Kakistocracy

In my attempts to interpret what is happening at TU Delft in the area of social safety, I was reminded of the Italian sociologist Diego Gambetta. In his article De l’incompétence: de la mafia tout court à la mafia universitaire, he compares university administrations to the mafia. He argues that in both organisations, those at the top depend on partners to achieve their goals but cannot trust them. How do they solve this? By placing loyalty above merit and using threats.

Gambetta’s comparison falters at one key point: difficult magistrates can be silenced, but the Inspectorate cannot. It has been attempted, using kakistocratic methods, but the Inspectorate stood firm. First came the Inspectorate Report, containing a damning chapter about our administrators, and now the letter (in Dutch) with a devastating verdict on the Plan for Change Social Safety. The threat of ministerial intervention hangs over TU Delft like the Sword of Damocles.

According to the Inspectorate’s report (in Dutch) on TU Delft, there is ‘a great deal of uncertainty about why certain individuals are appointed to positions, despite their poor performance’. According to Gambetta, this is hardly surprising. After all, he argues, ‘the worse the candidate, the greater the power of the one who manages to appoint them’. Applications go straight into the bin, the people we want receive a phone call. How has this been addressed in the Plan for Change? The Inspectorate’s letter states: ‘The plan does not describe whether or how more clarity will be provided to staff regarding recruitment, promotion, and transfers’.

Wasn’t confidentiality intended to prevent further harm?

It was unfortunate that the letter arrived on 1 July, when everyone was already in holiday-mode. Not the ideal moment to focus on bad news. Aside from a critical article in Delta, it has been eerily quiet. Nonetheless, this letter deserves our particular attention. On 16 (!) of the 19 points of assessment, the Inspectorate delivered a negative verdict. The Executive Board and Supervisory Board have both failed their resit with flying colours. A sheepish response followed, along with a hollow email during the holidays. Now, after two and a half months, the rector and president of the Executive Board, flanked by the interim manager of the Integrity Office, gives us a glimpse behind the scenes: “I’ve changed direction: we are simply going to create a socially safe university.”

I welcome the fact that something is finally starting to happen. There will be a better code of conduct, a monthly sounding board group, and there is thorough consideration being given to prevention. The most concrete step is the announcement of a new contact point soon to be opened. A front office is planned, supported by a ‘small team’ consisting of ‘an integrity expert from the Integrity Office, someone from the Legal Department, and someone from the Safety and Security Department’.

Unfortunately, we must once again be critical. Doesn’t Legal serve the interests of the Executive Board? They draft the settlement agreements (VSOs), and only a few months ago, they were the ones who threatened Delta’s editor-in-chief with personal liability. Only a completely independent contact point will inspire confidence. A free piece of advice: let the Works Council or the unions select external lawyers for the contact point. Until then, you can also take your complaint to trade union CNV’s contact point.

It is regrettable that we see little evidence of the supposed change in direction when the conversation turns to settlement agreements (VSOs): “But are they victims or perpetrators? The VSOs I know are of perpetrators.” This is the same old mantra from the response to the draft Inspectorate Report. With this statement, a group of people is once again labelled as perpetrators, without distinction – people who cannot defend themselves due to their confidentiality obligations. This is hardly a constructive contribution to the healing process. Wasn’t confidentiality intended to prevent further harm?