Following recent criticism directed at the University of Luxembourg, two separate audits are expected to clarify whether the allegations are justified. However, the auditing process itself has become a subject of debate.
The university has faced a wave of negative media coverage in recent months, with accusations including favouritism, harassment, and failures to follow proper procedures in recruitment and promotion processes.
In response to these allegations, two audits have been commissioned. Our colleagues from RTL.lu have provided answers to key questions surrounding the reviews.
Under pressure from mounting criticism, the University of Luxembourg announced it would carry out an external audit. But during a January meeting of the Parliamentary Higher Education Committee, MPs expressed scepticism about the university commissioning its own audit, noting that auditors typically answer to those who pay them. In response, Higher Education Minister Stéphanie Obertin ordered a separate external audit funded by the ministry. The two investigations are intended – at least in principle – to examine different aspects of the university’s operations.
In simplified terms, the ministry’s audit will assess whether the University’s Council of Governors, rectorate, and other executive bodies have complied with legal and regulatory requirements since 2018. Meanwhile, the university’s own audit, according to its leadership, will focus on organisational practices and the working climate. Still, drawing a clear line between these two areas of inquiry is difficult in practice. As Pirate Party MP Sven Clement noted after the January meeting: “Let’s be serious – governance issues lead to staff issues, and staff issues expose governance issues.”
Some politicians, including Clement, would have preferred a single, large-scale external audit. During a parliamentary session on Tuesday, other concerns were also raised. MP Joëlle Welfring of the Green Party (Déi Gréng) questioned the independence of the process, noting that auditors are required to report to the ministry on a weekly basis, which she described as overly stringent oversight.
In response, Minister Obertin clarified that neither the government commissioner at the university, Léon Diederich, nor her own advisor Romain Martin – a former university professor – are part of the steering committee overseeing the audits.
MPs have also raised concerns that the auditors will only speak with individuals who are part of the university’s governance structures – such as deans, department heads, and members of the academic council. This is particularly problematic given that press investigations have suggested the processes for appointing individuals to these positions are not always conducted in a fully democratic manner.
It is difficult to imagine, for instance, a department head who obtained their role through a manipulated election openly admitting this to auditors. Similarly, it seems unlikely that a member of the Council of Governors would voluntarily disclose a previously undeclared conflict of interest.
Following the parliamentary meeting, MP Liz Braz of the Luxembourg Socialist Workers’ Party (LSAP) argued that those directly affected should be given a voice. She specifically called for hearing from “people who used to work at the university, quit their jobs, are still working there, have already shared their grievances through whistleblower channels, or may have already taken legal action.”
The ministry’s audit will not include interviews with such individuals, while the university’s audit is intended to offer more people an opportunity to speak. However, MPs have questioned whether participants in the latter will feel able to express themselves freely.
MP Françoise Kemp of the Christian Social People’s Party (CSV) stressed that the fear many individuals feel must be taken seriously. She noted that some no longer dare to give their honest opinion and called for a cautious approach, with guarantees that no reprisal measures would be taken against those who come forward.
MP David Wagner of the Left Party (Déi Lénk), who is in direct contact with university staff raising concerns, echoed this view. He pointed out that individuals are being asked to take part in an audit overseen by the Council of Governors – the very body at the centre of the controversy. “This raises the question whether people will actually participate and say what they want to say, even if they receive assurances”, Wagner said.
The ministry’s audit is expected to be completed within ten weeks, a timeframe some consider short for a thorough review. It is therefore likely to be finished before the summer. In contrast, the university’s audit will follow a timeline determined by the auditors themselves based on their methodology, meaning it could take considerably longer.
