the process should be demonstrably independent, open to evidence from across the University, and transparent about its findings and recommendations. The University should therefore commit to immediate consultation with academics and staff, independent representation on the panels, and publication of the full final reports, subject only to necessary legal or privacy redactions
The 21 Group believes that at least the Board of Scrutiny — which is a body directly elected by Regent House — should be asked to approve both the membership of the review panels and the Terms of Reference. This gives some measure of consultation with academics and staff. We also believe the final reports must be available (at minimum) to the Board of Scrutiny and preferably to the whole of Regent House.
(The image is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license. We acknowledge Michael Maggs as the original creator)
The unmistakable scent of whitewash is in the air.
How the f* can the same people exposed in court for wrongdoing be involved in designing an “investigation” in to their own actions? They should all have been suspended already.
Friends, for those of you who did not go through the torment of the HR grievance procedure let me tell you that this is all sounds depressingly familiar. The RP and investigator are presented as ‘independent’ but it is just a theatre and on closer examination they are all working in collaboration with the accused. Clearly this culture goes all the way to the top and that is why the Grace must pass. Otherwise the outcome is more changing everything to change nothing and next year the whole cycle of 2026 simply repeats itself.
Right. Ignoring the determinations of the tribunal and then declaring that you will follow your “own” independent investigation seems weirdly presumptuous. First you need to respect the sovereignty of the courts to decide what is fact. You can investigate further, and should, but the first action is to discipline those caught out, and not leave them in a position to undermine things further.
I don’t know what people in the university expected would happen after the university did this : substantively unfairly dismissed the chair of an organisations internal board of scrutiny, conceded the substantive unfair dismissal in court, when no fault was found on the part of the chair of the board of scrutiny refused to comply with a re-engagement order from a court – i.e. collectively eroded the foundation of the rights of every person in the organisation. Where exactly did people in the organisation expect voices of deep and penetrating scrutiny of the organisation to come from after the organisation had taken that particular series of organisational actions?
Regent House did nothing to stand by the chair of the board of scrutiny when the chair of the board of scrutiny did the right thing and lost their position in the university as a consequence. Regent house did nothing to fix a problem generated for every member of Regent House (including the senior leadership team) as a result of the organisational response in that case – no right to reinstatement/re-engagement in a case of substantive unfair dismissal even in a case of no fault contribution. There is no evidence Regent House would have done anything to stand by those who were caught out had they done the right thing, went on to lose their position in the organisation as a result of doing the right thing and went on to establish that as a fact in a court.
Is the solution now being proposed to simultaneously discipline – fire? – people for not doing the right thing and leave people fired – with an outstanding re-engagement order from an employment tribunal that has not been complied with – for doing the right thing? If so what are the next people being hired into these positions supposed to do to not get fired – the right not right thing? the not right right thing? the right right not thing? nothing? The “solution” seems like a recipe for inducing a state of complete organisational paralysis.
If an organisation can collectively guard the foundation of the rights of every person in an organisation then every person in an organisation can watch over the organisation in relation to themselves, in relation to others (according to their position in the organisation) and in relation to the organisation itself.
Irrespective of what happens to those now in senior leadership positions there needs to be a minimum level of organisational protection in a case where a person does the right thing. A person should not lose their position in an organisation as a result of having done the right thing – a fact they have subsequently gone on to establish in a court.
Eileen, can you say why exactly did the University dismiss Dr Catherine MacKenzie? Was it actually related to her work as the Chair of the Board of Scrutiny?
It is reported that the Employment Tribunal found an “irretrievable breakdown” with a senior colleague, but specifically distinguished that from MacKenzie’s relationship with Cambridge as an institution, which it found had not broken down
We cannot find the original Employment Tribunal judgment (as opposed to the appeal). The appeal is discussed here
https://justis.vlex.com/vid/806983177
Dr MacKenzie was lecturer in the Land Economy department at that time, so it could have been a senior colleague in the department.
Alternatively, her work on the Board of Scrutiny might mean a senior colleague in the central administration.
Dr Catherine MacKenzie is a barrister and because of the position I was in – potentially needing legal advice – and their own position as a legally trained professional would not talk to me in any depth about the case out of caution.
I got the judgement from Bury St Edmunds. It doesn’t explicitly specify this in the judgment but it looks to me like it was a probationary process during employment in a permanent academic post – 5 years in – that generated the problem where the department was unhappy with research output but not teaching and general contribution. That is a personal employment problem right up until the point a person – who was chair of the board of scrutiny – has a re-engagement order from an employment tribunal. At that point an organisational precedent is being set with respect to a critical transition in a permanent academic post and whether it can be subjected to external scrutiny or not.
Was it actually related to the work at the Board of Scrutiny is not straightforward question to answer – did the person have a higher workload of administrative (Board of Scrutiny) and teaching duties than other academics in a department unwilling to adjust the research output expected at the probationary time point?
I know universities are resistant to opening up internal decision making to external scrutiny but I think the further off track internal decision making goes & the more internal problems accumulate then the higher the internal pressure generated to open internal decision making up to external scrutiny is. It’s almost like an inbuilt safety valve to reset internal decision making that has gone off track by opening it up more and more externally to those with less and less contact with the internal environment to test what is being done against basic common sense i.e. an inbuilt fundamental error detection mechanism.
It’s not just HR. There needs to be an oversight committee to investigate our Legal Services. That’s the real black hole at the heart of the university.
I would love to be optimistic that this year could be a positive turning point for Cambridge. Unfortunately I am not. We can, and likely will sink lower.
All of these reviews could be perfectly constructed and run perfectly, but still fail. The reason is that there is no capacity at senior leadership level to implement their recommendations. Several of those who remain in post are conflicted and implicated in the matters under review. Recommendations need someone to implement them, and I don’t currently see who would do that. That said, get out and vote for the Grace when it comes!
We are not optimistic. There are further hugely damaging cases due in the Tribunals and Courts in 2027 — and no sign that HR or senior leadership has understood the extent of the failings.
This is the world in 2026.
Once upon a time, our leaders were caught out – even on relatively minor stuff – and they did the decent thing and resigned. They didn’t need to be asked. They just knew what was expected.
Today the scandals hit wave after wave and the default response is to “manage the narrative” and just keep on going until the bitter end. I don’t know how this became the norm but it is the single biggest cause of erosion of standards in public life.
@anonymous
100% In yesterday’s Cambridge evidence, facts and logical thinking determined the narrative. And lawyers were employed to facilitate the academic enterprise.
In today’s Cambridge, the narrative determines the facts, regardless of evidence and logic. And academics seem to be employed to facilitate the lawyers’ business – whatever that business may be.
The structural problem has a name: cowardice.
Committees don’t want to take responsibility, so default to HR. HR don’t want to take responsibility, so default to legal. And legal don’t care, because they can hide behind legal privilege.
Post Office, anyone?
Even once it all comes out in court still the management don’t take a tough decision but opt to kick it all down the road to further committees and reviews.
As our Old Schools Refugee colleague reminds us, if there existed a person in a position to make a clear decision, surely they’d have done so by now?
Instead what we get is this never-ending game of pass-the-parcel while everyone just hopes for the process to time out.
“I don’t know how this became the norm but it is the single biggest cause of erosion of standards in public life”
Insightful and I think this is the real reason why figures like Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn on the left (I struggled to think of an equivalent on the right – the closest I could think of was Jordan Peterson) are so popular these days. It isn’t that people agree with their views, more the fact that their views are considered and genuinely held. They represent an authenticity and honesty that has disappeared from our world – relics of a time when decency, consistency and authenticity still meant something.
I feel these guys are kind of like your “good” uncle (i.e. not the only raging about taxes and immigrants on Facebook but the one who has seen the ways of the world and accumulated a bit of real-life wisdom). Sure their advice is out of date (and you should probably politely disregard half of it). But at least you know their words come from a place of heartfelt care and compassion for others, and for the world we live in.
There’s a strong unmet demand for that kind of mentorship.
“We hope that there are no anti-democratic shenanigans from the senior leadership regarding this, Grace.”
Of course there will be such shenanigans. There is no doubt about that. Incompetent and dishonest people will continue their malpractices until they are held accountable, and I have yet to see anyone take responsibility for the current state of affairs at Cambridge University.
The good news is this: the senior leadership is being watched now. There are still many scandals yet to come to light, and the information can easily reach the press. If they prefer to continue with the cover-up, Cambridge will remain in the news for some time.
The corrupt regime of the American Queen will resist any change. Legal, HR and ProVCs will fight for the status quo. In the SCM Profs Smallman, Crookery, Teflon and Viciouswoman will press to save their skins. How long can the sewer wait?
The New York Times reports that Cambridge has changed its mind about investigating the Arday disaster. I’ll quote because the article is paywalled: “That marks an abrupt shift from the plan announced this summer, when the school’s vice chancellor, Deborah Prentice, promised a “thorough and transparent” investigation into Dr. Arday’s appointment.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/09/25/world/europe/cambridge-jason-arday-investigation.html
I have the gut feeling that this is just the first article of Mara on Cambridge University. Let’s see what happens next!
It’s an interesting article. It ends:
“A finance scandal in Britain’s right-wing Reform U.K. party has put scrutiny on Cambridge theologian James Orr, a former adviser to the party who has been the subject of student complaints, according to the Financial Times. Cambridge has also lost a case brought by a professor who said he was targeted for being a whistle-blower, in a ruling that singled out Dr. Prentice and human resources staff for criticism.
The university spokesperson said Cambridge was “looking into” the allegations against Dr. Orr and “looking hard at the judgment” and facts in the whistle-blower case.”
The University is doing a lot of looking. Our guess is, after a cursory look, they will decide not to look any further, who knows what they will find !
Remember, the whole point of an internal investigation is not to find any evidence (Sir Humphrey Appleby)
Do we need a Grace demanding that the university investigate the Arday case? Apparently they are deopping the I”investigation.
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/09/25/world/europe/cambridge-jason-arday-investigation.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share
Oh dear. Looks like we know what to expect from the “investigation”…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EcVV8p2pS2k
Minister, two basic rules of government: Never look into anything you don’t have to. And never set up an enquiry unless you know in advance what its findings will be. (Sir Humphrey Appleby)
Sounds suspiciously like they have now discovered in advance what the findings would be, and would rather the rest of the world not know?
Sounds suspiciously like they know the findings would implicate may other senior academics (Munir, Vira, Aston) and so best not to go there
Either that, or there were more scandalous details emerging that aren’t yet public would be my guess, but really just a guess. If the logic of the investigation is to whitewash, it wouldn’t achieve that if yet more inconvenient findings came out.
This is a good point — we suspect there is quite a lot which we do not yet know & could be very damaging.
If the VC can just “undeclare” a major investigation she announced to the world just one month earlier, this gives little confidence that any of the other “investigations” will survive.
Membership of HR Investigation Committee
A Hudson (Chair), T Niven, S Fecondi, all the HR Business Partners, K Munir
That should do the trick.
But the investigations are happening whether the university wants them or not?
The only question is whether the university can investigate itself and hold people accountable before the press and courts do the job for them.
All signs suggest a long, slow, and painful process of drip by drip public exposure will continue.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
The Grace we need is
Regent House has no confidence in the Vice Chancellor or her senior leadership team
This is long overdue – and my guess is would pass in a landslide
It is unclear that another Report is needed. Change is needed. My attention has just been drawn to the following article on HoDs.
“These proposals constitute a barons’ charter. But they are unlikely to be remembered as this University’s Magna Carta. Rather, they give a green light for Heads of institutions to exercise or to withhold patronage. Those of us who have experienced great changes in our circumstances arising from the succession of a new Head or Department or the megalomanical rush of blood to the head of an existing superior or the decision of a senior colleague to begin a campaign of bullying or vilification will know all too well what the changes proposed here must portend.
“Some barons are no doubt cuddly and devoted to fairness and to the welfare of all their staff. But others are robber-barons who oppress their local peasantry. Bullying and other prejudicial behaviour by over-mighty managers cause stress and distress, suspensions, and loss of employment. Some examples have been discussed here, but they are a minority. In other words, we know that in most instances when a local baron takes against a subordinate the Administration will give full support to the Head of institution. The essence of the proposals before us is to return the fates of candidates, or would-be candidates, for promotion to the mercies of their Heads of institution.”
Those words were written by the late Prof Dumville in 2002, see https://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/reporter/2002-03/weekly/5904/18.html
A decade later, there were concerns about “the apparent lack of regulations and standards to ensure accountability [of HoDs]” (Prof Rudd, 2014, https://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/reporter/2014-15/weekly/6361/section10.shtml )
Another decade has passed, but both of those comments could easily be made today.
“they give a green light for Heads of institutions to exercise or to withhold patronage. Those of us who have experienced great changes in our circumstances arising from the succession of a new Head or Department or the megalomanical rush of blood to the head of an existing superior or the decision of a senior colleague to begin a campaign of bullying or vilification will know all too well what the changes proposed here must portend.”
Cannot believe this was written in 2002.
It is an exact description of how things run today.
Heads have almost despotic power without accountability and the addition of HR has simply augmented their power to exert their tyranny.
The difference between today and 2002 is that today no one bothers to speak or dissent regularly in discussions. After all what is the point? These days the administration simply ignore a Grace that troubles them and get on with what they want to do.
Where are Edwards’s, Laming’s, De Lacey’s and Dumville’s now? Evans is still around but she is the exception, deep into retirement, that proves the rule.
Professor A.W.F. Edwards in 1998: “I had concluded by remarking ‘that the main cause of current difficulties is the substitution by the Old Schools of an unstatutory managerialism for the proper government of the University.”
Since then, it’s got worse. The unstatutory management has been delegated by the Old Schools to HR and Legal, who run rampent.
The dissenters of old stood up in Senate House and spoke the truth, but they were ignored. The dissent hasn’t gone, it’s moved on to the pages of the world’s press, the courts and tribunals and blogs like this one. And therefore much more widely read than the Reporter.
The value of Discussions and their documentation in the Reporter is that they are a permanent record, quotable decades later. Those that can should still be calling for Discussions on topics of concern and speaking at them.
The problem with speaking at a Discussion is that one risks annoying a baron or two, which could have career-changing (or even life-changing) consequences. Most peasants are pretty defenseless against the dark arts of the barons, and barons are now quite numerous, being found also as HoSs and PVCs, in HR, in Legal, etc.
It is unclear to me whether in the last century the barons were so intolerant and vindictive when they sensed dissent. I think probably not.
I am a representative of the barons. It is hard for me since the academic quality is quite low (look for example at the new barons in the Cancer Centre) and they have no morals (look at barons that recently moved to head Colleges).
So please… pitty me.
@Peasant True. The erosion of established posts also means that for many (particularly the academic-related) speaking carries a greater risk. But, the more that have the courage to speak, the better for everyone.
@Peasant @Old Timer agreed on all points. These changes inevitably mean that the loudest and most frequent voices at Discussions are those with the least to lose. This means that the rest of us follow other means which ironically, are more damaging for the institution.
The dissenters of old may have been ignored at the time of standing up in Senate House and speaking the truth but that doesn’t imply the dissent of the dissenters of old was ignored across the generations. A person can be highly sensitive to a problem to the extent a person could sense a problem exists a long time before the problem fully emerges and its existence registers with others.
I’ve been thinking about the NYT article. The framework announced on 14th Sept for part 2 of the Arday review shifts the focus from the circumstances of Arday’s individual appointment to the institution’s approach to it. That broader remit seems appropriate now that Arday can’t answer for himself.
The wording of 14th Sept makes clear that Arday’s interactions with the hiring and research misconduct processes are in scope. This subtlety is missing from the Reporter announcement this week, which is closer to the vague announcement on 4th August. I honestly believe that the most likely explanation is that this is just sloppy drafting with no thought given to the optics of the situation.
The line that really stands out for me in the NYT article is “A university spokesperson declined to explain the change or answer questions about it.” Once again the comms office have been caught like a deer in headlights. They had the answer already and declined to give it. So the story blows up again on social media and the University suffers yet another self-inflicted wound.
apologies, I meant “the vague announcement on 4th September”.
Quite possible. Of course, no journalist would dare publish anything about Cambridge without getting comments from the University.
Anecdotally, the University Comms Office has behaved in a brusque & arrogant manner before in suppressing stories, but it looks as though their power & credibility has all gone.
Once a Comms Office loses its credibility, then it’s over
@Old Schools Refugee,
I have been saying this for a while, but it bears repeating: the decision-makers at Cambridge University are malicious, dishonest, AND incompetent. Until these individuals are held accountable and leave, people should not expect changes at this institution.
Addressing both of the above comments, a comms office that has lost its credibility can’t be fixed by replacing individuals either. The next person will just inherit the same brief and operate in the same system.
Changing the system requires a process with teeth, further Graces building on the HR Grace that will cover other divisions too. Failing that, the courts and the regulator will eventually impose the necessary changes.
The comms office lost credibility ages ago. Too many newspapers that received vexatious SLAPP letters that turned out to be total rubbish, just like the ones out there (Grove and THE). Too many desperate statements intended to “quash” stories that were exposed as lies. Too many meaningless “responses” when they knew the story was coming out anyway and all they could say was that the university “disagreed” without providing any evidence. Journalists may fight like cats to get a good lead, but it is a small world and word gets around about this laughable behaviour.
The main point about Part 2 of the review is that it is simply an offer to look at the university’s processes more generally. It doesn’t even refer to the case at hand. In her response to the public letter signed by 89 staff members, Prentice had promised full transparency as well as participation by academics internal and external. All that is now gone. The key issue is there is no offer even to think about accountability. We can all talk about ‘processes’ ad infinitum. Means nothing and entirely shields senior management. It isn’t necessary to revisit the allegations against someone who can’t answer for them, yes, but there are plenty of other related issues where the individuals responsible are very much around, including those who paraded the biography over the work in the media leading to his inevitable targeting.
“I had the opportunity yesterday, along with the Secretary of State, to talk to the Vice-Chancellor and senior leaders of Cambridge University about that, and they will be imminently announcing the detail of the terms of reference for that investigation. Importantly, they gave assurances to me and the Secretary of State that it would be independent and rigorous.”
— Jacqui Smith, Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State for Skills
Nothing prevents Cambridge members and alumni from writing an open letter to Jacqui Smith about their concerns and sending it in parallel to Chris Smith and the press.
What happened to the students who were going to sue over poor supervision and/or historical plagiarism penalties? Wonder if this is also a case of the lawyers intervening to block accountability on rather narrow strategic grounds.
The 14th Sept framework for part 2 does specifically refer to Arday’s case. There is a danger this will be dropped, but my reading is that it hasn’t happened yet.
We don’t have the terms for part 2. The longer we wait, the more the gap will fill with criticism and anxiety about getting it right.
You’re right that accountability is key and must be included in part 2. Afzal does not shy away from it in part 1: “Where the review finds that something went wrong, it will say what, when, and who was responsible for it.”. If that was acceptable for part 1, there’s no good reason it shouldn’t be for part 2.
Note that individual accountability is not the same as removal. It’s about explaining how decisions are made and who owns them in this university, which has been a weak spot for decades.
I’ll look at them again: they seem inordinately vague to me. The point is that they were supposed to draft the ToR in consultation with the community, and there is no provision for that. They jumped the gun with Afzal, cannily, and with Part 2 no clarity on who is drafting, how it will be staffed etc, contrary to earlier claims that there would be full transparency and consultation.
Agreed. There is no clear statement that the wider University will have any influence over the ToR or the composition of the investigation panel.
Without this, any investigation will be a sham.
100%
We need to be doing something. But there’s also, sorry to say, massive apathy/fear
“how decisions are made and who owns them in this university”
We just need to ask the shenanigans team: Prentice, Munir, Vira, Philpot, Aston, Hudson, Helm and Parsons. They should know!
To these crooks you need to add Profs Smallman, Crookery (also known as UKRI-destroyer), Teflon and ViciousWoman. Prof Drinkalot is now RIP. Prof Bullshitmore, as the good coward he is, run away to be Regius of psychobable somewhere else (near the Thames). What a bunch of degenerates.
Here is the relevant paragraph on Part 2 of the Review from Sept 4. It makes NO specific mention of the case at hand and is wonderfully vague, apart from repeating a point already covered by Part 1.
“Part two will comprise a broader review of the University’s institutional processes and practice. This will include the recruitment of senior academic staff, mentoring and support arrangements, the University’s response to allegations of research misconduct, and the support available to academics who are subjected to excessive public and media scrutiny. We are in the process of appointing an independent external chair to lead this work, subject to the Council’s approval. Part two of the review will also be advised by an independent expert panel and is expected to report within six months.”
yes, too vague to be useful.
The 14th Sept version:
“Part Two of the Review will address the broader context of Jason Arday’s time at the University, considering the University’s recruitment and appointment processes for senior academic staff; mentoring and support arrangements for such staff once appointed… the Review will examine the relevance of, and Professor Arday’s interaction with, these processes and arrangements throughout his time at the University.”
Unfortunately the Reporter version misses out that slightly stronger second clause.
Without splitting hairs, I think we can all agree that neither version inspires confidence. And neither does the delay or lack of engagement with the university community.
‘the broader context’ rather than the specific circumstances. That word ‘broader’ was used very deliberately as also ‘context’ meaning wider processes.
Anyway, we are agreed that this is all going to be a big nothingburger unless people speak up.
Where is the 14th September version? did it come through to the university community or was it just a press release?
Why are there so many ‘versions’ including the Reporter version? is this just written on the back of a napkin? wait, don’t answer that.
It’s towards the bottom of https://www.cam.ac.uk/news/nazir-afzal-obe-launches-part-one-of-the-independent-review-following-the-death-of-professor-jason following Afzal’s terms for part 1.
They desperately need to get a grip on this.
thanks!
The only grip they will be getting is on the comms and not in a good way.
The situation in Cambridge is shocking and unprecedented. Debbie is not fit to continue but she will not resign. 550k salary plus all the perks (worth at least 250k) are too much for her to voluntarily go. The problem is compounded by the oligarchy not wanting her to go! If Debbie goes they are finished. And it is not just top admin (HR, Legal, Res Office), it is also all ProVCs, Council, many Heads of School and now even several Heads of House. There are also lots of skeletons in the closet, including the gigantic one in oncology/CRUK. So with a totally useless and spineless Lord Irrelevant only Regent House can do something to rescue the train wreck!
In evolutionary biology, one of the greatest misconceptions is encapsulated by the phrase: “Only the strong survive”.
In fact, many environments select for weakness: that is how the dinosaurs became chickens.
And now we are become an entire university of chickens. For two decades we have selected for lickspittle frippants who populate our pusillanimous leadership, replicate through identical hires, and proffer thin piffle to the press when at last held to account.
The Greats of the past would not survive long in this new Cambridge any more than Galileo could survive the Papacy. They would be cut down to size, and if they could ever persist, be forced to rebuild in some new enlightenment refuge far away, where scholars are again empowered to stand tall and make their world match the grandeur of their dreams.
Interesting point. Academics are used to making compromises.
The long & difficult search for a permanent position means that academia selects for those who are cautious, unwilling to upset anyone important
Don’t challenge the wrong person, don’t upset anyone with influence, and don’t jeopardise your career.
Over time, that creates a culture where self-preservation is rewarded and speaking up is risky.
It’s not necessarily that academics don’t care about injustice. Many do. It’s that the structure of academic careers teaches people that there are consequences for confronting those who hold power.
Evolution selects for fitness in a particular environment, not for “strength” or “weakness”. Birds, for example, did not evolve from dinosaurs because they were weaker. The analogy with academia is interesting, though. If academic careers reward caution, conformity and self-preservation, those are precisely the traits the system will select for. That may explain the behaviour, but it does not excuse it. Careers are not more important than the principles of the people who pursue them. Self-preservation will not solve the problems Cambridge faces, and these are problems that should concern all members of the University, staff and students alike.
Funny enough, I just remembered that many months ago, when it was clear that the University was going to cover up what was being done to me, a very senior professor told me that “the system was in self-preservation mode” and was acting like an organism.
I told him that was bullshit, because what was being done to me was being decided by individuals. Each of them could choose to be honest and tell the truth, or not, and they invariably chose not to.
Nothing prevents the individuals involved in a cover-up from telling the truth if they wish to do so. It is their morals, as opposed to fear of losing their jobs, that fail to compel them to do so.
Here it is necessary to consider multiple layers of selection i.e. not just what people in universities are being selected for within a university environment but also what universities as organisations are being selected for within an external environment.
I think part of the problem is that universities are being selected for all sorts of different things other than the discovery of new information, the generation and transmission of the most accurate information, solving complex academic interest problems, solving complex real-world interest problems.
Universities are now being selected by the external environment for their ability to prepare students for employment in prestigious employers such as external consultancies who universities are then expected to pay large sums of money to consult on how to run a university. Universities are being selected for irrationality and those within them are also being selected for irrationality.
An environment that selects for irrationality in an environment where it is being selected for irrationality will not survive.
In my view, it’s reassuring, in point of the integrity of the proposal, that a scholar of the stature of Mathew Kramer, an eminent legal and moral philosopher, is among the signatories listed under the Annexure to the Grace (published on p. 7).
“Edmonds, who is currently Head of the Department of Earth Sciences, will commence her four-year term on 1 October, succeeding Nigel Peake, who is stepping down to become master of Darwin College.”
https://www.varsity.co.uk/news/32096
I am confused. Peake is “stepping down to become master of Darwin College,” or he is stepping down because he was directly involved in whistleblowing retaliation in Astronomy and he is involved in other major scandals in the School of Physical Sciences?
Peake is just one more that being involved in a major scandal is then selected to be Head of House. A similar situation to that of the one that orchestrated the major oncology/CRUK scandal…
Cambridge morals. Go figure.
Hmmm, let me guess: Professor Richard Gilbertson, Master and head of Gonville & Caius College?
Even people who are not aware of the oncology/CRUK scandal can easily find out who is the Master of a Cambridge College associated with Oncology and CRUK 😉