Shocked reactions to Delta’s findings: ‘You won’t solve this with hot air’

On Thursday 10 October, Delta published an article in which 24 current and former staff members at TU Delft talk about stalking, blackmail, bullying, institutional gaslighting and other forms of transgressive behaviours that they had experienced. Unequal power relationships played such a big role here that reporting problems rarely led to a solution, and sometimes even meant that staff members were worse off than before. A support staff member who was stalked by her boss says that in the end she was the one to be transferred to another department at TU Delft instead of her boss. She ended up in a place where nobody knew what she had come to do.

The Works Council (OR), Student Council and internal trade unions FNV, CNV and AOb responded with shock at Delta’s findings. “We are seriously shocked and it is terrible to hear that this all happened at our TU Delft,” says Student Council Chair Step Kruisinga. In a written statement, OR Chair Ronald Kuil says that the stories show ‘how badly equipped we are to respond properly to these issues and to reach a transparent solution within an acceptable time’. The OR, Student Council and trade unions all insist on a change in culture.

Firm language

According to the local trade unions, the current plans to improve social safety do not go far enough. The project organisation described the plans in the first quarterly report at the beginning of October. They need to submit a report to the Inspectorate of Education every three months. Fred Veer, Chair of the internal trade unions, calls the plans ‘hot air’. “There is a saying that says ‘not words, but deeds’. Instead of deeds, the Executive Board comes up with more words.” He refers to issues of power inequalities and hierarchy which clearly emerge in the stories that Delta describes, but which are absent in the 39 page quarterly report. The quarterly report also does not clear mention preventing services like Human Resources from serving organisational interests instead of staff members’ interests. “The Executive Board thinks that it can solve problems with a lick of paint. If you have a rotten wall, you can cover the problem with a paintbrush, but the building will remain unstable.”

‘Critical voices are not tolerated’

The national union CNV Education expressed even firmer language on the day the Delta article was published. In a letter (in Dutch) to Education Minister Eppo Bruins, CNV Education president Daniëlle Woestenberg urges the resignation of the Executive Board: ‘The way this board deals with complaints and critical voices is typical of the toxic culture at TU Delft. Hierarchical management, a drive for control and nepotism are leading in all layers of the organisation. Critical voices are not tolerated and those who dare to speak up are silenced, obstructed or worse. Therefore, we conclude that the board itself is standing in the way of change.’

• On Friday 11 October, Delta asked the TU Delft Supervisory Board for a response to the CNV union’s appeal. As soon as we have that response, we will report on it.

‘Not opportune’

Education Minister Bruins reacted in a statement the same way he reacted in July, after a highly critical letter from the Inspectorate of Education about the social safety plan for change: I have addressed the Supervisory Board on its responsibility, I will be monitoring and if necessary I could intervene. He points out that TU Delft’s recovery plan pays attention ‘to the role of leadership in creating a socially safe learning and working environment’. ‘I assume that TU Delft’s Supervisory Board and Executive Board will take these signals from the unions seriously and have a dialogue with them. I still have the option of issuing an instruction. Its possible deployment will depend partly on how the Executive Board and the Supervisory Board deal with the issues identified by the inspection.’

CNV also asks the minister to ‘ensure’ that TU Delft implements three measures: a baseline measurement, an independent contact point and screening of managers. The Minister does not intend to do so. He calls a baseline measurement ‘not opportune’ because investigation reports are already available and because the Inspectorate will start a new investigation in February. He does not address the contact point, except to say that it is not up to him ‘to comment on the manner of (internal) handling of a report or complaint by an institution’. In his view, screening of managers also falls under the TU Delft’s HR policy.

Master students

Back to local participation. For the Works Council, TU Delft’s quarterly report does not seem to go far enough. ‘We insist that there is an integrated plan in the short term’, the statement says. ‘This also gives staff members a better understanding of future initiatives.’

According to the Student Council, TU Delft risks its very survival if there is no change in culture. “A safe working atmosphere is fundamental for universities. Firstly, everyone has the right to a socially safe environment, and secondly, staff members do not want to work in an unsafe university, and students do not want to study in an unsafe place,” says Kruisinga. For the Works Council, creating a culture of safe interpersonal relationships – through leadership training, empowerment training etc. – and a safe organisational structure are important aspects of bringing about a culture change.

‘Master students can barely report socially unacceptable behaviour’

Both the OR and Student Council draw attention to solutions that could improve the position of vulnerable groups like women and PhD candidates. Delta’s investigation showed yet again what has been known for years – PhD candidates are dependent on their promotors and everyday supervisors if they are to obtain their doctorate and thus are regularly put under pressure. The Student Council hears similar stories from master students. “They are also highly dependent on their supervisor and can thus barely report socially unacceptable behaviour. As graduating takes less time than obtaining one’s doctorate, many of them decide to just sit out their time if they do not have a socially safe supervisor.”

Critical about the contact point

At present, the social safety project team is working on setting up a central contact point where staff members can report socially unacceptable behaviour or integrity violations. This is a CAO (Collective labour agreement) requirement. The Executive Board initially wanted to open the contact point on 1 October, but the date has been pushed back after criticism from the trade unions and representation bodies on the grounds that they only had less than a fortnight to deliver their input.

In its statement, the OR says that it considers it important that everyone feels safe reaching out to the contact point. The subject was discussed by the Executive Board and the representation bodies on Thursday 26 September and Kuil emphasised that the OR has the right of consent. After that, ten critical questions were issued about the organisation and implementation of the contact point, one being issues around the planning. “We are surprised about the fact that the Executive Board says that it is important that the OR is involved, and then when suggestions were made about the contact point, we were not involved. This is very odd.”

Serving the organisation’s interests

According to the trade unions, the current structure is not independent enough, partly because Safety and Security Department and Legal Department staff members are planned to have a seat in the triage and advisory group that will be part of the contact point. “In the current plans, there are no measures that would prevent these staff members from acting in the organisation’s interests,” says Veer. In saying this, he refers to the Inspectorate’s finding that the HR Department serves the organisation’s interests rather than those of individual staff members. Veer is worried that this goes for the Legal Department too.

With the collaboration of Kim Bakker and Saskia Bonger.