Tribunal

We really need to talk about social (un)safety at TU Delft again. It’s now been 20 months since the Inspectorate of Education published its devastating report accusing TU Delft of mismanagement. So what has been done since to put things right?

Virtually zilch. There was a theatre performance, followed by roundtable discussions guided by toe-curlingly imbecilic questions. The Rector Magnificus held drop-in consultation hours where victims could tell their stories. Managers were packed off to leadership-for-dummies workshops to learn how to behave. And now there’s even a board game involving an eight-sided die. Hooray, we’re saved! All of this is pointless theatrics, designed to make everyone forget the past as quickly as possible.

Our criminal justice system rests on three pillars. A crook is locked up as punishment for what he has done (retribution), to keep him away from society (incapacitation), and to acknowledge the suffering of the victims (reparation). The hope is that he will smarten up and mend his ways.

For managerial crooks at TU Delft, the rules appear to be different. Take this case – one of the shocking examples of misconduct reported in Delta a year ago.

‘For two years, I kept hearing “What are you doing here?”, “I don’t want you here at all”, and “I am not interested in your research”. All my ideas were dismissed out of hand without any constructive feedback.’

The Executive Board’s response was as predictable as it was meaningless. ‘We recognise that we have to make big improvements in many areas and we are working hard on these.’ Where are the retribution, the incapacitation, and the reparation? Three strikes, you’re out!

In every case I know of, the perpetrator went unpunished

In every case I know of, the perpetrator went unpunished and the victim ended up worse off. The crook might have gotten a slap on the wrist and will probably be more careful next time. The victim, meanwhile, is left empty-handed, and often leaves, voluntarily or not. After all, you can’t lock the victim and the perpetrator in the same cell.

In the rare cases where the perpetrator has been removed from his post, the familiar script plays out: a handsome severance package and a glowing letter of recommendation, helping him start afresh elsewhere – within or beyond TU Delft. It is eerily similar to how the Catholic Church handled child abuse by priests: simply transfer the pious offender to another parish.

Why are these cases of misconduct always handled behind closed doors by people from within the same organisation? Everyone knows everyone, of course, and that makes it rather difficult to pass honest judgment on a wayward colleague. “Hey John, will I see you at the drinks after the Dies this afternoon? Great!”

What we need is a tribunal: an independent panel of honourable ‘judges’ who hold public hearings into allegations of abuse of power by managers. Not just forward-looking platitudes, as the current strategy seems to insist on, but a proper cleanup of the past. Name and shame the culprits. Tar and feather them, sack them, and restore the dignity of the victims. And if the perpetrators have already retired or fled to another ‘parish’, drag them out of their hiding places and make them answer for it. That’s the only way to win back our trust.