Relations within the study association for International Studies have been seriously disrupted, Mare previously reported based on a confidential report by the ombudsperson, internal e-mails from both the ombudsperson and former BASIS board members, and correspondence between BASIS (board) members and the programme board and director. 

A member who had been in a relationship with the treasurer shortly before the escalation was bullied, intimidated, excluded and falsely accused by him and others of, among other things, threats, violence and even arson. 

She lodged a complaint with the ombudsperson, who launched an investigation. ‘This character assassination has caused lasting harm’, the victim wrote in a statement. 

‘We haven’t encountered such a situation in this form before’, said Dean Henk te Velde last week during the Faculty Council meeting. ‘Things are going wrong here and people are being harmed. This has shocked us. Therefore, we believe that something must change; this is truly unacceptable.’

Changing the statutes

According to the Board, this change cannot be achieved by taking action against individuals, but by improving the culture and structure of the association. To this end, the Faculty and Programme Boards have instructed the association to change its statutes, ‘with the aim of creating an open association’, and the Faculty Board has told the association that it ‘would be wise to suspend the advisory board, because otherwise the culture is unlikely to change’. 

The Faculty Board itself does not have the authority to suspend a study association’s board or advisory body, according to Te Velde. ‘We can express our view that they should step down, but if they don’t, we have no legal means to enforce it.’ It is up to the General Meeting of Members to vote on whether or not to suspend the advisory board. The advisory board has since been suspended.

Study associations are legal entities in their own right, or ‘independent legal entities’, as described in the Faculty of Humanities’ Recognition Procedure for Study Associations at Leiden University 2022. Nevertheless, the faculty does have ‘means of exerting pressure’ at its disposal, the dean acknowledged. ‘As the Board, we can say: we no longer recognise you as a study association. That would mean, for example, that we would no longer make any space available.’

Financial measures could also follow. Board members receive allowances from the faculty and are ‘eligible for faculty funds, (guarantee) grants or funds from the assessor’s budget for specific activities or work’, as stated in the Recognition Procedure.

The Faculty Board may withdraw support for a study association if, for example, the association fails to maintain contact with the faculty assessor, or if ‘the Faculty Board considers there to be compelling reasons for withdrawing recognition’. 

In such a case, it becomes ‘difficult for an association to continue functioning’, according to Te Velde. ‘So there is a fairly strong measure to fall back on should it be necessary, but we haven’t used it here. We only said what we felt needed to be done, and the association has so far been willing to cooperate.’

The dean said that the Board had wondered how it was possible that this culture had been able to persist for so long. ‘It didn’t just come about yesterday. How is it that we didn’t recognise the seriousness of it sooner? There were signs, but we didn’t respond to them adequately.’

Council member Jip Floris Bloem wanted to know why the Board would rather see the advisory board suspended than the association’s board itself. ‘When reports like this come to light and certain individuals are still on the board, shouldn’t it be the board that is suspended?’

‘You can dismiss the board, but what happens then?’ replied Te Velde. ‘Then you have an association without a board. And because it was only a matter of weeks before a new board was due to office, and there was no acute emergency, we hope the situation will change with the arrival of that new board.’

However, the Faculty Board had previously explained to Mare that steps would also be taken regarding the board that held office this academic year. ‘A different process is being initiated with the BASIS board (than with the advisory board, red.), but we will not be providing any details’, the faculty e-mailed last month.

Bloem also wanted to know how it was possible that a similar incident had already occurred in 2024 involving a student who was hounded out of the organisation, and who had also been in a relationship with the treasurer shortly before the escalation. ‘Mare reported that measures were taken at the time, yet now the same problems have arisen again. What did you do back then, and what would you do differently now?’

Measures

‘No measures were previously taken’, replied Te Velde. ‘You shouldn’t immediately believe everything that appears in the press. It’s true that there was an earlier situation that was similar to what is happening now. Based on that, the ombudsperson concluded that we are dealing with a pattern rather than an isolated incident. That is the reason why measures are being taken now.’

That is a striking remark, seeing as the Faculty Board had told Mare prior to the publication of the first BASIS article that action had in fact been taken previously: ‘Measures were taken in response to the issues previously known to the Faculty Board. However, the 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.’ 

And: ‘In 2024, there was an issue in which the ombudsperson played a mediating role.’

Council member Arnout van Ree wanted to know whether the Faculty Board intended to enquire with other study associations as to whether they were experiencing the same issues. ‘In this case, we have acted on the basis of a report, but it would be rather complicated for the Board to make such enquiries everywhere. We also have no grounds for doing so’, replied Te Velde.