The case has a long history and cannot be seen separate from the years of animosity that has existed between two groups with overlapping fields within the Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences (FHML): Nutrition and Movement Sciences and Human Biology. The dismissed professor (we will refer to him as X) is from the former. The colleague who was falsely accused of unacceptable sexual behaviour works for the latter. The two departments merged in 2014, but split up again in the same year, partly due to interference from an external agency. The advice was to appoint a coach to ‘appease the parties’. But that never happened, the court reports.
How does it come so far that a person, apparently without good reason, accuses another of unacceptable sexual behaviour? There were difficult relations between the two groups and certainly also between the two people, the court’s report states, but the fact that the situation escalated, has everything to do with plans for a new chair of Metabolic Imaging within Human Biology. X protested against this because a similar chair already existed within his own group. A chair that is held by his wife.
Social insecurity
But it goes further than indignation about that vacancy – something that, by the way, is shared by a number of colleagues from his department, as appeared from the e-mail that was made public by the court and was addressed to the administrators. In various messages, X refers to a feeling of ‘social insecurity’ (not defined in any detail), the years of not being heard, and an FHML dean who would have made decisions which disadvantaged his department on multiple occasions.
Then the case takes an unexpected turn; in autumn of 2022, X makes a serious accusation. In an e-mail to President Rianne Letschert, he lets slip that his ‘rival’ at Human Biology was guilty of unacceptable sexual behaviour. Because of this complaint, but also the grumblings of colleagues about the vacancy, Letschert commissions an independent investigation into the situation at both departments. When it subsequently appears that X is continuing to throw accusations at his colleague, Letschert gives him a choice: report sick and then leave or a ‘person-oriented investigation. The choice falls on the latter. X is suspended during the investigation (he starts summary proceedings against UM because he does not agree with this, but this is in vain). Ultimately, the situation is no longer tenable. The university wants to dismiss X.
No evidence
What did the court decide? At any rate that there is no evidence whatsoever for the accusations of unacceptable sexual behaviour by the colleague. As far as ‘social insecurity’ is concerned: the court states that X and other members of his department feel they are being frustrated by, among others, the department of Human Biology and the dean, but there is no evidence to show that this was really the case.
Can any comments be made about how the new chair came about? Should that have been done differently? No, the regulations that apply were followed, the court states.
The fact that the professor is sorry and will not easily be able to continue his academic career elsewhere, does not lead to a different decision. X will be dismissed per 1 July 2024 and will receive a transitional employment allowance of almost 136 thousand euro.