Tensions ran high Thursday afternoon during the court case over the dismissal of Leiden professor Corinne Hofman. One thing became clear: a settlement is out of the question.

The university’s lack of interest in reaching a settlement became evident as early as late April, when the Executive Board announced its intention to dismiss the archaeologist and had started termination proceedings. On Thursday afternoon, the hearing took place at the subdistrict court in Amsterdam. Hofman was not present on the advice of her psychiatrist.

In May, a devastating investigation report revealed that between 1990 and 2023, Hofman and her partner Menno Hoogland had engaged in intimidation, discrimination, manipulation, and shouting, laughing at and mocking staff, PhD candidates and students. Hofman has been suspended since the start of the investigation in September 2023. Hoogland is no longer affiliated with the university. Both have been banned from university premises.

‘Shameful events’

The investigation committee based the report on statements by a total of 37 informants, including nineteen notifiers, eleven peers and three (former) administrators. That report already contained many alarming behaviours by the archaeologist couple (ranging from alcohol abuse to the theft of illegally extracted teeth from a depot), but during the hearing, a few more very detailed accounts came to light.

According to the university’s lawyer Henriëtte van Baalen, these accounts should have been known to the investigation committee, but were either not included in the report or only mentioned in broad terms. Van Baalen says this is ‘because the committee apparently wanted to avoid writing about shameful events’.

The accounts mainly concerned behaviours during fieldwork in the Caribbean. ‘They worked for at least six days a week, 12 hours a day, and were afraid to take breaks or days off for fear of being told that they were lazy,’ said Van Baalen. Hofman allegedly shouted to students and PhD candidates: ‘Don’t talk, work harder, you’re going too slow.’ Bathroom breaks during fieldwork were considered a ‘waste of time’ because it was ‘not a party’.

Sleeping in a brothel

Notifiers reported a lack of drinking water and food, stating that they ‘went to bed exhausted and hungry’ while Hofman herself was dining at a restaurant. Food was only served ‘when Hofman was hungry and she was to be served first’. Students and researchers also had to eat with muddy hands at times, leading to ‘parasites, kidney stones and food poisoning’. Participants in the fieldwork were allegedly enjoined to keep silent because complaints would ‘reflect poorly on the image of the project and the professor,’ the lawyer listed.

Due to lack of proper sleeping accommodation, students and PhD candidates ‘were sometimes forced to sleep in bed with Hofman, or on a concrete floor or in a brothel for weeks on end’. Students who were on their period were not allowed to shower but had to use the water tap to wash themselves. One notifier had to ‘pick up Hofman’s underwear from the bathroom floor and pack it’. This ‘young student’ felt they had ‘no choice but to comply, in view of the upcoming assessment of their thesis’.

According to some notifiers, participation in nightlife was mandatory. One notifier stated that when going out, she ‘had to sacrifice her body every week to show goodwill’. This led to a sense of insecurity, which she tried to ‘drown out by drinking beer and rum'.

Sexual assaults

Participants were not allowed to report incidents of sexual assault because ‘that is just how Caribbean men are’ or because the perpetrator was ‘an important local contact’ and it would lead to reputational damage to the project.

The most striking information offered by the lawyer, which was not mentioned in the investigation report at all, concerned reports of children from local families assisting in the archaeological excavations. Child labour, according to the lawyer. ‘Photos show children working barefoot with heavy shovels, on their stomachs digging in pits and doing archaeological work.’

They carried heavy buckets of sand and were sometimes injured, notifiers stated. In one case, a family allegedly abused a child after the child came home with ‘not enough money’. After the local government had warned Hofman that she was underpaying, she reportedly started paying the parents more, either in cash or in kind, such as clothes.

Petra Charbon, Hofman’s lawyer, firmly rejected the allegation. She called the accusation of child labour ‘one of the most serious ones’ and pointed out that no mention of it can be found in the investigation report. ‘I must set the record straight right away: it’s a false allegation, defamatory even, and nothing has been investigated.’ While it is true that there were children present during the fieldwork, ‘this was only after school and during holidays, at the request of and in mutual agreement with their parents who were employed by the project and enjoyed bringing their children along. It was fun for them; they cleaned shards and joined them for meals occasionally. There was never any question of child labour.’

Hate campaign

Charbon, who is in possession of the notifiers’ statements, confirms to Mare on Friday afternoon that three people reported instances of child labour. ‘So this was included in the reports investigated by the investigation committee, but since there is no mention of it in the investigation report, it was apparently not considered plausible.’

Chair of the investigation committee Yvonne Erkens declined to explain to Mare on Friday why the child labour reports were not included in the investigation report. ‘The investigation committee has advised the Executive Board, which means our work is now complete.’

In court, Charbon complained that she read the additional statements from notifiers and saw the photos of children involved in fieldwork ‘only three days prior to the hearing’. ‘That information should have been part of the investigation and should not have been presented in court,’ according to Charbon. ‘I did not have the opportunity to discuss this information with Hofman. A hate campaign has been launched; this is character assassination.’

University spokesperson Caroline van Overbeeke denies on Friday afternoon that new material was sent to Charbon only three days before the hearing. ‘We did that last Friday, in line with the legal deadline, which stipulates it must be done five days in advance.’

Charbon did not address the other allegations. However, she did state that ‘the nineteen individuals – out of the hundreds of students and dozens of PhD candidates that Hofman has worked with – never once mentioned to her that they had encountered any issues with her or that anything had occurred which they considered undesirable’. According to Hofman, the reports must be ‘considered carefully in a certain context or they did not happen’.

Counter-expertise

Charbon targeted the investigation procedure, arguing it was flawed. For example, she said that dean Jan Kolen ‘actively sought out notifiers,’ that the investigation committee paid far too little attention to Hofman’s and Hoogland’s defence, that Hofman had been provided with so little information that she was unable to defend herself properly, and that a request by Hofman under the Open Government Act (Woo request) to obtain more information was rejected by the university ‘for improper reasons’. ‘The Board of Governors, which was kept fully informed, is letting it all happen.’

Charbon also argued that Hofman was unable to defend herself against the allegations of violation of academic integrity (such as removing dental remains without a permit and enforcing co-authorship) because the investigation committee is a ‘self-created’ committee: an amalgamation of the Committee for Academic Integrity and the Complaints Committee for Unacceptable Behaviour. This ‘effectively blocked the path’ to The Netherlands Board on Research Integrity (LOWI).

So instead, Hofman turned to confidential counsellor for academic integrity Jan van Ruitenbeek to request a counter-expertise. The conclusion of that second opinion was: there is insufficient evidence to prove a violation of academic integrity.

‘To this day, the university has not said a word about the counter-expertise,’ Charbon said. ‘It has not led the Executive Board to reconsider in any way, other than summoning the confidential counsellor to the rector’s office. It's mind-boggling.’

However, a reaction was given in court, where Van Baalen tore the counter-expertise to shreds. ‘No agreements were made about how this investigation would be conducted, the principle of audi alteram partem was not adhered to, and there was no contact with the notifiers, the investigation committee or experts,’ Van Baalen listed. ‘The researchers presented their opinions in a personal capacity and only three documents were used as a basis, including a personal one-sided document written by Hofman.’

Cardinal sin

Moreover, the counter-expertise is incorrect, argued Van Baalen. ‘The lack of an export licence for human remains is not a minor mistake, but a crime. Even a tourist knows this, let alone a professor of archaeology.’

Extracting dental remains without a permit, as was done in 2009, is also ‘a cardinal sin in archaeology,’ Van Baalen continued. ‘Hofman even admits there was no permit at the time. The counter-expertise is simply an attempt to exonerate her.’

When Mare recently revealed that the confidential counsellor had been summoned to the rector’s office, the university would not disclose the reason. In court, Van Baalen said that Van Ruitenbeek was ‘a close family friend of Hofman’ and that ‘advocacy is not the role of the confidential counsellor’.

Despite Charbon’s extensive defence against the procedure that was followed, the judge did not seem to be very impressed. ‘The core issue for us is not whether the procedure was followed carefully or not. While that is a consideration, the focus is on the culpable conduct. That is what was investigated.’

Psychiatric treatment

The judge did want to know what Hofman hopes to achieve with the court case. Charbon: ‘Apart from the fact that she is currently unable to work and is undergoing psychiatric treatment, it would be healing for her if she is vindicated. She is eager to talk to the notifiers, but I’ve heard they don’t want that. Hofman has a year and a half left before her retirement. She would like to finish her work at the university.’

In addition, Charbon demanded one hundred and fifty thousand euros, the amount the couple spent on the court case, according to her. ‘They borrowed this money; otherwise, they wouldn’t have been able to afford it. The university has very deep pockets; I think it should cover the costs.’

The university sees no value in healing. While that was the investigation committee’s recommendation, the Executive Board dismissed it. ‘There can be no healing without recognition,’ said Van Baalen, ‘not to mention that the notifiers do not want it.’

Blacklist

The notifiers have received signals that a “blacklist” is circulating containing the names of the notifiers, ‘strongly discouraging any cooperation with them’. However: there is no proof that this list actually exists. ‘No one, absolutely no one, who claims to have seen this list dares to make statements about it out of sheer fear for their career. That’s what Hofman does’.

Van Baalen thinks the university should not have to pay anything. ‘Hofman is free to become a professor elsewhere, in the Caribbean, for example.’

Nevertheless, the judge wanted to know what the financial consequences would be for Hofman were she to grant the termination request. This required additional information. And there were more loose ends: for instance, it turned out that there are 59 statements supporting Hofman’s account that Charbon failed to submit to the court. Of those 59 statements, the investigation committee had deemed only two to be relevant.

In the coming weeks, the judge will consider whether she needs those statements and financial information to reach a ruling. If so, there will be no ruling in four weeks but an interim decision in which she will request that additional information. If not, the ruling on whether or not the university may dismiss Hofman will be made in four weeks.