Since last autumn, the university has repeatedly been in the news following complaints from staff members who have raised concerns about harassment and bullying, as well as alleged breaches of procedures in recruitment and promotion processes. Two weeks ago, Minister of Research and Higher Education Stéphanie Obertin and Rector Jens Kreisel appeared before the relevant parliamentary committee. Following a series of serious allegations, RTL journalist Michèle Sinner delved deeper into the controversies surrounding the University of Luxembourg.
Sinner explained that she examined several concrete cases, mainly involving recruitment and promotion within the Faculty of Law, Economics, and Finance (FDEF). In one case, it is alleged that a member of staff was denied a promotion after standing for election to the university council against the wishes of the faculty dean, with the dean allegedly intervening in breach of established procedures. Another case concerns the recruitment of an associate professor, a process that Kreisel ultimately had to cancel.
According to Sinner, the individuals who have raised concerns appear credible. In one case, the matter is now before the administrative court. In the other, she said the documentation is extensive: a candidate who had not been invited to an interview lodged a complaint with the university’s competent office, which itself concluded that errors had occurred. These included shortcomings in how conflicts of interest were handled and the use of selection criteria that did not comply with official procedures.
While only specific cases were examined, Sinner argued that this does not rule out broader issues. She said she attempted to speak to other staff members, but many were afraid of potential repercussions. In her view, the systemic question lies in how the university’s hierarchy responds to such problems. She cited the cancelled recruitment process as an example, saying the institution’s handling of the situation was inadequate.
Sinner said she put several questions to the university, including whether interviews might still be held with candidates from the cancelled process and whether professors who had contributed to the cancelation would be involved again if the post were re-advertised. After lengthy exchanges, she said the university declined to answer, stating it would not comment further until various audits had been completed.
Sinner also pointed to what she described as troubling internal attitudes. During her investigation, she said she saw how members of the university hierarchy spoke in meetings about colleagues who had gone to the press, as well as about the media itself. She described the tone as unflattering and said discussions even touched on the possibility of filing defamation complaints.
An open letter published in support of the university community further fuelled the debate. Its initiator later complained on public radio 100,7 that audits were only being launched due to media pressure. For Sinner, this reflects a limited understanding of freedom of expression and democratic checks and balances. She noted that the university has recently been granted a €2 billion budget for the next three years, taxpayer money that, in her view, justifies public scrutiny. Taken together, Sinner argued that these elements do not point to an environment in which criticism can be voiced without fear of consequences.
Kreisel has cited the university council as evidence that there is no systemic problem, pointing out that it includes elected representatives from faculties and the student body. Sinner countered by referring to comments by historian and professor Benoît Majerus, who noted on social media that votes in the council are often unanimous. Majerus also highlighted that one of the conflicts discussed began when a staff member stood for election to the council against the dean’s wishes. Sinner said she had seen evidence supporting this account, raising questions about how open and democratic such elections truly are if only preferred candidates are encouraged to stand.
Last week, Obertin announced that the Ministry of Research and Higher Education would commission an audit into the university’s governance. Sinner said she remains sceptical. The audit examining recruitment and promotion procedures, she explained, is being commissioned by the university itself. As a result, the institution’s top management determines the scope, pays for the audit, and effectively oversees a review of its own practices, a setup that, in her view, undermines the audit’s credibility from the outset.
Beyond the immediate controversy, Sinner warned of potential long-term consequences for Luxembourg as a research hub. She argued that the central question is whether academic careers at the university are shaped primarily by professional merit or by personal alignment with management. In a research environment heavily reliant on fixed-term contracts, she said, this issue is particularly acute.
If perceptions spread that recruitment and promotions in Luxembourg are manipulated, or that bullying and harassment are tolerated, Sinner warned that this could deter top international talent from coming to the country, precisely the people Luxembourg hopes to attract to strengthen its research landscape.
