Rector stops recruitment procedure as complaint raises concerns over fairness, transparency
A recruitment procedure at the University of Luxembourg cancelled by the rector over a series of conflicts of interest was only halted because an official complaint raised crucial concerns, several professors familiar with the matter have claimed.
The Luxembourg Times had reported in December on a recruitment procedure for an assistant professor in public international law and space law as part of a wider investigation of mismanagement claims at the university and the Faculty of Law, Economics and Finance.
Emails seen by this newspaper showed that internal disputes over the procedure resulted in a professor resigning as the representative of the relevant research group in the faculty, which was involved in the drafting of the job description. Questions were also raised as to why some applicants were not invited to interview.
The university’s rector, Jens Kreisel, speaking during a committee meeting in parliament in January to address negative media reports about the institution, announced that he had “stopped” a recruitment procedure due to conflicts of interests, which was confirmed as the public international law position.
However, that decision had nothing to do with the concerns raised within the faculty outlined in the emails seen by the Luxembourg Times, said Jan Zutavern, the head of the Office of Professorial Affairs, which was created in 2024 as an internal watchdog for recruitment and promotion procedures.
“We are the guardians of procedures and don’t make academic judgments,” he said in an interview with the Luxembourg Times.
“We had three conflicts of interest here and explained the situation to the rector, who then indeed decided that in this case – for the robustness of the procedure – to stop it,” he said.
Zutavern described conflicts of interest as a regular occurrence, as academic fields can be small. Therefore, committee members must self-declare any conflict of interest at the start of the selection process. “When you have six committee members and 50 candidates – that’s 300 constellations you need to check. That’s simply not feasible,” Zutavern said.
Recruitment committees include three internal and three external members.
During the initial screening of CVs, committee members with a conflict of interest must recuse themselves from assessing that applicant. If the candidate is invited to interview, the committee member must then be replaced.
“In this case, a conflict of interest was reported to us [by the chair of the recruitment committee], because a committee member had to be replaced,” Zutavern said. “And in that moment we looked more closely.”
Katalin Ligeti, the dean of the Faculty of Law, Economics and Finance, chaired the committee.
The interview with Zutavern was conducted on 5 February, before a report by RTL made public that an official complaint had been filed with the Office of Professorial Affairs.
In written remarks this week, Zutavern said that the complaint was “one among several reasons” why the office decided to scrutinise the procedure more closely, concluding that its integrity could not be guaranteed.
A spokesperson for the university previously told the Luxembourg Times that the office carries out “a procedural quality-assurance review of each recruitment process once the recruitment committee has finished its work.” The university at the time did not respond to questions asking how the office can prevent wrong-doing if it only assesses procedures once they are completed.
Without the complaint, which revealed more issues with the procedure, the recruitment would not have been cancelled, several FDEF academics told the Luxembourg Times.
Two additional committee members had a conflict of interest, according to the complaint, both relating to the same applicant. These were flagged by the committee members only during the shortlisting discussion. The chair then failed to inform the Office of Professorial Affairs of these conflicts of interest, a note by the office seen by the Luxembourg Times states.
As committee members with a conflict of interest cannot discuss the candidate concerned during the shortlisting, this also raises questions of fairness. In this case, the applicant would have been evaluated by only four out of six commitee members. This applicant did not file the complaint.
Emails seen by this newspaper show that professors had already demanded more information last year from the head of the law department about assessment criteria used during the recruitment procedure. This was not shared, further emails claim.
A document seen by the Luxembourg Times outlines a grading system of applicants for the shortlisting process. Applicants are assessed on a scale of A to C on two “necessary” and seven “supplementary” criteria.
Recruitment committees have some discretion in developing the assessment criteria, Zutavern explained, adding that practices between faculties “don’t differ radically”.
According to the assessment grid, one of the necessary criteria broadly assesses “adequacy to position”. The other grades a candidate’s publication record.
“We discussed this with the faculty,” said Zutavern, adding that there should be “some adjustments so that it is clearer how these criteria are used.”
While the job description for the post listed teaching experience as a pre-requisite, for example, in the assessment grid, this is only a supplementary criteria.
More generally, the office is working on making criteria clearer across the board, not just for recruitments but also in evaluation and promotion procedures, Zutavern said.
The office’s note in response to the complaint said the assessment grid cannot be considered “in strict accordance” with the university’s official recruitment procedure. However, it also explained that it cannot be established whether the grid benefitted or disadvantaged any candidates.
Under the method seen by this newspaper, good or bad marks by three members of the recruitment committee can make or break an application.
The relevant research group in the faculty proposed four external members, none of whom were appointed to the committee. An internal committee member proposed by the same researchers was also rejected, emails seen by this newspaper show.
The dean appoints the final hiring committee, subject to approval by the rectorate. This does not generally interfere in the selection but can, for example, intervene to ensure gender representation.
Multiple academics had previously described to this newspaper that the same few professors usually sit on recruitment committees and that their appointment can be potentially strategic. Recruitment procedures can be vulnerable to academic nepotism, several sources alleged in interviews with the Luxembourg Times, claiming that appointments can risk not being merit-based.
These professors spoke independently of each other and were not directly involved in the stopped procedure.
A list compiled by one of this newspaper’s sources of eight recruitment procedures in the law department between 2019 and 2024, shows that the same nine faculty members repeatedly sat on the committees. The dean sat on all eight, with two other professors each involved in five recruitment procedures.
The Luxembourg Times could not independently verify the accuracy of the list.
There are 18 full professors and eight associate or assistant professors employed within the law department, according to its website.
The Office of Professorial affairs replied to the complaint on 23 January. It has no decision-making authority and cannot itself cancel the proceedings, but forwards concerns to the rector.
On 27 January, the rector publicly announced in parliament that he had cancelled a recruitment procedure. The law department on 2 February was informed of the cancellation, just two days before interviews were due to begin, on 4 February.
An extraordinary faculty council scheduled for Wednesday was cancelled by the dean on Tuesday.
The recruitment is in the process of being relaunched.
