USC changes for the better, but will never have full control over its houses

USC's "yellow castle" at Janskerkhof is unusually bustling on a Thursday afternoon in April. Stage builders are lugging materials for an anniversary event for current members and alumni. The event marks a double celebration for USC. In addition to their anniversary, the fraternity is relieved that UU and HU lifted the final sanctions in February. According to the two educational institutions, USC has become more transparent in their communication with them. The universities also stated that "positive changes are being realised” within the student association. Since February, USC's board has been welcome at official UU events once again.

The sanctions were imposed as punishment for the "slut lust" that USC members compiled and circulated in March 2024. The file contained names, photos and, in some cases, even the addresses and phone numbers of 28 members of the UVSV sorority. The photos were accompanied by sexist comments such as: "She couldn’t fuck properly" or "vulgar, but nice and horny". Four USC members are due to appear in court shortly for distributing the list. The fraternity promised to do better and to improve its internal culture. It is tasked with putting an end to misogynistic behaviour, toxic hierarchies, and peer pressure. 

At the end of March, the Executive Board of Utrecht University published a statement with the University Council regarding the fraternity's reporting and monitoring process. In this document, the university concludes that "the most recent report provides the transparency we had requested, not only when submitting it but also in the period leading to it. USC has communicated with UU and HU on several occasions, sometimes on its own initiative. We also see a positive change in its attitude towards the media.”

DUB decided to put this to the test and request an interview. Up until then, the fraternity was so secretive that it was virtually impossible to schedule an in-depth conversation with its board. Now, its rector, the medical student Cas Moerdijk, has agreed to discuss the actions USC has taken to improve its culture and reflect on the negative incidents that have made USC become front-page news several times in recent years.

Names of the advisory committee have been anonymised
The doors of the Yellow Castle are wide open when we arrive: we can walk straight in. The USC Rector, Cas Moerdijk, greets us warmly. He leads us up the stairs, through a large corridor, to the old library, where our conversation will take place. The bookcases in the room are the only things reminding us of its former function. Nowadays, the space is mainly used for dinners and committee meetings. Playing cards that used to belong to a magician who once performed in the room are stuck to the high ceiling. The pungent smell of stale beer accompanies us the entire time.

Ahead of the interview, DUB requested all seven documents that USC had submitted to UU and HU during the improvement process. However, we were only allowed to view two of them: the Protocol on Sexual Boundary-Crossing Behaviour and a statement from the advisory committee appointed by USC itself, which contained observations regarding the fraternity's actions in 2025. USC has anonymised the names of the committee members at their request.

The USC board refused to show us the remaining five documents, claiming that they are meant for internal discussion. The documents we were not allowed to see include a list of all activities and meetings held by the fraternity since March 2024, a monitoring document detailing the status of each set objective, a revised media policy, an explanation of the internal sanctions policy and the code of conduct, and the "house rules" of the association's student accommodations for men.

The interview lasts one hour. Since then, DUB has spoken with USC several times to ask follow-up questions and request additional documents.

Why did you agree to do this interview?
“We always gave the impression of being very closed off. As a result, USC remained a mystery to the outside world, and when we did appear in the news, it was usually for less pleasant reasons. Consequently, people don’t have the best opinion of us. Hopefully, that will change if we become more transparent and show what we’re up to. It’s also better for us as an association to be more transparent and get people involved.”

What did you think of the sanctions that UU and HU imposed on USC?
“The 'slut list' was terrible and had far-reaching consequences for the victims. It also had a major impact on our fraternity. It became painfully clear that we still had a long way to go to turn the fraternity into a healthy and safe environment. The university and the university of applied sciences were right to impose sanctions on us. For us, it was a wake-up call to roll up our sleeves and get started on a cultural change.”

How do you prevent incidents like that from happening again?
“Soon after the 'slut list' incident, we wrote an improvement plan and submitted it to the university. Our goal is to have open discussions and raise awareness about inappropriate behaviour, including sexual misconduct, misogyny, hierarchy, and the importance of a culture where people feel comfortable speaking up.

We want to move towards a situation where members call each other out when they behave inappropriately, but we also believe the board should impose sanctions as it sets boundaries and establishes a standard. Above all, we must ensure that we all change our behaviour. That is a shared responsibility.”

Timeline

- March 2024: USC members compile and share a "list of girls to bang" online

- 14 March 2024: the USC board reports the list to Utrecht University (UU). USC, the UU rector and a policy advisor meet to discuss the matter

- 19 March 2024: USC has another meeting with UU, and the HU President is also present

- 21 March 2024: UU and HU impose sanctions on USC

- 3 April 2024: Two suspects of compiling and spreading the list are arrested

- 1 May 2024: USC submits an improvement plan to the two educational institutions

- August, November 2024 and June 2025: USC submits half-yearly reports to UU and HU

- 16 July 2025: The Public Prosecution Service prosecutes four USC members for distributing the list

- 1 September 2025: First sanctions lifted. USC can apply for funding from UU and HU again

- December 2025: USC submits another half-yearly report, but it is not yet in order. UU and HU postpone lifting the final sanction

- 1 February 2026: Final sanction lifted by UU and HU; USC is welcome again at official events

What have you done, exactly?
“Over the past few years, we have organised dozens of meetings and activities on these topics, including active bystander training sessions, an annual meeting for house representatives, and leadership training for a group of senior students. During our welfare week, we organise a session on inappropriate behaviour for all first-year students at USC and the UVSV sorority. In addition, we set up a reporting centre in 2025 to ensure we have a proper reporting structure in place should members encounter inappropriate behaviour. Finally, USC and UVSV have drawn up a protocol on inappropriate behaviour, which provides guidance when an incident of this nature is reported between a UVSV member and a USC member.”

How do you check whether these plans are being effective?
“We have listed our objectives in our 2024 improvement plan. We have also described what we need to do to achieve these objectives and whether we have succeeded. In addition, we have prepared another document outlining a timeline of everything we have done and what we still plan to do, including the date, member attendance, the topic, the format, and the evaluation. After each meeting, we sent out surveys to the participants asking if the meeting was useful to them, what their impression of USC is, and whether they have any suggestions for improvements.”

How does your reporting system work?
“We put up posters in our buildings featuring a QR code that links to our reporting system. In this online environment, people can make a report anonymously or confidentially. They can also choose one of our five internal or external confidential advisors. The complaint is sent to the confidential advisor of their choice, who then contacts the person back. The board has regular meetings with the confidential advisors and confidential contact persons, during which they tell us whether there are any complaints and if these complaints have been dealt with.”

How many reports have you received these past few years?
“We do not disclose the number of complaints, as we do not see the added value in doing so for this interview.”

Have you sanctioned members as a result of these complaints?
“Yes, that does happen occasionally. If someone steps out of line, we talk to them, apply our standards and impose sanctions. In addition to sanctions, we listen to both sides of the story to assess whether we also still wish to mediate a conversation between the involved parties."

What kind of sanctions have you imposed on members?
“We have suspended some members.”

Do first-year students dare to call senior students out about their behaviour?
“At the end of March, we held two meetings on hierarchy and seniority in our student homes: one for first-years and third-years, and one for second-years and fourth-years.  was on hierarchy and seniority. Members discussed these topics among themselves using a series of statements. It's hard for me to say if members actually put what they discuss there into practice, as I can’t see what everyone is doing. Speaking for myself, I do see a difference between the fraternity as it is now and how I found it when I first arrived.”

What changes have you noticed?
“I feel that members are more considerate of one another and think twice before they do or say something. I've also noticed that people are more likely to speak up if someone tries to post something inappropriate on social media, such as a strange comment or a video of someone who is drunk. People are speaking out about that.”

The USC members living in the fraternity's houses have also had to sign a code of conduct. What does that document say?
“This code of conduct sets out what we expect from our members, so that we interact with one another in a normal way. Among other things, it states that excessive alcohol consumption or forced alcohol consumption is forbidden. The same goes for physical and emotional abuse. Members must sign this code of conduct and hang it on a wall in their house. Every two years, members have to sign the code of conduct again to be reminded of how we should treat one another.”

Can you prevent students from consuming alcohol to excess?
“I think every student drinks one beer too many at some point, but excessive consumption is not normal. We make our members sign the code of conduct to raise awareness, so that they think about it a little more carefully, and make it clear that excessive alcohol consumption is not the norm.”

Can you see what goes on behind closed doors, though?
“As a board, we have a lot of influence over what happens in our headquarters, but our influence is more limited when it comes to the student accommodations. That’s why we need to ensure that people feel a sense of responsibility to take ownership of their traditions and culture. The  board will never have complete control over the student homes.”

How do you ensure that senior residents, who have a higher status, set a good example?
“We try to achieve this by engaging in dialogue and reminding them of their responsibilities. We cannot dictate how they should behave, but we can talk about our shared norms and values. We organise an annual compulsory meeting specifically for house representatives. We now have around 90 student homes, and about 80 house representatives attended the last meeting in December 2025. I've noticed that the house representatives think it's important to attend this meeting and bring about change. They also encourage the other lads to attend activities.”

What about the house representatives who didn't attend the meeting? What have you done about them?
“If a house representative really cannot attend, we ask if someone else from the house can attend the meeting. So, maybe the house representative wasn’t there, but another senior member was. If a senior member cancels with a valid reason, we don’t take any action against them because we don’t think that’s fair. But if someone doesn’t cancel and then doesn't show up, we talk to them about why they weren’t there. We keep track of who attends these meetings and who doesn’t, but generally speaking, our members do attend the activities.”

Were the senior residents of the house where the ‘list of girls to bang’ was compiled present at the compulsory meeting?
“Yes, they were.”

How do you draw a line between inappropriate behaviour and student traditions, such as removing doors from freshers' bedrooms and only putting them back after they have sex with someone? 
“Our fraternity struggles to determine where to draw that line. We are constantly seeking a balance between tradition and innovation. After all, traditions are part of the association’s identity. The moment too many things change, and people don’t understand why, you lose that identity. Therefore, it is important to talk to our members about innovations. Personally, I’ve never heard of this tradition of ‘earning a door’. I can’t speak for everyone, of course, but I’ve never experienced it myself and haven’t heard about such a thing from anyone around me either. I’m actually glad about that because that’s a tradition I wouldn’t support.”

What traditions have you changed?
“Previously, the women of UVSV would come to our headquarters during the induction period. They came straight from an outdoor location, without having a chance to freshen up or change, while USC members had the opportunity to change into smart clothes. We didn’t think that was fair, so we changed that to an official meeting in our disco. Then we changed that again. Now, they have dinner together before going to the disco, so they can talk to each other sober first, instead of only meeting each other when they're drunk."

Isn’t the induction period in itself already crossing the line?
“No, I don’t think so. We follow a clear set of guidelines for our induction period. These are well-documented, proper protocols, which are carefully monitored by our Utrecht Induction Period Advisory Committee. That committee works on behalf of UU and HU and ensures that the introduction and orientation periods of student associations are in line with the Introductory Period Code of Conduct. This guarantees a safe introduction for new students, ensuring that abuses are prevented or addressed.”

Do you know whether first-year students experience the orientation period as crossing a line?
“As far as we know, this period is not perceived as crossing a line.”

But isn't the orientation period part of your cultural change plan?
“There is a huge organisation behind the induction period, involving many people, and it is evaluated and reviewed every year. A great deal of thought goes into it. The induction period is not something we need to change significantly. What we are doing now is actively promoting and testing our core values during the induction period.”

You've submitted a report on your improvement plan to the university. How can we be sure that you have actually implemented this improvement plan?
“We appointed a supervisory committee to ensure that our plans were properly implemented. The committee consisted of four external women, each with a different background and expertise. Some of them had been members of a student association in the past, and others had not. Alongside this supervisory committee, we have considered how we could improve our activities to achieve our goals.”

How was the external supervisory committee appointed?
“USC already had many male supervisors and advisers, but no women. Given the nature of the issues, our Senate felt it was appropriate to also have women at the table. The committee was formed based on background. We wanted someone with substantive expertise in psychology and sexuality; someone with a background in ethics; someone with experience advising student societies; and someone with an administrative background at a university. The Senate approached individuals with these skillsets.”

The committee wrote that it is confident in your approach and that you are fully aware of the need for improvement. How did this collaboration go?
“The committee was very positive about the collaboration, and we were positive about working with them, too. We don't meet officially anymore, but we can still approach them if we have questions and suggestions.”

UU intended to lift the final sanction earlier, but your report was not yet in order. What was missing from it?
“The university did not feel that we were doing too little, but they felt that we needed to provide more insight into the effectiveness of our measures and our collaboration with external experts. They also felt we needed to document this better. Once we improved this, the university lifted the sanctions.”

Ahead of this interview, we asked you to send the documents you refer to, so we could assess them and include links to them in our article. Why are you unwilling to make the documents from the monitoring process public?
“These documents also contain members’ names. As far as we're concerned, these are internal documents, which we drew up to pass on to future boards, among other reasons.”

You could anonymise the names in the documents...
“Regardless of the possibility of anonymising the documents, they remain internal documents.”

This still leaves the impression that you lack transparency.
“I disagree. In the documents, we record exactly what we do and how we evaluate it. In this interview, I'm explaining what I think is relevant. Although I am very keen to be transparent, USC remains a private association. We drew up the monitoring report not only for the university, but also for ourselves, so that we can learn from it and pass it on to our successors at the end of the year. Much of that information may not be relevant to this interview.”

The association is under the microscope after making headlines. Why did you still want to become its rector?
“I knew in advance that it would be tough, but I also became a rector to improve the association and not just defend it when things go wrong. I know enough people here to have seen the impact it can have if we don’t treat each other well. That's my motivation: to get to work on it. It’s not always fun or easy, but it’s something I want to do. ”

What are your plans for the future?
“I hope that in five to ten years, the fraternity will set a good example for other student societies. I also hope that members will call each other out when they behave inappropriately. We’re aware that we’re not there yet, and we’re setting up a culture committee. Committee members serve for two years, with a mix of new and returning members to ensure knowledge is retained.”