The Supervisory Board should never have violated confidentiality in regard to the complaint made against Han van Krieken. On the radio show Argos, whose broadcast yesterday focused on the Nijmegen rector’s premature departure, legal experts called the publication of the complaint a cardinal mistake.

Last September, De Gelderlander published the information that then-rector Han van Krieken had received a warning in 2018 for sexual intimidation. The warning occurred after two comments were made by the rector at a winter market in 2017. The woman who filed the complaint left the university in 2019, while Van Krieken stayed on as rector until September of last year. The rector retired earlier than planned due to the unrest in the wake of the newspaper’s publication.

The exact phrasing that Van Krieken used was not released; the rector himself has declined to specify so far. However, Inge de Laat, Van Krieken’s attorney, did comment in yesterday’s Argos broadcast. She cited the complaint letter, which formed the basis of the complaint procedure against the former rector.

Torso

The letter states that Van Krieken browsed several stalls at the winter market, where the complainant operated a stall with various homemade items. While stroking one of the purses, Van Krieken asked her ‘Was this made from your own puss?’ Next, he turned his attention to a painted torso and asked: ‘is that a print of your body?’

Earlier, Van Krieken told Vox the questions were not meant to be sexually intimidating; he repeated the sentiment to Argos. He did call it ‘dumb’ phrasing.

However, an independent complaint committee judged the complaint to be valid. Subsequently, the foundation board at the time opted for a ‘fitting punishment’ for Van Krieken: he was given a non-public warning.

License

The complainant, who left the university in 2019 after signing a settlement agreement, had always assumed that she was not supposed to publicly discuss said warning. But that changed when she contacted the Supervisory Board in January 2022. The then-chair of the Board, Merel van Vroonhoven, told the complainant that she had license to tell her story.

In the Argos episode, labour law expert Hanneke Bennaars, who was not involved in Van Krieken’s case- finds that unusual. ‘I would think that the employer cannot simply decide to change the sanction, which is the case when you agree to publication.’

Attorney Inge de Laat is firmer in her statement: ‘In my opinion, the Supervisory Board made a mistake when they gave the complainant license to go public.’ Argos also spoke to two legal experts, both professors, who wished to remain anonymous. They called the decision a ‘cardinal mistake.’ After all, the sanction against Han van Krieken was a non-public warning. Due to the publication, Van Krieken was forced to resign as rector magnificus, which is a much more serious punishment.

Rianne Letschert, chair for Maastricht University, and Cathy van Beek, former board member at Radboudumc, also state that they do not understand the Supervisory Board’s decision. ‘Why would the Supervisory Board resume talking with a complainant after the complaint procedure has been completed?’, Letschert wonders.

Van Vroonhoven herself did not want to talk to Argos, but the current chair of the Supervisory Board, Mario van Vliet, did want to talk. In the broadcast, Van Vliet said that he in no way wanted to silence victims of transgressive behaviour. He thinks it is a misunderstanding that the complainant was not allowed to talk about what happened.

Van Vliet went on to say that a non-public warning, the sanction used in 2018, is not something the Board would use today.

Translated by Jasper Pesch