It is 7 November 2025, just after 8 pm in the Beehive university building in The Hague. A successful cooking event, organised by the East Asia Committee of study association BASIS (Bachelor Students of International Studies), has just ended and the six committee members raise a toast to the evening. Although the event itself was alcohol-free, now that all the students have gone home, they see no harm in enjoying three beers shared between the six of them.
The next day, the committee members notice that they no longer have access to their e-mail accounts. After enquiring with the board, they are told via WhatsApp that they have been temporarily suspended. The board has seen photo’s on social media of the committee members drinking, and they consider this sufficient grounds to take action without hearing the other side of the story.
The person who raised the alarm is the board’s treasurer. The photos also show the president of the committee, second-year student Maya (real name known to editors). A salient detail: she had been in a relationship with the treasurer, which she ended a week earlier.
A week after the suspension, on 17 November, the members are called in to see the board. As Maya is the president, the board holds her responsible for the alcohol consumption. The sanction: she must leave the committee, is no longer permitted to hold any position within BASIS, and is excluded from a trip to Vietnam.
From that moment on, relations within the association are seriously disrupted and Maya is bullied, intimidated, excluded and falsely accused of, among other things, threats, violence and even planning to set fire to the university building.
Two months later, on 19 January, Maya lodges a complaint with the student ombudsperson, Lonneke Hulst, who launches an investigation. As part of her investigation, she conducts confidential interviews with those directly involved, examines correspondence, submitted documentation and the BASIS statutes. The investigation focuses less on personal relationships and more on structural problems within the association.
The confidential report – obtained by Mare, along with a written statement from Maya to the ombudsperson about the events – is scathing in its assessment of BASIS’s conduct.
There is a whole host of issues with the way the association is organised. There is a lack of social safety and students are afraid to go to campus. Unproven allegations of misconduct have seriously damaged Maya’s reputation, the suspension procedure was flawed, and various personal relationships have influenced the board’s decision-making processes.
Misconduct
For example, the board initially states that Maya was suspended due to alcohol consumption, and only later does it accuse her of misconduct as well. She allegedly approached all board members in an intimidating manner, threatened to set fire to the university building, and attempted to strike the treasurer (her former partner). The board has provided no evidence for any of these allegations. Therefore, the ombudsperson concludes that the suspension was ‘inconsistently justified’ and ‘disproportionate’.
Moreover, Maya was not given the opportunity to defend herself, and it appears that the board had already imposed the sanctions against her before the advisory board was involved, whereas the procedures specify that it should be the other way round. However, it is questionable whether that would have made much difference: the members of the advisory board also appear to have close ties with the board members. The association’s website reveals that two of the four advisory board members served on the board either last year or the year before, and therefore have to judge former colleagues. Sources have stated to the ombudsperson that, for this reason, they do not regard the advisory board ‘as a fully independent and neutral body’.
On top of that, the treasurer (a board member since 2022) never recused himself from Maya’s suspension proceedings, despite the fact that they had been in a relationship shortly before. According to the ombudsperson, this points to a conflict of interest and compromises the board’s independence.
What is particularly striking is that a similar situation has occurred before, as the report reveals. In 2024, a relationship between the same treasurer and a then board member of BASIS came to an end. Just as with Maya’s case, she too was accused of ‘misconduct or fraud’ shortly after, without any evidence being provided; she was ‘socially isolated’ and suffered ‘reputational consequences extending beyond BASIS into the academic environment’. When asked, the victim declined to comment in Mare.
Damaged reputation
The ombudsperson received ‘worrying concerns’ of social safety at BASIS. Several students are afraid to take part in activities that are organised by the association or take place on campus, and are suffering ‘reputational harm through informal social networks’.
This is particularly true for Maya. Members of BASIS who used to be her friends now refuse to look her in the eye and are going along with the board’s allegations of misconduct, she writes in her statement to the ombudsperson. In addition, highly personal information about her has been ‘widely circulated’ among the members.
This concerns ‘deeply traumatic experiences’ that she shared with the treasurer during their relationship. Members are now using this to try to portray her as ‘unstable’ and ‘mentally ill’. Maya regards this as ‘slander, defamation and character assassination’, she writes. It has caused her ‘significant and lasting harm’.
The treasurer’s current girlfriend is also said to have made threatening remarks about Maya: she allegedly wanted to ‘punch her front teeth out’ and ‘slam a door against her head’. A recording of this is in the possession of the ombudsperson. Mare reached out to the treasurer’s girlfriend for a response. She agreed to respond on Wednesday afternoon but ultimately decided against it.
Emergency number
As a result of these events, Maya writes that she no longer feels safe. ‘I have withdrawn from tutorials, can no longer sit exams or participate normally in university life. What should be a safe academic environment has become a source of constant stress and uncertainty.’
She explains that the Security Department is so concerned for her safety that, as of this week, she has been given an emergency number for the reception desk of the Wijnhaven building to call in case of an incident.
She describes the impact on her personal life as severe. ‘I’ve experienced considerable emotional stress, lost weight, sought mental health support, and lost friends due to serious violations of my privacy.’
There were already problems within the International Studies study association back in 2024. At the time, another former partner of the treasurer was hounded out. The association’s board has remained silent, but the Faculty Board is finally taking action.
Despite repeated attempts by Mare, BASIS’s treasurer declined to respond to questions about why he has served on the board for four consecutive years despite no longer being a bachelor’s student, or about his views on the board’s allegations of fraud, misconduct and violence in the 2024 case and in Maya’s case.
The rest of the board is also unwilling to answer questions, citing the need ‘to safeguard the confidentiality of the report’.
However, the board does state ‘that all actions and decisions were taken based on the information available to us at the time’. In addition, the board says it is committed to ‘a safe social environment, which we aim to continuously improve under the guidance of the university’.
Based on her investigation, the ombudsperson concludes that ‘the current board structure and internal culture of BASIS contribute to a sense of social unsafety’ and that ‘the initiative to take measures lies with the Faculty Board’.
The Humanities Faculty Board states in an e-mail that ‘the report paints a disturbing picture of the existing culture and association structure of BASIS’ and that it is ‘taking firm measures in line with the ombudsperson’s recommendations’.
These measures are intended ‘to fundamentally change the structure and culture of the study association’.
For example, the Faculty Board wants the statutes to be revised and a ‘process involving external guidance to initiate a culture change’ is to be put in place. In addition, the advisory board will be suspended. ‘A different process is being initiated with the BASIS board, but we will not be providing any details.’
Why the faculty has chosen to suspend the advisory board rather than the association’s board itself, is not explained.
When asked whether the treasurer can remain on the BASIS board, the faculty replies that it ‘will not comment on individuals’ and that ‘the measures we are taking are structural in nature, in order to better safeguard social safety’.
The faculty is also aware that Maya has been in contact with the Security Department. ‘As the Faculty Board, we are working with them to determine what steps are desirable.’
The 2024 case, in which another former partner of the treasurer was hounded out by the board, is known to the Faculty Board. Measures were taken in response, but ‘the recently received report from the ombudsperson shows that these interventions have not led to the necessary structural changes in the culture and structure of the study association’.
The Faculty Board says it regrets this course of events. ‘Students should feel safe on our campus at all times.’
Maya calls the Faculty Board’s decision to suspend the advisory board rather than the association’s board ‘very illogical’.
‘This makes absolutely no sense to me and I find it very upsetting’, she says. ‘The wrong people are being targeted, which means that the inappropriate behaviour of certain individuals can continue. I had hoped that this investigation would mark the end of such behaviour within the university.’