Powerless against university authorities
Inappropriate behaviour is a monster with many heads, even at universities. Philosopher and lawyer Klaas Rozemond became involved in this issue at the VU, resulting in a labour dispute. He now works at the UvA and has written a book about his experiences. It includes tips!
Inappropriate behaviour is a common problem at Dutch universities, including the UvA. Several cases have come to light in recent years, culminating in the tragic case involving lawyer and professor Ronald Beltzer, who, according to female students, was known for his “eight for a night” policy. But staff members themselves can also be victims of inappropriate behaviour, usually from colleagues, whether or not they are senior staff.
According to a 2024 report by the Labour Inspectorate, 54 per cent of university staff who participated in a survey conducted by the inspectorate had experienced inappropriate behaviour, and 69 per cent had seen colleagues suffer from such behaviour. “Bullying is the most common form of inappropriate behaviour, followed by discrimination,” says Klaas Rozemond, who has been a senior lecturer in criminal law at the UvA since the beginning of last year, but who previously worked in the same field at VU Amsterdam for 24 years.
Escalation
The fact that Rozemond now works at the UvA has everything to do with a case of inappropriate behaviour in which he became embroiled at the VU, leading to his departure from there. The VU weekly magazine Ad Valvas devoted an extensive reconstruction to it last year. Rozemond himself has also devoted a story to it, which has led to the Dutch e-book Grensoverschrijdend gedrag in universiteiten en andere organisaties (Inappropriate behaviour in universities and other organisations).
Powerless
People who are victims of inappropriate behaviour often feel “powerless”, according to Rozemond, “when responsible persons and authorities such as managers, boards and complaints committees do not intervene to put an end to the behaviour”. In the book, Rozemond not only discusses his own experiences, but also examines other cases: the issue surrounding Ronald Beltzer is given a separate chapter, which is not surprising, as the case caused quite a stir both within and outside the University of Amsterdam. Leiden and Delft have also had to deal with maladministration by employees and scientists in recent years; in Delft, it was even forbidden to publish about it in the independent TU medium Delta.
According to Rozemond, a great deal has already been done to address inappropriate behaviour, but there is also considerable doubt about the effectiveness of all these regulations. Confidential advisors, HR officers, ombudsmen, complaints committees and works councils are all on hand to assist employees. “However, they cannot do much if managers are unwilling to cooperate in finding solutions and instead participate in undesirable behaviour.” Well... what then?
Bureaucracy
Rozemond makes a series of recommendations. One of them is: make use of the existing regulations and do not only emphatically appeal to the persons who behave inappropriately, but also to the responsible persons and authorities who must take action against it. He also suggests removing existing barriers in regulations so that reporting within organisations becomes easier and complaints are actually dealt with and effectively resolved. According to Rozemond, many internal regulations contain all kinds of confidentiality provisions and obligations to first discuss the matter with those involved before the complaint can be dealt with. It all takes far too long and is ineffective. So, it needs to be changed!
Whistleblowers
Rozemond also believes that the Labour Inspectorate and the Education Inspectorate could do better: they should be more alert and intervene more quickly when reports of abuses are made, “because at present, reports disappear into the bureaucracy of the inspectorates, without the person making the report hearing what happens to it”. The Whistleblower Protection Act also does not always seem to function properly in the sense that organisations sometimes apply their own rules and definitions and the Whistleblowers Authority does not supervise this. “That is precisely what the Authority should be doing, and the law should be amended to that effect, because at present this government organisation sometimes seems to behave like a bureaucracy that dismisses whistleblowers instead of supporting them.”
Rozemond, Klaas, Grensoverschrijdend gedrag in universiteiten en andere organisaties (Bravenewbooks, 2025) is available (in Dutch) for purchase online via this link.
