Notice something wrong at your university? Perhaps you witness bullying of a colleague, data fabrication or a professor having an affair with an undergraduate student? You do what you're supposed to do You report it, right? nature.com/articles/d41586-0…

Can universities be trusted to mark their own homework when it comes to misconduct allegations? @drianpace asks why Liverpool John Moores University thought Jason Arday's plagiarism amounted to no more than 'honest and reasonable error' despite huge amounts of evidence to the contrary. University leaders seem to think not releasing this report is fine (it's a private matter) but that kind of secrecy belongs to another age, argues Pace timeshighereducation.com/opi…

I agree that Nature published a disgraceful editorial built on falsehoods to advance a preferred narrative. But additional points need to be added. Universities do not control investigations merely to avoid bad publicity. They do it to protect money and power. A serious finding can threaten funding and expose a university to fines, fraud claims, and other liability. Administrators also bring in lawyers who supposedly represent the interests of the institution but, in practice, serve the interests of the administrators and those close to them. The administrators controlling the investigation effectively decide whom to shield and whom to sacrifice. Cambridge’s fault began long before the investigation. It elevated an apparently mentally unstable man as a mascot for its phony vision of scholarship. It promoted extraordinary claims while showing little interest in whether the story or the scholarship beneath them was true. Cambridge benefited from the fiction while it was useful. I also agree that universities probably do not actively set out to kill people, although, in my experience, some administrators would have been pleased to see certain people dead when it served their interests. They do employ psychological tactics to inflict harm on people they want to eliminate from their institutions. In my own experience, these internal psyops can be severe. Without a clear way to cope with them, they can undo someone who was already mentally unhealthy. Anyone subjected to a public or private mob knows how unpleasant and damaging it can be. Yes, treating public criticism as the explanation for a person’s s**c**e is convenient for Cambridge. It would not shock me if the university had begun employing psychological tactics against Arday before he died. This shifts attention away from the university that manufactured the myth, exploits an unstable person, and controls the process after the myth collapsed.

'We got legal threats for taking part in care home documentary' bbc.in/4dG58Ge