An Open Letter To 'Can't Buy My Silence'

Dear Can’t Buy My Silence,

The University of Salford publicly promises not to use non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) in cases of harassment or sexual misconduct, yet in private court correspondence its lawyers have refused to confirm or deny whether a rape allegation was ever reported or whether confidentiality measures were used.

Your pledge exists to stop exactly this kind of opacity — to ensure survivors can speak and institutions cannot hide behind legal paperwork or procedural defences. The Office for Students now bans NDAs in harassment and sexual-misconduct complaints, increasing the need for your campaign to check that institutional promises are matched by practice. (Office for Students)

Salford’s public documents are clear. Its Freedom of Speech Code of Practice states “the use of non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) is prohibited in complaints relating to harassment and sexual misconduct.” Its Integrated Report also records the university as having “signed the voluntary Can’t Buy My Silence pledge” and committing not to use NDAs to silence complainants.

Yet in litigation that targeted Civil Procedure Rule Part 18 questions — asking the university to confirm or deny whether a rape allegation was known to the institution or whether NDAs were used — were met with blanket objections citing proportionality, data-protection and victim-anonymity concerns.

Those objections, the claimant says, were advanced between July and September 2025.

For campaigners and survivors this contrast is stark. A public pledge that forbids NDAs means very little if, when pressed in court, an institution positions itself behind procedural barriers rather than supplying simple, anonymised clarifications. That is the gap your movement was founded to close.

We ask Can’t Buy My Silence to act now on three linked fronts. First, call publicly on the University of Salford to honour its pledge by commiting to provide immediate, anonymised answers to the Part 18 questions or by permitting sealed inspection by a judge. This would respect victim anonymity while testing whether public policy and practice align.

Second, open an inquiry into whether Salford’s legal approach is consistent with the pledge and with the Office for Students’ ban on NDAs in harassment cases. An independent review — commissioned or endorsed by your campaign — should assess whether wording in policy documents is being honoured in practice and whether students’ support records are being preserved and shared appropriately in litigation.

Third, make transparent the consequences of breach. If a signatory’s conduct is found to be inconsistent with the pledge, your campaign should make clear what sanctions or removals of recognition are available and pursue them. Pledges without enforcement are window dressing; campaign credibility requires clear escalation when institutions renege.

We recognise legitimate legal limits exist: victim safety, GDPR and the need to avoid identifying third parties are real constraints. But those constraints do not justify blanket silence in response to narrowly framed, anonymisation-sensitive questions. Courts routinely manage sealed inspection and redaction; those tools should be used before a university reverts to obfuscation.

Your movement has power because it unites survivor testimony, public pressure and institutional commitments into a single lever for change. Use that leverage here: issue a public statement demanding Salford engage constructively with the Part 18 process; publish the terms by which signatories will be investigated; and, where a breach is found, remove the pledge or impose a publicly visible sanction.

If Can’t Buy My Silence does not act, the pledge risks becoming symbolic rather than protective. That outcome would damage survivors first and campaign credibility second. Conversely, a decisive intervention would reinforce the pledge’s purpose and send a clear message across the sector: public promises on survivor safety must mean something in practice.

“Until the university ceases its long-held pattern of deflection,” the claimant wrote in his correspondence, “there are reasonable grounds to suspect something is being concealed.” Let your campaign test that suspicion publicly and, if necessary, withdraw the badge of approval until remedial steps are taken.

Kind Regards

---

References

Part 18 letters. www.tinyurl.com/salforduniversityexposed

University of Salford. “Freedom of Speech Code of Practice v4.0”, 2025. PDF. https://www.salford.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2025-07/Freedom-of-Speech-Code-of-Practice-v-4.0.pdf. (University of Salford)

University of Salford. “Integrated Report 2022” (Financial Report 2022), 8 December 2022. PDF. https://www.salford.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2022-12/Financial%20Report%202022.pdf. (University of Salford)

Can’t Buy My Silence. “British uni pledge” / campaign information. https://www.cantbuymysilence.co.uk/. (Can't Buy My Silence UK)

Office for Students. “Non-disclosure agreements” (guidance for providers), 31 July 2024. https://www.officeforstudents.org.uk/for-providers/student-protection-and-support/harassment-and-sexual-misconduct/prevent-and-address-harassment-and-sexual-misconduct/non-disclosure-agreements/. (Office for Students)