Academic Parity Newsletter July & August 2026
This content is restricted to site members. If you are an existing user, please log in. New users may register...
Read More →
Greetings allies and members.
This issue of our newsletter includes a selection of the latest research, media and activities related to the issue of academic bullying and harassment. This issue features a diverse set of articles from those highlighting the important and often problematic role media plays in amplifying faculty abuse to those examining the institutional mechanisms that make addressing abuse at its roots difficult, if not impossible. Most pieces below offer concrete and useful tips for alleviating the harms they address in their piece and we highly recommend that you read and forward them. As we multiply our knowledge about academic bullying, we are also multiplying the solutions. There is much hope in this.
As always, stay tuned for more information on our latest activities and thank you for your interest in and support for Academic Parity. Thank you to those of you who have kindly sent relevant research and materials our way!
Universities must stop protecting bullies–or more people will leave science (Nature, August 2026). In this worldview piece, Morteza Mahmoudi addresses the increasing problem of institutional overreaction to accusations of bullying in the face of public exposure. Guided by the instinct of self-preservation, he notes a trend wherein universities act visibly and fast–often before they have examined the evidence closely. Whereas faculty members who bring in the most money from grants or industry are the most likely to have a bullying complaint dismissed, early-career researchers and faculty members with less funding often bear the brunt of these often performative crackdowns.
So your daughter wants to study science at university? First take a reality check (The Irish Times, June 2026). In this piece, Pat O’Connor draws attention to the fact that while minister of education continue to encourage girls to study science in university, the harsh reality is that the route to a permanent academic position is long (13-18 years after certificate) and arduous (gender-based power imbalances, precarity) with no guarantees of a permanent position at the end of the journey.
University of Cambridge whistleblower who reported alleged bullying wins employment tribunal (The Guardian, August 2026). In this piece, Daisy Iliff describes a recent win for a university faculty, Dr. Wyn Evans, who brought an employment tribunal case against Cambridge. The tribunal found that after raising concerns about abuse within his department, Professor Evans was “subjected to a prolonged nearly two-year investigation by the university”, even though the allegations against him “contained scant particularisation, and no evidence to support them”.
When misconduct disappears into a university bureaucracy (University Affairs, August 2026). In this article, Bryn Williams-Jones, highlights the problems associated with universities’ fragmented system of dealing with misconduct, noting that while universities have become very good at creating policies and procedures to deal with misconduct, they may still lack a reliable way to understand the scope of the problem. This is because misconduct rarely presents itself neatly: one complainant, one policy, one office, one resolution and rather appears as behaviours spread across relationships, roles and administrative categories.
Jason Arday faced 30 stories in 12 days from 15 U.S. media outlets. A white colleague accused of more serious conduct faced none (The Emancipator, August 2026). This article by Ibram X. Kendi compares US media coverage of two Cambridge faculty members accused of plagiarism across 15 mainstream media outlets. Their analysis revealed that whereas the media outlets published 30 pieces about Arday in the 12 days preceding his death, their search turned up no results for the other faculty member, William O’Reilly, in spite of the fact that the accusations against him were more serious than Arday’s.
When media abuse of academics becomes the norm in HE (University World News, August 2026). In this piece Corinne Fowler outlines what universities need to learn from the media abuse of Jason Arday. Fowler asserts that university leaders need to accept that media abuse of academics is the norm, not the exception. As such she advises that they need to be prepared to “defend themselves for what they overwhelmingly are: serious institutions which conduct rigorous academic research, much of which is focused on public benefit” and, most importantly, put the protection of the individual being targeted over the university’s instinct to protect itself.
We would like to turn your attention to a recent initiative–“Fight the Academic Bullies Map”–spearheaded by Alexander Jung. The map provides a growing list of country-specific independent organizations and legal resources for those being bullied in higher education.
Reserve a place here for the webinar–”Legal Activism to Address Gender-Based Harm in HIgher Education in the UK and South Africa–to be held on Tuesday, 8 September from 4:00 to 5:30 PM CEST.
Register here for the upcoming virtual event- “Going Mainstream: What Higher Education Needs to Know About Male Supremacy and the Manosphere” to be held on Wednesday, 23 September from 12:00 PM to 1:00 PM ET.
Voices from the Community section is a space where members of our community share their stories and experiences of academic bullying. Please let us know if you have an experience you would like to share by contacting our newsletter editor at avogelaar@paritymovement.org. Contributions are anonymized but not fact-checked and should be 300 words or less.
“When I joined one of the best research institutions in the US, I believed that working in a prestigious laboratory would be an incredible opportunity to learn, contribute, and grow as a scientist. I was excited about the science and proud to be there. I never imagined that, a few years later, I would find myself wondering, ‘Why am I still working here?’ What I experienced included poor ethics, anxiety, racist comments, discrimination, and repeated confrontational interactions with my supervisor. There were a lot of moments of yelling, intimidation, and threats.
Over time, I was no longer coming to the lab because I was excited about science. I was coming in trying to avoid problems. I spent more energy thinking about how my supervisor might react than thinking about my experiments. Looking back, I think that was one of the clearest signs that something was seriously wrong.
What made it harder was realizing that this was not simply one bad interaction. There was a culture around it. Other people had experienced similar problems, and some eventually left. Yet it was difficult to believe that anything would change. The institution was prestigious, the science was somewhat successful, and my supervisor had an established reputation.
Eventually, I reported what was happening, and an institutional investigation followed. Reading the final report was both validating and frustrating. The investigators acknowledged significant problems with management, communication, and treatment. They recognized the negative impact of the laboratory culture and concluded that it was reasonable for me to view my supervisor’s treatment as ‘hostile, offensive, and unrelated to the institution’s legitimate business or educational interests.’ And yet, the conduct was ultimately not found to constitute a violation of the institution’s Abusive Conduct Policy, largely because there was insufficient evidence that the harm had been deliberately or maliciously intended.
I still struggle with that distinction. How much does intent matter when the impact is real, repeated, documented, damaging and experienced by multiple people? What is the logic that governs institutional protection of serial abusers? How many star scientists does science lose in the process?
Academic science often celebrates demanding environments in the name of excellence. But there is a difference between high standards and humiliation, between rigorous criticism and intimidation, and between being pushed to do better and being made afraid to enter your own laboratory.”
Until the next issue, wishing you well,
Dr. Alison E. Vogelaar
Newsletter editor