“We could not believe our ears when we heard, we said: ‘Whaaat? Is he married? Does he have children?’ That did not fit with his behaviour at all.” Back when they were doing a master’s at FHML five years ago (when the professor was a co-ordinator), for some victims even eleven years ago, his behaviour was conspicuous. “He made inappropriate remarks, jokes, often with a sexual undertone. Yes, actually all female students felt uneasy with him,” says one of those interviewed (for reasons of privacy, all wish to refrain from having their names in the newspaper). If there was a party, organised by the university or the students themselves, then prof X (his name is known to the editorial team) was present. “He went out with us, acted like he was one of us. He also liked to buy rounds of drinks.” Another one adds: “He was plying you with drink to get you drunk.”
Going home
One of his victims, a young colleague of the professor at the time, remembers just such a drinks evening. “No matter how often I said: ‘No, I’m going home now, no, I don’t want another beer, no, you don’t need to take me home. Uncountably often.” But he kept going on and on and he saw me home. Only to start kissing her, uninvited, when they were alone. “I still had a clear enough head and managed to ‘stop’ it.” But that doesn’t make the impact any less, she concludes.
Someone else, a student at the time, had a similar experience, also during a party with a lot of alcohol. “I recognise so much: the pushiness, going too far without consent, feeling that there is no way out. What if you say ‘no’? What consequences will that have for your study? Will he make life difficult for you? The fact that he abused his power, I hold that against him, very much.”
The professor denies having forced himself upon women. On the contrary, he says that he “was asked to come along”. On many occasions, he had said ‘no’, his reply states. X regrets the kissing, as well as the “impact – in retrospect – it has had on the witnesses”. In his view, however, this was “never uninvited” and “mutual. Nevertheless, he should have known better, his lawyer writes. And: “The persons concerned were sometimes so drunk that he didn’t think it was safe to let them cycle home.”
“He kept making advances, at the university and outside. He harassed with e-mails, wanted to make another appointment to meet"
Blame
Talking about what happened is difficult for the victims. Observant speaks with them two by two, in person and via Zoom. It is a wound that, partly because of the investigation at the university the past few months (more on that matter later), has been ripped open. There is a feeling of shame, even after all those years. “At the time, you gloss over it, saying to yourself: ‘That is just the way he is,’ because that was what everyone said who had dealings with him at the time. Moreover, I blamed myself, because: ‘I shouldn’t have drunk so much.’”
But even when there was no alcohol involved, X went too far. “He kept making advances, at the university and outside. He harassed with e-mails, wanted to make another appointment to meet. He even went as far as getting hold of your schedule so that he could see exactly when a lecture was finished and so you were ‘free’.”
The professor denies having stalked; he “had better things to do than check everyone’s lecture schedule”. He would rather call it “amicable” behaviour and maintaining “contacts” within his network.
Escape route
The word grooming is mentioned. Another victim, a young employee at the time – “he referred to me as ‘subordinate’” – cannot describe it as anything else. “He took the initiative, went a step further each time. I went along with it, arrangements to meet were becoming more frequent.” With mutual consent, initially. “Until the moment I realised: “I’m stuck. How can I get out of this? I was completely isolated.” Still, she ended it, but X didn’t accept ‘no’. She tells of how she was intimidated, physically as well. “If I said ‘no’, he threatened me, said that he could end my career.”
X’s behaviour escalated, she continues, both in public and behind the closed doors of his office. “He made sexual remarks about me in the presence of students, humiliated me in front of colleagues and management. During one-on-one meetings at the office, I was constantly planning my escape route. I made sure that I knew how the space was laid out, that I could see him at all times, that I was out of arm’s reach and had a free path towards the door – just to reduce the chances of him touching me. Because whenever I pulled away, he saw that as a game and started laughing.” She also suffered with feelings of shame and blame. “I felt that I had put myself in that position by choosing the path of least resistance. But actually, it shouldn’t make any difference. ‘No’ is ‘no’, also for a person in charge with a position of power. What he did, is and will always be sexual abuse.”
Have a good cry
X’s version is at odds with this. According to him, it was her initiative to start a “long-term relationship” and in his view, terminating it was “mutual”. The professor also states that there was no (physical) intimidation. He states that relations were good, even after he had heard that a report had been filed about him. He says that he went to the victim “to have a good cry and to ask for advice, a meeting of which she stealthily made a recording that she later submitted [in the UM’s external investigation, ed.]”.
Reports
After a few reports made about X in autumn of 2022, UM commissioned the Partners in Integriteit agency to investigate the matter. Gradually, more victims made contact – they had heard that something had been initiated. “It felt hypocritical not to participate. This was a way to prevent there being more victims, naive students 19, 20 years old, like I was at the time, who rely on their teachers completely.”
In the end, five women filed a report of sexually unacceptable behaviour (which is the reason why the university wants to dismiss him; apparently there is an audio recording in which X admits to sexually abusing women who worked at UM).
But the investigation was not limited to those five. According to the victims, ‘Partners in Integriteit’ interviewed more than fifteen women as well as men. This included other forms of misconduct: intimidation, abuse of power and bullying.
The last three things did “not come out during the investigation,” the professor states in his reply. He does admit that he should have reported the “long-standing mutual relationship”. The professor and his lawyer are also critical about the approach of the investigation agency. Parts of his replies and “evidence to the contrary” are supposedly not included. X also feels that the investigation report has not been submitted to him in full. He emphasises that he was never held to account for his behaviour until September 2022. “UM may give an explanation for this, but it is a fact,” he replies.
According to X, the number of reports filed is not five, but only two (the UM spokesperson also mentioned five at an earlier stage).
The victims believe that the actual number of victims is much higher than the number of reports; one of them adds: “Some did not want or dare to submit a formal report.”
Culture of fear
The qualification “narcissist” was made multiple times in the interviews with Observant. X is said to be someone who feels “superior to others”. “He could not handle the success of others, as if he felt threatened by it. Your success was always his success.” The professor belittled and was capricious, the victims agree, “he could fly off the handle just like that”. You could not talk about expense claims, “then he would give you what for,” one of them remembers.
"No matter how hard you tried, how many hours you spent, how much you put up with, ultimately it meant nothing"
“The fact that things could get that far, is a consequence of the culture of fear and the existing hierarchy,” concludes one of the victims who experienced X as a student and later on as a young colleague. “The whole system is failing and I hope that that will change. That is why I am speaking to Observant. PhD students and postdocs depend on their supervisors, they have temporary contracts and are therefore in a vulnerable position. Having a good connection with your supervisor is of great importance. In order to get on, you need someone to help you. But this man mentally destroyed people and only thought of himself. No matter how hard you tried, how many hours you spent, how much you put up with, ultimately it meant nothing.
"It broke me, I quit. I no longer work in the academic world, and as an outsider, I see clearer than ever how sick that culture is.” Other interviewees left their jobs at UM too. The “horrible hierarchy”, the general atmosphere and X’s behaviour played a role in this, they say.
X understands that the system has failed, “if that is the case, this should definitely change”.
Colleagues
Last year, things started to happen. Why did nobody raise the alarm sooner? “You don’t dare to confide in anyone, they could be his friend, for all you know.” Another: “When he shouted at me once about something, I went to see a ‘superior’ and asked him what I should do. He literally said: ‘Let me know when you find out.’ He was troubled by it as well. Nobody wanted problems, so you just let it happen.” Still, this ‘superior’ did eventually, months later, raise the alarm, she says.
What you also shouldn’t underestimate, someone else says, is that you keep your mouth shut for the sake of colleagues, PhD students, for example who are in the middle of their track and are dependent on the professor. Moreover, they didn’t know where to go with their story. “I had no idea that there was a confidential advisor for PhD students.” Someone else thought that this person had a kind of advisory role, “that you could approach this person for a subsidy application”. Ultimately, they all found a listening ear in the form of a professor who openly devotes himself to social safety. “That is when the pieces of the puzzle came together,” they all agreed. They noticed “a pattern of abuse of power”.
Inaugural lecture
The person they trusted, turns out to be Daniël van den Hove, professor of Neuroepigenetics at FHML, who has been arguing for a better approach to abuse of power in the academic world. Last September, he spent a part of his inaugural lecture on the subject of ‘social safety’. Not everyone was happy with that, said Van den Hove at the time in an interview with Observant. Prior to this lecture, he was intimidated by a colleague. He had asked Van den Hove in a threatening manner whether ‘it was such a good idea’, discussing a subject like that in a speech. Inquiries now prove that this colleague was X.
Van den Hove: “I would rather not say too much about it at this time, it is not about me. But I won’t deny it. Although it cannot compare to the partially ruined lives of immediate victims, this case has also had a tremendous impact on me and my family. The – unfortunately only – positive thing is that all of this symbolises a sign of change. For ten years, people had no faith in reporting this anywhere. Now victims finally have the courage to step forward and UM shows that such behaviour will not go unpunished.”
X denies that he intimidated Van den Hove and adds that he was “never told” that he was alleged to have done that. He does regret “greatly that persons were or are still negatively affected by his behaviour”.
"I have been gone from the university for quite some time, but now that this is all coming out, I can really put it behind me"
Apologies
“These past months were intense,” says one of the victims about the investigation by Partners in Integriteit. “During the interviews, they went into all kinds of details, memories that I had suppressed. But I understand why they did it this way. It had to be done thoroughly.” The outcome was unsure up to the last moment for all those involved. “Who knows what he would have said in his defence. I consider the fact that he is being dismissed as a victory. I have been gone from the university for quite some time, but now that this is all coming out, I can really put it behind me.” He never offered an apology, they say, not even after the investigation that proved that he had gone way too far. “He doesn’t even recognise his mistakes, what a nerve.”
The professor writes that he offered his apologies and expressed his regrets with the dean.|
Strong together
The fact that several people were able to tell their stories, created a ‘group feeling’ – “being strong together”. “I might never have done it by myself, I’m not that much of a hero. It is a very big step to report someone, because in a manner of speaking you are also reporting against the institute, against the university.” The fear that all this may still have consequences for their careers, has not disappeared for some. This is corroborated by the fact that X is supported by various parts of the university.
When the investigation started, last autumn, the professor was suspended. X says that he “was isolated from his other colleagues” and had nothing to say about the reason given for his absence, which “was determined entirely by management”.
Even when the message came from the Executive Board that X had made serious mistakes, the victims noticed that some colleagues nevertheless continued to support him. “That is a pity and painful. We won’t put someone in the pillory just like that! If I had wanted to do that, I would have come up with something. Then I would not have gone through such an intensive process.”
Observant spoke with four victims. These interviews yielded an article that was submitted to the professor for a reaction (he replied in writing via his lawyer). Parts of his replies have been included in the article. His more extensive reaction can be found here (in Dutch).