In 2017, Ombuds at ETH Zürich, the leading Swiss engineering and technology university, raised concerns about bullying by a prominent professor of astronomy. Despite the university's attempts to supress the feedback, the story became public and ETH eventually fired the professor (the only tenured faculty member ever fired by ETH) and closed her institute. Now, a blog post at Epistimi, a global nonprofit promoting women in STEMM, offers a counternarrative. In essence, the authors argue that the process initiated by the Ombuds was biased, opaque, and irregular.
Here's an excerpt from the post, "The professional destruction of a dual career couple at a preeminent European technical university":
The non-transparent, chaotic process that ultimately led to Prof. Carollo’s dismissal had multiple flaws. There was no appropriate investigation before the decision to close the institute was taken. The report on the administrative investigation was delivered to the ETH Zurich leadership before Prof. Carollo had been given a chance to respond to the accusations with factual evidence of her own. The process involved an ombudsman who investigated in a manner inconsistent with national and international guidelines. The case was inappropriately brought to the attention of the news media in a sensationalistic and biased manner. For further details, see the text of Prof. Lilly’s lecture in the link below or watch his lecture on YouTube. In 2019, Prof. Carollo became the first ETH Zurich professor ever to be fired.* * *The processes conducted by ETH Zurich, including activities by the Ombudsman, the administration investigation, and the initiation of the investigation of scientific integrity, were deeply flawed. In his annual report of the Ombuds office for 2015, Prof. Em. Wilfried van Gunsteren, who served as ‘ombudsman’ in the Carollo case, made explicit reference to the historical Swedish model in which an ombudsman has the power to investigate grievances on behalf of individuals. This stands in direct contradiction to international (and Swiss) guidelines for ombudspersons. In the ETH Domain, an administrative investigation is intended to ascertain the facts of a case and not to be aimed against a specific individual. Yet in Prof. Carollo’s case, the report of the administrative investigation made the clearly inappropriate recommendation that she be dismissed without warning. In the investigation of scientific misconduct, the secrecy around the initiation of the investigation, the publicity around the premature actions taken against Prof. Carollo and her research group, the delays in providing relevant information to her, and the long duration of the process are all highly suspect.
(Epistimi.)
This story is riddled with anomalies. At first I thought this program might be a "classical" ombuds who might be granted a formal investigative role through legislature. However, the ETH Zürich Ombuds program cites adherence to the International Ombuds Association standards of practice. If that is the case, then by no means would they ever conduct any formal investigations. Ever. Their annual report dated Jan 2025 states, "Sometimes, individuals seeking advice assume that ombudspersons can make decisions and issue directives. However, ombudspersons act as external and independent bodies offering advice and mediation." This is a subtle not subtle message to say that they do not conduct investigations, much less produce formal reports that would lead to someone's dismissal. If the Ombuds did engage in a formal activity like this when they claim that they don't, that should be investigated. That said, it seems more likely that the Ombuds raised the issue to the organization's leadership, who then took actions to look into it. And if the organization did not follow their own procedures and allow for due process, that's on them, not the Ombuds.
ReplyDelete+1
Delete+1, agreed
Delete