Trouble in the Ivory Tower: Power Struggles at University of Luxembourg
The University of Luxembourg's Faculty of Law, Economics and Finance (FDEF) is under scrutiny due to claims of a toxic work environment and unfair practices from current and former staff members.
Key Allegations
Discrimination and Retaliation: An anonymous assistant professor reported that their promotion process was derailed after refusing to withdraw their candidacy for a seat on the University Council. The professor claims the dean's actions were retaliatory and that evaluation criteria were changed post-facto.
Systemic Issues: Multiple staff members reported a fear of reprisals, stifling dialogue and opposition within the faculty. The assistant professor described the issue as one of power concentration in a few positions.
Recruitment Concerns: Questions have been raised about the recruitment process for an assistant professorship in the law department, with the dean and head of the law department sitting on the recruitment committee, raising conflicts of interest concerns.
Legal and Institutional Responses
- Legal Action: The first hearing for the lawsuit is scheduled for 2027 but could be moved up if deemed urgent by the administrative judge.
University Response: The rector downplayed the issues, stating that some staff members may feel disappointed about recruitment and promotion outcomes. However, those interviewed by the Luxembourg Times described the issue as systemic.
HR and Ombuds Office: The ombuds office recorded 206 new cases in 2024, with 83 concerning staff members excluding doctoral candidates. The rectorate acknowledges ongoing concerns and has approved a promotion scheme for 2025, but tensions persist.
External Observations
Minister of Research and Higher Education: Reported that 50 people were fired from the university between 2020 and 2025, with four dismissals contested in court. Two of these appeals were successful, highlighting the need for improved internal HR practices.
Former Recruiter: Alleged a toxic environment characterized by a lack of transparency and disorganization, with a dean exerting significant influence over the selection committee and showing biases.
The university has not responded to inquiries about its awareness of the faculty's assessment criteria and ranking or whether it aligns with university rules.
