That the complaint against him surrounding sexual intimidation could come to light was always in the back of Han van Krieken's mind. Now that the centenary celebrations have concluded, he wants to talk about what happened. ‘As rector, I should not have made these comments,’ he says. ‘But they were not meant to be sexually intimidating.’

The fog still hangs over the Lentse Plas as Han van Krieken breaks the silence. Here, in his own living room with a view over the water, he wants to explain. He wants to talk about what happened almost seven years ago when he made two comments to a female coworker that would culminate in a complaint process surrounding sexual intimidation. He also wants to explain his decision to stay rector magnificus, regardless of the complaint being declared well-founded. Lastly, Van Krieken wants to talk about what happened in the past weeks, after De Gelderlander published the complaint three weeks before he was supposed to pass his rectorate to his successor.

‘I’m not contesting that there was sexual intimidation’

Dozens of cards from colleagues who support him are placed on the cabinet. Han van Krieken had a good reputation as a rector. He liked to visit the Radboudumc where he worked as a pathologist for years, but he enjoyed stopping by the Arts faculty at the Erasmus building or by the scientists at the Huygens just as much. Many people saw him as a connector. Someone who was always open to a conversation.

All the more shocking was the surprise at Radboud University when it turned out that their rector had made himself guilty of sexually transgressive behaviour.

‘I’m not contesting that there was sexual intimidation,’ Van Krieken says. ‘A committee concerned itself with that and they declared it that way. I have accepted the verdict.’ He does not want to elaborate on what the exact words were that led to the complaint. ‘The woman in question said in de Gelderlander that she doesn’t want those words out in public because she might have to defend herself. I do not feel like making this harder on or more difficult for her.’ Van Krieken did share the exact words in confidence with dozens of colleagues.

TINKEBELL

To Vox, he wants to stray no further than ‘illustrating the context’ surrounding the events. It was a day in January 2017, he starts. Van Krieken had been a rector for half a year. ‘I was visiting a winter market at the Berchmanianum. Many market stalls were set up and she was there with some art pieces. I walked by the stands and made conversation. I saw an art piece that reminded me of a work by TINKEBELL, who made a purse out of her cat. I asked a question about that piece.’

A plaster torso also stood at that stall. Again, Van Krieken had an association; now with a plaster corset that patients wear when they are recovering from a broken spine. ‘I asked her where the form of the torso – a female body – came from.’ Was she herself maybe the model?

In both cases, the female colleague interpreted the words differently than the way he had meant them. ‘No, my words were not meant to be ambiguous. I asked those questions solely out of interest. I was, for example, interested in what kind of fur she had used.’ Unsuspecting, the rector continued his walk around the market. The entire conversation had lasted but a few minutes.

The female employee decided to take action and told her colleagues about what had happened. Her supervisor advised her to talk about it with Van Krieken. ‘Three weeks after the Christmas market, I sat at a table with her, one-on-one,’ says Van Krieken. ‘I then realised she did not know the work from TINKEBELL. That is possible, of course. I immediately apologised, and explained to her what my intentions were with the comments and that they were not meant to be sexually intimidating. It was a good conversation. I thought it was good that she raised the issue.’ After the conversation, the woman told her supervisor that the issue was dealt with – water under the bridge.

‘If I have learned anything,’ says Van Krieken now, ‘it is that if someone says it’s dealt with, it’s not always dealt with. I blame myself that I haven’t followed up with her on how she was doing.’

Warning

One and a half years later, Van Krieken received a phone call from Loek Hermans of the foundation board, supervisor of the university, and employer of the members of the executive board. The rector was informed of the official complaint regarding sexual intimidation that was filed against him, and that an external committee was investigating what had happened exactly.

‘That came as a complete surprise,’ says Van Krieken. The rector’s first reflex was to talk with the woman again – he told the committee this too. ‘But unfortunately, she didn’t want that.’

‘I could live with the measure even though a warning is naturally very serious’

Then the long wait for the result started. ‘That was pretty awful. You don’t know which way it’s going to go.’ On November 30th, the committee declared that the comments the rector had made ‘could be experienced as sexually intimidating.’ Moreover, the committee gave four recommendations, amongst which creating a safe working environment for the woman who filed the complaint.

The foundation board followed the recommendations and declared the complaint well-founded. As a disciplinary measure, Van Krieken received a warning that was added to his personnel record. ‘I had rather seen different results of course, but I’ve accepted it,’ says Van Krieken. ‘I could live with the measure even though a warning is naturally very serious.’

Van Krieken wants to speak more of this measure because, according to him, a lot of misconceptions exist. Especially regarding the difference between a warning and a reprimand. ‘You receive a reprimand if you make a culpable mistake. A warning is given when you commit non-culpable conduct. I made a non-culpable mistake which I’ve admitted to and after which I expressed remorse. It was a mistake everyone can make sometimes. What matters is that you learn from it.’

Moreover, the foundation board decided on a non-public warning. Publicising the complaint would have probably resulted in a torrent of media attention which would jeopardise the future of Van Krieken as rector. That would be disproportional punishment, declared the foundation board. ‘They found it fitting that I stayed rector, I was supported.’

Van Krieken gets visibly worked up about some people speaking of a cover-up. ‘It was not a cover-up, it was simply the fitting measure. I miss that nuance entirely within the media coverage of this case.’

Unsatisfying result

Can a rector with a note regarding sexual intimidation stay on as rector? Van Krieken also asked himself that question in 2018, he says. ‘Of course, I doubted that. I also talked about it with my family and with colleagues. I thought it possible myself but I wanted to hear other people’s opinions as well. I asked other colleague rectors.’ They also thought it was fine if he stayed, says Van Krieken.

He did have something to explain to his colleagues at the time within the executive board, namely chairman Daniël Wigboldus and vice-chairwoman Wilma de Koning. ‘Wilma and Daniël were shocked, of course. How do you handle this as an executive board?’ Formally, they had nothing to do with it – the complaint processing was something between Van Krieken and his employer: the foundation board. ‘But of course, we talked about it intensively. And we came to the conclusion: we want to continue together.’

That was not a decision without risk. It was known amongst Van Krieken and his colleagues that the female employee struggled with not publicising the measure after her complaint was declared well-founded. Eventually, after signing a settlement agreement, she left employment on November 1^st 2019. She told de Gelderlander last month that she would have preferred to keep her job. ‘But that was not an option, it wasn’t a safe working environment anymore,’ said the woman in the paper.

Thus led the entire procedure to an unsatisfying result, for Van Krieken as well as the female employee. That is often the case, says Van Krieken, for complaint procedures. ‘Eventually, at least one of both parties is not happy with the result. Often even both parties. Mediation had probably been a better solution.’

‘Taking on a different job was the easy way out. There wouldn’t be any risk then’

The possibility of the woman who filed the complaint ever publicising her story was apparent. Did Van Krieken experience that as a sword of Damocles hanging over his head? Immediately: ‘Yes of course. I spoke about it very intensely again with my colleagues on the executive board and the foundation board when I was reappointed in 2020.’ During those conversations, Van Krieken deliberately spoke about an offer for another good job. ‘That was the easy way out. There wouldn’t be any risk then.’ He falls silent for a moment. ‘But we had set things in motion as the executive board, I thought being rector a good job.’

Even though he always felt the threat, Van Krieken was always rector ‘with a lot of joy’. ‘Moreover, there will always be a kind of risk when you’re in an executive position. Something can always happen that prevents you from continuing. Every executive knows this.’

Polarisation

“Radboud covered up sexual intimidation by rector.” Those are the first words subscribers to de Gelderlander read on September 23rd of this year when they plucked the paper from their doormat. And so, the sword of Damocles fell.

However: Van Krieken braces himself for what comes but is not planning on stepping down as rector prematurely at that moment. He is shocked and has to recover from it but wants to continue until the centenary of the university on October 17^th, as planned. The supervisory board (that succeeded the foundation board in 2021 as the supervising organ of the university) supports Van Krieken in that plan.

But then, the way Van Krieken sees it, a massive polarising discussion starts. ‘I thought that the discussion was getting out of hand,’ he says. ‘I then said: we shouldn’t want this, three weeks before the centenary celebration.’ That was the reason to quit prematurely, not the publicising of the complaint against him.

Then former deans Lutgarde Buydens and Margot van Mulken enter the fray to defend their rector, angrily stating on Vox’s website that executives are ‘fair game’ and blaming de Gelderlander for publicising the complaint. Their opinion piece offends other university employees – and a week later dozens of employees write that the former deans’ opinion piece reads as threatening.

‘At a certain point, I thought: there’s a sort of character assassination going on here’

The past weeks hurt Van Krieken immensely, he says. ‘I have also described it as a hell. I could barely sleep.’ He does not want to elaborate on the role of the supervisory board that gave the woman permission to make her story public. ‘I don’t know how the conversations between the woman who filed the complaint and the supervisory board went.’

He does blame de Gelderlander, however. ‘The way the paper wrote about it was so personal. At a certain point, I thought: there’s a sort of character assassination going on here. The only image that was perpetuated was a rector who committed sexually transgressive behaviour. I couldn’t defend myself against that.’

Pride

One of the consequences is that Van Krieken enters his retirement differently than he had imagined. He was supposed to become interim chairman for the national university association UNL, as successor of Pieter Duisenberg. ‘That job is even more public than rector of a university. All those questions will be asked anew.’ The news surrounding Van Krieken was not the top story in the national media, but it would be if he took that job, he thought.

Maybe he could still do something for UNL, in a less prominent position, he thinks out loud. He also wants to take up other positions when the attention around his person has died down. ‘For example by joining supervisory organs for cultural organisations in the city. Maybe I’m naïve but I think, because of this case, I have relevant experience. Every organisation deals with social safety nowadays and I can bring my experience to the table.’

But will they still want him? The future will tell. ‘But I’ve learned a lot because of this case, that’s for sure.’ The fog above the water has lifted enough to see the shore on the other side of the Lentse Plas. ‘I know very well that this story will always come up if you google my name. But I hope people will also understand how these kinds of processes work.’

Van Krieken also hopes that his time as a rector and physician will not be forgotten. ‘That side also exists. There’s enough to be proud of. Of the university and the Radboudumc but also how I was rector for seven and a half years.’

Vox reached out to the former employee who filed the complaint against Han van Krieken to respond to this interview. She declined the offer.

Translated by Willeke Roefs