Kate Normington at De Montfort University has committees sacking anyone who looks side ways at them and calling it genuine redundancy while the university sits on a stock pile of cash to cover massive debts from a ponzi scheme that failed in Dubai. Four no confidence votes and she is still refusing to go. A letter from 500 students demanding she goes, yet she is still there sacking vulnerable staff left right and centre. The Professoriate wrote to her as follows last week: "On 2 September 2025, Katie Normington sent a message to all staff welcoming them back from their summer vacations. While the VC¡¯s missives are commonplace and characteristically out of kilter with reality, this latest email took matters into the bounds not just of fiction, but of a disturbing parallel world that has no bearing on reality. The email begins by citing, once again, Katherine May¡¯s ¡®Wintering: The Power of Rest and Retreat in Difficult Times¡¯, which seems to have provided inspiration and something of an ideological vehicle for the VC in her relentless undermining of all that was once good about the institution she purportedly leads. With no apparent sense of irony or self awareness, she tells staff that ¡®many had spoken (to her) about the helplessness of this piece in setting out what was to come¡¯. It is presented as some kind of validation. This book was a gift for the VC, because it not only provided a vehicle for the brutal cuts that she was to impose, but it also, in her mind, served as a kind of metaphor for restructuring and for the need for organisations like DMU to ¡®winter¡¯. And, of course, it was both far from original and, perhaps, taken out of context and almost certainly used in a way the author did not intend. One would suspect that the author, once an academic herself (a creative writer), would be horrified that her work was being utilised in this way, and perhaps it¡¯s a question worth asking her. Nevertheless, the VC has stuck with it, though it is likely that the author, coming from a Humanities background, would shudder at the thought that their art has been used to justify the sacking of committed and hard working colleagues, some of whom were on maternity leave when they were made redundant. We then discover that the VC is pleased that the university community has shown ¡®resilience, ¡®professionalism and commitment¡¯ in the face of adversity. Four votes of no confidence should not, of course, be permitted to derail the fantasy that staff are anything other than on board with it all. But while she may be blissfully unaware, or unable to grasp reality, the fact is that she leads an institution that is characterised by a culture of fear in which staff are cowed and unwilling to speak out. Their silence is not, as the VC assumes, approval - but the manifestation of a deeply embedded culture of fear in which they do not dare raise their head above the parapet for fear of being punished. Perhaps the most deluded, and heartless, part of the missive is the suggestion that only a small number of redundancies have been made. This, naturally, means the small number that have stuck it out to the end and have faced, or will face, compulsory redundancy. There is no mention of those who were forced out in a process that was, put simply, inhumane. That sentence alone tells the reader everything they need to know about how our institution is led. The missive then goes on to provide a list of ¡®successes¡¯, few of which stand up to scrutiny. Block teaching, for example, inevitably features as the innovation that has been a success, despite the compelling evidence to the contrary. Just because it has been imposed does not mean it is a success, but this is also revealing - anything that has been implemented is, from her perspective, regarded as a success. It matters not whether it has worked. The seven new research institutes, also cited as a success, have already been hollowed out and several renowned research centres closed. DMU is close to the bottom of every league table in the country, with no apparent strategy to address this. And, of course, despite even more compelling evidence, she insists upon using the term ¡®empowering¡¯ when the vast majority of staff could hardly feel less empowered. They know that the executive have caused this crisis, and most, even if they only dare whisper it in the corridor because they fear saying it more openly, are desperate for change. But one thing is clear - there is no trust, only fear. Staff themselves have ¡®wintered¡¯, hunkering down until the nightmare is over and quietly quitting, finding solace not in the work and in the institution they once loved, but in their own thoughts and survival strategies. That she mentions a new ¡®five year plan¡¯ is not the only similarity with collapsing regimes - ¡®We will reinvent ourselves with the new five year plan!¡¯ - but a clear signal that she and the university¡¯s executive are out of ideas. They have no plan, and are unlikely to deliver anything other than more of the same in the future. Only the same tired rhetoric, claiming success where there is none, and a tendency to become ever more authoritarian in the face of any opposition.These are the hallmarks of failing states, governments, regimes or institutions. There is, naturally, no mention of the millions wasted on vanity projects in Dubai or London, or that an apparently unaccountable executive are squandering money, sometimes on unnecessary overseas trips, that is not theirs to squander. No mention either of the grievances of students or the deliberate disinvestment in, and sabotage of, courses that are recruiting students while investing in those that are not. To conclude, the VC¡¯s latest missive is so far detached from reality that it has to be dismissed as a fictional (and desperate) attempt to create a reality that simply does not exist. It is the world as she wishes it to be, not as it really is. But such a strategy only works if those being deceived believe it. They do not. And that detachment has now become so stark that it¡¯s almost impossible to do anything other than laugh, though it¡¯s far from amusing. It is time to put an end to this dangerous fantasy, one that threatens not only the livelihoods of every employee of the university, but the institution itself. The staff at DMU need to realise that they are being conned, and that this con trick, which has already deprived the institution of any credibility, will deprive them of their jobs and their families of stability. Even those who publicly support her know this to be true. Our VC does not just patronise, gaslight and insult the intelligence of the university¡¯s staff, she demeans the position she, inexplicably, still holds."