More reports of inappropriate behaviour from both students and employees

The problems reported by students and employees often concern relationships, such as those on the work floor or between teacher and student. They feel they are not taken seriously, which often leads them to feel unsafe, misunderstood and frustrated.

Reports from various staff members informed the annual social reports (available to those with a Solis ID, Ed.), such as the ombudsperson for staff, the ombudsperson for students and the psychologist for PhD candidates. In addition, confidential counsellors for inappropriate behaviour conducted discussions with both students and employees. There are confidential counsellors at the faculty level too, but their reports were not included in the annual report.

As for the topics these employees have to deal with, it looks like complaints overlap. For example, social safety was a recurrent theme in all reports, with issues such as bullying or sexual intimidation being mentioned often. 

Staff ombudsperson
The ombudsperson for staff members only deals with work-related matters. Collaboration problems and lack of career opportunities are among the most common issues. In 2023, 163 people turned to the two ombudspersons, which led to 431 conversations. Most of these employees work for the Faculty of Science and the University Administrative Service. The number of conversations is almost 20 percent higher than in 2022.

The ombudspersons noticed that managers find it difficult to deal with social safety complaints. They often take measures to address them but do not discuss them, which leads to even more dissatisfaction. The ombudspersons also note that an increasing number of employees come to them to talk about their "neurodivergent" profile. Managers seem to have a hard time dealing with this group, which led to several "distressing cases" that weren't concretised.

Student ombudsperson
The ombudsperson for students started working in 2023 and shares his time between Utrecht University and the Eindhoven University of Technology. Only nine students visited him last year but their cases are not of the serious kind, he writes. The nine students were mostly frustrated about miscommunication, so a good conversation could lead to greater mutual understanding. These miscommunications were about issues like the graduation process or a perceived lack of support for students with disabilities, to name but two examples. One thing the university should pay attention to, according to the ombudsperson, is that the ombudsperson is not always able to meet the self-imposed response period.

Confidential counsellors for inappropriate behaviour
The number of complaints or questions regarding inappropriate behaviour has increased sharply these past few years. In 2023, 173 people asked to talk about this kind of issue. That's 37 percent more than in 2022 and 64 percent more than in 2021. The confidential counsellors partly attribute the increase to the fact that these issues are being discussed more openly in society.

The two confidential counsellors are available to both students and employees. The number of employees who did so is slightly higher than the number of students (90 versus 72). In addition, 11 external people (people who are not studying or employed by the university) turned to these counsellors. Most conversations were about aggression, bullying, gossiping, shouting and manipulation, with sexual harassment coming right after. Sexual harassment cases include the distribution of photos, intimidating app messages, and nonconsensual touching.

The confidential counsellors note an increase in the number of students complaining about inappropriate behaviours outside the university, such as at a student house or association. In this case, it is difficult for the confidential counsellors to do something.

Furthermore, the confidential counsellors have noticed that more managers have turned to them for advice. Although they are not victims, they want to know how to deal with an unpleasant working atmosphere. According to the counsellors, this can be problematic when a member of that manager's team comes to the same counsellor to report an issue.

Few conversations lead to an official report. According to the confidential counsellors, people first want to see whether they can resolve the matter without reporting. Others prefer to submit the complaint to the archives so that the university will take action if more complaints are made about the same person.

The psychologist for PhD candidates
The psychologists for PhD candidates are faced with many of the same complaints. Difficult relationships with supervisors and co-supervisors top the list. The psychologist notes that PhD candidates often work in a very competitive environment with too little attention to diversity and inclusion.

The PhD psychologist aims to prevent issues from happening, by giving numerous workshops for both PhD students and supervisors. The meetings for supervisors are about integrity and wellbeing, while those for PhD students are about resilience and mindfulness.

In addition, the psychologist notes that 2023 has seen more reports related to neurodiversity, such as ADHD, autism and dyslexia. 

What the university is doing
The memo states that the university is taking several measures to prevent people from feeling unsafe and improve the support provided to those who file reports. For example, when employees log in to their computers, they are shown a screen telling them where they can go to report social safety problems. The university also organises courses aimed at counsellors for inappropriate behaviour at the faculty level and courses about safety and inclusion for other employees (including managers).

Furthermore, the university is looking to offer specific training in the field of conversation skills and social safety next year. An active bystander training course is also being considered. The theme of social safety also appears in the university's leadership programme. HR is specifically considering creating manuals for managers and training HR employees to better support managers.

An issue that got out of hand at the Faculty of Science
At the end of 2023, the National Body for Scientific Integrity (Lowi) ruled on a case filed by a PhD candidate against his supervisor and the research director at the Faculty of Science.

The problems between the PhD candidate and his supervisor started in 2017 and became a case in 2022. The supervisor wanted to go on with the publication of a scientific article, while the PhD candidate preferred to analyse conflicting results further. The supervisors said the publication would be good for the career of a postdoc and the mental health of another PhD candidate. The PhD candidate then reported the incident to the research director under the heading "dishonest behaviour".

Since the PhD candidate and the supervisor couldn't see eye to eye, the supervisor forced the PhD candidate to sign a "mutual agreement" stating that another scientist would take over their supervision. In this document, the PhD candidate committed himself not to criticise the department without a person from that group being present. The original supervisor remained ultimately responsible.

The situation generated a toxic working environment, in which parties distrusted each other and yelled at each other during discussions. The PhD student felt as though the agreement had been imposed on him due to the power imbalance. The supervisor called the PhD candidate arrogant and overconfident and feared that he was only out to destroy his reputation.

The Lowi ruling placed more emphasis on the supervisor's ethical conduct. Lowi accused the supervisor of restricting the PhD student's academic freedom and not realising that a power imbalance was intrinsic to their relationship. They called it a form of violation of scientific integrity.

According to Lowi, the supervisor should have cared for the supervisor more, and the mentorship should have been better. The research director was accused of focusing too much on the content of the article and not on the relationship between the parties. He should have referred the PhD candidate to a confidential counsellor.

This statement was stronger than the advice of the university's own Scientific Integrity Committee, although the arguments were broadly aligned.