Discredited lecturer does not get job back at UvA after misconduct: ‘He is on the warpath’ | Interior

Buijs calls himself a whistleblower, but the court sees it differently. ‘The actions of the teacher are not covered by whistleblower protection’, can be read in the verdict. And further on it says: ‘Filling a whistleblower report is not a license for misconduct, as the UvA has rightly argued.’

According to the court, Buijs was rightly dismissed because of ‘his cross-border communication and refusal to comply with instructions from the UvA’. He would be ‘on the warpath’ with his negative messages on Twitter. Four days before his trial, he tweeted: ‘If you don’t have a disrupted employment relationship with such a dysfunctional and malicious management of such a derailed institution, then you are part of the abuses and complicit in the violation of fundamental rights. It would be nice if judges would see that.’

Buijs and his immediate colleagues have been at odds for months now. According to his employer, the researcher sent messages with a ‘threatening, demanding and accusing content’, among other things by e-mail and telephone. The UvA calls the statements unacceptable and states that they ‘threaten the safety of scientists and the safe working environment of colleagues’.

According to the university board, this has ‘nothing to do’ with academic freedom or freedom of expression. Buijs is free to get involved in debates about “non-binarity or any other topic.” The UvA believes that he should do so with respect.

Buijs calls the allegations against him a misrepresentation. According to the scientist, the UvA has put him in danger by ‘making him the head of Jut’. His statements on social media were, in his own words, in defense ‘against the ongoing attacks on my reputation and scientific work’.

Buijs became known to a wider audience when he was recently introduced by the NOS was interviewed about aggression against lhbti youth. The broadcaster was not happy about that afterwards. “Because he himself is at the center of a debate on exactly this subject, he was not the best journalistic interpreter of this development.”

Buijs often participates in discussions about gender diversity. For example, he called being non-binary ‘an empty hype’. He receives a lot of criticism for this, also from colleagues and other scientists. On social media, Buijs called his critics ‘monsters, extremists, corrupt and dangerous’. According to the UvA, Buijs has also sent messages to others by e-mail and telephone with ‘threatening, demanding and accusatory content’.

Buijs himself says that as a whistleblower he raised that academic freedom would be threatened by a ‘woke culture’. A committee led by Carel Stolker, who used to be director of Leiden University, is investigating this. Buijs says that the UvA is preparing his dismissal while that investigation is still ongoing. “I am curtailed, I then react angrily to that repression, and then that anger is used by the UvA to legitimize the repression,” said Buijs earlier.

In a ‘farewell email’, Buijs completely dragged his colleagues through the mud. “You make me sick and I regret every hour I ever invested in you (…). Pathetic sad scared people you are. Shame on you for your complicity in extremism and in my public execution. You stood by and watched as (…) with her authoritarian narcissistic leadership, she set up a brutal divide and conquer culture that made me a scapegoat.’

The UvA considers these types of emails unacceptable. The judge acknowledges that it must have been difficult for the scientist in the past two years. After all, in a tense situation it is ‘not always easy to strike the right tone’. But: ‘The way in which Buijs raged against colleagues goes beyond all limits. He played the man, made a very insulting speech. He posted portrait photos of his ‘opponents’ on Twitter, with disqualifying texts, and the names of the students who started the petition.’ According to the judge, this is all contrary to basic rules of conduct.

Buijs admits that his communication has gone awry. He did so out of frustration, fear and desperation, which he said grew as he was “ignored and laughed at, and colleagues and friends turned away from him.” Buijs regrets this, especially that he occasionally played on the person. He can imagine that he was not a good role model at the time, not a good scientist, and that colleagues felt unsafe.

Buijs himself says that as a whistleblower he raised that academic freedom would be threatened by a ‘woke culture’. A committee led by Carel Stolker, who used to be director of Leiden University, is investigating this.