In the dismissal case involving a Maastricht professor of Movement Sciences, which we reported on last week, we did not mention any names. He was simply referred to as Professor X. We opted for anonymity because we felt it was not in the greater public interest to reveal his identity. However, according to one letter writer, this makes all the professors of that department look suspicious. And of course, there is some truth to that.
What is our policy? At Observant, we are reluctant to publish names in sensitive (legal) cases such as this. You don’t want to cause anyone unnecessary harm. At the same time, you want to be transparent, especially when it comes to long-term and serious misconduct. Which obviously begs the question, when is misconduct severe enough to merit publishing someone’s full name? And is the severity of the offence the most important reason for us?
Not always, no. There was a case in 2023, where a professor at the Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life sciences had to appear in court for sexual misconduct. Observant spoke to four of his victims, the facts were very serious, and yet we still didn’t reveal his identity. Not even after the court’s verdict. The decisive reason was that he was not a public figure, not a director, dean, councillor or judge.
But there were doubts, of course. A few months earlier, De Volkskrant had published an article about a professor of Astronomy at Leiden University who had been dismissed, asking whether the decision by the Executive Board not to reveal his name was the right one. It had led to considerable criticism in the academic world, because as long as his name was unknown, he could simply apply for jobs elsewhere. Not to mention that all his fellow Astronomy professors felt like suspects. Some even chose to clear their names on social media as a precaution.
This time, in the case of the Maastricht movement scientist, we again opted for anonymity. Not only because he does not hold a high (public) position, but also because, as the legal documents show, he did not cross the line in terms of serious sexual misconduct and abuse of power. Ultimately, the reason for his dismissal was a disrupted working relationship.
Anonymity protects, anonymity conceals. As journalism relies on openness and verifiability, this will always be a difficult balancing act.
The editor-in-chief gives a look behind the scenes at the editorial office