11/02/2026

To the attention of the Rector of Masaryk University, the Dean, the Academic Senate, and the academic community of the Faculty of Arts,

We are writing as the doctoral candidates formerly supervised by Prof. Ivan Foletti at the Department of Art History of Masaryk University.

We learned of the Dean’s decision to dismiss Prof. Foletti following an internal investigation that identified repeated violations of the University’s Code of Ethics. We acknowledge the decision and wish to express our empathy and solidarity with all who may have been harmed by the professor’s conduct.

That being said, this letter constitutes a formal complaint regarding the unacceptable manner in which the Dean’s Board of the Faculty of Arts and the responsible authorities of the Department of Art History have handled this situation with respect to us, the doctoral candidates directly affected by these events. From the moment of Prof. Foletti’s precautionary suspension, we were abruptly deprived of the possibility to communicate with, receive feedback from, or work under the guidance of our supervisor, without any clear explanation, a proper timeline, or accompanying measures. Since then, we have encountered serious and ongoing issues that sometimes differ in our individual cases.

However, they can be summarised as follows:

1.  Deficiency in effective communication.

Except for the notification of Prof. Foletti’s suspension and ultimate dismissal, no clear or effective communication was established with us, nor active guidance was provided, despite our repeated requests.

Furthermore, requests for confidentiality conflicted with the lack of communication on the part of the University with third parties involved in our work – such as consultants, second supervisors, or partner universities –, leaving us with the responsibility of navigating the consequences of the situation and taking accountability for the measures taken.

2.  Absence of substitutive measures and academic safeguards.

We were suddenly deprived of supervision, with no adequate replacement or interim solution. As of now (11 February 2026), no concrete tools, procedures, or support mechanisms have been put in place to manage this foreseeable emergency, despite the fact that the investigation had reportedly been ongoing for several semesters, with the suspension being effective since 17 October 2025. As a result, we were forced to manage our doctoral work without sufficient academic support and feedback.

That had inevitable consequences for our research progress and caused delays that are directly affecting our academic outputs and careers (e.g. applying for post-doc positions without a supervisor’s letter of recommendation). This demonstrates a serious lack of preparation and a failure to protect our legitimate interests and rights as doctoral students.

3.  Mismanagement and exclusion from information.

We find it unacceptable that no provision was made for Prof. Foletti’s students directly affected by the situation. Instead, on 4 February 2026, the Dean convened a meeting designed for the students of the entire Department. However, the meeting was not conceived as a session to “restore trust” in the Department – as the Dean’s email had promised – but functioned as a platform for reading a prepared statement and denouncing Professor Foletti’s failings, without providing any opportunity for constructive or concrete measures.

Furthermore, despite the invitation being bilingual and more than half of the doctoral candidates concerned being international students, the meeting was conducted mostly in Czech. The Dean provided a very brief and superficial English summary orally, one that even failed to inform regarding the type of accusations that Prof. Foletti has faced. Our request for an English translation of the initial statement was quickly dismissed, with the explanation that the Dean could potentially provide it later; however, we have not yet received it. We find this approach unacceptable, discriminatory, and deeply disrespectful. It violates our rights as students and contradicts the reputation of Masaryk University as an international institution.

4.  Lack of empathy, protection, and public accountability.

Despite the Dean’s claims of responsibility towards all students and employees of the Faculty, we have perceived a complete lack of empathy and care toward us (as students ourselves) throughout this process. Notwithstanding our position, we complied so far with the invitation to remain patient and to understand the difficulties of dealing with an unprecedented situation.

At no point were we informed that the investigation extended beyond a specific scope, namely the assessment of the professor’s conduct. Yet, the Ombudsperson diminished the integrity of all individuals within Re:Cent or among Prof. Foletti’s students (information publicly available) [Ad 4.1]. The use of this rhetoric has consequently led to oversimplifications and unjustified offenses against Prof. Foletti’s collaborators and students, without any supporting probative basis [Ad 4.2]. For example, we note that most international employees and PhD students were not even called to testify during the investigation – an omission that might be acceptable if they were deemed irrelevant to the facts under examination, but which becomes unacceptable when an entire academic environment and the students supervised by Prof. Foletti have been subsequently publicly discredited. We firmly believe that the quality and results of our research, and our concrete contributions to the Department, speak for themselves and refute such insinuations.

Finally, we would like to express our concerns that such narratives might be amplified in the future, having the potential to harm our academic credibility and, at present, to place us in an uncomfortable position as we are confronted with them at our workplace.

Ad 4.1. An article in Deník N quotes these formulations from the final report of the investigation: the research group is described as “a small group of loyal supporters” (úzká skupina loajálních příznivců), “an unfairly created privileged elite, which Professor Foletti had built up around himself in a very unhealthy way” (nespravedlivě vytvořená privilegovaná elita, již kolem sebe značně nezdravým způsobem vytvořil profesor Foletti), that exists in “a manipulative environment with an atmosphere of fear” (manipulativní prostředí s atmosférou strachu).

Ad 4.2. We would like to present an example – among others that have occurred and that we are unable to substantiate beyond the testimonies of some of us – with this addendum, submitted in good faith for the purpose of supporting our claims. A Professor of this faculty published the following comment on the social media platform Facebook:

“[...] he [Ivan Foletti] was admired only by naive and gullible people who had little experience with international research standards” (ale obdivovali ho jen naivní a důvěřiví lidé, kteří měli málo zkušeností s mezinárodními standardy výzkumu).

We are documenting this comment as it was publicly expressed. Should the University authorities require proof, we are able to provide a screenshot.

While we recognize that faculty members are entitled to express personal views, we wish to formally note our concern about the context in which these statements were made and the potential effect they may have within an academic environment.

Given these premises, we advance three requests:

●  An apology addressed to the doctoral students concerned;

●      Immediate, concrete measures to ensure our academic protection, supervision, and the continuity of our doctoral projects in a fair environment;

●      Formal recognition of Prof. Ivan Foletti’s academic work in our doctoral research. We have been informed that Prof. Foletti may be mentioned as our supervisor on the cover page of our dissertations. However, we were also informed that his role cannot be recorded in the university’s Information System (IS), not even as an external consultant. If Prof. Foletti’s supervisory role is deemed sufficiently legitimate to be acknowledged in an official doctoral dissertation, it should also be formally and consistently reflected in the University’s administrative records.

We expect a prompt and serious response to these complaints. The undersigned,

Ruben Campini, MA
Mgr. Klára Doležalová

Annalisa Moraschi, MA

Nicolas Samaretz, MA

Mgr. Teodora Georgievová, Ph.D.

Despite successfully defending my thesis in November 2025, in the month following the suspension of Prof. Foletti, I also encountered the phenomena described above. I deem the concerns of the Ph.D. students signed above relevant and alarming, thus I would also like to add my signature.

Mgr. Veronika Džugan Hermanová

I began my doctoral studies at Masaryk University in September 2025. Immediately after starting the programme, I was left without a supervisor, and there is no one at the university who could fully replace Prof. Foletti, given his area of expertise. For this reason, I decided to terminate my doctoral studies at Masaryk University.

signatář/ka si nepřál/a zveřejnit své jméno

signatář/ka si nepřál/a zveřejnit své jméno

To the esteemed Scientific Board of Masaryk University, and with due regard to the Dean’s Office, the Doctoral Board, and the Academic Senate, which we believe should also be informed of our current situation,  

We, the PhD students formerly under Professor Ivan Foletti’s supervision, would like to formally address grave concerns regarding our doctoral studies following Professor Foletti’s dismissal.

Since our supervisor was suspended on October 17th, 2025, we have lacked academic guidance and proper supervision from the part of the MU. So far, no suitable replacement or structured support has been provided, resulting in ongoing uncertainty that significantly hinders our research progress.

Since our work as doctoral candidates relies on ongoing mentorship and discussion, the absence of supervision has now extended beyond scientific issues and is leading to very tangible consequences. It has hindered our ability to make informed decisions, delayed research timelines, caused economic consequences, and restricted our capacity to reach key academic milestones or apply for scholarships. Additionally, some of us are approaching the end of our doctoral programs, which cannot proceed without a supervisor. For instance, colleagues Nicolas Samaretz, Annalisa Moraschi, and Ruben Campini cannot update their cotutelle agreement, nor can the latter two defend their dissertations until an official MU supervisor is appointed. This may prevent them from arranging their defenses on time, with potential delays of several months. Furthermore, Giada Lattanzio, who is not in a cotutelle, has been left unsupervised at the MU for over five months. 

We have been informed by Professor Kesner that the doctoral committee has formally voted twice in favor of reinstating Professor Foletti as our supervisor, provided that we agree on this. These decisions represent the committee’s academic judgment and its understanding of what is necessary to ensure continuity and quality in our research. Despite these votes, the Dean has opposed this course of action and has not yet proposed or implemented a viable alternative solution. We therefore wonder as to why this matter repeatedly returns to the Dean’s office, which has declined to accept the professional opinions of the Doctoral Board (expressed twice) as well as those of the students directly involved, and has neither responded to inquiries nor issued an apology concerning the inexcusable manner in which this matter has been handled insofar.

In a previous letter dated February 11, 2026 (see attachment), addressed to the institution's leadership, including the Dean, we formally petitioned for Professor Foletti's work as supervisor to be formally recognized (also in the IS system). In the same letter, we expressed our concerns regarding public slander directed at us as Prof. Foletti’s collaborators, portrayed either as manipulated and naive or as active participants in an alleged “sectarian environment.” Such claims are, at the very least, unsupported by sufficient evidence. In fact, the majority of the people who have been part of that environment over the past years were never invited to provide their testimony, necessary to gain a full picture of how the working environment evolved in the last decade. This fact alone contradicts the Ombudsperson’s claim of having “systematically mapped the overall relationships at the Department of Art History and their development over time” (https://artalk.info/news/ivan-foletti-konci-kvuli-nevhodnemu-chovani), casting further doubts about the completeness and fairness of the investigation (see also the addenda in the attached letter). We concluded our letter by asking for guidance, protection, and practical solutions, all of which were met with silence.

We therefore request that, subject to the agreement of the individual students, Professor Foletti be reinstated as our supervisor, in accordance with the decision of the Doctoral Committee and properly recorded in the university’s administrative system. We further urge the Scientific Board to review our situation with due urgency and fairness.

Since the decision you are about to make will directly affect us, and we do not know if the relevant authorities of MU have sent you our previous letter, we wanted to make sure that you are properly informed about our wishes, viewpoint, and how unfairly we have been treated for several months now. For this reason, we decided to include in the conversation also our co-supervisors and consultants, so that they can be formally informed about our current situation.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. We remain available for any further information or clarification and are open to constructive dialogue.

Ruben Campini, MA

Mgr. Klára Doležalová

signatář/ka si nepřál/a zveřejnit své jméno

Annalisa Moraschi, MA

Nicolas Samaretz, MA

Vážené kolegyně, vážení kolegové,

nerad se vyjadřuji k nastalé situaci, která se mě přímo týká, v tuto chvíli však nevidím jinou možnost, protože důsledky vašeho hlasování mohou nenávratně poškodit kariéru studujících, o jejichž budoucnosti máte rozhodovat. Dovolím si tedy zmínit tři krátké body:

1. Chtěl bych se krátce vyjádřit k nepravdivým tvrzením o mé osobě, která zaznívají v mediálním prostoru a z úst děkanky FF a poškozují mou reputaci. Chci především uvést, že si nejsem vědom žádného chování, které by bylo v rozporu s etickým kodexem MU ani se zákony ČR. Zároveň upozorňuji, že ve veřejném prostoru nezaznívá celá řada faktických informací a svědectví desítek kolegů a studujících, které je možné najít na mých webových stránkách http://www.ivanfoletti.com.

2. Paní děkanka se odkazuje na šetření univerzitní ochránkyně práv, toto šetření však považuji za procesně i obsahově vadné. Nebyl jsem seznámen s většinou konkrétních obvinění vůči své osobě a nemohl jsem tak řadu tvrzení rozporovat. Taktéž nevím, jaké mé údajné konkrétní činy měly vést k rozvázání pracovního vztahu. Od ochránkyně práv jsem obdržel vyrozumění o délce 40 stran, paní děkanka však obdržela zprávu o délce 200 stran, do níž mi nebylo umožněno nahlédnout a případná tvrzení rozporovat. Podrobněji viz zde. Na problematičnost šetření si v otevřeném dopise stěžuje 21 osob zde. 

Odmítám závěry ochránkyně práv. Výpověď z FF MU považuji za neplatnou a jsem přesvědčen, že postup FF MU neobstojí v právním přezkumu. Nejde pouze o můj osobní případ. Pokud může být akademik zbaven své pozice bez plné možnosti obhajoby a bez transparentně prokázané skutkové podstaty, je tím ohrožena důvěra v celou univerzitu.

3. Tato absurdní situace, o jejíž nezákonnosti jsem přesvědčen, má nepřijatelný a tragický dopad na desítky mých bývalých spolupracovníků a studujících, kteří zůstávají na MU. Jejich názor je ignorován, jsou dehonestováni a vystavováni tlaku. 

Ignorování názoru studujících se teď děje přímo před vašima očima: dospělí studující doktorského programu, kteří dokončují svá studia, opakovaně vyjádřili přání dokončit studium se mnou, jejich názor však není brán v potaz. Ve dvou případech je již disertace hotová – včera proběhly poslední konzultace – zbývá provést poslední korektury a projít obhajobou. Oborová rada Teorie dějin umění se – i poté co na protest proti mému odvolání rezignovalo šest členek a členů – vyjádřila dvakrát ve prospěch studujících, v důsledku čehož se děkanka FF rozhodla, tento hlas ignorovat a nechat své rozhodnutí potvrdit Vědeckou radou.

Vážené kolegyně, vážení kolegové se vší naléhavostí vás žádám, abyste vyslechli hlas Rubena Campiniho, Kláry Doležalové, Giadi Lattazio, Annalisi Moraschi, Nicolase Samaretze a Pavli Tiché, k nimž děkanka FF MU přistupuje jako vůči nedospělým osobám, které nemají právo na vlastní úsudek a nemohou rozhodovat o své budoucnosti. Stejně tak je podle mého úsudku nepřijatelné, aby byla bagatelizována práce a autonomie oborové rady Teorie a dějiny umění. 

Vaše dnešní hlasování nevnímám jako pouhé rozhodování o budoucnosti šesti studujících, ale i jako rozhodování o tom, zda FF MU zůstane místem, kde samosprávné orgány mají možnost na základě vysoké vědecké odbornosti a lidsky citlivého přístupu, pomáhat formovat budoucnost jednotlivých oborů.

Srdečně zdravím, 

Ivan Foletti

To the esteemed Scientific Board of Masaryk University, and with due regard to
the Dean’s Office, the Doctoral Board, and the Academic Senate,
We hope this email finds you well.
In the hope you are already aware of this matter, we apologise for reaching out
again and for any inconvenience.
We are writing regarding the response the Dean sent yesterday to our previous
letter to the Scientific Board. We appreciate the Dean's consideration and
inclusion in the discussion. We feel it necessary to reply to some inaccuracies
in the way our experience was represented.
Although finding ourselves uncertain about the appropriate modus operandi, we
would like to share both the Dean’s reply and our view on it, wishing to remain
respectful and informative to all parties involved, as some of them were not
included in the communication but mentioned in the letters.
You may find both the Dean's reply and our view on it attached.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Best regards,


Ruben Campini, MA

Mgr. Klára Doležalová

signatář/ka si nepřál/a zveřejnit své jméno

Annalisa Moraschi, MA

Nicolas Samaretz, MA

signatář/ka si nepřál/a zveřejnit své jméno

Dear Dean,

Dear colleagues,

I would like to sincerely thank the Dean for sharing her response. As each situation differs, I felt it would be more appropriate to reply with an individual email, appreciating the opportunity for a respectful exchange.

At the outset, I would like to point out that my doubts and formal concerns regarding the management of the situation by the Masaryk University leadership date back to my email of 20 October addressed directly to the Dean and some members of the Department, in which I wrote:

“I must express my deep concern regarding the current absence of clear guidance and practical support for PhD students, as well as the lack of indications on how to manage our professional relationship with Professor Foletti during this period – a situation that I am certain will also prompt further correspondence from my colleagues. Quite frankly, I feel left to navigate this situation on my own: I do not know whether I will be able to rely on Professor Foletti – the person who has most closely supervised my work with such care and expertise – for my state examination and thesis defense, both in terms of scheduling and academic support. I am also uncertain whether he will be able to assist with the necessary corrections to my thesis.

While I fully respect the measures taken, without being aware of the specific accusations made against him, I trust that you can appreciate the significant impact his suspension has on my academic progress and on my future more broadly, as well as on that of my fellow colleagues – an impact further compounded by the uncertainty surrounding the possible duration of this process. I would therefore like to stress the urgency of identifying appropriate measures and providing clear guidance for affected PhD students, in order to ensure that our studies can continue without undue disruption.”

This email was followed by a reply asking me for patience. While it may be argued that my message was sent shortly after Prof. Foletti’s official suspension, the investigation had already been ongoing for several months, and I would have expected at least some degree of preparation in anticipation of such a measure. Instead, the official statement only informed us about the professor’s suspension, without any concrete explanation or effective support.

On 27 October, I was approached by Mgr. Lucie Machalová from the Office for Studies, who asked about my intended timeline for submitting my dissertation. I replied that Professor Foletti’s suspension had unfortunately created uncertainty – reiterating the same concerns expressed above, while adding that:

“This situation has created additional complications (beyond the obvious ones): to begin with, I have been left to manage the situation with my second university and my second supervisor on my own. I hope you agree that it should not be my responsibility to communicate such a delicate matter, particularly given the limited information I currently possess. I also have no information regarding a more precise timeline for resolving the ongoing investigation to provide them, which is why I have refrained from taking any action.

Directly connected to this point, I am also concerned about potential administrative or bureaucratic consequences at my second university, where I am enrolled under a contract co-signed by Prof. Foletti (recently extended for an additional academic year) and have paid tuition. I trust that this process can be managed directly by your office without any further action required on my part or, of course, negative impact.”

Despite my expressed concerns, no formal communication was established with the University of Fribourg or my co-supervisor, Prof. Michele Bacci. On 11 November, in fact, I received from Fribourg the cotutelle agreement extension requiring Prof. Foletti’s signature. In this regard, although in my previous email I had referred to the agreement as already finalized – since Prof. Bacci had confirmed his approval for its formalization – I had not fully taken into account that the agreement still required formal countersignature by the relevant authorities at Masaryk University.
Only at that point, and once again on my own initiative, did Masaryk University finally establish contact with Fribourg to explain the situation.

Similar concerns about MU’s management of the situation on my part were subsequently reiterated during the meeting with Prof. XXXXX referenced in our last letter and, of course, in the collective letter from PhD candidates addressed also to the Dean and sent on 12 February.

Given my very concrete need to complete my degree as soon as possible, I was the one to propose that Dr. XXXXX serve as a substitute supervisor. This choice was consistent with my academic path, as he has followed my work from the beginning as a subject expert and consultant. Only at that stage, on 17 December, did I learn that Professor XXXXX had been appointed Chair of the Doctoral Board (this was never formally communicated to me before) and that he was open to considering this solution.

I would like to state this very clearly: my request was motivated solely by the concrete need to complete my studies and to ensure that they were properly supervised by an expert in the field aware of my research progress. At that stage, I believed that the best possible outcome for me was to acknowledge Prof. Foletti’s essential contribution as my supervisor on the cover of the thesis and to ensure that it was properly recorded in the Masaryk information system – something on which I found opposition from part of MU (as clearly stated during the meeting of 4 February convened by the Dean). Given that Dr. XXXXX has followed my work from the outset, I was open to the idea of having three supervisors formally recognized, with two of them remaining active.

Only on 2 March, I was informed that Dr. XXXXX was expected to be accepted as my substitute supervisor, subject to approval by both the Doctoral Board and the Scientific Committee, as he is not habilitated. Shortly thereafter, however, Prof. XXXXX informed us of the Doctoral Board’s vote to reinstate Prof. Foletti as supervisor. This decision has, of course, reopened the situation. On the one hand, it has further delayed the formal appointment of my supervisor; on the other hand, it has reopened the possibility that I most strongly preferred, for the reasons outlined in previous communications. In any case, as of today, I am still without an official supervisor from MU.

I am, of course, able to provide screenshots of the email exchanges referenced in this message. For discussions that took place during online meetings, I can only rely on the testimony of the other participants involved.

While I fully understand and empathize with the difficulty of managing an unprecedented situation, I do not feel that my legitimate interests have been safeguarded as they should have been – at least insofar. I therefore reiterate my concern regarding the handling of communication and, in particular, the prolonged lack of willingness to involve my colleagues and me in a dialogue – even simply to listen to our needs and find a proper solution.

Respectfully,

Ruben Campini