Statement on False and Misleading Accusations
I feel compelled to speak up and out about a harmful situation that has affected both me and my research group, and to bring clarity and closure to anyone in my professional network who may have been unwittingly caught up in this matter.
I have always tried to surround myself with people who are kind, thoughtful, and respectful to others, no matter their background. Most of the time, I have managed to do just that, personally and professionally. But every so often, someone with harmful behavior finds a way in, posing as well-meaning. Regrettably, this happened almost two years ago when someone joined my research group.
When I hired this person, I was hoping to add a conscious and collaborative group member. For a short while, that seemed to be the case. However, it didn’t last. Quite quickly, the person’s behavior turned stalk-like and increasingly hostile toward others in my group and myself. I invested much effort and patience in helping this person adjust to the new environment, improve behavior and focus on research, but all support was rejected.
Thankfully, I anticipated that this extraordinary situation could escalate and made sure from the start to document everything carefully, and to continuously update my institute about the person’s worsening misconduct. I also took exceptional measures to protect the group and myself, and initiated a formal assessment procedure a few months after the hire. This required significant time and energy but prevented even greater harm.
Ultimately, the person’s ongoing misconduct led to the decision not to extend their contract, and instead, to assist them in finding an alternative workplace. Unfortunately, after this decision, and despite being summoned by my faculty to refrain from behavior violating the university’s code of conduct, the person intensified spreading false accusations to damage my and my group's reputation, even going so far as to file a formal complaint against me - ironically - for misconduct.
I have avoided disclosing this situation to preserve the privacy and due process essential to a functioning complaint mechanism. Sadly, in the meantime and up to this day, the person has been spreading false accusations in my professional network to the extent that it has influenced collaborations with academic and non-academic partners: constantly creating smoke leads others to assume there’s a fire.
That is why I am sharing publicly that - after a thorough investigation - the independent Complaints Commission of the university has concluded that the accusations of misconduct are unfounded. The decision by the Complaints Commission has subsequently been endorsed by my institute (see this letter) and the board of the UvA. I hope this provides much-needed clarity for those in my network who may have been misinformed and misled.
I am thankful for the support I have received from my group, institute, and faculty. That said, I believe the Complaints Commission could have acted more swiftly and decisively. At times, it felt like baseless accusations were given more weight than clear, complete and convincing evidence I provided early on. In these times of polarization, discrimination, and hate, I believe social safety policies, procedures, and practices are vulnerable to misuse and require careful scrutiny.
It remains for me to say: I wish redemption for those who are inclined to mistake goodness for wickedness, and humbleness for weakness. As for me, I will remain focused and committed to doing good alongside good people, both in my research group and beyond, and - as all ways - strengthened rather than deterred by adversity.
Article 121 of the Constitution concerns the publicity of court hearings and the motivation of judgments. The judicial decision must be public. Unfortunately, this does not apply to the decision of the Executive Board on a complaint. On the contrary, above the accompanying letter to each of the parties it says: “Strictly confidential and personal”, even though there is nothing about this confidentiality in ‘Regulations for the handling of complaints from staff members and students of the UvA 2021’. The confidentiality makes it impossible to take note of the facts, interpretations and judgment of the complaints committee on this complaint. This creates room for the winning professor/manager S. Ghebreab for a tendentious presentation of the matter in which he presents…