ETH Zürich: Crowther-Mitarbeiter werfen der Hochschule unsaubere Methoden vor

Key Accusations

Employees of ETH Zurich Professor Tom Crowther contest the university's investigation into allegations of misconduct. They accuse the ETH of using unfair, biased, and distorting methods during the inquiry.

ETH's Investigation

The ETH's report, published in April 2025, detailed multiple anonymous accusations against Crowther, concluding that his research drive led him to disregard rules and sometimes lack professional distance from his employees. The investigation was triggered by complaints from three former employees alleging sexual harassment.

Employee Response

In a detailed letter to ETH leadership, Crowther's current employees criticized the investigation's methodology, claiming it was intimidating, biased, and factually inaccurate. They felt pressured to provide desired answers and that the investigators adopted the narrative from previous media reports.

• The investigation involved questioning employees in individual interviews, and they felt that questions were leading and suggestive.
• They felt that positive statements about Crowther were downplayed or omitted from the ETH report.
• They argue that exculpatory evidence, such as an email exchange that refuted a former intern's claim of sexual harassment, was ignored.

Specific Claims

• The ETH report allegedly misrepresented a former intern's claim of being kissed at a party by stating that Crowther tried to misuse his power to offer her a doctorate position when this was not the case.
• The ETH report claims Crowther attempted to hire his sister, which he denies. He states that he only inquired about the possibility of his sister temporarily working in another research group for a specific project.
• Emily Clark, Crowther's research group manager, is accused of instructing employees to use consultant contracts to circumvent labor law. She denies this.

ETH's Response

The ETH stated that it considered the case closed after publishing its investigation findings. However, the employee's protest and the inconsistencies highlighted in their response cast doubt on the integrity and thoroughness of the university's internal investigation process.