There is no safety without institutional integrity. For the TU Delft to have integrity as a core value, it must nurture and protect a culture of integrity among staff. This is impossible without a sense that the institution also behaves with integrity, and is accountable to its members.
When a PhD candidate raised a clear, urgent concern about the subject of their research, the ultimate outcome is that colleague's resignation. When integrity concerns are not accommodated and the burden of ethical responsibility is put solely on the shoulders of those speaking out, this is a clear failure of the institution. As a result of this failure, we lost a colleague with integrity.
When a course addressing colonialism and its contemporary manifestations is discontinued because the reflection it invites is too uncomfortable, this is a clear failure of the institution. Incident after incident, from targeted and dangerous harassment of lecturers and students, to ignoring a petition requesting recognition of the course, and persistent silence on raised issues, a pattern is obvious.
When a petition with over 800 signatures calls on the university to commit to its own code of conduct, and the administration does not act and involve those raising the concerns in a dialogue, this is a clear failure of the institution.
The 2024 report by the Inspectorate of Education1 describes mismanagement that created an environment where staff don't feel safe, and don't feel that they have the freedom to behave with integrity. While rankings and enrollment can be easily measured and optimized for, less visible problems have been left untreated. The recent resolution by the Inspectorate of Education2 may lead one to believe the university has been cured of its past social safety problems, but this is far from the case. While measures taken so far have led to improvements in safety2, the report also describes how "The acknowledgement from upper management [...] is mostly regarding individual cases" and "in these cases there is little attention for the structural and institutional factors that are the root cause of socially unsafe situations".
In other words, better management of individual cases is only a band-aid solution. Treating the symptoms in this way will merely serve to mask a pattern of institutional dysfunction. If the problem is not addressed at the heart with structural changes, speaking up about matters of integrity, ethics and safety will always mean taking a risk.
How can the institution facilitate the expression of individual employee's integrity and moral concerns?
Decision-making must be transparent, and the institution needs to clearly communicate how it will hold itself accountable. Prior attempts at incorporating a broader perspective on integrity and moral concerns have involved moral deliberation chambers3. These are small closed groups, lacking openness and accountability4. Efforts are ongoing, but are still conceived as a way to formulate a recommendation - one that the university is free to ignore.
Without transparent mechanisms for holding the institution accountable, employees of TU Delft can only hope that their concerns are truly heard.
Instead of hope, we demand something more concrete. The university needs to facilitate a culture where staff at all levels feel they can safely raise ethical and integrity concerns. Existing collective actions like petitions and open letters are an important part of this, but without institutional backing their power is limited. We propose an additional mechanism that enables the university itself to function more democratically.
Specifically, we envision an official petition system with thresholds that trigger accountability from the institution. Members of staff could create a 'call for deliberation'. This call would be internally visible to TU employees, and employees could endorse it through their TU Delft login credentials.5,6 Such a system would provide a secure way to be heard on broadly relevant topics within the university. Existing committee and reporting systems require large time commitments and enable only a limited number of people to work toward change. A collective participatory process would make it possible for everyone to make themselves heard or amplify the voices of others.
A democratized system without any clear, binding commitments does not provide a direct way to hold the institution accountable. Members of staff - especially those who have lost their trust in the institution - are unlikely to engage with even the best system if they think its outcome can be ignored.
To ensure that staff can trust the institution to hear their concerns and deliberation, the proposed system should come with clear voting-based triggers. As concrete examples, we propose three thresholds: the first would require the institution to facilitate meetings or lectures on the topic; the second would prompt a university-wide email poll open to all TU Delft employees; the third would require a formal response from the institution within 60 days regarding the feasibility of the proposal.
One might argue that the existing consultation bodies already provide a path to achieving similar effects. Yet, as with reporting social safety incidents, the lack of transparency and barriers to participation in matters related to institutional governance leave significant room for improvement. The proposed system would be a clear step towards a more democratic, transparent and participatory institution.
Work remains to be done at TU Delft to ensure safety and integrity. Structural change is necessary and possible if we demand increased transparency and accountability. By pushing to democratise our institution, we can make ourselves heard collectively.
You can contribute.
Endorse this message to help us in our action of building a new way for collective input.
We don't have to wait for the institution to implement our proposals, and the most important changes come from the bottom-up. There are various initiatives on campus and in the city working to make a change already. Join a union to organize collectively. Show solidarity for those around you who are already taking the necessary risks. Join an active group that aligns with your vision of a better society. Together, on our own terms, we can already make that impact.
Aarón Moreno Inglés, PhD Candidate at the Faculty of Technology Policy and Management, TU Delft
Andrea Gammon, Assistant Professor of Ethics and Philosophy of Technology, TU Delft
Bahare Khajehpour, PhD Candidate at the Faculty of Technology Policy and Management, TU Delft
Dario Perfigli, PhD Candidate at the Faculty of Technology Policy and Management, TU Delft
Gara Dorta Perez, Research Software Engineer at the Faculty of Electrical Engineering, Mathematics and Computer Science, TU Delft
Gina Stavropoulou, Data Engineer at the Faculty of Architecture and the Built Environment, TU Delft
Ida Krstulović, PhD Candidate at the Faculty of Technology Policy and Management, TU Delft
Irina Motoc, Project Coordinator at the Library, TU Delft
Jackson Campolattaro, PhD Candidate at the Faculty of Electrical Engineering, Mathematics and Computer Science, TU Delft
Jagoda Cupać, Assistant Professor at the Faculty of Civil Engineering & Geosciences, TU Delft
Jordi Viader Guerrero, PhD Candidate at the Faculty of Technology Policy and Management, TU Delft
Jose Carlos Urra Llanusa, Research Software Engineer at the TU Delft Digital Competence Center
Kritika Maheshwari, Assistant Professor in Ethics and Philosophy of Technology, TU Delft
Miriam Prior, PhD Candidate at the Faculty of Technology Policy and Management, TU Delft
Mohamed Abouelela, PhD Candidate at the Faculty of Applied Science, TU Delft
Nemo Andrea, PhD Candidate at the Faculty of Applied Science, TU Delft
Sybolt Doorn, PhD Candidate at the Faculty of Technology Policy and Management, TU Delft
Zoë Gromotka, Lecturer at the Faculty of Electrical Engineering, Mathematics and Computer Science, TU Delft