A confidential report by the ombudsperson, recently reported on by Mare, reveals that the atmosphere within BASIS, the study association for International Studies, has become highly toxic. Members have been slandered, excluded and even falsely accused of attempted arson and other misconduct. Suspension procedures are flawed and various personal relationships have influenced the board’s decision-making processes.

The long-running conflict stems from the East Asia Committee’s unauthorised consumption of alcohol at the university following an event they had organised. Ultimately, one member, Maya (real name known to editors), is forced to leave the committee, barred from holding any position within BASIS, and excluded from a trip to Vietnam. A salient detail: shortly before this, she had ended a relationship with the treasurer.

Last Thursday, the issue was discussed at the General Meeting of Members. A recording of the meeting is in Mare’s possession.

hounded out

From the recording, which lasts almost an hour and a half, it becomes clear that the core of the issue remained unaddressed. For example, it is still unclear why Maya was the only one suspended from the committee and why she was also excluded from other activities. A similar incident that occurred in 2024 – in which, according to the ombudsperson’s report, a student was hounded out of the association after her relationship with the same treasurer had ended – was likewise not discussed.

Contradictory statements by the treasurer were also left unaddressed. For example, he wrote in a statement that he had not been in a relationship with anyone within the association since March 2025, whereas he told the ombudsperson that he had in fact been in a relationship with Maya before things came to a head last November.

The recording makes it painfully clear how little understanding there is for the impact on the victim. It is only after an hour that the alleged bullying and exclusion are brought up. Up to that point, the board focuses solely on the reporting in Mare, which it claims is one-sided; the suggestion is made to find out who leaked the ombudsperson’s report so that sanctions can be imposed; and there is discussion about which parts of the report Mare does or does not possess.

‘I don’t like the reporter’

Although Mare based its reporting largely on the ombudsperson’s findings, internal BASIS documents and other sources, and repeatedly offered the board the opportunity to respond, board members dismiss the article as ‘one-sided’ and ‘inaccurate’. One of the board members: ‘I don’t like the reporter.’

According to the board, the suspended committee drank alcohol not only after, but also during the event, and it was more than just ‘a couple of beers’. The board feared losing funding if no sanctions were imposed.

One member responds with indignation. ‘Nobody is interested in this part of the story. We need to talk about social safety.’

At that point, the programme chair of International Studies, Joost Augusteijn, takes over from the board and says that the conflict ‘escalated on both sides and that both parties have said unkind things’. Comments that may have been intended as jokes were interpreted differently, causing the situation to get out of hand.

Several members want to know why the board had not made use of the opportunity to respond to Mare. ‘If you genuinely believe you can prove that certain things are not true, why not talk about it?’

Advise not to talk

‘After Mare contacted us, we consulted the communications department and the ombudsperson for advice on what to do’, says the treasurer. ‘They advised us not to talk about it, because it concerns a confidential report and because it wouldn’t help us anyway. We decided to keep our heads down until it would blow over.’

When asked why the treasurer did not recuse himself from the decision to dismiss Maya from the committee, given that they had been in a relationship shortly before, he replies: ‘I didn’t think it necessary to recuse myself. I have a private history with Maya. I didn’t think my personal past would interfere with the formal proceedings. But perhaps that was a mistake.’

Members are also angry that the board said so little following the reporting. ‘We have a board that says nothing, apart from long e-mails with little concrete information about the issue’, complains one of them. ‘Couldn’t that have been handled differently?’

‘I think we need time to reflect on the whole situation and what we could have done better’, replies the treasurer. ‘Again, there was consensus from various quarters of the university not to respond, because it wouldn’t help. I also wouldn’t know what to advise a new board in a similar case.’

‘repercussions’ against whoever leaked

Both the treasurer and the full board wrote in their statements that they had not seen the ombudsperson’s report, which Mare described as ‘highly unlikely’. One member asks for clarification.

From the board’s explanation, it appears this is a matter of semantics. ‘There is a difference between the ombudsperson’s findings and the full report including recommendations. We have not seen the latter.’

This means that the board did in fact read the findings, and that is precisely the section concerning the slander, exclusion, false accusations and the fact that the same thing had already happened in 2024, involving a member who had been in a relationship with the treasurer shortly beforehand.

One board member calls for ‘repercussions’ against whoever leaked the report, but according to Augusteijn, that would be pointless. ‘Knowing that doesn’t help us. We must look ahead.’

The two members who stepped down from the board prematurely, as Mare reported last Thursday based on internal e-mails, also want to know who leaked the information.

Only after nearly an hour does a member ask the first question about the bullying. ‘I read that Maya was given an emergency number and about the effect this whole situation has had on her mental well-being. Were you aware of this? And did you or did you not bully her?’

‘I don’t believe I bullied’

The first person to respond is a relatively new board member, who replaces one of the board members who stepped down. He does ‘not have the impression that anyone was being bullied’. Other board members confirm this. ‘I was friends with her before things escalated’, says one of them. ‘I never had any issues with her. I don’t think anyone on the board actually intended to harm members.’

The treasurer also says he had no idea. ‘I haven’t spoken to her in months. I don’t believe I bullied her.’

That is a striking statement, given that only last week, Mare quoted from internal e-mails sent by the ombudsperson to Maya, dating from mid-April. These revealed that the treasurer’s misconduct continued even after the report had been completed. ‘His entire conduct in exercising formal and informal power, is strongly disapproved of’, the ombudsperson wrote to Maya. She also wrote that he and his girlfriend were called in for a meeting with the Faculty Board and the programme director.

An external party will be brought in to help the association improve its culture and structure. The new board, which will soon take office, will be actively involved in this process.