Social Sciences Professor accepts resignation

Last year, Utrecht University received 17 anonymous reports against a professor of Clinical Psychology. An astonishing number, considering he had joined the university on January 1 of that same year. Prior to UU, he worked at VU Amsterdam and Maastricht University. The reports received by UU concern not only his time here but also signs of transgressive behaviour at these two other universities.

UU’s administration refuses to provide examples of the reports received. The Executive Board only reveals that the reports have to do with multiple forms of transgressive behaviour. As far as UU is concerned, no charges have been filed against the professor in question. 

Sexually abusive behaviour
After asking around, DUB and the university magazines Ad Valvas (from VU University Amsterdam) and Observant (from Maastricht University) noticed that employees and former employees are either cautious or reluctant to talk about their experiences with the professor. Only a few students and staff members were willing to share these experiences anonymously. 

Sexual harassment is central to this case, as evidenced by the conversations we had with employees from several universities. Utrecht University would not confirm whether or not this was also evident in the reports it received. A professor at VU Amsterdam told DUB that he complained about the Social Sciences Professor to his manager back in 2012. “We were both new to the university and went out for a drink with a young PhD student. I was astounded by the candid sexual language he used. It was just wrong. They got back to me saying that they had talked to him and that he had promised not to do it again. It looks like that wasn't true.”

The professor is also said to have made sexual advances to multiple PhD students and lecturers. “In our department, he was known for meeting up with people in private,” the VU professor confirms.  

New regulation makes it clearer that one can report anonymously
In March, Utrecht University decided to dismiss the professor. In the course of 2022, the confidential counsellors received several reports about possible violations of “interpersonal integrity,” which have been brought to the Executive Board's attention. The board then commissioned the Interpersonal Integrity Committee to investigate things further. Most complainants preferred their names and job positions not to be known by the university's administrators. 

Jellienke Stamhuis, independent chair of the Interpersonal Integrity Committee: “There was no complaint underlying this investigation, which is why we did not advise the board on whether or not it was well-founded, neither did we rule on any possible measures. What we did was provide insight into the size, scope and severity of the signs.”

The board's intervention can be partially attributed to the new complaints procedure. Although the possibility of counsellors bringing anonymous complaints to the attention of the board isn’t new, the discussion surrounding anonymity that arose from the announcement of the new rules may have led more people to realise that they can report anonymously. The board states that it does not know whether or not the new regulation has played a role in this case.

The difference between a complaint and a report
There is an important difference between a complaint and a report. Usually, the university can only start an investigation if a complaint has been filed. In this case, the identity of the complainant will be known to the committee, the board, and the accused. Reports, on the other hand, can be submitted anonymously. It is possible for the person submitting the report to remain nameless for all parties involved or have their name known solely by the committee, not by the accused or the board.

An anonymous report does not necessarily lead to an investigation. However, the Executive Board may decide to commission one in exceptional cases – for example, if the Interpersonal Integrity Committee or the counsellors receive several reports about the same person. Stamhuis: “In that case, there must be a compelling interest in an investigation and the issue must pose a potential risk to social safety at the university. We can bring such a sign or report to the attention of the Executive Board, which can then instruct us to conduct further research.”

Duty of care
Once the investigation was set in motion, the reporters indicated that they would only talk to the Interpersonal Integrity Committee if their anonymity towards the accused would be guaranteed and if the testimonies couldn’t be traced back to them. Their identity is known by the committee itself, however. At a certain point, the Executive Board asked the reporters whether they were willing to step out of anonymity to give more concrete details of the situations described. The vast majority of them chose to say yes. They agreed to have their anonymity partially lifted by giving the committee permission to elaborate on the cases in its final report. That’s why the document mentions some of the reports by name, others by their job positions, and others by a pseudonym.

The Executive Board was so troubled by the results of the investigation that it decided to hold a rebuttal interview with the professor, after which they initiated a dissolution procedure. Anton Pijpers, chair of the Executive Board, says that a number of serious forms of transgressive behaviour took place. “We have a duty of care for our staff and students. They must be able to work and study in a safe environment.”

When an employment relationship is dissolved at the university – i.e. when the employer fires the employee – the case is usually submitted to a judge. Before UU could even send the papers, the professor’s lawyer had already requested a dismissal agreement. This means that the professor accepts his dismissal, thus preventing the case from going to court and going public.

UU agreed to this for several reasons. According to the university, a court case could drag on for a very long time, considering the possibility of an appeal. This would generate great uncertainty for the reporters and the professor’s current colleagues, among other people. In addition, the university considered the fact that the professor could summon former colleagues to the hearing – something it was looking to prevent in order to protect the reporters. Last but not least, with such an agreement, the professor is sure not to return to the workplace. This was important for the university because, in light of its views on a safe work and study environment, the possibility of him getting back to work was unfathomable. UU's conditions were the following: the professor would not receive any severance pay and UU would be allowed to communicate about the outcome to a certain extent.

Similar story at VU Amsterdam
DUB heard from two VU employees that complaints against the Social Sciences professor were also submitted at VU Amsterdam but the university didn’t do much about them. The accused says that no official complaint was ever filed against him at VU and that the complaint mentioned by his former VU colleagues was made informally to the head of the department. To one of his former colleagues at VU, it is a pity that there were no official complaints. “Then the signals would have been even more powerful. And perhaps it would have even made the professor adjust his behaviour earlier. Maybe this dismissal could have been prevented.”

He also thinks it’s a shame that the reports were made anonymously. “I understand that this is a big step to take as a young scientist. My complaint stood on its own and did not have the right effect, but being a whistleblower did not hinder my career. I was appointed to the role of professor after that.”

A spokesperson for VU Amsterdam told DUB that it is “very painful” to hear that employees and former employees were subjected to abusive behaviour and they didn’t feel heard or seen. VU has informed the employees of the department about the situation, offering them support and stressing that it is still possible to report their past experiences (read the box below for VU’s full response).

Accountability
DUB has worked on this article alongside the university magazines Ad Valvas (from Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam)  and Observant (from Maastricht University). Together, we approached people who have worked with the dismissed professor in the past. Many of them were reluctant to share their experiences publicly. After the article was ready, DUB sent it to the professor, who corrected a few things. You can read his statement in the box below. We have chosen not to mention anybody's name (including the professor's) so that this article does not turn up in a Google search on their names.

Ethical dilemma
In March, the university announced on the Intranet that its contract with a professor of Social Sciences had been terminated and that his name would not be mentioned for privacy reasons. However, the faculty had already informed the reporters and other employees from the department about the procedure's progress.   

The rector and the dean also notified former employers and organisations where the professor worked. UU would like to talk to other universities about how they can prevent this kind of issue in the future. UU President Anton Pijpers: “This sort of situation really is a dilemma. On the one hand, people deserve a second chance. On the other hand, as the chair of the Executive Board, I also feel a duty of care that extends beyond my own university. We want to prevent someone from hopping from one university to another, which allows their inappropriate behaviour to go on for a long time within the academic community. We would like to hold nationwide discussions on how to prevent this in the future and see if there are ways to inform each other about such things as the procedures go on.”

A knowledgeable scientist
Back in March, when the dismissal was announced, it didn’t take long for a small group of people to figure out who it was. For example, his position as the chair of the board of the Federation of Healthcare Psychologists and Psychotherapists came to an end “by mutual agreement”. This is a board that advises and judges on specialisms in the field of Psychology and Psychotherapy.

The dismissed professor is a clinical psychologist who studied in Amsterdam and Utrecht. He obtained his PhD in Maastricht and then joined VU Amsterdam in 2012, where he became a full professor. He returned to Utrecht University in January 2022. His line of research focuses on the effectiveness of psychotherapy in the treatment of depression, suicidal thoughts, and personality disorders. He has an impressive track record in terms of publications and also works as a psychotherapist at NPI, a highly-specialist centre for the treatment of people with personality disorders, located in Amsterdam.

A professor in the same field, affiliated with another university, has been following his career from afar. He says the dismissed professor is a very knowledgeable scientist and a hard worker who is well-versed in the art of solving difficult issues in the field of Psychotherapy. He didn't see his departure coming and thinks that the situation is tragic for both the professor and the victims. Other employees from Utrecht University are shocked at the severity of the incidents and support the board's decision to take action. They think it's important to make it clear why the professor has left and they hope that the decision will attract more attention to the question of safety in the workplace. 

Reactions to this article:

The dismissed professor:
“I confirm that Utrecht University’s Executive Board has decided to dissolve their employment contract with me following a report by the Interpersonal Integrity Committee on signs of transgressive behaviour. Although I don’t recognise myself in the integrity of the report's content, I have come to an agreement with the university regarding the termination of my contract. The agreement takes into account my legal rights and entitlements but no severance pay has been made. I will no longer work for UU. I regret the situation as it was never my intention to make people uncomfortable.” 

VU Amsterdam:
"It is very painful to us to hear that employees and former employees have been subjected to transgressive behaviour and that they did not feel heard or seen. We have informed the employees of the department about the situation, offering our support and pointing out the possibility of reporting their experiences, even if they happened in the past.

We very much regret that we have not been able to find out the exact details of the report made in 2012.  We hope to have the opportunity to talk to the employees and former employees behind the report, so we can learn from it and discuss how we can do better. 

We will continue to evaluate where things can be improved and draw our students’ and employees’ attention to the possibility of reporting transgressive behaviour. We understand that reporting can be difficult, especially when it is about someone you are dependent on, such as a supervisor or employee. Counsellors can support reporters and help them contemplate where to go from there. To conclude, we would like to emphasise that it is always beneficial to talk about transgressive behaviour and that abuse is not tolerated at VU Amsterdam.”