Han van Krieken has been vindicated in a case he brought before the Press Council against daily newspaper De Gelderlander. According to the former Rector, the newspaper published one-sided and incomplete coverage of a complaint against him dating back to 2018.

Han van Krieken appealed to the Press Council in April of this year following several publications in De Gelderlander. In September 2023, the newspaper had revealed in that a complaint had been filed against the Rector in 2018 for transgressive behaviour.

On a Christmas market, he had made two remarks addressed to a female colleague. She had felt intimidated by this and had filed the complaint in question. An independent committee had reviewed the case, declared the complaint founded and stated that the comments ‘could be perceived as sexually intimidating’.

Van Krieken was issued a non-public warning in his personnel file. The then Rector had apologised to the woman but had not stepped down. He did step down eventually after De Gelderlander published a series of articles about the case years later, just before the University’s centenary celebrations in 2023. His reasoning was that he did not want to jeopardise the centenary celebrations.

Tendentious reporting

Van Krieken previously accused the newspaper of ‘character assassination’ because several articles were published about the case, and he felt he could not defend himself against them. In a Vox interview he referred to the publications last year as ‘attacks ad hominem’.

At the Press Council this spring, he challenged two newspaper articles reporting on the complaint that cost him his position. An article on a German carnival award for Radboud University (which the former Rector was to receive) stated that Van Krieken had been discredited for being ‘guilty of sexual intimidation of a colleague’.

Another article about a municipal award for Van Krieken mentioned that the former Rector had been ‘taken to task for making sexually explicit, inappropriate remarks to a female colleague’.

Van Krieken accused the newspaper of inaccurate and biased reporting. The Press Council has now ruled in his favour. According to the Council, De Gelderlander ‘reported on the issue in a journalistically negligent manner’. One conclusion is that the phrases ‘guilty of sexual intimidation’ and ‘making sexually explicit, inappropriate remarks’ do not adequately reflect the facts for which Van Krieken received a warning at the time.

Indeed, the committee assessing the complaint against him merely stated that the comments ‘could be perceived as sexually intimidating’ – i.e. not that they were. The Council also addresses a number of specific details in the articles that had a negative impact for the former Rector. It also concludes that the journalists had failed to provide sufficient evidence for their suggestion that there was a ‘cover-up’ at Radboud University.

Interest

The Press Council stresses that the media do have a duty to expose wrongs in society and that it is relevant to report critically on a case leading to the resignation of a rector, but that ‘the journalist should weigh the interests served by a publication against the interests that may be harmed by the publication’.

The former Rector expressed his satisfaction with the ruling. ‘I hope this will lead to better, reliable journalism and the necessary self-reflection among those involved,’ he commented. He says he is ready to put the matter to rest. ‘The damage to the University and to myself is unfortunately irreparable.’

De Gelderlander says it accepts the ruling. ‘We will soon publish an article with the Press Council’s conclusions,’ said Editor-in-Chief Joris Gerritsen. He agrees that the newspaper was not careful enough in the articles under dispute. ‘In both pieces, we referred to the Van Krieken issue. You are trying to summarise a complex issue in two paragraphs. Retrospectively, you could say that we were too sloppy in our choice of words. That may have come across as tendentious, and it was not meant that way.’