What was the subject of the letter?
“De Pano-report from last week. There will be a notification of the increase in the amount transferred to our faculty (bewegings- en revalidatiewetenschappen, PG). Naturally we know we di al. Well, we know that there was a procedure that was going on. However, in the reportage, we understand that he was given the right to do so. That’s what we’re going to do.”
“Al gaat het ons niet over een specifiek geval, het gaat over het systeem. He is largely overwritten at the universities, sowel in Belgium as daarbuiten. I think that he has a culture of two. Everyone knows het, no one does it and we want to conquer. Now it is a cultural slag, not just that it was meant by #MeToo-moving. Zwijgen is meant to be an option.”
When you know that he has to pay fees to your faculty, do you raise any additional requirements?
“It’s moeilijk. I’m here now al zeven jaar. I was gradually empty of the numbers, but I was responsible for that. Het was not duidelijk for my what I could do. Maar dit gaat really niet grandson over deze specifieke zaak. We want to change.”
He comes now very often at the light: is there a large overriding requirement inherent at the university?
“Volgens mij gaat het om een minderheid. At the top of the list of professors there is a problem. Hoe groot het problem is weten we niet prices.”
“Het is moeilijk te zeggen waar het vandaan komt: he zijn een factors which bij sommige mensen sammenkomen and suffer tot a verkeerde uitkomst. It is very high in the hierarchy at the university. Whenever a recognizing asset manager is worded, there also comes responsibility for bij kijken. Then there is a management problem: we were told that we were responsible for plots and we wanted a team to be treated. For sommige people is that vanzelfsprekender then for others. Also we nooit beoordeeld over hoe we onze mensen beleidden. Bij beoordelingen voor het professorschap gaat het over publicaties of hoeveel money for onderzoek each raises internally. Maar het is not the grandson of tien doctoral students te hebben gehad, also hoe goed ze het gedaan hebben.”
Jullie writes to the rector ‘ontgoocheld’ te zijn in de reactie van de universiteit. What is jullie up to?
“Excuses, I think so. Not over that specific geval, maar to all KU Leuven-medewerkers omdat het systeem niet works. This is not a specific case, but it is the word of the KU Leuven. You have to be able to offer excuses. That is what we ask for from the rector of UGent and from the rector of UC Louvain. The last one really does include specific actions with the word: what is lost within our university and what do we want to change or ask for that? We never wanted that from our rector. That is teleursing for one.”
Volgens jullie heeft de panorama-reportage een averechts effect gehad en zullen slachtoffers still less inclined zijn melding te maken. Why is that?
“Omdat he won nooit sancties follow. The slachtoffers are not your responsibility, also that is what happens when you have a loop. Toch he born niks. Why should you tell me if he was going to be there before that? Het zorgt voor een gevoel van strafeloosheid.”
Of an external reporting point where there is a significant override that can result in an opt-out? I can’t say that. He zijn mensen bij ons the veel meer expertise hebben dan ik om the vraag te can answer.”