Intimidation and misconduct occur across all layers of the academic community. An alarming report from unions FNV and VAWO, published this spring, showed that four in ten university staff members are affected by bullying, gossip, exclusion or abuse of power. The Dutch Network of Women Professors (LNVH) sounded the alarm as well. Together, the three organizations urged universities to appoint an external, independent ombudsperson.

The Vrije Universiteit and the University of Amsterdam already had such an official, and four universities started a pilot last year: the University of Twente, TU Delft, Erasmus University Rotterdam and Maastricht University. In early December, Anne Soedira, ombudswoman at Maastricht University, told university newspaper Observant that she had to deal with fifty cases in a period of nine months. Most cases involved conflicts between staff members and their bosses, specifically between PhD candidates and their supervisors. Some cases are still pending, others have been resolved. In some cases, the outcome was positive for everyone, sometimes not, Soedira told Observant.

Added value

The institutions are still in the process of defining the exact range of responsibilities. And even though the interim findings haven’t been presented yet, minister Ingrid van Engelshoven has already responded optimistically: “Reports to ombudspersons give a better insight into intimidation and misconduct. That is why I believe that such an official will be of added value at each university.” The final evaluation will take place in mid-2020, after which it will be up to the Association of Universities in the Netherlands (VSNU) and the unions to include the position in the collective labor agreement.

Marjo van der Valk, spokesperson at TU/e for the collective trade unions, says she hopes that the evaluation will also convince TU/e’s Executive Board to appoint such an official on short notice. “The unions have been asking for this for over fifteen years, we even thought of an emeritus professor at the time who could successfully fill the position, but our request was invariably rejected all those years. Now, we put it on the agenda every two years during our consultation with the Executive Board.”

Control

In all those years, Van der Valk says, she was never really given a clear and well-founded answer to the question as to why TU/e shouldn’t opt for an ombudsman or woman. “But we have our own ideas on this issue, of course. An ombudsman operates independently, and he will carry out a thorough investigation, read official papers, talk to people; this means that the Executive Board relinquishes some of its control. An ombudsman is a great deal more powerful than the confidential advisors currently working at the university. I can imagine that this was a cause for concern in the past.”

Van der Valk detects a different attitude among the members of the current Executive Board, one that is much more open when it comes to discussing the question whether appointing an ombudsman is necessary. She can’t say whether this has something to do with the fact that the board has a female member – vice president Nicole Ummelen – within its ranks for the first time since the beginning of this year. “I notice that other board members also take a different position than their predecessors from the past. And I see that the Personnel and Organization service has become more aware of this issue as well.”

When asked whether TU/e might appoint an ombudsman or woman in 2020, university secretary Susanne van Weelderen responds, on behalf of the Executive Board: “It is true that this Executive Board is committed to social safety. The current means we have at our disposal for addressing problems will be further extended in 2020. For example, by making it possible to report matters anonymously and by appointing a confidential advisor specifically for our PhD candidates. An ombudsperson could become an integral part of this when the results of the pilot with the aforementioned universities are positive. That was also agreed with the unions.”

Confidential advisor

Van der Valk can’t say whether a future ombudsperson at TU/e will be immediately faced with a caseload similar to the one in Maastricht. “But that’s because at this point, we don’t know how many people at TU/e have a problem they would like to discuss with an ombudsman but won’t take up with the confidential advisor. These officials have considerably less power, and all they can really do is give an advice. Perhaps people will think: ‘that won’t get me anywhere.’”

The Dutch Network of Women Professors (LNVH) recognizes that problem as well. According to a LNVH spokesperson, the pilot can only be successful if the ombudsman or woman is truly independent and has the decision-making authority to initiate an investigation. She believes that the position usefully complements the confidential advisors, who have less room for maneuver. “The scientific community is small. Many confidential advisors still have a close relationship with superiors. They can report cases of wrongdoing to the Executive Board, but that usually is where their role ends.”

In any event, Van der Valk hopes to witness the appointment of an ombudsman or woman before her retirement two years from now. “But sooner would also be fine, of course.”