Even before this week’s editorial meeting started, it was already the talk of the office – the sudden resignation of the Rector Magnificus of Radboud University Nijmegen, just weeks before his retirement. It came after the newspaper De Gelderlander revealed an incident of misconduct that took place in 2017, when he had just been appointed rector. A female employee accused him of making two remarks that could be seen as sexually intimidating, as determined by an external committee. The university gave the rector an official warning, but didn’t make it public at the time.
Character assassination
The matter came to light last week, and our Radboud University counterpart VOX and De Gelderlander were flooded with responses. Two former Radboud University deans wrote an opinion piece accusing the media of character assassination based on an old case. Dozens of university employees reacted furiously, accusing the former deans of issuing an intimidating statement and interfering with an open discussion about personal safety at Radboud University.
Sexually intimidating
Here at the office, the situation raised a lot of questions. Is it fair that the two former deans accused the media of character assassination for bringing an internal matter out in the open years after the fact? How can you ever form a proper opinion on a #MeToo case when you don’t know all the details? What were the two remarks the committee determined “could be seen” as sexually intimidating (implying that they could also be seen as not intimidating)? And how did the university treat the victim? Radboud University says the case was handled properly, but the reports in De Gelderlander show that the victim disagrees. Also: should we give people a second chance, even in #MeToo cases? Why hasn’t the Radboud University Supervisory Board stepped up to acknowledge that the incident should have been brought out in the open immediately after the warning was given six years ago? In our discussion following each question, I found myself constantly shifting perspectives. Almost every nuanced contribution made me go, “There’s a point there.” And I wasn’t the only one, I found out the next day, when the topic came up at the coffee machine again.
Mutual kissing
We haven’t heard the last of this matter, but we had to move on. With our deadline approaching, it was time to talk through our list of articles for this week. We dwelled a bit longer on a case that was heard last week, involving an FHML professor who had to leave UM earlier this year after a committee found him guilty of sexual misconduct. Another #MeToo case. And yes, we’ll report on it again. It’s striking how differently the parties speak about the same case – what the university calls “misconduct”, the former professor’s lawyer describes as “a few incidents” and “mutual kissing”.