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!
In the Dark 