An Artificial Intelligence employee is leaving the university after an investigation into unwanted behaviour was concluded. Dean Evelyn Kroesbergen is not disclosing the results of the investigation. 'I don't think you will help anyone by publishing what exactly the reports entailed.'

The departure of an employee at the Artificial Intelligence programme following an investigation into unwanted behaviour has not caused much additional unrest at the faculty. So says the of the Faculty of Social Sciences, Evelyn Kroesbergen, in her office in the Maria Montessori building.

‘When the investigation into unwanted behaviour was announced (in the autumn of 2022, ed.), it was a different situation’, she says. ‘It’s not that everything is going by quietly now, but I wouldn’t label it as unrest. It does provide another opportunity to start a discussion with each other on this topic.’

How did the faculty inform students and employees?

‘The employees were informed during a meeting and via email. We informed students with a message on Brightspace. In addition, we published a news article on the website. A general meeting on the broad topic of social safety was also organised for students this week.’

Do the students at Artificial Intelligence know which employee this is about?

‘We have not communicated a name, but some students will know. First-year students may not.’

There were problems surrounding social safety at the Faculty of Philosophy, Theology and Religious Studies in recent years. To tackle those issues, a cultural track was initiated at that time. Will there be such a track for the social sciences too?

‘We have been working on that for some time, because we think that this is a very important issue. One way we tackle this is by organising such meetings, or by offering training courses for teams. During a team-building activity with professors, we talked about this matter and about social safety in the broader sense of the word. We are exploring how to lower the threshold to speak to a confidential advisor. Also, we are already paying attention to how students and lecturers are expected to treat each other during the orientation week. We think the well-being of all our students and staff is very important.’

So has this case not set anything new in motion?

‘Not at the moment. At an earlier stage, this issue did show how we can further sharpen our procedures.’

‘University-wide, the issue does attract more attention. I have not been dean for long, and together with the director of operations, we have made social safety a priority. You increase social safety by discussing it with each other. Both when things are going well, but also when things are not going well.’

How long had this case been in play?

‘I became dean on 1 October 2022. Just before that, the first investigation had been concluded. Following new reports, there was a follow-up investigation. This was done by the same external agency. After the second investigation was completed, we started talking to the person.’

‘It concerns several reports, both students and employees have been spoken to’

Does it concern one or several reports of unwanted behaviour?

‘It concerns several reports.’

Did the reports come from students or employees?

‘Both students and employees were spoken to.’

When was the person first confronted with their unwanted behaviour?

‘I don’t know exactly, but at least as a result of the investigation.’

Had the person previously been confronted about this in an informal way?

‘I’m not allowed to say anything about that.’

An earlier message on the social sciences website referred to ‘unwanted behaviour’ by the employee. Is that different from ‘transgressive behaviour’?

‘You’d have to ask an expert, but I don’t think there is a big difference. Both terms imply that someone experiences the behaviour of another person as unwanted.’

Has the Radboud University Code of Conduct helped to assess whether or not the employee’s behaviour was permissible?

‘The agency that conducted the investigation was given the Code of Conduct to help assess the behaviour.’

Did the employee violate the Code of Conduct with their unwanted behaviour?

‘I’m not allowed to say anything about that.’

Why not?

‘We made agreements about that.’

Who made those agreements?

‘The university and the person in question.’

By keeping quiet about this, don’t you run the risk that the wildest stories will circulate about this person’s unwanted behaviour?

‘I don’t think you are helping anyone by telling them exactly what the reports entailed. Should we receive signals that there is unrest because wild stories are circulating, we will act accordingly.’

‘During the employee meeting, we exchanged examples of transgressive behaviour and how we deal with that. Apart from this case, it is a great way to start a discussion on where the boundaries lie. People sometimes differ in how they think about boundaries: one person might label certain behaviour as impermissible, while another person wouldn’t label the same behaviour that way. Take, for example, the question of when you send someone an email. In power relations, it might feel unwanted if you send someone an email at night or in the weekend.’

‘Firing someone is a one-sided decision, this was done by mutual consent’

The person’s employment was terminated by ‘mutual consent’. Is that different from being fired?

‘Firing someone is a one-sided decision, this was done by mutual consent.’

Why is the person still employed until August?

‘We have made mutual agreements on that.’

Does it also mean that this person left with a golden handshake?

‘I am not allowed to say anything about any specific agreements that have been made. You talk to each other about that and you figure it out together.’

It does sound like the faculty wanted this person to leave.

The dean is taking a moment to think. ‘We came to this conclusion with the agreement of both parties. If both parties had wanted something different, this would not have been the outcome.’

The person is not allowed to be on campus. In what way will their work be taken over?

‘It happens quite often that someone is not present, and that work is then taken over by colleagues.’

Will there be a vacancy soon?

‘In education, tasks are not always specifically linked to a person. At AI, we are always looking for people, that process continues undisturbed.’

And what if a student or employee is unexpectedly confronted with unwanted behaviour today or tomorrow?

‘We work hard to prevent it from happening. But if it does happen, it is important not to deal with it alone. You can talk about it with colleagues or fellow students, or visit a confidential advisor.’

Translated by Jan Scholten