The Center for Social Research of the University of Coimbra apologizes to victims of sexual harassment and violence

The management of the Center for Social Studies (CES) of the University of Coimbra apologized this Wednesday to the victims of harassment, mental and sexual violence, and abuse of power committed by the institution’s researchers.

In an open letter published following the report of an independent commission set up by CES to look into allegations of harassment and abuse, management expressed its “denial and outrage” at the practice.

Three CES researchers reported harassment situations in a book chapter entitled “Sexual Harassment in the Academy—For the Ethics of Care at the University,” resulting in researchers Boaventura Souza Santos and Bruno Sena Martins being suspended from all positions. they held on.

According to a report released today, the independent commission received complaints about 14 people from 32 complainants, with a total of 20 hearings recorded.

Addressing people “who believe they have been victims of harassment or abusive behavior in the context of CES activities, whether they have given evidence to the independent commission or not,” management issued a “public apology for the experience they have endured, for the suffering staff that will result from it and for the silence they had to face.”

“This apology is all the more sincere because these people found themselves in the position of victims in an institution that has always strived to combat inequality and injustice,” he said.

According to the management of the CoES, the commission indicates in the report that “the documentation provided and the hearings held, both of the complainants and of the persons who reported, did not make it possible to undoubtedly determine the presence or absence of the occurrence of all situations reported.”

However, it also concluded that there was evidence of “patterns of behavior associated with abuse of power and harassment by some people higher up in the CES hierarchy”, it added.

CES explained that “the protection of confidentiality and anonymity, a fundamental element of the entire process and methodology of the commission, conditions the availability of specific information, but allows the presentation and protection of evidence.”

“So we are not sure of everything that happened, when and how, but we do know that the testimony was confirmed by an independent commission,” he added.

Although the reported situations were the result of “individual actions” upon which it would act, CES management acknowledged “institutional shortcomings that, in the absence of adequate mechanisms to prevent harassment, have created the conditions for forms of abuse of power.”

So he also issued an open letter to the rest of the CES community: “While many of us are certainly questioning our responsibilities, since this is not the CES we know, and this is not the CES we want to continue to build, it is important to make it clear “that these complaints that we have become aware of are addressed to only a small number of investigators.”

CES guaranteed that it will take “all initiatives to ensure that there are consequences for these complaints and that the bad practices identified are not repeated at CES.” The independent commission’s report, which “sets out clear recommendations”, will be brainstormed, with all those considered “necessary and appropriate” implemented.

“The broader context on which this report focuses, namely harassment in higher education and research, is strongly supported by the instability of academic careers and is a growing concern internationally,” he warned.

In this context, CES management hoped that as a result of this process, “the issue will become more visible at the national level.”

“We will seek to stimulate collective thinking on this issue and support research that will allow us to determine its scope and shape. We will strive for synergy with other centers, laboratories, research and higher education institutions, contributing, using our experience, to improving prevention,” he assured.

The leadership and presidium of the Academic Council could be contacted “by maintaining the Ombudsman’s own communication channel, consistent with the principles of secrecy and confidentiality.”