Anyone familiar with universities knows this. You certainly do not have to be "a renowned sleuth." Further more, the former president of Stanford resigned under enormous pressure from his office but not from the university.

Anyone interested in the Stanford issue would be well advised to read How to Rule the World by Theo Baker. Baker was the student journalist who initially blew the whistle on all this, supported by Blik. It is a riveting and very useful read, but also alarming to think it came down to a student journalist.

Date: 28 November 2025 Our Ref: ROWLANH/ We have been instructed by De Montfort University in relation to the matters raised in your email dated 21 November 2025. Please ensure all future correspondence on this subject is directed to us. Pre-action protocol for judicial review In your email of 21 November 2025 you threaten to commence proceedings against our client without further notice and seek indemnity costs if no response is received by 4pm on 28 November 2025. You have not provided a letter of claim nor complied with the pre action protocol on judicial review as potential claimants are required to do. The pre-action protocol for judicial review (“Protocol”) provides that prior to the commencement of proceedings, the claimant should in good time before making a claim send a letter to the defendant to identify the issues in dispute and establish whether they can be narrowed or litigation avoided. The letter should contain (i) the date and details of any decision being challenged (ii) a clear summary of the facts and (iii) the legal basis for the claim. Your letter does not set out the date and/or details of the decision being challenged nor does it set out the legal basis of the claim. As to the grounds relied upon, these are described as summary grounds with “full particulars of claim to follow”. Given that no further particulars have been provided and that you threaten to commence proceedings within 7 days, it appears that this information will not be provided on a pre-action basis, which goes against the intention and spirit of the Protocol. In addition, your correspondence does not identify the proposed claimant, their status, or their relationship to the matters complained of. The Protocol requires a claimant to be clearly identified so that the defendant can understand who is bringing the proposed claim, assess standing, and respond appropriately. The failure to properly identify the potential claimants in this matter prevents our client from engaging meaningfully with any proposed claim. The Protocol generally allows defendants 14 days to respond yet your letter only provides 7 days despite not providing full details of the claims and grounds which you are intending to pursue. The time period for a response can only be curtailed where the matter is exceptionally urgent, but your letter does not provide any information to support or suggest that this is a matter which requires urgent determination. For the reasons set out above, you have not provided a compliant letter of claim, complied with the requirements of the Protocol nor provided any justification as to why you consider that compliance is not necessary in the circumstances. In the event proceedings are issued, we fully reserve our client’s right to refer the contents of this letter to the attention of the cloud_uk\246468855\2\rowlanh Date: 28 November 2025 Our Ref: ROWLANH/ Page: 2 Court and seek a stay of proceedings to allow the parties to engage with the Protocol and/or seek recovery of our client’s costs on an indemnity basis. Your claim for judicial review As to the substantive nature of your purported claim, based on the limited information provided, this also appears to be inherently flawed, as set out in further detail below. It is unclear what “decision” you contend has actually been made and which would form the basis of your claim for judicial review. Nothing in your correspondence identifies a public law decision capable of being challenged. Not every action taken by a university is a public function. Only decisions taken where the University is exercising a public function are amenable to judicial review. The matters you refer to arise principally from employment relationships governed by contract and statutory employment law. It is well established that internal employment matters do not constitute decisions of a public nature which would be amenable to judicial review and fall outside the scope of public law remedies. Any attempt to characterise an internal restructuring process as public law decision is misconceived. Even if any element of the matters raised could be said to relate to the University exercising its public function, which is unclear on the information currently available, judicial review would still be inappropriate because alternative remedies exist. Judicial review is a remedy of last resort which means that a claimant is required to exhaust all other avenues available before commencing proceedings. Once internal procedures have been exhausted, including any appeals, any remaining employment related dispute would need to be determined by the employment tribunal, rather than the Administrative Court. We understand that the matters raised in your email do not appear to have been raised as complaints under the University’s internal complaints procedures. Any complaints must first be raised directly with our client. Next steps Based on the information you have provided, you have not complied with the Protocol and, in any event, judicial review is not the correct forum for your claim. Where issues have not been raised through the University’s internal procedures, any judicial review claim would be premature. The Court will not intervene in ongoing or incomplete processes, nor where a claimant has failed to pursue the ordinary mechanisms for resolution. As set out above, where the substance of any complaint concerns an employment related matter, the appropriate route is the employment tribunal, not the Administrative Court. Should proceedings be issued, we reserve our client’s right to refer the contents of this correspondence to the attention of the Court on the issue of costs and conduct. Any attempt to commence judicial review proceedings in these circumstances risks amounting to an abuse of process and is liable to be struck out at the permission stage. If you remain intent on pursuing any such claim, please provide a fully compliant letter of claim which sets out precisely (i) the public law decision being challenged (ii) the date it was taken and (iii) the statutory or public law duty you contend has been breached. In the meantime, all of our client’s rights are reserved. Yours faithfully Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP Proposed Judicial Review Claimants: Professor Sams & Others (DMU Professoriate, UCU members, students and alumni – full schedule to follow) Proposed Defendant: The Board of Governors of De Montfort University Interested Parties: Professor Katie Normington; Office for Students The response from Eversheds Sutherland, acting on behalf of the Board of Governors of De Montfort University, represents a strategic attempt to deflect scrutiny rather than engage substantively with the serious concerns raised. Instead of addressing the underlying allegations—namely multiple votes of no confidence, sustained student protest, and claims including the alleged misuse of counter-terrorism frameworks to suppress lawful speech—the University has chosen to focus on procedural objections to the proposed judicial review. This approach is revealing. The reliance on technical arguments about the pre-action protocol, standing, and the purported inappropriateness of judicial review signals an effort to avoid independent examination of governance failures. While such procedural points are standard in pre-litigation correspondence, their deployment here appears calculated to delay, narrow, or entirely foreclose accountability. Of particular concern is the apparent refusal to commission an independent investigation. Given the gravity of the allegations and their implications for academic freedom, institutional integrity, and public trust, the decision not to pursue external scrutiny risks reinforcing perceptions of institutional defensiveness and opacity. Universities, as public-facing bodies exercising significant social and educational functions, must be especially attentive to maintaining confidence in their governance processes. The suggestion that these matters are purely internal or employment-related is also contestable. Allegations involving the suppression of speech through mechanisms associated with national security legislation potentially engage broader public law principles, including freedom of expression and the proper limits of institutional authority. Ultimately, the issue is not merely procedural but constitutional in character: whether a public university can insulate itself from independent scrutiny in the face of sustained and serious allegations. The current stance of the Board risks undermining both internal confidence and external legitimacy, and strengthens the case for transparent, independent investigation rather than continued legal resistance.

“Power doesn't just corrupt; it attracts those who are already prone to chaos. Most people seek a quiet life, but a very specific type of mind craves the burden of ruling over others.” Kurt Vonnegut understood this better than most. Having survived the firebombing of Dresden as a prisoner of war during WWIl, his writing became a lifelong study of the absurdity and cruelty often found at the top of the social hierarchy. He viewed the desire for high office not as a noble calling, but as a psychological red flag. Only nut cases want to be president. This was true even in high school. Only clearly disturbed people ran for class president. Vonnegut's skepticism suggests that we should be most wary of the people who most want to lead us. True wisdom often hides in the back of the room, far away from the podium.