{"id":4173,"date":"2026-08-13T08:56:50","date_gmt":"2026-08-13T07:56:50","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/21percent.org\/?p=4173"},"modified":"2026-08-13T11:11:52","modified_gmt":"2026-08-13T10:11:52","slug":"has-she-drafted-her-resignation-letter-yet","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/21percent.org\/?p=4173","title":{"rendered":"Has she drafted her Resignation Letter Yet?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n

The Vice Chancellor’s recent statement<\/a> was first sent as a pdf to selected colleagues.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Given the recent statements about ghost-writing of letters at the Employment Tribunal Judgement<\/a>, it is reasonable to ask a straightforward question: did Professor Deborah Prentice actually write this statement?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The statement reads:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

Dear colleagues<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I fully understand the concerns being raised across the University and well beyond it, regarding Jason Arday\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Yours sincerely<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Professor Deborah Prentice  <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

There are serious problems with this statement. Most obviously, it is at least three weeks too late.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

More importantly, it investigates the wrong thing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The central question is not simply how the Faculty of Education appointed Jason Arday in 2022. It is what role the University\u2019s central administration played in that appointment, its subsequent promotion, and its response when concerns about his record were raised.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Two Pro-Vice-Chancellors, Professor Kamal Munir and Professor Bhaskar Vira, were heavily involved in promoting Arday\u2019s appointment in the context of Cambridge\u2019s institutional anti-racism agenda. The University\u2019s announcement<\/a> of his appointment makes this unusually explicit.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

Jason Arday is an exceptional scholar of race, inequality and education. He will contribute significantly to Cambridge\u2019s 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 \u2013 including the expansion of the \u2018Get In Cambridge\u2019 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\u2019s expertise will inform and enhance these ongoing endeavours.” (Prof Bhaskar Vira)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

That matters because the Vice-Chancellor\u2019s statement largely outsources responsibility for the appointment to the Faculty of Education while saying almost nothing about the central administration\u2019s involvement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That is difficult to reconcile with the public record.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A BBC film crew does not ordinarily materialise simply because a professor at a faculty asks it to. The extensive media operation surrounding Arday\u2019s appointment appears to have involved the University\u2019s central communications machinery, operating under senior leadership. Given the scale of the publicity and the way Arday\u2019s appointment was presented as a landmark statement of Cambridge\u2019s commitment to inclusivity, the role of the central administration demands scrutiny.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Yet the Vice-Chancellor\u2019s proposed investigation does not appear to address it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Nor does the statement address the alleged cover-up.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Then there is the extraordinary episode involving Times Higher Education<\/em>. In 2025, who paid for the Carter-Ruck letter sent to Times Higher Education<\/em> in an apparent attempt to pressure journalist Jack Grove into abandoning questions about Arday\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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\u2019s record? Professor Harris\u2019s 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 \u2014 while also being warned not to question Arday again because of the alleged impact on his mental health.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As a matter of public record, the Director of Communications at Cambridge, James Helm<\/a>, 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Then there is the University\u2019s response at the end of July, as the scandal began to break. Who authorised the Cambridge spokesperson who told Retraction Watch<\/em> that Arday was a \u201cvictim of a vile campaign to undermine his credibility<\/em>\u201d, that he had been cleared of \u201callegations of plagiarism regarding his thesis and journal publications<\/em>\u201d, and that his critics were motivated by \u201cracism<\/em>\u201d?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That is particularly troubling because, by that point, substantial evidence concerning the allegations was already in the public domain.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

These questions go directly to the conduct of the institution. Instead, the Vice-Chancellor\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Who knew? Who acted? Who authorised what? And who decided not to investigate?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

An investigation that does not follow those questions into the central administration will not get to the heart of the matter.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Vice-Chancellor\u2019s statement therefore looks less like an investigation into what happened than an attempt to draw a line around what will be investigated.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Prof Prentice gave sworn evidence concerning the thoroughness with which she had dealt with Prof Evans\u2019s appeals. The Tribunal did not accept that evidence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It found:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

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<\/em>. Professor Prentice had very little to do with it, save for putting her name to it.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

And:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

951 We were troubled by how this decision was reached as we understand that Professor Prentice\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

The kindest interpretation of the Tribunal\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Prof Prentice’s evidence was given on oath.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

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 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"om_disable_all_campaigns":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_uf_show_specific_survey":0,"_uf_disable_surveys":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4173","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-blog"],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/21percent.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4173","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/21percent.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/21percent.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/21percent.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/21percent.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=4173"}],"version-history":[{"count":12,"href":"https:\/\/21percent.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4173\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4191,"href":"https:\/\/21percent.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4173\/revisions\/4191"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/21percent.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=4173"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/21percent.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=4173"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/21percent.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=4173"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}