🚨 BREAKING: CAF has written to Cambridge’s Vice-Chancellor on behalf of several academics who fear professional repercussions if they raise concerns in their own names about a University-wide communication offering “support and advice” specifically to black members of staff. As reported in today’s Telegraph, the message, circulated following the death of Dr Jason Arday, contained a statement from five members of Cambridge’s Senior Black Leaders Group, including two Deputy Vice-Chancellors and college heads. It presented contested claims about the “hyper-surveillance”, “structural pressures”, “hostility” and “systemic barriers” supposedly faced by black scholars at “high-profile institutions” as established facts. The signatories described themselves as “institutional advocates”, speaking “in our senior roles”, before the communication concluded by inviting black staff to contact them for “support and advice”. The academics who independently approached CAF are concerned both about the apparent race-based offer and what the wider message means for those who disagree with its theoretically informed analysis. In the particularly charged circumstances surrounding Arday’s death, they fear that challenging its claims could see them regarded by those same senior figures as contributing to the very “hostility” it describes — a concern that extends to raising the matter informally with managers. It also raises an obvious, albeit uncomfortable question: would the advertised support and advice be as readily available to them? That academics feel unable to raise concerns of this kind within their university without protecting their identities is something Cambridge’s senior leadership might wish to reflect upon. CAF therefore agreed to raise the matter on their behalf. In our letter, we ask Cambridge what the support comprised, whether access was afforded or facilitated on the same basis irrespective of race, and the legal and evidential basis for any difference. This matters because, under the Equality Act 2010, the question is not simply whether a non-black member of staff would ultimately have been refused help: the way access to a workplace benefit or service is afforded or facilitated can itself be relevant to whether there is less favourable treatment. And although the Act permits positive action, that’s only where the statutory conditions are met: there must be an evidential basis for reasonably believing that the relevant disadvantage, different need or disproportionately low participation exists, and the action must be proportionate to addressing it. Interestingly, Cambridge has now told the Telegraph that it also signposted general wellbeing support to everyone. That’s good to hear. But it doesn’t answer our question as to whether access to these senior figures’ support was offered on the same basis irrespective of race. We hope Cambridge will provide the necessary clarification and reassurance to resolve the matter without formal internal proceedings. We have asked for a response by 22 October, after which we will advise the academics concerned on the further steps available to them. CAF provides confidential casework support to academics, students and emeritus scholars, helping them pursue internal and regulatory remedies and, where appropriate, obtain specialist legal advice and representation. To help us take on more cases like this, please donate to our ringfenced legal fighting fund here: donorbox.org/support-the-com… You can also sign up for our weekly newsletter here: afcomm.org.uk/updates-from-t… Full story: telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/10…