A return of Paul Bakker as a lecturer was out of the question for students in the faculty council. 'We did not have the confidence that Bakker could continue giving lectures.'

After almost three years of uncertainty, Radboud University announced last week that philosophy professor Paul Bakker is not returning as lecturer. He does stay on as a researcher at the Faculty of Philosophy, Theology and Religious Studies. He will also start working for the Radboud University Press. In 2020, Bakker was reprimanded for ‘acting inappropriately’. Details of the case were never revealed.

According to dean Heleen Murre-van den Berg, it was mainly the students of her faculty who were concerned about a possible return of Bakker as lecturer. Roel Neuraij and Yrsa Machelessen, members of the Faculty Student Council (FSR), explain that stance.

Is it true that you had an important say in Bakker’s future at the university?

Neuraij: ‘That is mostly true for last year’s FSR. At that time, there was still a lot of discussion about what should happen. The FSR and the assessor fanatically engaged in that discussion. They were able to enforce that, regardless of any further outcome, Bakker would not return as a lecturer.’

Machelessen: ‘He would no longer teach students, is what was promised to us at the time.’

Do you support the stance that your predecessors in the FSR took?

Neuraij: ‘Yes, we would have done the same. We pursued the same course. But we no longer needed to make a case for it, because the point had already been made.’

Why do you think Paul Bakker should no longer teach?

Machelessen: ‘We know that inappropriate behaviour took place. For us as FSR, that is sufficient: we do not want students to be potentially at risk. With this, we support the faculty, which has come to this judgement.’

‘Members of the previous FSR partly witnessed the events that took place’

Neuraij: ‘We simply did not have the confidence that Paul Bakker could continue teaching a group of students on his own.’

Does that mean you know exactly what happened?

Neuraij: ‘Partly. But we keep that within the faculty. The Berenschot report (on the basis of which Bakker was reprimanded for behaving inappropriately, ed.) has always remained confidential. That investigation was not only about Bakker, but also about the people with whom he interacted. Those very explicitly requested to not have to go public, so we are respecting that as well.’

But then how did you have access to the vital information about Bakker’s actions?

Neuraij: ‘It was given to us by the previous FSR during the handover.’

Machelessen: ‘They gave us the information needed for us to do our job properly.’

Neuraij: ‘Neither of us has been a student at Radboud University for very long. But the members of the previous FSR, and the assessor, were already wandering around the faculty before the pandemic. They partly witnessed the events that took place. We have not read the Berenschot report, but we have access to first-person accounts and witness accounts.’

Is the consequence for Bakker – he will no longer teach – proportionate to what he has done?

Neuraij: ‘At the very least, he has lost all trust people had in him. If he wants to earn that back, he will have to work on that step by step.’

Machelessen: ‘He will have to work very hard when it comes to that.’

Neuraij: ‘As far as we are concerned, it would also be fine if he never teaches again.’

Bakker is still welcome at the faculty to do his research, what do you think of that?

(silence)

Machelessen: ‘I find that a difficult question.’

‘The fact that Bakker is allowed to supervise PhD students is where the biggest uncertainty lies’

Neuraij: ‘The most important thing is that Bakker will now be working in a different department, in a different role and a different involvement with people from the faculty. The fact that he is allowed to supervise PhD students is where the biggest uncertainty lies. People wonder if that is a good idea. As a PhD student, you are very much in a dependent position, just like when you are a student.’

How do you feel about the FSR being so closely involved in such an important decision? You helped determine the future of an employee at the university.

Machelessen: ‘We were given a voice in this situation and we’re actually listened to. That is a good thing, we are very happy with that.’

You are representing the students of your faculty. Does everyone agree with you?

Neuraij: ‘There are also students who think differently. Some dismiss the discussion about Bakker as part of the woke movement.’

Machelessen: ‘I think students are divided on this issue. But the general tenor is that students don’t feel all too comfortable that Bakker is still welcome at the faculty, but at least now we know where we stand.’

The investigation in 2020 was launched following ‘multiple reports involving multiple individuals’. Has the FSR also been involved in discussions about other individual employees?

Neuraij: ‘Yes, we were involved.’

Machelessen: ‘But we can’t go into detail at this time.’

Neuraij: ‘It now looks like we have talked about Bakker a lot. But we talked a lot more about social safety in general and the pathways around it. That’s a long list. Bakker is in the news now because the negotiations with him have ended, but it remains a small part of a much bigger picture.’

What has changed at the faculty in the last few years?

Machelessen: ‘The topic of social safety is now much more in the foreground. Committees are being set up and brainstorming initiatives are taken. All with the aim of making students feel they are in a place where they can express themselves and that they know where to report inappropriate behaviour. Students dare to be more open about their experiences. They share these with other students, lecturers, confidants and student advisers. You don’t have to keep your mouth shut if something happens, you need to know where to share information in confidence.’

‘Three years ago there was no playbook ready on how to deal with this kind of situation’

Neuraij: ‘A lot has also changed at the administrative level. Three years ago, there was no playbook ready on how to deal with this kind of situation. There was no plan of action, the Code of Conduct only came later. Everyone had to improvise.’

What is the atmosphere like now at the faculty?

Machelessen: ‘The atmosphere is good. I feel that students now feel like they can be themselves. As a result, there is also less room for people who take up too much space. I think we are all working well towards that.’

Neuraij: ‘You journalists naturally knock on our door when something goes wrong within the faculty, but most of the time things go very well. When we are not discussing social safety, we’re having philosophical discussions about beer.’

Translated by Jan Scholten