Letschert calls it “worrisome” that she is being accused of intimidating the media. “In my seven years as a UM official, I have never intimidated the press, I haven’t done so now either.” The reason for the conflict between Maastricht University and ScienceGuide (SG) is an article published by the medium about the legal action taken by a professor against UM. He was (and still is) on suspension due to a ‘personal investigation’ into his behaviour and performance. He had, among others, unjustly accused a colleague professor of unacceptable behaviour.
According to the university, SG had not made it sufficiently clear in its article that the accusations were unfounded. “Something had to be put right here quickly. The incorrect position taken in the article was unnecessarily damaging to one of our employees”, said the spokesperson for UM earlier in Observant. Yesterday afternoon, Letschert said this about it: “When members of staff are being damaged, we will immediately take action. Other media often pick up on such articles very quickly and the consequences for the person involved are unimaginable. This is not about our image as an institute, it’s about the individual. And so we threatened to apply for a temporary injunction if the text was not adapted.”
As far as the financial dispute is concerned: UM had an agreement with SG as a ‘partner’ (just like a few other universities and universities of applied sciences) until 2021. For this, they paid an annual amount of 25 thousand euro. A partnership entails that agreements are made about articles on topics that are important for Maastricht, such as internationalisation. Letschert to the University Council: “When the contract ended in 2021, we, the Executive Board, decided to quit being a partner. We do not want to provide any financial contribution towards education media, except Observant.” Due to a “mistake”, UM still paid invoices received after 2021, the spokesperson for UM explained earlier to Observant.
The university informed SG that they wanted the money returned, upon which the editor-in-chief said that this could mean the end of the news website. The president now wants to have a talk with SG, she said to the University Council. This will not be about renewing the contract; what she does want, is a “reasonable solution”.
The University Council appreciates that the Executive Board put this point on the agenda themselves. A number of members wondered, however, if it would not have been better to first negotiate with SG about the text. And only after that, if there was no prospect of a compromise, to threaten with legal steps. When asked whether immediately threatening to take legal steps was necessary, the spokesperson said to Observant earlier this week: “Maybe that could have been done differently”.
Wendy Degens, Riki Janssen