(This article was written by Derk Jan Eppink and appeared in Wynia’s Week. Derk Jan Eppink: Schreef doctor Thierry Baudet zijn proefschrift wel (helemaal) zelf?)
On 11 March 2022 a remarkable video by FVD appeared on social media. Party leader Thierry Baudet described his mentor, the British academic Dr. John Laughland, as a ‘unique figure’ and ‘a visionary man’ who writes ‘brilliant books’. He then said: ‘I am in the fortunate position of having come to know him in my life. That I was able to write part of my dissertation with him, and at his side’.
On 21 June 2012 Baudet obtained his doctorate at Leiden University with a dissertation titled The Significance of Borders: Why Representative Government and the Rule of Law Require Nation States. His supervisor was Paul Cliteur, professor of the encyclopedia of law. In the acknowledgments Baudet mentions Laughland among 39 others.
Laughland’s best-known book dates from 1997: The Tainted Source: undemocratic origins of the European idea. In 2007 he published the book Travesty about the Serbian leader Slobodan Milošević. Laughland advocates full sovereignty of nation states and, according to him, the European Union and tribunals such as those of Tokyo and Nuremberg do not fit that vision, nor does the international prosecution of Milošević and Saddam Hussein.
In this Baudet follows Laughland completely. They are in very regular contact, calling each other all the time. But of course a doctoral candidate must write his dissertation himself. It is not a co-production with scholars, neighbors or friends. Advice is always welcome but the doctoral candidate must be the ultimate author, in every respect.
An English-language dissertation is unusual for a doctorate at a Dutch university. Laughland is a ‘native speaker’, writes a fine ‘Oxford English’: short, compact, accurate. It is an English that Baudet does not command.
In the dissertation there are clear stylistic breaks between Oxford English and the Dutch-English of a non-‘native speaker’. The first is academically outstanding; the second is grammatically correct but often with a Dutch way of sentence construction. On the basis of those stylistic breaks (Oxford English versus Dutch-English) you can go through the dissertation with a fine comb and see which ‘part’ Baudet wrote with Laughland, or was written by Laughland.
It is striking that Part I (‘The rise of borders’), from page 7 to 77, has all the characteristics of Laughland’s style: clear, academic English. All the parts that have to do with tribunals (Nuremberg, Tokyo, Yugoslavia) but also the International Criminal Court in The Hague are virtually anthologies from the works of Laughland.
There is a stylistic break with other chapters. Thus we read on page 109: ‘Nevertheless, as I said above, all such use of the term human rights is metaphorical’. This is a form of Dutch-English. Moreover Laughland does not use the word ‘I’ in his reasoning. ‘As I said above’ would become ‘aforementioned’. The stylistic breaks show that several pens made their contribution, instead of the one pen of the doctoral candidate. The ‘multiculturalism’ part too shows forms of Dutch-English: ‘Nevertheless, the debate goes on’.
I knew both Baudet and Laughland and also their different writing styles. My conclusion is that around 130 of the 245 pages of which the dissertation consists flowed from the pen of Laughland. That may have escaped everyone’s notice because no one knew Laughland. He was, however, the ‘missing link’.
The doctoral defense in the Academy Building of Leiden University in 2012 did not go smoothly. Professor of legal philosophy Andreas Kinneging called the dissertation ‘too journalistic’. He said: ‘Since when can you obtain a doctorate on opinions instead of facts’. Baudet dismissed some questions with a single sentence or a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’. Professor Tom Eijsbouts reproached Baudet for ‘a lack of knowledge’ and an ‘essential violation of the procedure of his doctorate’. In his column in NRC Handelsblad Baudet had written that his doctorate was ‘a formality’.
Baudet’s video of 11 March 2022 therefore raises questions.
- What do the terms ‘with him’ and ‘at his side’ mean regarding the writing of a dissertation?
- Which ‘part’ is permissible? Or should one say: no part at all?
- What was Laughland’s role, and given the Oxford English in the dissertation, was his contribution not rather a matter of ‘parts’ written by Laughland?
- What role did Cliteur play? Baudet kept both Laughland and Cliteur close to his chest within FVD. Why?
I distill these questions from an analysis of the text of the dissertation, of the use of the English language and also in view of the intensive bond between Baudet and Laughland. It concerns, however, an academic matter about which I should not pass judgment. It is up to Leiden University to shed light on this issue.
Derk Jan Eppink is a Distinguished Fellow (Honorary) at the Gold Institute for International Strategy, a Washington D.C.-based foreign policy and defense think tank.
