Article 3
Performance Only in Hollywood
Searching for the Agency of Support Structures in Academia
Once, a director’s phone call could end an actress’s career, and the film-making industry ran for decades on that consuming fear. After a century and one loud year in 2017, Hollywood workers cultivated the conditions to answer back: a union with teeth, a press hungry for the story, a public willing to believe the smaller – yet known and widely loved – voice. This did not instantly bring justice, not reliably; but it created a lever which can be pulled. German academia has spent that same century perfecting the opposite art: the high levels of hierarchy that never have to explain themselves, and in the rare cases they do, all happening behind closed doors, in a complicit silence. And sadly, a doctoral researcher screamed at, threatened with a ruined future, harassed, has no lever at all: no famous name, no structural body to fight their cause. They only have the established institutional processes, slow and fully dependent to the power abusers. These processes lacking autonomy and agency are worth tracing, because the gap they leave is a scandal that never quite becomes news.
Let’s begin with the plainest question: who is protecting us, the field workers of science and art industry? In Hollywood the answer has an address. SAG-AFTRA is a union that bargains, runs grievance procedures aimed at studios, and internal disciplinary processes for individuals. A working actor in 2026 knows that a mechanism exists and has been used before them. In contrast, in academia the answer evaporates on contact. A professor is made and remade by grants won and papers published, never by whether the people beneath them survive the experience, as long as the funding keeps arriving. In fact those who survive oftentimes need to adapt to this toxic system, creating a positive selection bias promoting a vicious circle of repeated abusing behaviors to reach success, permanency and recognition in the field. The size of the problem is uncontrollable, and even though Germany’s collective unions for public workers and teachers (ver.di and GEW) have fought real fights – like dragging the academic Mittelbau out of a century of stipends and endless short contracts, and forcing real pay scales – these battles do not address what happens withing the closed doors of research groups, institutes and universities. Neither union can discipline a single professor’s conduct the way a studio is held accountable to answer for a single director’s behavior, because these unions were simply built to negotiate wages inside a civil-service tradition, not to police individual tyrannies.
The unions’ approach of fighting power abuse in academia does not differ much from the voluntary work of our Working Group. GEW, the Education and Science Workers’ Union in Germany has recently conducted an independent survey to address prevalence and forms of power abuse in academic institutions and – just like us – publicly and transparently report on the results by writing articles and sharing the data. GEW’s survey results paint a similar picture of what our survey and many more before demonstrated: the problem is structural, and it lays both in the concentrated unlimited authority on the Professor and the lack of autonomy of the reporting systems. At the same time when these articles comparing power abuse in academia to MeToo were being published, GEW also published their own piece of abused early career researchers calling for structural reformation in German academia. Publishing articles on power abuse in academia is definitely not a novelty, as the doctoral and postdoctoral researchers have been intensively raising awareness for more than six years (sources provided at the end of the article). But the concern increases because if our unions, external and powered by independence are unable to combat the almighty Professor with no better means, the rest of the support structures in place cannot promise much more hope. Quite the opposite: this system makes the powerful perpetrators not only undefeatable but also covers their traces allowing them to continue their “noble calling” completely undisturbed.
It is not the absence of a safety net – which would have been easier identified as a systemic failure. It is the presence of a net built only to look like it catches you. In German academia the elegant bluewashing technique, consisting of actions to appear more ethically responsible and thus improve public perception, falls short at nothing compared to the classic greenwashing strategies adopted by big fast fashion, fuels and consumer goods companies. And this is exactly where academia’s unique cruelty shows its true shape. I will allow the reader to guess how many support structures exist at this moment in place to assist with issues of power abuse in German academia. The right answer for the Leibniz Institutes is eight (8)! Based on the Power Abuse Survey ran by the Leibniz PhD Network in 2025, between 5 – 90% among the doctoral researchers are familiar with these structures (Figure 1). The ombudspeople, Equal Opportunity Officers, HR and works councils are among the most well-known institutionally established ones.
Figure 1: Familiarity of doctoral researchers from Leibniz Institutes with the existing support structures.
Despite their different names and focus, they have one crucial similarity that places them together at the bluewhasing landscape: at best case scenario they are all just a sympathetic face with a listening ear and no actual power, oftentimes even lacking sufficient training. At worst case scenarios they are unwilling to help for reasons including being friends or simple afraid of the perpetrator themselves. This reality can easily explain the demoralizing results of the survey. Among researchers who did report a conflict to any of these structures, only one in five was satisfied, leaving approximating half of the respondents feeling dissatisfied to very dissatisfied with the outcome (Figure 2).
Figure 2: Effectiveness of support structures as measured by the satisfaction levels of the doctoral researchers that reported an incident of power abuse.
At the time of the survey one in five doctoral researchers was in the process of trying to resolve a conflict with their superiors and was unsure how their case would turn out (Figure 2). Based on personal testimonies of those courageous among us who filed an official complaint, we quickly realize that the hope for any long-term solution is faint, even if at times complaining can ameliorate the situation transiently.
“I contacted the workers-council because of sexual harassment and it did had an impact as the Admin. director told the person to stop, however no real consequences.”
“I went to the works council only to hear that the perpetrator has no right in his argumentation but also that there is not a possibility to really go against it. Basically it was just to confirm that I am legally safe and boost my confidence but no following steps by the institute. Even though there have been several cases being reported.”
“I contacted PhD spokesperson and both of them were very much helpful and then we escalated this issue to our director. [The director] also had meeting with me twice, I believe [they] taken some actions. After that meeting with director I don’t know what happened, but my supervisors started treating me a little better (Previously they used rude languages). But within a month they removed me from PhD. Now I am a contracted employee working on tasks given by them.”
“I was in contact with the ombudsperson, who has a friendly relationship to my supervisor. I was advised about the measures I can take, but discouraged to take them since they were “quite extreme” and I should talk it through with my supervisor, which went horribly. […]”
“I met with the ombudspersons and they helped me in that they agreed that how I had been treated was unacceptable. I met with the works council and [they] helped me a lot personally but in the end neither were able to remove [them] as a supervisor or provide me an avenue to pursue a PhD with a different supervisor.”
“I was in touch with the equal opportunity officer, who was very sympathetic and told me that reporting it might cause me risks, because at that point the perpetrator was also the supervisor for my PhD. […]”
“I contacted the work council and the equal opportunity officer at the institute. The problem was that it was not about me, I was just a witness. Both were very understanding. I didn’t want them to take action but I would have wanted a documentation of my report which did not happen because there is no documentation system at place.”
“My ombudsman has no tools to help me but just listening to me.”
But what exactly do we mean by bluewashing in German academia? The function of the existing support structures serves only as a “calming down” mechanism – and not only for the public, but also for the directors and higher levels of science managers. The scholar Sara Ahmed spent years collecting testimonies from academics and students who had formally reported harassment, bullying, and unequal treatment at their universities. The pattern she found explains why silence persists even where complaint procedures technically exist. She described how these procedures often function as what she called institutional “non-performatives”: documents and offices that announce they will act, which in turn lets an institution claim the problem has been addressed, without ever converting the reporting into a real consequence for the perpetrator. And indeed, based on the testimonies of our victims, we cannot even dare to dream about sanctions or justice, even if we follow all recommendations in place.
The question if there is any official complains registered within the four big non-university research organizations in Germany, and how have they been handled in the past five years, was asked recently (in February 2026) by die Linke (democratic socialist political party) in the form of a “Kleine Anfrage” (minor interpellation). The report came one month later to confirm even in its most modest form our claims. Within the Max Planck Society officially 41.6 cases of power abuse on average per year included leadership issues, scientific misconduct, bullying, discrimination and sexual harassment. One in four complaints were investigated of which one in five led to some consequences – anything between coaching to dismissal, unsurprisingly not specified by case – reaching the incredible number of two (2) cases per year being addressed. The Fraunhofer Society shared data of an average of 26.2 cases per year, with the vast majority (20 on average per year) being sexual harassment. Approximately one in five reports (20 total in five years) concerning scientific misconduct or discrimination were investigated and of those three (3) were accompanied by undisclosed measures. The Helmholtz Association officially reported 36 cases per year concerning leadership conduct, discrimination and sexism, but without actual numbers of investigations and disciplinary measures taken, apart from descriptions such as “nearly all” cases were initially investigated and “most” led to consequences. Lastly, the Leibniz Association officially reported 64.4 cases per year, with almost one in two concerning superiors’ behavior and one in three personnel leadership. Other forms included mobbing, sexual harassment and scientific misconduct. Of those one in five was proven as misconduct (63 total in five years) and sanctions – accounting for more than 63 in total – were listed: the mysterious subcategory “other” was the most frequent with 45 cases in the past 5 years, followed by 17 reprimands, 7 mandatory counseling sessions, 6 warnings, 4 transfer and 4 dismissals. If we exclude the dismissals which can only apply to non-permanent supervisors by default, all other “sanctions” cannot guarantee that the perpetrator won’t repeat the same behavior as there is no structure in place monitoring their efficiency either. Our surveys indicates much higher rates of power abuse ranging between 25 – 70% of respondents, depending on the survey, but when we account for the fear of speaking up (see article 1 and 2), the official numbers could indeed match our estimations. We are in complete agreement, however, on how the official reports are handled: if not dropped, they lead to unsatisfactory outcomes for the early career researchers and a pat on the back of the supervisors.
Moreover, apart from the lack of agency of the existing support structures over the professors due to their civil servant status, the bureaucratic procedures themselves actively assist by delaying the whole process, exponentially prolonging the duration of each line of action. Based on the same resource, within the first two to six months an initial evaluation is held, but the complete official process can take up to anything between 12 – 18 months as reported by the Leibniz Association or even unlimited time for the Max Planck Society. What this report essentially describes is that a complaint is heard, passed on to another office, more experts are included, and then the victim is asked to wait for a committee. But it doesn’t even matter because by the end it is the clock that truly decides the outcome: a PhD lasts three years, a PostDoc one or two years at a time, somewhere in the gap between concern and consequence, the funding line runs dry, the visa expires, and the person who spoke up is simply gone, unvindicated. But we need to interpret this carefully: this is not incompetence; it is an unusually efficient machine for making problems disappear by outlasting those who name them.
Let us follow the money to find out how the hypocrisy sharpens further. After the MeToo movement, Hollywood’s producers, insurers and distributors eventually walked away from the abusers, because reputation and money were on the same side. In academia money is the enabler of professors continue “doing what they love” unhindered: the professor is the one who officially brings in the institute or university millions from third-party funding, accompanied by prestige and high rankings. This professor is not merely protected by institutional powerlessness but actively shielded by the institutional appetite. A department that knows exactly what its star performer is doing to their supervisees would still choose the grant over that doctoral researcher, betraying them every single time. The reason is the simplest: this grant – not matter who acquired it – pays to maintain their positions as well. And if you are wondering how could it be that publicly funded grants such as those from the German Research Foundation (DFG), or the European Research Council (ERC) are awarded without consideration of the applicants’ character – or ethos if you may – they are happy to reassure you that through their own elaborate integrity offices their money, or more accurately our taxes, produce honest data. To them honest data takes the form of good scientific conduct, and they would rather chase a fabricated figure for years than deal with an abusive principle investigator. The abused doctoral researchers leave their field unmourned following so many more of their peers into the nameless abyss officially known as the “leaky pipeline” or “brain drain” in academia.
Concluding this last article, I ask the most important question: after the registered complaint, what happens to the victim? An actor who loses the favor of one director could still choose between a career in cinema, television, theatre, voice work, or potentially their own name could fund their next endeavor. The industry is wide and lateral; one bad ending is not the whole story. Doctoral researchers who lose their supervisor’s backing may have nowhere else to go, even if they could have been the next Nobel Prize winners. Assuming that their field consists of a handful of powerful people – those “who matter” – and the advisor is often one of them, providing (or not) that single reference letter grants them that ultimate act of power abuse. The future of our early career researcher looks like a hallway, with one door at the far end, guarded by the very person they are trying to get past. And even if our researcher manages to start their own independent group, the first years of their career as a young principle investigator are evaluated by scientific committees, which – as you may have already correctly guessed – are comprised of those tenured professors from the same field, who may be in good terms and lend a keen ear to the abusing ex-supervisor. The fear of failure during advancing our academic career will always remain. Such is the power of reference, that once you put academia itself under the microscope you will find nothing more than a reputational economy built on the backbone of steeply hierarchical networks. This dependency often disguised in the language of mentorship is closer to feudalism than employment, a somewhat popular observation worthy of a dedicated article.
If we must draw an overarching conclusion from this last article, academia and Hollywood are portraits of sibling systems both developed to shield the powerful: no real sanctions, no public witnesses, difficult lateral escape. But these two industries differ in supporting their workers: academia lacks support structures with agency. The current ones are at best powerless to impose disciplinary measures and at worst they function as a delaying and calming mechanism to hush conflicts down, or solve them with the infamous non-disclosure agreements, permitting professors to perpetuate their abusive behaviors. And here is an uncomfortable truth for anyone who thinks that the university is the more enlightened institution: Hollywood — vain, commercial, built on the exploitation of beautiful people — has, through decades of unglamorous organizing, built more real protection for its most vulnerable than the institutions we trust to produce new groundbreaking knowledge to advance our lives. This is no compliment to Hollywood. It is an indictment of everywhere else. Ver.di and GEW’s fight for fair contracts is a real beginning, but it falls short in a grievance process with real enforcement power. Our unions or an external independent structure should be investigating institutions, directors and professors, able to sanction them, and answering to no one but justice. Until doctoral and postdoctoral researchers have that — not a sympathetic ear that waits, but a seat with actual force — academia will keep asking its most precarious people to endure quietly what the entertainment industry has, at least on paper, stopped asking of its own. If actors could be organized against studio moguls, scientists can be organized against the professors who hold their futures in their hands. One participant said it better than I could have ever done:
“My institute has structures that are intended to deal with power abuse, which sound good on paper. However […] I know that in practice these structures don’t work and are not implemented in good faith. Perpetrators are given minimal or no repercussions, and victims are pressured to leave and be silent.
In my view at my institute, […] the reputation of the institute and perpetrators are given priority over the well-being of victims. I am aware of perpetrators who are well-known power abusers […], but I am not aware of them (or anyone) suffering any repercussions for their actions or (serious) pressure to change their behavior.
I think the only way to solve power abuse is to have a completely external body adjudicating these issues. […] external body to make decisions on the repercussions for perpetrators. There needs to also be a risk of serious punishment for perpetrators […] I am aware of a perpetrator who effectively tried to end a student’s career (remove them from publications they already worked on, destroy their reputation), and their punishment was to attend a “personal management workshop”, while the international student had to quit their PhD, leave the country, and was pressured into signing a non-disclosure agreement so they can’t talk about their experiences with this well-known person in their field.
Lastly, every single student at every German institute is aware of power abuse. All of us have suffered it or at least know someone who has. This is not a secret. It’s deeply frustrating that this only seems to be taken seriously after a popular news report was released in German media. I find it impossible to believe that people in management […] were not aware […] beforehand. I believe […] that low-level workers/students are just not valued by these institutes and are considered disposable resources. […]”
Naming individual harassers was never going to be the end point of #MeToo, and it can’t be the end point in academia either. Real change means treating power abuse as more than a personnel problem. It means building transparent and open channels where researchers can raise concerns without those concerns disappearing into a non-performative process. It means breaking the silence which currently feeds on the well-founded fear of speaking up. Demanding decent behavior from our bosses shouldn’t cost us our degree, nor our career. And lastly, it means solidarity amongst us, to build a collective backing like the one that eventually let the entertainment workers to organize behind their unions, and that early career researchers in Germany must build for science. To give closure and a sense of justice for those of us who left academia in vain, and the hope for those who just started this unwelcoming occupation. And finally, for all of us who believe that science can truly thrive only within healthy, inclusive and equitable research institutions and refuse to stay silenced until we reclaim our right to a fair workplace.
by Stavroula Litsiou with the support of the WG Contract Situation & Prevention of Power Abuse
Disclaimer: This piece was inspired by the author(s), drafted with the assistance of an AI language model (Claude, Anthropic) and then edited, fact-checked, and revised by the author(s). Specifically, the author(s) provided the arguments, the framing, and the specifics, the AI drafted them into a structured text in English language, and finally the author(s) edited the text, verified claims, added and removed sections. The final judgment on every sentence and responsibility for all claims rests entirely with the author(s). The entirety of the data analysis and interpretation was performed exclusively by the author(s).
The survey from GEW on academic power abuse published in March 2026 (in German): https://www.gew.de/index.php?eID=dumpFile&t=f&f=163328&token=b09a396759d870338706747a0756c6a4b3b64f4a&sdownload=&n=Machtmissbrauch-HuF-2026-A4-web.pdf
The most recent article from GEW painting a similar picture to our findings and calling for reformation (in German): https://www.gew.de/aktuelles/detailseite/machtmissbrauch-funktioniert-nur-weil-er-im-verborgenen-stattfindet
Early career researcher Jana Lasser explains power abuse in academia through a talk (in English): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PpGMkqcw9lw – slides: https://janalasser.at/talks/power_abuse_wzb/
Early career researcher Daniel Leising explains power abuse in academia through a talk (in English): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jevDnNRmarU
A scientific analysis relating institutional organization and unethical behaviors in German academia: https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/xj2m6_v2
German N2 Network’s harmonized survey across three umbrella institutes (Helmholtz, Max Planck, Leibniz) about power abuse: https://elephantinthelab.org/manifestations-of-power-abuse-in-academia-and-how-to-prevent-them/
A quick hint on greenwashing: https://earth.org/greenwashing-companies-corporations/
What is bluewashing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluewashing
Official question https://dserver.bundestag.de/btd/21/041/2104161.pdf and answer https://dserver.bundestag.de/btd/21/048/2104843.pdf about power abuse reports in Germany’s non-university research institutes (in German).
More on brain drain in academia: https://lightcapai.medium.com/academia-unmasked-the-dark-truths-behind-higher-education-6bf80e21965a
More on the feudalistic academia: https://againstprofphil.org/2018/03/19/the-university-as-feudal-state/, https://jamesgmartin.center/2026/07/the-new-feudalism/
© 2025 by Leibniz PhD Network Working Group Contract Situation & Prevention of Power Abuse is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 4.0.