The Art of Omission

French writer Georges Perec (1936-1982) was a member of the Ouvroir de littérature potentielle (Oulipo), a collective of mathematicians and writers that aimed to create literary works with self-imposed restrictions (an ‘axiom’). Perec’s most famous work in this genre is La Disparition, a 300 page novel that does not contain the letter ‘e’. In the postscript, he noted that the plan for this work was ‘randomly’ conceived, ‘as this venture stems from bravado …’. At that time, Perec was experiencing writer’s block and saw that the self-imposed limitation led to a wave of regained creativity.

Imagine our surprise that the Executive Board and Supervisory Board, through the words of Berenschot, seem to be joining Oulipo. Although I would not describe the Plan for Change as literary prose, in this work on social safety the letter combinations ‘fear cult*’, ‘insult*’, ‘threat*’, ‘intimidat*’, ‘humiliat*’ do not appear. The combinations ‘violen*’ and ‘sexual*’ only appear in the introduction, in the names of consulted reports and job descriptions of consulted individuals.

The unwillingness to call things by their name is metaphorical for a number of procedural and substantive shortcomings of the Plan for Change that national trade unions have already expressed their concerns about in a letter to the Executive Board.

Not a word about dealing with perpetrators, not a word about compensation for victims

The ‘concrete actions’ named in the Plan are entirely in the preventive, communicative, and therapeutic realm. No clear definitions, not a word about dealing with perpetrators, not a word about compensation for victims — the words ‘perpetrator’ and ‘victim’ do not even appear in the entire Plan. Actions such as ‘revising’ the Code of Conduct seem futile with an Executive Board and Supervisory Board that, according to the Inspectorate’s report, do not comply with the Code of Good Governance. That they do not comply has also been clearly demonstrated over the past few months.

Based on an incident that took place at a university abroad that I occasionally visit, I would like to share how it could be done differently. There, all employees, students, and guests must sign the Code of Conduct. It is an lengthy document, which describes in the finest detail what you incur if you behave undesirably. What that is is exhaustively explained and illustrated with numerous examples. Certain terms, including the word ‘secretary’, are considered condescending.

When an internationally renowned visiting researcher, after being reminded of this provision, persisted in using the term ‘secretary’, his declaration of hospitality was immediately revoked under the zero tolerance policy, and further access to the campus was denied. Only after public apologies could the matter be settled.

Not that I advocate the legalisation of our discourse. The point is that the rules on this campus are clear and unambiguous, and any breach leads to consistent and immediate action. Back to TU Delft. It is unacceptable for you to get away with consistently addressing female colleagues as ‘young lady’ and dismissing female top researchers as ‘little talents’. Come on, that was just a joke! And if you don’t like the TU Delft culture, then you can just leave. All noted in the immediate vicinity of the Executive Board and Supervisory Board.