In the final months of 2025, The Times reported that a leading UK university had secured an anonymity order in an employment tribunal involving allegations that a senior professor had sexually harassed a female colleague. The order – which the university reportedly sought to protect its reputation and shield staff from media scrutiny – was issued without a public hearing or published reasoning from the court. It carried no time limit and explicitly prevents the institution from being named in connection with the case.

The Times described this as “a departure from the principle of open justice”. On social media, it took very little time to find posts speculating about the identity of the university, highlighting a series of sexual harassment allegations relating to the institutions raised. Some comments suggested that the institution’s identity was already common knowledge within the sector.

From a strategic communications perspective, the decision to seek anonymity therefore raises challenging questions. How far should an institution go to protect its reputation? And at what point does it risk undermining the public trust it seeks to promote and preserve?

This isn’t the first time higher education providers have been accused by the media of stifling public accountability via other channels. The use of non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) as a means of controlling information and preserving ‘silence’ in high-profile sexual misconduct matters in the higher education sector has also been under scrutiny for a number of years. A BBC investigation in 2020 found that nearly a third of universities had deployed NDAs in the preceding four years to resolve student allegations.

Since 1 August 2025, English higher education providers have been prohibited from using NDAs in relation to complaints of sexual abuse, sexual harassment, sexual misconduct, bullying or harassment, following the implementation of provisions under the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023. Beyond the higher education sector, the Employment Rights Act 2025, which received Royal Assent in December 2025, introduces reforms that will void NDAs and confidentiality clauses to the extent they would prevent workers from making allegations or disclosures about work-related harassment or discrimination (including sexual harassment), or the employer’s response to such allegations. These provisions are expected to be commenced in stages from 2026, with precise commencement dates still to be confirmed.

Taking steps to ensure institutional anonymity is, of course, justified in many scenarios – particularly where the legal privacy protections of victims or whistleblowers are at risk, where sensitive personal information must be protected, or where anonymity provides protection from public harassment. This explains why courts may be sympathetic to such requests.

Nonetheless, institutions should be alive to the potential unintended reputational consequences of doing so: loss of internal trust; increased public speculation; missed opportunities for learning and improvement; or the emergence of inaccurate and damaging narratives in a vacuum of information.

An institution asking the courts to conceal its name – rightly or wrongly – may be perceived as out of step with public expectations of candour from public bodies, alongside growing demands for accountability and proactivity. In a world of heightened expectations regarding the conduct of senior figures, students, staff, parents, alumni, regulators and the media increasingly expect openness and integrity, particularly around safeguarding and misconduct issues. A strategy focused solely on containing scrutiny often backfires.

So, what should education providers consider when navigating sexual misconduct matters from a reputational perspective?

1. Align early

Effective crisis communications begin long before a crisis emerges. Legal and communications teams – with input from safeguarding professionals where appropriate – must work in lockstep and plan ahead. Preparedness is key: mapping out potential scenarios and developing responses that integrate legal objectives with reputational considerations, tailored to different audiences.

This preparedness should cover strategic questions – do policies and messages reinforce the same values? Are there clear parameters around what can be said, even under legal constraints? Are leadership teams equipped to communicate empathy and accountability without breaching confidentiality? Do senior leaders have agreed holding lines if approached informally?

Planning must also be operational. Do reception teams know how to respond if a journalist calls, who to escalate enquiries to, and how?

2. Communicate culture

Stakeholders should already be familiar with – and confident in – your values around safety, respect and accountability. In a crisis, those values must be visible and form the cornerstone of your response.

3. Media isn’t everything

Institutions should consider the full range of their audiences. In the case of the university, anonymity is unlikely to protect against a rumour mill among internal stakeholders. A complete absence of information may instead fuel speculation, allowing inaccurate or more damaging narratives to take hold.

Worse still, misinformation may circulate in ways that compromise the legal rights of those involved – particularly the anonymity of victims.

Staff and students are critical ambassadors for any organisation and must be central to crisis communications planning.

Ultimately, reputation is not protected by silence alone. In 2026, trust is earned through preparedness, principled decision-making and a willingness to balance legal caution with accountability.