OPINION - Preventive measures are not sufficient to combat misconduct. The university simply must take more action in cases of wrongdoing. This is the view of Professor of Constitutional Law, Paul Bovend’Eert. 'Ensure the effective enforcement of behavioural and integrity rules.'

Last Saturday, De Gelderlander extensively covered issues related to misconduct and a culture that is unfriendly to women at Radboud University under the headline ‘What’s Wrong at Radboud University?’. The article mentioned various examples of unfriendly behaviour and discrimination. Sexual harassment was one aspect of this. I will focus on this category of misconduct. The incidents compiled by De Gelderlander are all related to instances of misconduct through sexual harassment.

The background report also provided room for a response from Radboud University. It was outlined in that response that the university has professionalized the organization of confidential advisors and has appointed twelve certified confidential advisors. Efforts have also been made to promote reporting to these advisors. Additionally, a lot of work had been done on prevention (ombuds officers), discussions on the topic, and creating a culture of speaking up. What struck me about the university’s response was that it did not address how the university deals with individuals who cross the line.

Common Sense

In the De Gelderlander article, those involved noted that confidential advisors are nice people, but they are not independent and can only provide a sympathetic ear. Indeed, I believe that confidential advisors can only make a limited contribution to promoting integrity and preventing misconduct within an organization. I also do not quite understand why appointing many confidential advisors would be a solution and a priority in this context.

When it comes to misconduct and sexual harassment, it may not be necessary to engage in various awareness-raising activities. Everyone with common sense working at a university should understand that they should treat colleagues and students with respect and refrain from behaviours that constitute sexual harassment.

I am convinced that the vast majority of employees and students possess such common sense and behave decently toward each other, maintain a certain appropriate distance, and are aware that there may be certain dependency relationships (student-teacher, employee-professor) that require prudence in interactions. Unfortunately, the reality is that in a large organization such as a university, there are always individuals who have not internalized these norms of decency and engage in misconduct in the form of sexual harassment.

Effective Measures

It is essential to ensure that students and employees can function in a safe environment and that when they encounter misconduct, they can find support and see that effective measures are taken to put an end to the misconduct and reflect its severity. The only way to achieve this goal is to ensure the effective enforcement of behavioural and integrity rules.

In recent years, I have focused part of my research on promoting and enforcing integrity within (political) government institutions. In these government organizations, they often create elaborate codes of conduct, but the enforcement of these codes often falls short. Radboud University has had a complaints procedure for undesirable behaviour for several years. This procedure pays a lot of attention to confidential advisors, but it has also established an independent complaints committee that reports on complaints from employees and students.

Due process

I believe it is advisable that students or employees who are confronted with misconduct in the form of sexual harassment do not simply consult a confidential advisor, but instead file a complaint with the independent complaints committee as much as possible. The procedure in the complaint’s regulation includes fundamental requirements for a fair legal process. Due process, including the opportunity for the accused to be heard (no anonymous complaints!), is crucial. It is also advisable for the complaints committee to make a proposal for imposing a measure when a complaint is substantiated.

The executive board, which ultimately decides on the measure, must recognize the severity of the misconduct. In the case of minor transgressions, a warning or reprimand may suffice. However, in the case of serious misconduct, it should have significant consequences for the individual involved.

The incidents in some faculties mentioned by De Gelderlander give the impression that in some cases, the university may have been too lenient with certain employees who engaged in serious sexual harassment; that is, if the stories are accurate. Such serious misconduct should undoubtedly be grounds for dismissal. In this regard, addressing misconduct through sexual harassment is not so much about a cultural change but about decisive action by the responsible authorities.

Transparency

Finally, the question arises as to how accountability should be provided when measures are taken due to misconduct. In general, it is reasonable for a complaints procedure related to misconduct to be confidential, given the nature and content of the complaint. Confidentiality is usually in the interest of the victim of sexual harassment.

‘When it comes to complaints against administrators, transparency is unavoidable’

However, in cases involving complaints against (faculty or university) administrators, I think some level of transparency is appropriate. This would at least make it clear that a complaint has been filed and what action the executive board has taken. When it comes to complaints against administrators, I believe transparency is unavoidable.

Paul Bovend’Eert is a Professor of Constitutional Law.

Translated by Siri Joustra