This was announced in a university press release on Thursday afternoon, based on the subdistrict court’s interim decision.

On Wednesday, Mare reported that the judge needs more information in order to reach a definitive ruling.  In the dismissal procedure initiated by the university against the Caribbean archaeology professor, Hofman will first be given the chance to ‘submit the counter-evidence she claims supports her case’. In addition, the court has asked the university to provide further financial details, including the professor’s potential loss of pension accrual should her employment contract be terminated prematurely.

There is also an ongoing objection procedure concerning a request under the Open Government Act (Woo request) filed by the couple, which the university has refused to process.

Unacceptable

Although no definitive ruling has been reached yet, and it remains unclear whether the university is allowed to dismiss Hofman, the judge has already drawn a few notable conclusions. For example, the court considers it sufficiently plausible that Hofman violated academic integrity that she engaged in ‘inappropriate and undesirable’ behaviour, the university writes. The judge calls this behaviour ‘unacceptable’.

The judge also states that the investigation committee conducted a thorough investigation, properly adhered to the principle of letting both sides have their say and ‘meticulously’ presented its findings in the investigation report.

The university itself is also criticised by the court for neglecting ‘to monitor the behaviour of assistant, associate and full professors, who, out of the university’s sight, had vulnerable students and PhD candidates carry out fieldwork’.

Meticulous investigation

Furthermore, ‘no control whatsoever was exercised on behaviour that was not tolerated in a more distant past either’ and the archaeology faculty was ‘managed in an entirely unique way’. On top of that, Hofman ‘repeatedly received confirmation that she was performing well and was exceptionally important to the university’. The judge states that ‘action should have been taken much sooner’ and will take this into account in the further assessment.

Board president Annetje Ottow is pleased with the preliminary ruling. ‘For us the main accusations against the professor – the transgressive behaviour and the violation of academic integrity – have been found by the judge to be sufficiently plausible. And the investigation committee was meticulous in its work’, she states on the university website.

Regarding the judge’s criticism, she says the following: ‘We will learn from it. We are going to submit the documents requested by the judge and await the decision with confidence.’