A whistleblowing and bullying chronicle foretold

Three years ago, the Royal Astronomical Society published research by Doyin Atewologun and myself on Bullying and Harassment in astronomy. 

We found that

"bullying and harassment is systemic in astronomy and geophysics: 44% of the 661 respondents reported suffering it in the workplace in the two years preceding the survey. Furthermore, people from traditionally under-served and under-represented groups (such as Black and minority ethnic people, LGBTQ+ people, women and people with disabilities) are disproportionately affected by this, with many of these groups being ~50% more likely to report bullying and harassment."

Three years later a University of Cambridge whistleblower who reported bullying and harassment at the Cambridge Institute of Astronomy has won an employment tribunal after he was victimised for standing up for female colleagues.

In this case an Employment Tribunal unanimously decided that  Prof Wyn Evans, who raised concerns over treatment of female staff at their Institute of Astronomy, was subject to ‘baseless’ investigation. https://21percent.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/3307960.2023-others-Reserved-Judgment-1.pdf

The Tribunal was told by Prof Wynn Evans that the institute suffered from “a bad history of misogyny” and claimed (with evidence) that one woman in the department had been “hounded out of a job”, another was “left a frightened woman”, and a third had faced “aggressive professors” at the institute.

And what was the University’s response? 

The tribunal found that after he had raised his concerns, Wyn Evans was subjected to a prolonged two-year investigation despite the allegations against him containing “scant particularisation, and no evidence to support them”. The investigation was found to be “contrary to natural justice”. The tribunal ruled it was “baseless (as nothing had been provided to support it) and it had been filed in retaliation … and was therefore likely malicious and vexatious”. 

In words that will be familiar to many readers the Tribunal found (Para 760):

"The disclosures were potentially highly damaging both to Professor McMahon and to the reputation of the Institute of Astronomy and to Cambridge University.  We noted that from the outset the University did not even want to consider the matter under the Whistleblowing Policy, and we have found that over time, an institutional mindset developed in which the Claimant came to be viewed as a source of difficulty and continuing reputational risk due to his protected disclosures which might damage the Institute and the University."

The Tribunal found that 11 of 14 alleged detriments claimed by Wyn Evans were upheld. They found that senior figures at Cambridge, including the Vice Chancellor, relied on correspondence and processes prepared for them by HR and administrators. As in many other cases that are lost at an ET, HR failed Professor Evans and sought to collude in his victimisation.  The Vice Chancellor, Deborah Prentice  was found to have relied upon a “ghostwritten” briefing.

By contrast, the Tribunal found that @a number of the claimant’s detailed concerns or complaints were dismissed out of hand without a proper process,” it said. In one example the person being complained about drafted the response to the claimant rejecting his complaints against them.”

The University of Cambridge barrister shameless "claimed Wyn Evans’s emotional testimony about the suicide of a former colleague amounted to “crocodile tears”. but the tribunal found “we were not persuaded that the claimant’s expressed emotion in the hearing was false or dramatised for our benefit”.

Will the University learn from this case? 

Not judging by the University of Cambridge statement issued in response to the Tribunal decision which said:

"We acknowledge the employment tribunal’s judgment of 10 August 2026 and are carefully reviewing it. We will now take time to reflect on the findings in detail.”

In plain English there is so far no sign of an apology for

• failing to uphold the courage of Professor Jones in standing up against  the bullying of female colleagues

• failing to prevent the bullying when it was first drawn to their attention

• refusing to even acknowledge that Wyn Jones concerns should be regarded as protected disclosures to be dealt with under their whistleblowing policy

• engaging in a biased investigation

• the disgraceful behaviour of HR and others in creating the framework for the University’s defence

• ignoring their own policies and procedures

• belittling his distress over a colleague’s suicide

• running a case costing the university hundreds of thousands of pounds

• failing to act to prevent harassment of their staff and instead seeking to shoot the messenger

In fact, there is no admission anywhere that this was a car crash of a defence reflecting unbelievably poorly on management culture and senior governance.

Not even an apology

In plain English they do not accept they did anything wrong and have no plans at present to learn from the case or hold to account those responsible. They cannot even bring themselves to apologise to Prof Evans.

Well done Wyn Evans, you should be proud of yourself.  As for Deborah Prentice, Cambridge University Vice Chancellor, if you cannot learn maybe you should move on?