The architectural firm Chartier-Dalix and its associates have issued a public statement defending their defamation lawsuit against researcher Mathias Rollot, rejecting his claims that the legal action constitutes censorship of academic research. The architects say they were compelled to speak out following coverage in Le Monde newspaper on August 26, 2025, to clarify their position and defend their agency and employees who were directly targeted by what they describe as false and defamatory statements.
According to the architects, the dispute began in June 2023 when Rollot published an article on an anonymous blog without attempting to contact them to verify his sources. The firm claims the article contained numerous errors and approximations - about ten in total for what Le Monde called a "serious investigation" - but more importantly, several statements that constitute defamation. The architects emphasize that Rollot chose to publicize the matter by framing it as a debate about research censorship, thereby attempting to mask the real reasons for their legal action.
The firm provided two specific examples of what they consider significant false accusations. First, they say Rollot accused them of plagiarizing the work of a doctoral student in their book "Accueillir le vivant" (Welcoming Life) published by Parkbooks in 2019, claiming they concealed her participation. However, the architects state that this researcher, who has since completed what they describe as a solid and award-winning thesis, only joined the agency after the book's publication. They note these dates are public and accessible to all, suggesting Rollot deliberately omitted these facts for his article.
Second, the architects say Rollot accused them of conducting discriminatory recruitment practices by describing their collaborators as "white and well-dressed," thus essentializing the women and men of their agency. They claim this assertion is particularly false since their team includes more than seven different nationalities, which would have been easy to verify. The firm emphasizes that these statements not only questioned the agency's professional integrity but personally affected their teams, saying that being reduced to their skin color or origin constitutes an unjustifiable attack.
The architects report that the publication of their employees' photographs in this context further exposed their collaborators, who found themselves unwillingly involved in the affair. To illustrate what they describe as the violence of the article, they reveal that following its publication, they received anonymous threats targeting their agency and its members. They say they informed Rollot of all these elements, but he did not deign to respond, forcing them to file the defamation lawsuit reported by Le Monde.
The firm insists their legal action was not intended to prevent criticism of their work, even if completely one-sided, but to defend themselves against what they call false and defamatory statements made with the sole purpose of causing harm by spreading what they characterize as "fake news." They note that rather than acknowledging his errors in a gesture of appeasement that might have sufficed, Rollot discreetly modified his text a few weeks after publication without apologizing or informing his readers, contrary to the most fundamental ethical rules and research requirements.
The architects argue this was not about "correcting typos" but rather removing the most defamatory passages. They disagree with Le Monde's analysis that these accusations were merely "factual errors and imprecisions." The firm states that although they did not wish to comment publicly on the matter, they provided Le Monde with all case documents before the newspaper's article was published to clarify the reality of the facts, and they regret that these were neither included nor mentioned.
The architects also express regret that the newspaper failed to specify that the Republic's Prosecutor had filed a requisition sharing their analysis and requesting Rollot's referral to criminal court - a decision that does not prejudge the case's outcome but confirms the legitimacy of their action. They describe this omission as "quite convenient," reducing the affair to a simple quarrel of ideas and equating defamation with criticism.
The firm argues that Rollot did not write as a researcher but abandoned the scientist's coat to wear the pamphleteer's costume, stating he cannot invoke the privileges of academic freedom while renouncing the obligations of rigor and truth that foundation it. They say they are deeply affected by this controversy and do not accept the image of cynicism portrayed in the original article based on false factual elements. The architects conclude by emphasizing their respect for research, whether academic or conducted in agencies, noting it guides them and they use its results to evolve their work while remaining conscious of the challenges around construction in today's damaged world.
