Four USC members prosecuted for 'slut lists'

In March 2024, several women studying in Utrecht had their names, pictures and contact details exposed alongside sexually suggestive commentary in a PowerPoint presentation posted online. The victims were affiliated with the UVSV sorority.

The Public Prosecution Service announced an investigation shortly afterwards. In April, two suspects were arrested in connection with the distribution of the document. Since then, nothing much has happened. The Public Prosecution Service did not make any statements about this case for over a year. 

In July 2025, the Public Prosecution Service finally broke the silence, announcing that four members of the fraternity will have to present themselves before the court. The students are suspected of sharing the offensive document with fellow students. It remains unclear how the list ended up outside the fraternity's private app groups and on the Internet. 

According to the Public Prosecution Service, six suspects emerged during the investigation, all of whom were USC members. Two of them were acquitted because they did not forward the document.

USC immediately distanced itself from the presentation and announced sanctions for the members involved. They were suspended for up to 18 months. Utrecht University and the Utrecht University of Applied Sciences (HU) both decided to apply sanctions as well. They stopped funding the fraternity and banned it from official events. The fraternity was also required to develop a good plan to ignite a cultural change within the association. Earlier this year, UU and HU decided to lift the sanctions against USC after concluding that the fraternity had improved social safety among its members. In June, the two institutions announced that the criminal prosecution of the four USC members would not affect that decision.

Ina Brouwer, the lawyer representing the victims of the PowerPoint presentation and their parents, has long been disappointed with the university's stance regarding this case. She believes that the university should expel students who misbehave in this manner. According to UU and HU, educational institutions cannot expel students over matters that happen outside their premises.

In July, Brouwer debated against Bart Nooitgedacht, the lawyer representing one of the suspects, on a TV show. He argued that his client compiled the list because he was under pressure from senior fraternity members and never intended to distribute it. According to him, four young men are now being ‘sacrificed’ to tackle a culture.

The Public Prosecution Service also investigated a second document of this kind, for which a 26-year-old man from Groningen has been arrested. He made it seem as though the second list had also been compiled by USC members, even though the Utrecht-based fraternity had not been involved.

It is not yet known when the four USC members will appear in court.

Utrecht Student Corps (USC) reacts:

‘We recognise the seriousness of this matter and distance ourselves from the behaviour associated with it. The Public Prosecution Service is responsible for the follow-up to this report. We trust that the case will be handled with care and await further developments.’

Response from the lawyers representing the victims, Otto Volgenant and Ina Brouwer:

"As lawyers representing the victims of the presentation made by USC members, we are pleased that the Public Prosecution Service has decided to prosecute four of the six suspects. In doing so, the Public Prosecution Service demonstrates that it understands the seriousness of such a list and the intense consequences it has for its victims.

However, we believe that the other two suspects should have been prosecuted too. After all, all six of them compiled the list as a group and forwarded it to other fraternity members. There was a high risk that the list would be distributed to a larger circle of people."

Reproduction of UVSV's statement to the TV show Nieuwsuur, where the two lawyers debated:

'The prosecution is an important signal [...] as it recognises the seriousness of (online) abuse and the intense consequences for the victims'.

Response from Utrecht University and Utrecht University of Applied Sciences:

‘We are following the developments in this case with attention and understanding for the impact this issue has on those involved. Although this is not a case in which Utrecht University or Utrecht University of Applied Sciences are formally involved, we underline the importance of a socially safe environment for all students. We hope that this process will contribute to greater awareness of the consequences of abusive behaviour.’