Is there structural sexism and abuse of power at the Faculty of Archaeology? This became a topical question after the university revealed last month that Caribbean archaeology professor Corinne Hofman and her partner Menno Hoogland got away with misconduct, intimidation, alcohol abuse and theft for thirty-three years.

Although it is stressed in the investigation report that the two are ‘responsible for their own behaviour’, their misdeeds were ‘to a significant degree made possible by the environment’. According to the investigators, the ‘culture in the faculty is unhealthy’.

An opinion piece in Mare submitted by an anonymous archaeologist in early June confirmed that image: ‘The misconduct within archaeology is structural and sexism is rampant’. In a reaction to this piece, eight female archaeologists wrote that they did not recognise this image. According to them, the claims of sexism were blown out of proportion: ‘There are no Andrew Tate-like misogynistic monsters at our faculty, but hard-working and passionate academics.’

Not surprised

Over the past few weeks, Mare spoke to seven female staff members, former staff members and former students who studied or worked at the university during the past ten years or are still doing so. Out of fear of repercussions or reputational damage, they wish to remain anonymous. Several of them explicitly point out how small the field is and how quickly you can be ostracised as a ‘problem case’.

All seven of them paint a picture of a macho culture where drinking is common and complaining is difficult. And there is one thing they all agree on: the complaints made against Hofman, at least as brought to light in the report, are credible. ‘I’m not surprised’, says a former staff member. ‘I fully recognise the things written in the report.’

What does surprise the archaeologists is that Hofman is the only one who has been publicly called to account, even though the Caribbean archaeology professor is by no means the only one accused of various forms of misconduct.

‘When it was known that the person concerned was an archaeologist, but Hofman’s name had not been revealed yet, people were speculating who it might be,’ says a faculty staff member.

‘There were multiple PhD candidates who, based on the contents of the report, suspected that it might be their supervisor, but they weren’t sure. Besides Hofman, the names of at least four other professors were circulating for whom it would be no surprise to anyone if they were to be dismissed for the same kind of bullying behaviour. I found it absolutely revolting that some of them who were present at the staff meeting about the dismissal were sitting there saying "Oh, how awful.” All I could think was: you do exactly the same.’

Structural and widespread

Others describe the faculty’s attitude as ‘hypocritical’, or criticise it for using ‘double standards’. They also express their concerns that the board wants to make it seem that Hofman’s dismissal has put a definitive end to the misconduct within the faculty, when, according to them, this is far from being the case.

The archaeologists endorse many of the complaints about everyday sexism as described in the opinion piece ‘The misconduct within archaeology is structural’. For example, that women are interrupted during meetings, or seen as secretaries who can take the mail.

A PhD candidate says: ‘That opinion piece was shared in a WhatsApp group with colleagues and it was met with a lot of recognition and hearts.’
‘Men are described based on their abilities, women based on their appearance,’ one of the archaeologists summarises.

The fact that eight female archaeologists then wrote a rebuttal in Mare arguing that there is no sexism is therefore met with confusion. ‘If there are female staff members who have never experienced this kind of thing, I’m happy for them, but that doesn’t mean there are no structural problems,’ says a PhD candidate.

Another recurring theme in many of the accounts is that fieldwork seems to be a perfect recipe for all sorts of misconduct. Students and young staff go to often isolated excavations for weeks or months on end, where they work and sleep in close proximity to lecturers, who they are dependent on for completing their studies and in their subsequent careers. Combined with the ‘ubiquitous’ alcohol, it seems to be a recipe for misconduct.

‘During fieldwork, boundaries tend to blur quickly, especially when you have young students far from home, in unfamiliar surroundings, and alcohol is involved. There is a macho culture where it is normalised for staff to use or abuse their position’, says a PhD candidate. A former student says that on her first day at an excavation site, she was slapped on the bottom by the fieldwork leadership.

One of the staff members who talked to Mare ventured an estimate of how widespread sexual contact between students and lecturers is: ‘I think that about half of the senior staff, including professors, have had some kind of sexual interaction with a student at some point.’ Other archaeologists Mare spoke to judge this estimate as roughly accurate. One of them adds: ‘There are enough of them for it to be a substantial problem. Some of the staff are also married to former students.’

‘A few years ago, I saw how a lecturer reassured the parents of an inexperienced student that everything would go well during a fieldwork trip. That student had never been away from home for a long time. That first night, she ended up in the lecturer’s tent,’ says a former student.

Whispered advice

Multiple archaeologists talk about the existence of an informal network through which women and young archaeologists try to warn each other about certain lecturers. A former student recounts the advice she received when she was looking for a supervisor not long ago: ‘They actually recommended Corinne Hofman to me, because at least she wouldn’t try to grope you like some other lecturers.’

Another archaeologist says that students advise each other on which lecturers to watch out for: ‘With this lecturer, you have to be careful if you wear a short skirt, that researcher steals your data, and a third will shout at you angrily.’

Other former students and staff members also describe having been quietly advised by others to avoid going on fieldwork with certain lecturers, or at least to be very careful. According to a former staff member who still works in the archaeology field, it is ‘still normal, before you first start working with someone you don’t yet know, to first ask your colleagues if that person can be trusted’.

‘I recently returned from fieldwork, and three colleagues came up to me to ask if I had experienced anything unpleasant, if perhaps I wanted to talk about something,’ says a PhD candidate. ‘Fortunately, nothing had happened, but they knew I’d been on fieldwork with someone who has a bad reputation and wanted to check if everything was all right.’

Inappropriate behaviour also takes place outside of fieldwork. For example, staff members publicly discuss whether there are attractive students in their lectures or joining them on fieldwork, or boast about receiving WhatsApp messages from students. According to the archaeologists, such lecturers are called to account for these kinds of statements more often nowadays, but by no means always.

Sober

However, several archaeologists told Mare that there has been improvement in recent years: younger generations of archaeologists are more aware of transgressive behaviour, are quicker to address colleagues about it or are willing to file a complaint.

The fact that the faculty code of conduct was revised last year is a step in the right direction, they say. For instance, the code states that there must always be one person from the fieldwork leadership who remains sober, and sexual relations between staff members and students are prohibited. The faculty is also conducting active bystander courses, encouraging staff members to speak out when they see misconduct.

‘Things haven’t always gone the way they were supposed to over the years,’ Vice-Dean Alex Geurds told the Faculty Council in 2023. ‘And alcohol plays a role in that.’

Still, according to the archaeologists, it remains difficult to file a complaint. Both the faculty and the field are small worlds: the chances of having to deal with an accused person later in your studies or career are very high. ‘What if the person you want to file a complaint against is the only one who's active in the subject you're interested in?’ In that case, you have to ‘consider whether to file a complaint or simply tough it out’.

‘The power dynamics at archaeology are very skewed’, says a PhD candidate. ‘If you complain, you get the reputation of being a problem case and then you can easily be excluded. That’s why people are afraid to complain and why someone like Corinne Hofman can get away with misconduct for decades.’

The fact that archaeology has its own faculty in Leiden, and is not embedded in a larger faculty, such as Social and Behavioural Sciences, as is the case in some other cities, makes it even more oppressive. ‘The person to whom you’re supposed to submit the complaint confidentially may be a close colleague, office mate or good friend of the person you're complaining about. That makes it difficult, especially for students, to assess whether they can feel confident that their complaint will be handled properly, and that they, as complainants, will be protected.’

A former PhD candidate says that she did have the courage to speak out. ‘But that was because I was lucky to have a fantastic supervisor who protected me. That was my advantage, but also just a stroke of luck.’

‘The faculty is becoming more diverse, in multiple ways’, says a PhD candidate. ‘I think that’s a good thing and that it helps people empathise with the experiences of people who have a different perspective. That is something I found was lacking in the letter from the eight archaeologists last week. It would be a real tragedy if people now feel discouraged from coming forward and sharing their experiences because of that letter.

‘In general, I’m happy to be working at this faculty. There are certainly ‘safe islands’ where I can work comfortably, but the organisation is based on a structure that allows all kinds of misconduct to persist.’