A former student of James Orr who was found to have been bullied by the suspended senior Reform UK figure is reopening a case against the University of Cambridge, after apparent discrepancies emerged over the university’s handling of the incident.
The former student alleges that the academic’s claim not to have been disciplined contradicts assurances they say they received from the institution.
Cambridge was ordered by the university’s office of student conduct, complaints and appeals (OSSCA) complaint reviewer to pay £5,000 compensation to the student for distress and in lieu of tuition fees after an investigation partially upheld the bullying allegation against Orr, an associate professor in the university’s Faculty of Divinity.
Separately, the University of Cambridge said earlier this month that it was examining Orr’s conduct after he and another key aide to Nigel Farage were filmed appearing to try to circumvent electoral laws on foreign political donations. Orr was suspended from his highly influential role as Reform UK’s head of policy over the incident.
The university now faces renewed questions about its handling of previous allegations of academic negligence and bullying made against the high-profile academic by a theology PhD student. The student decided to leave the university in January last year without completing their doctorate as a result of their experience with Orr.
The OSSCA partially upheld the grievance earlier this year, the Financial Times reported earlier this month. As well as being awarded the payment, the student received an apology from Richard Rex, the chair of the Faculty of Divinity’s board, who acknowledged that the student’s experience with Orr had been “distressing” and “disruptive”.
The student’s case with the university was subsequently closed, but they now say they are reopening it, alleging that the university had lied to them about disciplining Orr.
Their concerns about Cambridge are understood to stem from Orr’s account of the case given to the Financial Times, which the student believes is in conflict with what the university had told them.
Orr was quoted in the Financial Times as saying that he was unaware of the complaint findings or the compensation and that “no disciplinary action of any kind” had been taken against him.
The former student says that this account contradicts Cambridge’s claim that appropriate action was taken, and suggests that Cambridge failed to properly follow its procedures in relation to investigations into staff and disciplinary procedures.
In a social media post shared with close friends last week, the student described the impact Orr’s alleged conduct has had on them.
They said: “It has had long-lasting effects on my confidence and self-belief. It made me lose my passion for academic inquiry, and consequently a large part of my identity and passion for life.”
The student said they had made the difficult decision last January to leave their PhD studies at the university. After passing a first-year upgrade examination, they had decided to leave with a postgraduate certificate rather than complete the full course.
“The reason I decided to leave my studies at Cambridge was because of the behaviour of my initial supervisor, Dr James Orr,” they added.
But they said that the FT investigation suggested that the university “has not been truthful with me” and that they are therefore reopening the case. “I am extremely determined to receive justice, both for myself and for others who have been negatively impacted by Orr’s behaviour. But it is a relief in itself to finally be able to speak openly about this,” they added.
“I remain deeply concerned about the emotional and academic wellbeing of students who encounter Orr at Cambridge. I hope that the university, particularly in light of recent events, will now take appropriate action.”
When approached by the Guardian about the former student’s intention to reopen the case, the University of Cambridge said: “We have clear policies and processes in place to protect our students and staff. We cannot comment on individual cases because our students and staff have a right to confidentiality.”
While Orr was interviewed by the OSSCA, he told the FT that he was “at a loss to know what any responsible supervisor could have done differently” and did not believe the student’s account was a “fair characterisation” of the conversation which led to criticism of his remarks by an investigator.
Orr did not address the former student’s intention to reopen the case when approached by the Guardian.
