The implementation of the code of conduct has been delayed once again. The draft version is still receiving heavy criticism from the participational bodies. The Executive Board has agreed to make further adjustments.

As a lecturer, can you enter into a relationship with a student? This might be the most loaded question to which the University’s new code of conduct has to provide an answer. The position of the Works Council (OR) is a simple no: if there is a power imbalance, it is out of the question. Not allowed. Impossible.

According to OR member Peter van der Heiden, this is not sufficiently clear in the draft version of the code of conduct, which is currently being discussed by the University Joint Assembly. ‘This is the point where the University must set a standard: this is simply unacceptable. Enforcement is another matter: it is also about giving off a message.’

Yesterday, a large delegation from the University Joint Assembly (UGV) met with Vice Chair Agnes Muskens and relevant policy staff in Huize Heyendael to discuss the document. The lead up to this moment has been extensive: a version of the code of conduct was submitted to the University Joint Assembly for approval in November last year. It was discarded at the time.

Dependency

Vice Chair Agnes Muskens and the involved policy officers reacted with surprise to the criticism that the lack of a ban on student-lecturer relationships received. In their view, the document does actually state that this kind of relationship is prohibited. They indicated the following passage: ‘For the duration of the professional relationship, lecturers must not enter into private relationships with students that could compromise the impartiality or objectivity of the professional relationship or that could result in favouring or disadvantaging a student.’

‘It is about a safe working and learning environment.’

That seemed to slightly reassure the OR. However, the OR Chair Amarins Thiecke emphasised that it is not the preferential treatment or disadvantaging of students that concerns her most, but their safety. ‘It is about a safe working and learning environment.’

The code of conduct is also less firm on relationships between PhD students and their supervisors, where there is also a high degree of dependency. A love affair between these two parties is therefore termed ‘undesirable’ in the code of conduct. This phrasing is too soft, according to the OR. Van der Heiden: ‘There should be no room for potential misunderstandings here either: this kind of relationship is unacceptable too.’

Use of medication

Another point of criticism raised by the participational bodies is how the code of conduct talks about the role of supervisors. According to the Works Council, this role is made too important. ‘It makes it seem as if the supervisor is a neutral, objective figure whom you can discuss anything with,’ says Van der Heiden. ‘The Executive Board has an imagined ideal of what a supervisor should be while reality is often different.’

Consider the ‘duty to report’ that the Executive Board has included in the code of conduct concerning employees whose performance is negatively affected due to medication use. According to the draft, they should take this up with the supervisor. However, according to the participational bodies, it is well within the realms of possibility that reporting this kind of matter could influence the course of that employee’s career. ‘And anyway, we cannot forget privacy,’ says Van der Heiden.

‘The stigma surrounding use of medication is much greater than you think it is’

During yesterday morning’s meeting, Student Council member Marie-Sophie Simon added that the Executive Board underestimates the stigma surrounding use of medication. ‘It is much greater than you think,’ she told Vice Chair Muskens.

As a compromise, OR member Sophie de Groot proposed that the Occupational Health Officer should play a role in this duty to report on use of medication. Van der Heiden found this to be a very good idea. ‘The Occupational Health Officer can then simply inform the supervisor that an employee has reduced employability. It is not necessary to state why this is the case.’ The idea is that the employee’s privacy need not be violated.

Consent

The code of conduct was meant to come into force this month. Yesterday, it became clear that this deadline will not be met; the draft version was met with too much criticism. The officials concerned will now work on the agreed adjustments, after which the document needs to be re-submitted to the University Joint Assembly for approval. The Executive Board now hopes that the UGV will agree to the code of conduct at the final participational body meeting of the year, in July.