Email Exchange with LUMC: Questions, Evasions, and Incompetent Communication
University Hospital tried to pick a fight
Shortly after the publication of my interview with Dr. Amit Frenkel, Leiden University Medical Center (LUMC) demanded via email that I remove a photo from the article. Since the photo showed two pro-Palestinian activists, I seized the opportunity to ask LUMC some questions about banning a lecture by a Jewish doctor. This led to accusations, evasions, and an overall feeling of incompetent communication regarding this issue. So that seems to me - like the reason for the original interview - a newsworthy fact.
(Note: This article is originally written and published in Dutch. It has been translated with the help of Claude AI, with some minor changes and edits applied by the author)
I hesitated about how to frame this article, as it contains an email exchange in which I put some questions to LUMC's press service. Quite a lot of text, and I immediately admit that these kinds of exchanges are somewhat niche content. But I reckoned that highlighting only the main facts from the Q&A wouldn't benefit readability, so I've arranged the entire email exchange chronologically below.
This I did so that everyone can clearly read how an academic hospital tries to protect the privacy of people who openly try to persuade a public institution to boycott Israel, but is unable to formulate adult answers to basic questions about the how, why & wherefore of their unwillingness to allow an academic lecture by an Israeli doctor - not because of the content but because of his identity.
The email exchange exposes multiple things. Not only that LUMC banned a Jew from speaking based on emotions and sentiments (and not on sound arguments), but also that the academic board - through their spokespersons - doesn't seem accustomed to being questioned about decisions, doesn't think about the circumstances in which they make their decisions, and - if accidentally questioned about it - immediately hides behind platitudes, brief robo-texts and 'statements' that are so watered down that no measurable position can be derived from them. (This applies to multiple university medical centers, by the way.)
If I had to reduce the rejection of Dr. Frenkel's to its core, it lies in one quote from a senior LUMC spokesperson who cannot explain how the observation of one thing (faltering healthcare in Gaza) rhetorically leads to the conclusion that a meeting with an Israeli doctor in Leiden would be 'too one-sided':
"LUMC did not necessarily look at a political charge in Mr. Frenkel's story. He undoubtedly has an interesting substantive story. However, given the current situation in Gaza and the fact that many people in Gaza have no access to good medical care at all, LUMC's board felt that the approach of this meeting might be too one-sided. Therefore, it was decided not to facilitate the meeting in the hospital."
This statement comes from Nicole de Haan, senior spokesperson and strategic communication advisor (lol) at Leiden University Medical Center. She sent me an email shortly after the publication of my interview with Dr. Amit Frenkel requesting urgent removal of a photo. Specifically, this photo:
On the day of the interview's publication with Dr. Frenkel - September 2, available in English - a so-called memorial service was held at LUMC, "in remembrance of our fallen colleagues" in Gaza. This is a monthly recurring event organised by LUMC students and staff, as part of a national trend among students, doctors and staff of various (if not all) university hospitals. Their pro-Palestinian positions usually go hand in hand with anti-Israeli rhetoric (or worse).
I received the photo from a source, who also made audio recordings of the meeting. These prove it wasn't merely a memorial (a minute of silence was held) but a political rally with an activist character. LUMC was called upon to stop "academic ties, academic cooperation and economic ties with institutions and companies" in Israel. There was also talk about "two years of terror by the Israeli regime."
Apparently, these are the first two activists of that plea who prefer to keep their call behind closed doors, as suggested by LUMC's email:
Dear Mr. Nijman,
You have posted this article on your website:
Cancelled trauma doctor Amit Frenkel: 'Accept the unacceptable'
In your article you have placed a photo of two LUMC students who have not given permission for this. This concerns the photo with the caption you chose: Pro-Palestinian activist speech, Tuesday September 2, 2025 at LUMC
This was an internal memorial service for deceased healthcare workers in Gaza.
Photos may not be taken at LUMC without permission, let alone distributed. I therefore ask you to remove the photo as soon as possible, also from your message on X.
I would like to hear from you when this has happened, thank you very much in advance.
Kind regards,
Nicole de Haan
Press officer LUMC
In her email, LUMC spokesperson De Haan (LinkedIn) explicitly calls the pro-Palestinian intermission an "internal memorial meeting." This raises questions. Thirteen of them, to be exact, which I submitted to LUMC.
I immediately took advantage of the occasion to ask about the how & why of refusing Dr. Frenkel, because that is naturally a more important question than this dilly-dallying about photo material obtained through a source.
Dear Ms. De Haan,
What a striking request.
Before making any decision, I would like to ask you several counter-questions.
The organization behind these so-called memorial services has an Instagram page - leidenmedicsforpalestine - where photos of meetings like the one on September 2 are shared. Although no visual material from this specific meeting has (yet) been posted on their IG, photos from earlier events can be found.
The events are both publicly announced, accompanied by calls to participate, and in several cases revealed afterwards in photos. On August 22, for example, there was a report about the August 5 commemoration, where three speakers were published with first name, last name and photo.
1. Does LUMC see this disclosure as a violation of the internal character of the memorial services?
Furthermore, your characterization of the meeting as a "memorial service" raises questions, because:
various messages refer to the possibility of buying "keffiyeh keychains and Palestine bracelets" on site after the meeting;
on the aforementioned IG page, it can be read that the "Gaza Memorial" of August 5 was announced in the caption as also being "a call for an academic boycott of institutions that directly or indirectly contribute to the genocide being committed by the Israeli army against the population of Gaza" and it also states that "keffiyehs are allowed";
the meeting on Tuesday September 2 was also visited by the local Leiden news page Sleutelstad, which noted noted online on September 3 in a message that "The organizers emphasize that the meeting is not only a memorial, but also a call to protect the still living colleagues in Gaza and give a clear signal";
at the meeting there was explicit talk about "two years of terror by the Israeli regime" (literal quote) and a plea was made to evacuate Palestinian patients and bring them to the Netherlands, where it was stated that "our politics voted that they were not allowed to come to the Netherlands" (also a literal quote);
the speakers, who wore a keffiyeh and a keffiyeh-keychain, noted that "this memorial should not only be considered as a memorial" but, again in a literal quote, "also as a call to LUMC. Speak out about taking in sick children from Gaza. Speak out about the genocide unfolding before our eyes. And stop the academic ties, academic cooperation and economic ties with institutions and companies that help commit human rights violations in Gaza and the West Bank";
on the IG page leidenmedicsforpalestine, calls for academic boycotts can be read that go back to the creation of this page in May 2025.
2. Does LUMC - given the above facts - consider your chosen characterization of this meeting as an "internal memorial meeting" an accurate representation?
3. If so: does a call for academic boycotts, made by people adorning themselves with Palestinian nationalist symbols, fall under the heading of "commemorating" according to LUMC?
4. Does LUMC consider the above statements as non-political?
Then, regarding the rejection of a lecture by Dr. Amit Frenkel. The Executive Board was unfortunately vague in their rejection statement. Perhaps you can clarify some things.
5. What specific considerations underlie the decision to refuse Mr. Frenkel, a doctor with practical, professional experience with a mass trauma event who wanted to share acquired knowledge that could be useful and valuable for medical students and medical professionals at LUMC, from giving a lecture at LUMC?
6. Does or did LUMC have factual grounds to suspect that Dr. Frenkel's lecture would have a political charge or content? If so, what does this emerge from? If not, why was he not allowed to speak?
7. How does the a priori a-political lecture of an experienced medical professional relate politically to a so-called "internal memorial service" for deceased healthcare workers, where explicit political, activist calls are made?
8. Does LUMC consider it possible that such meetings, symbols and expressions could evoke feelings of fear, anxiety or accusation among Jewish of Israeli students and staff? If not, why not, and if so, how does LUMC deal with this?
9. Does LUMC think that monthly meetings with a one-sided message can put social and moral pressure on staff to choose a side in a complicated Middle East conflict, or silence them about their own views, for example out of fear of being excluded or damaging their position or career?
Finally, I would like to submit the following to you:
10. Has LUMC or have students or staff ever commemorated in a similar way (i.e., with permission, in lecture halls or LUMC spaces and via open invitation) the death of doctors, healthcare workers or medical personnel who were killed or died on the Israeli side in the war unleashed by the Palestinian terrorist organization Hamas on October 7, 2023, or otherwise shown signs of recognition, sympathy and involvement?
And as the very last:
Although you seem to have removed the image, until just before drafting this response, an activist-political expression was displayed on your LinkedIn page. Next to your name, photo and professional position as Spokesperson / Strategic communication advisor at LUMC (in a senior, full-time position) was a header photo of the social movement called "Red Line." For your complete picture, I have included a screenshot of your LinkedIn page.
11. As spokesperson for an academic healthcare institution, do you think it wise to explicitly show your political or activist colors?
12. As an LUMC employee, are you allowed, given your representative function, to express such a personal opinion on a professional platform for networking and communication?
13. Can I as a journalist rely on receiving an impartial answer to my questions?
Thank you very much for your time and your response, and with kind regards,
Bart Nijman
Attachment: your until very recently LinkedIn header photo (screenshot dated September 4, 11:41 AM WET)
A Quick Response Without Real Answers
The answer to my questions came as early as the next afternoon (Friday, September 5). Or rather: the reaction to my email, because most questions remained unanswered, answers were given to things I didn't ask, and qualifications were attributed to me that I hadn't expressed.
LUMC spokesperson De Haan's response therefore raised a few new questions. Twenty one of them, to be exact. Below I present them in the same way I sent them to LUMC's strategic advisor, namely per paragraph of her response to me.
Dear Ms. De Haan,
My thanks for your quick response. Unfortunately, much remains unclear and not all my questions have been answered.
Because I like to work carefully, not least because I am writing to an academic institution, I have prepared some follow-up questions and requests for clarification.
For your reading comfort, I will quote your answers in italics and add my follow-up questions per your parapgraphs. Perhaps it's useful to maintain my numbering in your response, then nothing remains unanswered.
I hope for and in any case look forward to your prompt response!
With kind regards and a pleasant weekend,
Bart Nijman
NdH: “Thank you for your response. I don't think it's an unusual request to remove the photo. According to copyright and portrait rights, you may not use photos of others for your own story without permission, even if they are online on a website. I therefore request you again to remove the photo of the two students from your reporting.”
BN: Let me first clarify my qualification "striking." In a context where pro-Palestinian expressions, demonstrations and "memorial services" have been held for almost two years, sometimes appropriately and sometimes rather inappropriately, where calls are also made to academic institutions to sever all Israeli ties, I find it striking that two people who openly speak out for this cause do not seem to want to be openly associated with this cause.
Although they on the one hand call for boycotts and therefore appeal directly to the LUMC board, they on the other hand seem to demand the protection of anonymity. This, while they try to persuade a public institution, partly financed from public funds, with political arguments (and private sentiments) to specific actions. Thus they enter the public domain, partly because those statements are made aloud within that institution.
My first follow-up questions therefore come directly from this:
1. Have these gentlemen themselves reported to LUMC communications in order to have you submit a removal request?
1b. If not, did LUMC do this on its own initiative?
1c. If so, why does LUMC act as spokesperson for the private opinions of some students or staff who gather under names like "Leiden Medics for Palestine" and "Doctors for Gaza"? Or did this meeting take place under the LUMC flag?
2. Does LUMC also write to persons or organizations who distribute photos of Jewish, Israeli and/or pro-Israeli staff, students or possible guest speakers without permission, as happened for example with the image of Dr. Amit Frenkel, who was described in a defamatory manner? You can find an example of this in the Nijmegen region (where dr. Frenkel was branded a “nazi” by student activists at the Radboud UMC).
NdH: “The photo comes from an internal memorial meeting for deceased healthcare workers in Gaza at LUMC. During the meetings, photos of a number of deceased healthcare workers are shown, with a short text about their lives. I have been there every time.”
BN:
3. Why were you there every time? Was that by virtue of your position, out of personal involvement, or both?
NdH: “Once there was a sale of items to raise money for Doctors of the World, that was not the intention and that no longer happens.”
BN:
4. The sale per se of bracelets made by employees and students during an earlier meeting on June 11 at LUMC itself was not the question. It was context in a factual account as introduction to questions 2, 3 and 4 from my previous email, which concerned your chosen characterization "memorial service." Would you please answer those questions?
NdH: “It could be that there was a call not to attack healthcare workers in Gaza anymore, a call to protect them, I don't understand what's wrong with that. To my knowledge, there was no call for a boycott of Israeli institutions during these memorial meetings.”
BN: You write "it could be," but I know for a fact that there was talk about "terror by the Israeli regime" and that there was a plea for a "stop [of] the academic ties, academic cooperation and economic ties" with Israel. These are, as indicated in the factual account in my previous email, literal quotes. I can prove them.
5. To your knowledge, there was no call for a boycott. You say you have been to all "memorial services", may I then assume that you also heard these statements yourself?
6. I myself have not expressed any judgment about whether there is or isn't "something wrong" with something, in question 4 in my previous email I only inquired whether LUMC considers the statements made as non-political. Would you still like to answer that?
NdH: “It is indeed a subject of discussion in society and within the academic world. Wearing a keffiyeh is not prohibited, nor during the memorial meetings. There are no Palestinian flags visible at the memorial meetings. In our view, the memorials are internal and intended for staff. If media wants to be present, then permission must be given through communication.”
BN:
7. Were all attendees "internal," i.e.: connected to LUMC in some way?
8. Did the website Sleutelstad submit such a request to be present and report on the meeting?
I would like to note in passing that I never asked whether wearing a keffiyeh is permitted or prohibited, and that I asked nothing about Palestinian flags.
NdH: “There is discussion in society -and also within LUMC- about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. There are different opinions and emotions. LUMC wants to be an employer where everyone feels safe. If people experience feelings of insecurity, they can turn to supervisors and/or confidential counselors. We are aware of the sensitivities and are always open to dialogue and improvement.
“When it comes to medical care for victims in Dutch university medical centers, the joint university medical centers published a statement last week. Receiving victims from conflict areas | NFU”
[Statement under the link, translated from Dutch:
The university medical centres (UMCs) of the Netherlands believe that everyone is entitled to high-quality healthcare, regardless of background or religion.
In response to recent discussions about the care for severely injured and/or critically ill children from conflict or disaster areas, we consider it important to make clear that the UMCs of the Netherlands are ready to admit and treat patients in need, under the coordination of the National Acute Care Network (Landelijk Netwerk Acute Zorg).]
BN: In that very brief and generally formulated statement, it can be read that "the university medical centers of the Netherlands are ready to receive and treat patients who need care under coordination of the National Network for Acute Care." In the board of the LNAZ, Professor Dr. Martin J. Schalij sits as vice-chairman. He is also a member of the Board of Directors of LUMC and in that capacity Professor Dr. Schalij did not give permission for the a-political lecture by his medical colleague Dr. Frenkel.
9. How does LUMC think the statement of the joint university medical centers relates to this refusal, to your words that LUMC wants to be an employer where everyone feels safe, and to the remark that you are aware of the sensitivities?
10. Could a lecture by Dr. Frenkel contribute to improving the reception and treatment of victims from conflict areas, who often need specific care with which Dr. Frenkel has much experience?
NdH: “You ask for additional explanation about not facilitating the meeting with Mr. Frenkel at LUMC.
About a month ago, a request was submitted by one of our employees to hold a meeting at LUMC. Two doctors from Israel would participate in a panel. There would be discussion about medical care for Gazans, among others, in the Israeli hospital where the respective doctors work. We carefully reviewed the request. LUMC did not necessarily look at a political charge in Mr. Frenkel's story. He undoubtedly has an interesting and substantive story. However, given the current situation in Gaza and the fact that many people in Gaza have no access to good medical care at all, LUMC's board felt that the approach of this meeting might be too one-sided. Therefore, it was decided not to facilitate the meeting in the hospital.”
BN:
11. If you judge that "this meeting [around a visit by Dr. Frenkel] might be too one-sided”, how do you reconcile that with the repeated meetings for (victims and aid workers in) Gaza, in which strong accusations against Israel are made? Does LUMC not see one-sidedness in that?
12. In what way is the fact that people in a specific location have no access to good medical care a sound argument for refusing a doctor with professional experience with a massive trauma event to give a lecture about good care? Dr. Frenkel's expertise could be useful for medical students and professionals at LUMC regardless of the context of the conflict, underlying ideology or personal origins and identities? As far as I know, Dr. Frenkel was not intending to sell bracelets or keychains with Israeli symbols. I therefore don't understand your answer very well and my follow-up question would therefore be: how does the reasoning about one thing lead to a possible one-sidedness of the other?
13. Your suggestion is that two doctors from Israel would come (and thus zero from Gaza) but that doesn't match my information: I understood that a doctor from Israel (Dr. Frenkel) and - via video connection - a doctor from Gaza, critical of Hamas, would participate together in a panel. I also understood that the Executive Board initially gave an impetus to this itself, and encouraged this initiative. Can you verify these matters for me?
14. Is my information correct that in May an earlier attempt to have hospital staff from Israel speak at LUMC was not allowed at the eleventh hour after an initial agreement? If so, why?
NdH: “LUMC is a hospital, care for our patients comes first. Various meetings have been organized by Leiden University during this period, also on this subject. According to LUMC, that is a more logical place for debate than in the hospital where mainly patient care takes place.”
BN:
15. Do you have a list of those "various meetings" for me with the dates, titles and organizers? And can you also answer question 10 from my previous email?
16. Of course I understand the sympathy for the work and fate of fellow healthcare workers in conflict areas, but how does LUMC reconcile pro-Palestinian memorial meetings in LUMC where activist calls are made with putting the care for your own patients first? Surely this works both ways?
17. Do you think it possible that patients come to your hospital who have unpleasant associations or feelings with keffiyeh-wearing students, healthcare staff or employees?
18. Do you think it possible that employees with a Jewish or Israeli background and/or pro-Israeli views do not feel free to identify themselves as such or behave as such?
19. Do you think it possible that employees with a Jewish or Israeli background and/or pro-Israeli views do not feel safe to speak out to supervisors or confidential counselors about intimidation, discomfort or insecurity because they experience around them and can actually establish that LUMC is not an equally safe workplace for all employees, for example because initiatives to have an Israeli doctor give a lecture are banned by the Executive Board (the highest governing body within LUMC), or because colleagues in the corporate chain (for example within the communications and press department) display pro-Palestinian convictions or show anti-Israeli sentiments in the workplace or via social media?
NdH: “Finally, it is quite correct that I had an image of a red line in my LinkedIn profile. I change this image regularly, and since yesterday afternoon I have an image of the rainbow flag that flies in front of LUMC. This because of Pride Leiden. The red line is for me a signal that the violence must stop and that countries must comply with applicable international humanitarian law or humanitarian law of war, including the right to access to medical care, also in conflict situations. That right is essential, everyone must have access to medical care. You can label my involvement as political, partisan or activist, I gladly leave those qualifications with you.”
BN:
20. Do you consider such expressions, specifically those of the Red Line, as a-political, impartial or neutral?
21. Would you also like to answer question 12 from my previous letter, about the house rules or personnel policy regarding personal expressions next to a professional title and position?
That's it for now!
Full of Expectation into the Weekend...
The reader will understand that after sending this reply on Friday evening, I couldn't wait until the first dawn of office hours the next Monday and Ms. De Haan's answer. Well, it did come quite promptly, even before lunch. Unfortunately, the story ends in mutual disappointment: I don't remove a photo and LUMC gives no substantive answers. I guess that’s what they call "strategic communication," nowadays,
Hopefully better care is provided for the patients.
“Dear Mr. Nijman,
Thank you for your response. It is regrettable that you do not want to remove the photo of the students. They have not given permission for its placement. I leave it at my previous email regarding the substantive explanation.
Kind regards,
Nicole de Haan”
Dear Ms. De Haan,
What a shame that the press officer of an academic hospital is unable to answer some concrete questions about a striking course of events within LUMC.
With kind regards,
Bart Nijman
Non-Dutch speaking readers: don’t select a paid subscription upgrade! The main page is all Dutch, English texts are rare - for now, at least. If you appreciate the work, you can buy me a beer or a pastrami sandwich through this link or button:
Of course, you can subscribe to the English Below Section of “Nijmans Nieuwsbriefje” (Nyman’s Newsletter), and go to your account to set the notifications to just this section of my Substack to receive notifications when I do translate / publish articles in English.