Oxford college accused of ignoring complaints over male lecturer’s prosthetic breasts

An Oxford college has been accused of ignoring complaints about a male lecturer wearing large prosthetic breasts at work.

[Un]Captured has seen three separate complaints about Matt Rattley, a biochemistry lecturer at St Hilda’s College. Only a joint letter from three alumnae received a reply, according to the complainants.

Rattley is thought to have been wearing prosthetic breasts at work for around three years, according to a source familiar with the university. His presentation first attracted widespread criticism in April.

As previously reported by [Un]Captured, new photographs suggest he has continued this term. In a lecture-theatre photograph shared on LinkedIn on 14 October, he appeared wearing the breasts, describing the students behind him as “my freshers for their first Mech lecture of the year”.

The correspondence is reproduced below, with identifying details removed where requested.

On 28 April, the parent of an Oxford student wrote directly to Principal Dame Sarah Springman asking whether Rattley was teaching while wearing “huge fake breasts”.

She raised concerns about safeguarding and professional boundaries, arguing that his position as a lecturer made it difficult for students to object.

The parent said her daughter would be “frightened and horrified” if taught by him, and argued that his presentation constituted sexual harassment.

She asked for reassurance that he did not teach dressed that way. She says she received no reply.

On 1 May, three former St Hilda’s students wrote to the principal and governing body expressing their dismay that a college founded to support women’s education was permitting what they described as “highly sexualised attire”.

They argued that wearing large prosthetic breasts would be inappropriate in any workplace and raised concerns that it violated the college’s sexual harassment policy.

The women said the presentation would have made them feel intimidated, degraded, humiliated and offended as young students. They urged the college to intervene and clarify its policies.

Dame Sarah replied on 2 June, emphasising the college’s duty to protect “freedom of expression within the law”.

She said St Hilda’s was committed to an inclusive workplace and learning environment, free from discrimination, harassment or victimisation, where everyone was treated with dignity and respect.

The response did not address the specific concerns about Rattley’s attire or explain whether any investigation or action had followed.

Clinical psychologist Dr Lucy Johnstone, one of the alumnae who complained, said: “I was really angry when I read the college’s response. It felt like three sentences cut and pasted. It didn’t even attempt to address what we had written. There wasn’t even a pretence of saying, ‘I understand your concerns.’”

On 18 May, a member of the public wrote to the college office questioning how Rattley’s wearing of exposed prosthetic breasts at work aligned with its policies on behaviour and dress.

The writer referred to conversations with barristers at a book launch and said they understood that his presentation could constitute sexual harassment. They asked the college to explain its position and what it was doing to protect women from harassment.

The complainant says they received no reply.

[Un]Captured has asked Oxford University and St Hilda’s how the complaints were handled, whether any investigation took place and what standards of professional presentation apply. Rattley has also been invited to respond.

Asked how the complaints had been handled, St Hilda’s directed [Un]Captured to its student complaints procedure, adding: “We have nothing further to add to our previous statements.” Oxford University declined to comment further, saying it was “a college matter”.

Dr Johnstone said the college should do more to address women’s discomfort and recognise the difficulty students may face in raising concerns about academics.

“I think many women encountering this presentation around college would feel very uncomfortable. For me, the concern is about power and boundaries, particularly when young women are in a much less powerful position than the academics around them.”

She added: “In some ways, I think this is more insidious than an obvious unwanted advance, because it’s presented as being liberated and open-minded. That makes it harder to name. And if you can’t name something, you don’t feel you have the right to object.”

“I’m particularly disappointed that a college set up with women’s needs and women’s education in mind has fallen so far behind in offering basic protections to women.”