Non-disclosure Nonsense at Leiden University
I saw last night that a Professor at Leiden University has been “removed for extremely unacceptable behaviour”. The announcement from the University can be found here though it has been modified; the original form said “dismissed for gross misconduct”.
A related article (original in Dutch) says in English translation about the case:
It concerns a systematic pattern of denigration, abuse of power, gender discrimination, belittling in public, and the constant threat that the complainants’ careers would be damaged. The professor also made comments ‘with a sexual charge’ and the committee found that in one case ‘he had approached an employee in an undesirable manner’.
My initial reaction to this was dismay that someone had behaved in such a way for what seems to have been a considerable period of time, but relief that a case had been brought against this “Professor”.
But wait.
A statement from the Executive Board at Leiden University includes:
Because the committee has also established that the scientific quality of this professor is indisputable, there is no reason to deprive him of his professorship.
So the Professor is not actually being dismissed. He will be able to carry out research, presumably on full salary, His punishment for toxic behaviour thus effectively amounts to an indefinite period on sabbatical. Perhaps I am being excessively cynical, but I read the above statement as implying that the Professor has a portfolio of research grants that the University wants to keep.
Worse, the name of the Professor has not been released, presumably because there is a non-disclosure agreement covering this case. Neither I nor anyone I know at Leiden knows who it is; at least some may but not be legally allowed to say. Nor do I know what field he works in. It may or may not be related to Astronomy. This is a nonsense, for at least two reasons.
The first is that someone who has behaved in such a way should be named on principle, so that potential collaborators and future employers know what he has done. In previous posts on this topic I have defended confidentiality (e.g. here) during an investigation, but I do think that once it has been decided that a disciplinary offences have been committed there should be full disclosure.
The second is that failing to identify the individual concerned has led to a proliferation of rumours inside and outside Leiden (none of which I am prepared to repeat here). As a result, the finger of suspicion is no doubt now being pointed at the wrong people and that will continue to happen until the name of the abusive Professor is revealed. The environment at Leiden must be very difficult right now.
The hands of Leiden University may well be tied by a legally-binding non-disclosure agreement, but I think this case just demonstrates what a nonsense what such agreements are. And in my view it’s just a matter of time before the identity of the Professor concerned is revealed anyway. It will only take one person to leak it.
P.S. Please don’t email me to ask who it is. I honestly have no idea!
Follow @telescoperShare this:
- Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X
- Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
- Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
- Click to share on Mastodon (Opens in new window) Mastodon
- Click to share on Bluesky (Opens in new window) Bluesky
- Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
Related
This entry was posted on October 19, 2022 at 12:04 pm and is filed under Harassment Bullying etc with tags Gross Misconduct, Leiden University. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
In the Dark 
October 19, 2022 at 5:59 pm
I am not sure about the situation, but both may be true: the professor may have been dismissed and kept the title. In the Netherlands, you may be able continue to use that title after the employment has ended. Like say ‘PhD’, the title is linked to achievement rather than position. Removing the title and ending employment are separate actions. But I may be wrong about this particular case
October 19, 2022 at 6:31 pm
Reports in Dutch seem to say that he really gets to keep his salary (unless Google Translate completely changed the meaning…). Though it also looks like there are still some legal proceedings going on, so that may change in the future.
October 25, 2022 at 10:55 am
If the professor is whom I suspect (someone who has been surrounded by rumors of inappropriate behavior for a very long time, both in Leiden and in another job), he is at or very close to retirement age. He will presumably be ‘encouraged’ to exercise his rights to this retirement, which is less than fully satisfying but better than nothing.
October 19, 2022 at 8:05 pm
A reminder of my comments policy (on the front page of this blog):
Feel free to comment on any of the posts on this blog but comments may be moderated; anonymous comments and any considered by me to be vexatious and/or abusive and/or defamatory will not be accepted.
October 20, 2022 at 9:24 am
I am aware of a number of non-disclosure agreements at UK universities preventing the emergence of highly discreditable behaviour.
It is very common.
Bullying is endemic in Universities, institutions beset with hierarchies and hyper-competitiveness. And, the main function of HR departments at Universities is to hush things up, for which NDAs are a very valuable tool.
One thing that could be done in the UK is that departments could be asked to state in their Juno and Athena SWAN submissions whether there are any non-disclosure agreements in force.
The existence of NDAs can be reported.
My own view is that both Juno and Athena SWAN submissions — though valuable in many respects –are way too easy for departments to game by the omission of uncomfortable information.
October 20, 2022 at 1:00 pm
It says he was dismissed which would imply he is no longer employed and receiving a salary. I don’t know about Holland, but in the UK, ‘Professor’ is a title linked to promotion awarded by a university to an employee, and hence you would stop being a professor when you leave the employment, unless you are awarded an emeritus professor title. (Which is usually pretty automatic but I have known cases when its not been awarded, e.g. when people have resigned rather than retired. Hence they should really continue to call themselves professor). So they appear to have allowed him to keep the professor title because of his research?
I cannot see any reason whatsoever for this to be the subject of a NDA.
October 20, 2022 at 10:28 pm
I agree that Leiden’s failure to name him is shameful, but why is the question of a NDA being raised in this case? Who might have been asked to sign one, and under what incentive?
October 20, 2022 at 10:31 pm
It is possible that there is unfinished legal business going on……
October 25, 2022 at 7:56 pm
Is finally public
https://www.ruetir.com/2022/10/25/leiden-professor-went-wrong-several-years/
Shame that Leiden University didn’t make it public themselves and that they protected him for years, despite the serious allegations.
Is an embarrassment that this guy keeps many of his privileges (including salary)
July 24, 2024 at 1:17 pm
[…] reminds me of things I wrote a while ago in connection with a case at Leiden University where the Management decided not to name a professor involved in such a case (who was subsequently […]
July 13, 2025 at 11:16 am
[…] reminds me of things I wrote a while ago in connection with a case at Leiden University where the Management decided not to name a professor involved in such a case (who […]