The big waste

Autumn 1928. The great feminist author Virginia Woolf is working on two lectures at the University of Cambridge. Theme : women and fiction. This will give rise to the seminal essay “A Room of One’s Own”. To prepare for her lectures, she walks and thinks on the grounds of the English university. A supervisor shows up and makes her leave the grounds that are reserved for male academics only. “In the name of protecting the grounds whose upkeep they passed on to each other for three hundred years, they had scared my little fish away” she writes. This was the nickname she gave to her thought process, which started out as insignificant, but led to research and then result – literary, academic, and scientific.

Caroline Nieberding and Bertanne Visser are Virginia Woolfs. Why do female researchers flee science faculties, academia, and UCLouvain in particular ? The two biologists denounce sexism. They demanded “their own laboratories” to work properly and publish results. They cite the names of supervisors (professors, executives) who have been protecting the grounds passed on by their predecessors for 600 years (1).

The Virginia Woolfs of UCLouvain have been coming and going for decades. The earliest testimony we have is that of Hélène Verougstraete. This Professor Emeritus in art history, employed by UCLouvain from 1973 to 2009, believes she was harassed by a number of colleagues, without ever receiving the support of the rectorate, despite her warnings. Discrimination begins at the very start of an academic career, she points out. “When I asked to bring my course load down to the same level as my colleagues, I was told to give up the course in my specialization rather than other courses. Afterwards, I sensed that rumors were circulating in the corridors, but if I didn’t know what they were, I couldn’t defend myself.” Women leave permanently “traumatized and destabilized” by this sexist spiral that is part of the university machine (2).

Another professor, who wishes to remain anonymous, describes the same process she underwent in the law faculty between 2000 and 2010. Why ? “I did not fit into their mold”, she sums up. They are far from alone in this respect. Several times, Hélène Verougstraete wanted to leave the academic world. Only the comfort of living close to her workplace and good relations with her direct colleagues made her stay. When she discovered Caroline Nieberding’s file in 2022, she was struck by the similarity of their backgrounds : what she calls the “profound misogyny” at UCLouvain. “Caroline Nieberding was going through the same thing I was back then”.

INDIVIDUALISM AND PASSIVITY

In 2021, a witness (university researcher) interviewed by Médor observes an “unhealthy atmosphere” at the Earth and Life Institute (ELI), one of UCLouvain’s largest research institutes (429 members and affiliates), and particularly the ELI-B (for Biodiversity) research cluster. At the time, Caroline Nieberding was a professor in terrestrial ecology, and Bertanne Visser carried out her research under contract with the Fonds de la Recherche Scientifique (FNRS). They are known as the “two witches”. Caroline Nieberding would “kidnap children in a van”. These stories, even as a joke, were related by doctoral students, as well as by administrative and technical staff. As a result, the views of the two biologists’ teams is very negative.

Caroline Nieberding arrives at UCLouvain in 2008. Owing to her research career at the Universities of Liège and Leiden, she was awarded a professorship at the tender age of 28 years old. In 2016, Bertanne Visser, Dutch and trained in Leiden and Amsterdam, joined Caroline Nieberding’s team for her postdoctoral studies. She soon discovered that male researchers in the ELI-B cluster denigrate Caroline Nieberding in meetings, make her research funding and publications their own and have shorter working hours. Bertanne Visser, who began experiencing the same things, helps her colleague to open her eyes.

To denounce what she’s going through, Caroline Nieberding starts with the basics : write to the vice rector of staff policy (VRPP), Didier Lambert, who has been a member of the rectoral council since 2010. In a letter dated February 28, 2020, she describes the “general climate of non-recognition, even denigration” of her work. She cites four male colleagues at her institute. One biologist, a full professor, is cited for verbal aggression, surprise shouting matches and derogatory emails. Another full professor, also a biologist, for a hand on the buttocks. An extraordinary emeritus professor, engineer, for taking photos of her in a meeting without her consent. Finally, N. S., a professor like herself, for recurring remarks about her looks, disparaging emails, and barging into her office. Shouldn’t UCLouvain, their employer, as well as hers, react, wouldn’t you think ?

A consultant from FABI (Training, Support, and Well-being) is responsible for identifying problems among members of the ELI-B cluster. She lists : Opportunism, individualism, ordinary sexism. An internal commission of inquiry commissioned to investigate the issue delivers its findings in March 2021. It acknowledged Caroline Nieberding’s “suffering” and the passive attitude and denial of the authorities and colleagues, but believes that the facts of sexism and harassment are not proven, while acknowledging that it is difficult to prove such facts. However, the commission of inquiry’s report confirms several of the behaviors denounced by Caroline Nieberding, including physical violence by professor N.S. towards a female technician who was pulled by the collar in the middle of the corridor (3). This incident was corroborated by a witness. The commission writes that this professor has “a strong personality who often expresses himself vehemently to assert his ideas and disagreements, bordering on the aggressive”. In the investigation report, another male colleague reported by Caroline Nieberding is described by a former doctoral student as belonging “to the ‘very old school’ […], who imagined, like the others, that Caroline, being so young […], would somehow stay in her place”.

None of these men are facing any disciplinary proceedings to establish the facts in depth. Neither then nor later. On the other hand, the academic authorities, and in this case the vice rector for science and technology Michel Devillers, chose to move the protagonists : the men cited by the commission of inquiry were assigned to a new cluster (ELI-X), while Caroline Nieberding and Bertanne Visser are placed “under the supervision” (4) of the President of the ELI Institute. But they have recently secured funding (5) and their teams are expanding… As a result, they prefer to have laboratory spaces of their own and greater autonomy in the management of budget and space (Virginia Woolf suggested nothing else in 1928).

The idea did not go down well with the men at the Institute. In June 2021, when the Institute meets (6), “they came with their presentation, but nobody handed them a microphone. We couldn’t hear them. I asked for one to be given to them, but male colleagues were cutting them off.”, says climatologist Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, leader of the IPCC, professor at the ELI Institute (7), and the main male figure to publicly support the two biologists. ‘Months later, we received the meeting’s minutes. Their presentation was missing. I suggested amendments, which were accepted through a very unusual voting procedure. But once again, the amendments were not included in the rectified minutes. This may seem anecdotal. In fact, it illustrates how a power struggle works. Two feminists ask for a safe workplace ? The answer is no. Worse still, the Institute’s board appointed N. S. as president of the meetings. He also became director of the new ELI-X (renamed ELI-V) and the School of Biology. The teams of Caroline Nieberding and Bertanne Visser find themselves under the authority of a man whose behavior is recognized as problematic.

EXPEDITED DISMISSAL

The first time we interview Caroline Nieberding and Bertanne Visser, we almost forget to ask them about their scientific research. Caroline Nieberding and her team study butterflies that change color with the seasons and are good models for understanding how climate change is leading to species’ extinction. Bertanne Visser focuses on particularly charming wasps - “nature’s mass murderers” she laughs – that never put on weight, no matter how much sugar they ingest. “On a daily basis, we read, think a lot, and write, which is super important, because publications are the currency of science” continues Bertanne Visser. “A large part of our work also involves obtaining funding to build our labs. It’s all about finding new ways of studying insect adaptation. Caroline is very good at this. She really has the ability to push the boundaries of our research field.”

When they ask in 2021 for formal intervention from the occupational health services (managed at UCLouvain by the CESI), they are, above all, trying to work properly in an unsafe working environment. For Bertanne Visser, this requires the use of a mass spectrometer obtained for her team in 2020. The costs of this “nugget” : €87,000 (€65,000 purchase + running costs, public money). The researcher suggests that the machine should be placed temporarily in Gembloux (ULiège), as the staff there are already well trained to use it. UCLouvain opposes this, but Bertanne Visser confirms the placement at Gembloux. Things then move quickly : the University dismissed her for “serious misconduct”. This is despite the CESI’s ongoing internal procedure, which is supposed to protect the employees from reprisals. “Despite the regulations, I was not heard by rector Vincent Blondel. Neither before nor during the dismissal procedure” denounces Bertanne Visser. In the meantime, UCLouvain attributed the machine to another professor, claiming (falsely)(8) in an email to ULiège that this professor was co-promoter on the project of Bertanne Visser.

According to our information, former rector Vincent Blondel, now a regional deputy and senator for the political party Les Engagés, proposed that the FNRS terminate the contract of Bertanne Visser. The FNRS board of administration refused, deeming the measure disproportionate (9). Following the expedited dismissal, ULiège welcomed Bertanne Visser to Gembloux, financing a new machine in the process and thus saving a woman’s scientific career (10). An exception in this case.

RETALIATION

Caroline Nieberding now must work without Bertanne Visser, but she has the support of Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, to whom more and more cases of harassment are revealed at UCLouvain. After taking several confidential steps, notably to the president of the University board of administration Jean Hilgers, the climatologist turns to the media at the beginning of 2022. He spoke first to the Flemish press to share some particularly disturbing testimonies about the prevailing sexism. Then, in April of the same year on RTL : “Heads must roll at UCLouvain.” “It took this outburst for me to finally be heard by Vincent Blondel.” notes the climatologist. As soon as I entered his office, he told me straight out : “You’re damaging the reputation of UCLouvain”. “I find this ironic, given that a few weeks earlier, the President of the Federal Republic of Austria, on a state visit to Belgium, preferred to meet me privately at the provincial palace in Wavre rather than at UCLouvain, because the university was associated with sexual harassment scandals.”

During this time, rector Vincent Blondel takes a different media approach : victimization. “For God’s sake, file a complaint !” he implored students and employees that were victims of sexism and gender-based violence in Le Soir in February 2022. He also said that : “The idea that I might be covering up facts is distressing.” These words have left their mark. “It is contrary to all feminist principles,” comments a syndicalist. Vincent Blondel, who victimizes himself by the fact that he couldn’t care less about the victim’s experiences.

As the summer of 2022 approaches, tensions are running high at the ELI Institute : internal complaints arise. Without explanation, vice rector Didier Lambert (Doctor of Pharmacy, VRPP since 2019) chose to act on only one complaint : that of another biologist, also a professor, who denounced… Caroline Nieberding. What has she done now ? She notified him in writing that she no longer wished to teach alongside him in light of the sexist comments he made to her in the past – “this characterizes what is legally defined as sexual harassment”, she wrote. For this biologist, the statement was false and defamatory despite the fact that it was an email addressed to him alone. He asked her to retract her statement. She did not. He wrote to Didier Lambert. Immediately, the vice rector started disciplinary proceedings against Caroline Nieberding.

In concrete terms, her job is threatened. She turned to the Labor Court of Walloon Brabant to request suspension of the disciplinary proceedings. Her lawyer, Violaine Alonso, emphasized the unequal treatment she had received over the past two and a half years : “Over the past two and a half years, Caroline Nieberding has been writing to her superiors, including the vice rector, because her situation is getting worse and worse. But when a male colleague wrote through the same channel, the reaction was immediate.” In her complaint to the court “en referee”, Violaine Alonso asked the Walloon Brabant judge to rule on “moral harassment” and violence in the workplace towards Caroline Nieberding, as well as on the behavior of UCLouvain, which has a duty to ensure the well-being of its employees and to prevent harassment in the workplace.

On October 7, 2022, the Walloon Brabant court ruled in favor of Caroline Nieberding. Violence in the workplace was accepted, but not harassment. The judgement ordered the cancellation of the disciplinary proceedings. It also pointed out that the ELI Institute did not implement psychosocial risk analysis, and that staff had not been trained to manage it properly. UCLouvain must do more to protect Caroline Nieberding in the workplace, demands the court.

SEVEN MONTHS OF DISCREDITATION

Relief. A sense of justice. Breathing. Believe it. But no. Not at all. On the spot, UCLouvain announces that it will appeal against the verdict. However, inside voices are urging the opposite : acknowledge the suffering, apologize, make amends. But the image of the institution appears essential in the eyes of its leaders.

While awaiting the appeal decision, an anti-feminist portrait of Caroline Nieberding is widespread in Louvain-la-Neuve – and it has not disappeared since. “There’s been a lot of talk about her not being a ‘good victim’. The image of a dragon, an annoying woman, problematic at work, recounts a member of the scientific staff. This is the logical continuation of the strategy of discrediting her that began at the labour court in September.” In Wavre, UCLouvain’s lawyer Carine Doutrelepont, spent 90 minutes describing her as a complicated woman, an opportunist who took the path of harassment “to achieve what she had otherwise failed to do”. Her word could, therefore, have no value.

As the 2022-2023 academic year is dedicated to respect and fight “against all forms of harassment and gender violence” (11), a few weeks after the 7 October court ruling, biology students were sent a Google form. It was badly written and ill-intentioned : “What do you think of the repercussions of Nieberding’s case with her work at UCLouvain (professor, promoter) ?”. The questionnaire was created by students, but according to extracts from written conversations that we could read, it was created at the request of Pascal Lambrechts, Dean of the Faculty of Science. Numerous voices took offense to this survey and emphasized Caroline Nieberding’s qualities. The Tulkens Committee, which at the time was evaluating the measures in place to combat harassment and gender-based violence at UCLouvain – we will come back to this later -, writes to the rectorate and to the University Board of Administration to denounce this “serious misconduct”, which could be interpreted “as a measure of reprisal or retaliation […], which is formally and expressly prohibited by the Belgian Code of Wellbeing at Work”.

Then, in March 2023, the atmosphere within ELI became even more charged. Two climate-controlled machines used for rearing insects, paid for with public money (12) and used by Caroline Nieberding’s laboratory, were damaged. The biologist called for an internal investigation, which was carried out, but no complaint was lodged. The damage to the equipment remains unexplained. It prevented any research from being carried out in the field. In April 2023, all hell broke loose : UCLouvain obtained a reversal of the judgment against it at first instance. The judge ruled that “the analysis of the case file […] does not lead to the conclusion or presumption that Professor Nieberding was the victim of moral harassment or violence in the workplace by UCLouvain”. The institution saves its reputation by crushing a professor. On sick leave, she has not returned to work for a year and a half. “If Caroline Nieberding doesn’t come back to work soon, her career is pretty much over”, worries Violaine Alonso, her lawyer. “Not publishing is catastrophic for her. The university is well aware of this. And yet there is no movement within the new rectorate to remedy this, to say : ‘We’re losing a professor, let’s do something about it’.” The lawyer and her client feel that they are trying to identify avenues for negotiation, but the two parties do not agree – and meanwhile, the university is advertising for a position that is eerily similar to that of the biologist.

Waste or premeditated liquidation ? According to two eyewitness accounts, the President of the ELI Institute, Marnik Vanclooster, announced in 2021 that Caroline Nieberding’s career at UCLouvain was over. She was already gradually being ejected from the university. Jean-Pascal van Ypersele also sees reprisals being taken against him for his role as whistleblower. He particularly cites the lack of any real support from the rectorate for his application for the presidency of the IPCC in 2023, despite the fact that UCLouvain had benefited from the prestige of the Nobel Peace Prize received by the climate scientists’ group in 2007, when he was a member of its executive board. Recently, he was “forced to move to another institute within UCLouvain to continue his work for the IPCC”.

Jean-Pascal van Ypersele : sidelined from the Louvain-la-Neuve campus, even though his position is funded by the Walloon government. Bertanne Visser : rescued at the last minute by Uliège. Caroline Nieberding : devastated and disgusted.

The Nieberding and Visser ‘files’ are not isolated cases. Since spring 2022, the Walloon Brabant labor auditor’s office has been worried about the way in which UCLouvain handles complaints it receives from staff – both women and men. An investigation based on ten individual complaints (13) should be completed by the end of 2024 or early 2025. If the charges are sufficient, the case will be referred to the magistrates’ court or the criminal court. UCLouvain refuses to comment about this investigation by the labor auditor’s office, for which the rectoral authorities have been auditioned by the police. The university (14) also refuses to position itself about the cases of Bertanne Visser and Caroline Nieberding. “UCLouvain will refrain from any comment on individual cases to respect the people involved”, is the systemic answer we get from the institution, since “some of these cases are currently at court”. Bertanne Visser is awaiting a judgement in first instance for her potentially abusive firing. Caroline Nieberding will be at the cassation court in 2025.

Today, while women are in the majority as students (55 %), they disappear at the doctoral level. At the full professor level, UCLouvain has only 18 % women. The institution has not yet produced any studies to analyze the correlation between this free fall of women throughout their career and sexist and sexual violence in the university environment, which is finally being acknowledged and expressed. But one thing is certain : “Universities are losing a great deal of potential because of sexism. Training female researchers is very expensive. It’s a scientific, academic waste, and therefore the societal waste is immense”, warns Françoise Tulkens, one of the many witnesses interviewed for this article, Professor Emeritus at UCLouvain and former judge at the European Court of Human Rights.

144 RECOMMENDATIONS AND FEW CERTAINTIES

In 2022, Rector Vincent Blondel commissioned this well-known figure to chair a commission of experts to evaluate the measures in place to combat harassment and gender-based violence at UCLouvain. This ‘Tulkens’ committee made 144 very specific recommendations to the rectorate of UCLouvain to eliminate gender-based violence from this six hundred years old Catholic university. The 144 points follow the logic of the ‘3Ps’ of the Istanbul Convention : prevention, protection, prosecution. In practical terms, this means building an environment conducive to the emergence of whistleblowers, protecting whistleblowers and amend disciplinary regulations to punish those responsible.

But what is UCLouvain doing with this report ? In early November 2024, we asked Marthe Nyssens (pro-rector of transition and society, PhD in social economics), Florence Stinglhamber (vice-rector for Personnel Policy, PhD in Psychology) and Sébastien Van Drooghenbroeck (pro-rector of Equality, Diversity and Inclusion, PhD in law). All three indicated that a new disciplinary regulation dedicated to gender-based and sexual violence should be in place by September 2025. This will be two years after the report that suggested it.

The current rectorate has announced an extension of the statute of limitations for internal complaints. Today, the much-criticized rule limits it to six months. “As for the Together platform, which is used to report incidents of harassment or sexual and gender-based violence, it has been reformed (15). We recorded 49 reports, which led to 6 formal complaints, 2 warnings and 1 dismissal”, says Marthe Nyssens.

Last, Florence Stinglhamber assures us that she deals correctly with every complaint that arrives in her mailbox from an employee looking for support. Does she work differently than her predecessor, Didier Lambert ? She doesn’t know. In fact, she answers “no” when asked if her work is controlled. Trust, then. A nice word. On the other hand, despite its insistence on ‘the suffering of victims of sexual and gender-based violence’, UCLouvain has nothing to say about the academic careers already damaged by the prevailing sexism. No proposal for reparation.

While awaiting the outcome of her action, Caroline Nieberding says she only wants one thing : to be able to carry out her work “under the same conditions” as her colleagues, “without humiliations”. Will the institution help her to put her ‘little fish’ back in the water, and get her research back on track ?