The irregularities committee investigated a report of censorship at Cursor. See below the reactions of the EB and the SB to the committee report.
Executive Board reaction
The Executive Board considers Cursor's function as a university magazine to be highly important and strongly values its journalistic independence. Since October, in collaboration with the editorial staff and the interim general editor, we have therefore taken the necessary steps towards the future. The general editor is well advanced with a plan for the future of Cursor and efforts have been made towards the mutual restoration of trust. With the positive direction that we have taken, we expect that we will achieve a structurally improved and future-proof Cursor.
The Executive Board has studied the report of the independent committee for irregularities with great interest and appreciates the committee's work. We welcome the recommendations, which support the path that we have been following with Cursor for some time. In addition, we are satisfied with the committee's finding that there was no systematic censorship or disproportionate interference with the editorial work of Cursor.
The committee's work also touches upon the aspect of social safety. As TU/e, we have taken many steps in this regard over the past years, and we continue to work on improvement. It is a process of learning by doing. In this context, we regret that Cursor's editors have felt unable to perform their work effectively. This was something that we did not sufficiently realize. We hope that the improvements implemented around Cursor will enable the editors to again work comfortably. In addition, we expect that the continued efforts in the areas of integrity and social safety by many in this organization will lead to further improvements in the culture and the facilities.
Supervisory Board reaction
In response to a notification dated June 26, 2023, the Supervisory Board (SB) reviewed the "Report of Findings and Recommendations", dated March 15, 2024, of the TU/e Committee for Reporting Irregularities.
The SB would first like to thank the Committee for its careful and thorough work on its investigation and investigative report.
Briefly, the following is procedurally relevant:
- That the Committee received a notification concerning a suspected wrongdoing.
- That this notification concerns the (possible) application of censorship whereby TU/e would block articles originating from the editorial staff of the online university newspaper Cursor. The notifier is a member of the editorial staff who has personal experience of this.
- That the Committee subsequently launched an investigation and spoke with the notifier, the manager(s), members of the Executive Board (CvB) and witnesses involved in the notification. The Committee also spoke with two experts on university media. Based on these interviews and the accompanying documentation, the Committee gained a good picture of the situation. The Committee expressed its findings in an investigative report on the basis of which the Committee drew conclusions and made recommendations to the Supervisory Board of TU/e.
The main conclusions from the investigative report are:
- The Committee did not identify any (intent to) disproportionate prior interference in the editorial work. Nor did it find any systematic censorship from TU/e.. Indeed, many hundreds of articles have appeared in recent years and the incidental interference with the work of the editorial staff that did occur could not be classified by the committee as 'systematic censorship'.
- Because of the situations where TU/e did interfere in the editorial work, but mainly because of a sum of various incidents and omissions, the Committee finds that the editor-in-chief and the editorial staff experienced that they could no longer perform their journalistic work with independence and freedom.
- The sum of several unfortunate incidents included the perceived intimidation by the Executive Board of the then editor-in-chief. As a result, the editorial staff of Cursor experienced the work situation as increasingly unsafe. Moreover, the Executive Board has become increasingly closely engaged with the editorial staff through various interventions, something that has hindered the proper functioning of the editorial staff.This undesirable situation has been going on for a long time with timely action being absent. As a result, the requirements for the independent functioning of Cursor were not sufficiently observed and there were shortcomings in good employment practices.
- The Committee assesses the situation(s) described in the notification in all its coherence as an irregularity and wrongdoing as described in the Whistleblower Protection Act.
Incidentally, the SB recognizes (as part of other situations as well) a number of aspects from the investigative report. Having read this final report, the SB has come to the conclusion that it agrees with the findings and conclusions of the Committee's investigative report and welcomes them as such. The SB considers the recommendations made by the Committee to be very valuable and therefore endorses them, and will take them into account as much as possible for the future process.
At this point, the SB would like to briefly address two specific aspects.
1. Complaint regarding censorship at Cursor:
The notification to the Committee concerns the (possible) application of censorship whereby TU/e would block articles originating from the editors of the online university newspaper Cursor. The notifier is a member of the editorial staff who has personal experience of this.
First of all, the SB notes that the Committee did not identify any (intent to) disproportionate prior interference in the editorial work. Nor did the Committee find any systematic censorship by TU/e. In short, with regard to the notification, the Committee has established explicitly and with good reason that there was no systematic censorship at Cursor.
The SB deeply regrets the conclusion by the Committee in its investigative report that (at the time) a work situation arose at Cursor that was experienced as increasingly unsafe by the Cursor editorial staff - in part because of the fact that the then editor-in-chief felt intimidated, thereby creating a sense of insecurity among the editorial staff whereby no timely intervention was taken.
The SB acknowledges that a number of unfortunate incidents/negligence regarding Cursor arose. The SB has discussed this with the CvB. Furthermore, the SB has also spoken with the new interim editor-in-chief. The SB concludes that a situation of improved and normalized relations between the CvB and the interim editor-in-chief has now emerged. The SB has the impression that with the arrival of the new interim editor-in-chief, the relationship with the CvB has been restored and hard work is being done to eliminate the feeling of social insecurity that had arisen among both the editorial staff and TU/e in general.
However, the SB also observes from the conversation with the interim editor-in-chief that currently the distrust among the editorial staff has not completely dissipated and that it will take time to gradually eliminate this distrust, in the sense of slowly letting go of the past and working towards restoring good relations for the future.
TU/e is a learning organization and the interim editor-in-chief has indicated that a number of steps and actions are now being taken by him to slowly eliminate the remaining distrust.
The way out of the resulting crisis of confidence follows the line of the contents, for which a new editorial vision and a new formula for Cursor forms the basis. To this end, the "Improvement Plan for Cursor 2024" has been drawn up. This also includes a modernized statute and a new editorial board. The foundation for this was formed through numerous conversations, consultations, documents and a healing session with the editorial staff.
These actions and steps are in line with the conclusions and recommendations of the Committee's investigative report, in addition to which the recommendations of the Committee are hereby considered by the SB to be very valuable and useful in order to gradually achieve a new future perspective.
2. Social safety
As indicated TU/e is a learning organization. With regard to social safety in a general sense within TU/e, the SB recognizes the concern for social safety. Within TU/e, the necessary initiatives have already been taken to strengthen the safe study and work culture within the university, which is intended to lead to a more coherent, recognizable and accessible organization and process surrounding social safety. The SB will also remain closely involved in this through its supervisory role. Again, the importance of adequate social safety is high on the TU/e agenda, and the SB periodically discusses this with the CvB and other relevant bodies within the university.
Although the approach is beginning to bear fruit, there is still a long way to go. After all, working on social safety is an ongoing process that is never finished and will require constant work, both now and in the future. It is also a process whereby repeated learning moments must then be taken into account again and again for the future. The conclusions and recommendations of the Committee are considered by the SB to be very valuable and useful in order to gradually arrive at a new future perspective.
