Rehabilitation of PhD candidate due to inappropriate behaviour could not be proven

Proud and with a charming smile, the future doctor stands in the Senate Hall in April 2024, receiving his PhD certificate from supervisor Marc Baldus. The Professor of Biomolecular Sciences praises the scientific findings at the intersection of biology and chemistry. He says the dissertation will lead to new insights in the field. Then co-supervisor Gert Folkers takes the floor. He calls the last year of the PhD a rollercoaster, in which the PhD candidate had to fight in completely different areas than his research. "You are someone with strong opinions that not everyone appreciates".

This reconstruction is based on available sources, including an extensive report of the Midden Nederland lawsuit of August 27, 2023, in which all parties had their say. The PhD candidate initiated the lawsuit. He wanted to be allowed back in the lab and demanded that his name be cleared. DUB also used the report from two external advisors on the lack of social safety at the Department of Chemistry, published in April 2024, and an email sent by Isabel Arends, Dean of the Faculty of Science, to the research group in August. Lastly, DUB was present at the graduation ceremony. None of the parties involved were willing to speak to DUB about the case.

March 2023
The conflict in which the PhD candidate plays a leading role begins in March 2023. The PhD candidate receives an email from the head of the Chemistry department. It states:  “I am afraid I need to inform you that I have decided to request you not to enter the [building] nor to make any contacts to laboratory members of the [department] section, with the exception of (first name)]. (...) I needed to take this decision as a number of bystanders raised concerns that they and others feel unsafe in your presence, due to a number of incidents. This is a serious allegation. I will investigate these claims and I will ask my secretary to make an appointment with you to hear your view on these matters.” (source: ruling by the Central Netherlands District Court - August 27, 2023)

According to the court documents, the PhD candidate is surprised. A few days after the email, he had a conversation with the head of the Chemistry department in the presence of the supervisors, who gave him a broad explanation of the nature of the anonymous accusations and told him that an external agency would conduct an exploratory investigation.

April 2023
In April, two external consultancy advisors start the exploratory investigation by talking to the people who filed the complaints. The advisors then report verbally to the department board. The interviews show that the colleagues experienced forms of bullying and gossip. During the court case, the head of the department lists several complaints: "He criticises people in public, says that others are running away with his subject, makes negative comments about scientists from outside the EU, and tells women not to get pregnant." He also shouts during joint lunches: his style and conversation topics make colleagues feel uncomfortable. Some even start going to therapy because of that. Local newspaper AD Utrechts Nieuwsblad then reports on the case, stating that the interviewees talked to the PhD candidate about his behaviour, without success.

The committee of consultancy advisors did not speak to the PhD candidate as their assignment was to investigate whether there was an unsafe feeling among the complainants. They concluded that there were indeed behaviours considered undesirable. 

May 2023
The PhD candidate is no longer allowed to enter the lab in the Bloembergen building. According to the department management, he had already done enough work at the lab to complete his research and obtain his PhD, but the PhD candidate disagrees. He doesn't feel ready yet and would like to conduct some more experiments. In addition, he feels humiliated. He didn't know at the time what exactly he was being accused of. He doesn't feel as though he has behaved inappropriately, though he admits he is someone with strong opinions about relationships between men and women. He believes that pregnant women should not work in a lab as labs are not safe environments for them. He sees it more as a difference of opinion.

In May, he is invited for a meeting with the department chair. A confidential counsellor is present in the meeting. Even then, the PhD candidate says they didn't tell him what he was accused of. During the meeting, he was informed that the exploratory research has shown there could be a case of inappropriate behaviour. He is then presented with two options. Either there will be an extensive fact-finding investigation in which he will be suspended until the outcome, or the university will offer him the opportunity to complete his PhD under strict conditions. In that case, the lab ban would remain in place.

July 2023
The PhD candidate chooses the second option and negotiates the conditions with the faculty. It is stated that he must admit guilt and can only have limited access to the lab during weekends. In addition, he is not allowed to attend conferences and shall not receive any reference letters after the PhD defence. The two parties cannot reach an agreement. The requirement to admit guilt is a particularly controversial point. The PhD candidate also considered the reference letter ban unacceptable.

The case is then passed on to the Executive Board. The court report states that the board requested the Interpersonal Integrity Committee (CII) to carry out a formal fact-finding investigation. The CII has accepted this assignment. The PhD candidate receives a letter about this in early August. The letter states that he will be denied access to the building and the lab during the CII investigation. He is also not allowed to contact colleagues or former colleagues, and his meetings with the supervisor and co-supervisor must take place outside the university. The CII investigation has not yet started. 

September 2023
The PhD candidate believes he has been treated unfairly as he has been denied access to the building without a proper investigation. Besides, his side wasn't heard. He deems the committee and the consultancy inexperienced, stating in court that this type of investigation is inadequate in 75 percent of cases. Moreover, the decision was made based on unverifiable anonymous reports.

For this reason, he is initiating summary proceedings that will be heard in September at the Midden-Nederland court. He demands to be admitted to the laboratory again with immediate effect and wants the department to send a message to everyone in the department stating that "the measures taken were, in retrospect, wrong. There is no evidence that the PhD candidate would have been guilty of incorrect behaviour. If this has caused unrest within the organisation or possibly damaged the PhD candidate's reputation, this was never the intention. We regret this very much".

The judge rejects the claim. He understands that the university carried out an exploratory investigation after receiving the anonymous reports. This was intended to see whether there was indeed any perceived transgressive behaviour. Hearing the accused is not necessary for such an investigation as it concerns the social safety of UU employees. He also understands that UU first awaited the results of this investigation before setting the Interpersonal Integrity Committee to work. Only in exceptional cases will this committee immediately start working on anonymous reports. The judge fears that undesirable situations will arise again if the PhD candidate returns to the workplace. He indicates that UU must start the announced investigation.

November 2023
Although the Executive Board asked the CII in July for a formal fact-finding investigation and the judge also insisted on this at the end of September, the investigation will not start until November. Once they do start, there will be a hearing with all parties involved. The PhD candidate will also be invited.

April 2024
In the meantime, preparations are being made for the PhD defence. This is scheduled for April. The Interpersonal Integrity Committee has not yet made itself heard. However, a report will be published by two experts who have conducted research into undesirable behaviour in the entire Chemistry department. The issue surrounding the PhD candidate was one of the reasons to start this investigation. The researchers were the same ones who conducted the exploratory research at the PhD candidate's department.

This so-called signal investigation shows that undesirable behaviour is pervasive in the department and that the possible causes lie in the area of ​​work pressure, hierarchical relationships, cultural differences and a lack of leadership skills of the team leaders. The department employs 325 people. Department chair Stefan Rüdiger calls the issue surrounding the PhD candidate just one example of several cases in which feelings of insecurity play a role. But he calls this one of the most extreme examples.

The PhD defence ceremony will take place one week after the presentation of the report. He had to finish his dissertation at home based on data collected previously. In addition, the conditions still apply: he will not receive letters of recommendation from UU, which is a necessity to continue an academic career. However, during the defence, it turns out that the PhD candidate had already been offered a job as a postdoc at a university in Switzerland before his suspension. The examining board was very enthusiastic about the quality of his dissertation.

Some of his colleagues attended the ceremony. They sat together and nodded encouragingly. They did not want to say much about the matter. However, one of them said afterwards: “It is an incredibly unpleasant matter that has caused a lot of unrest in our department. The PhD candidate has now completed his trajectory and is leaving. However, the division within the department still exists.”

August 2024
At the end of August, the employees of the department receive an email from Dean Isabel Arends. DUB also had access to this email. It shows that the CII has completed its investigation into the PhD candidate. The conclusion, Arends writes, is that the CII has not been able to determine whether he had behaved inappropriately. Three reasons are given for this. First, there is no supporting evidence in the form of emails, audio recordings and witness statements. There are also no formal documents available of complaints or witness statements. Finally, the committee does not rule out that certain statements from people in the department have been coordinated. Further explanation is lacking. The email states that the Executive Board has adopted the advice. Arends notes that the Executive Board regrets the outcome of the fact-finding investigation because there are only losers in this process.

The CII report has not been made public and the committee does not want to comment on this specific case. The PhD candidate himself, the supervisors and other researchers of the department were not given access to the report.

In the email, the dean states that it is clear that the atmosphere in the department has suffered greatly from the affair and that measures are needed to create a safe working atmosphere. She announces that a steering group will be set up to help the department improve the work culture.

In addition, the PhD candidate receives a letter from Utrecht University stating that he will be considered a full-fledged UU alumnus again. He can also visit his old department again and receive reference letters if necessary. He writes to DUB that he does not want to respond to the results of the investigation because the events of the past 17 months have caused him extreme pain. He wants to prevent old wounds from being reopened. The head of the department refused to talk to DUB citing privacy reasons.

Utrecht University doesn't comment on the results of the investigation, either. A spokesperson for the university responds in writing: “First, we refrain from commenting to protect the privacy of those involved. In addition, we don't want future reporters or defendants to not dare to report and/or cooperate in a CII investigation out of fear that information will be shared with the media. Furthermore, we believe that it is not beneficial to the research group in question, on whom this case has a major impact, to reflect on this case via the media.”  Discussions are currently being held within the group about necessary future steps.