Activist party says it wants to block appointment of new rector: is that possible?
As a protest against the “undemocratic” process by which members of the Executive Board (CvB) are appointed, the Activist Party blocked the Student Council’s advice on the appointment of chairperson Subramaniam. The party also hoped to be able to obstruct the appointment of a new rector in this way, but in practice that turns out to be difficult.
“No more absolute leaders in the CvB.” When Vinod Subramaniam was appointed last week as the new chair of the UvA’s Executive Board, strong criticism came from the Central Student Council (CSR). The Activist Party, which holds six seats on the council, abstained from voting, thereby blocking the CSR’s advice. The party did this in protest against the selection procedure for UvA administrators, which it considers “opaque and undemocratic,” leaving students with little say in who governs them.
Although this blockade had little impact—a CSR recommendation is not required for the appointment of a CvB chair—and Subramaniam’s appointment could proceed as planned, the Activist Party made its presence strongly felt. On Instagram, among other places, the party announced that it would continue to block appointments “as long as the selection procedure for CvB members remains so opaque and undemocratic.” According to Victor Nieboer, CSR member and FNWI representative for the Activist Party, these actions are necessary to “show that the CSR’s influence on these processes is very limited.”
According to Victor Nieboer, the planned blockades currently apply only to the Central Student Council. Within the party, there are discussions about also protesting at the faculty level against the lack of democratic procedures, but “those discussions are still ongoing at the moment.”
New Rector Magnificus
The party’s attention was particularly focused on the appointment of the successor to outgoing rector magnificus Peter-Paul Verbeek. The party stated, among other things, that “CSR approval is legally required for the appointment of the rector magnificus.” Since the party members plan to “continue abstaining from voting on the appointment of CvB members,” they could, with the support of at least two CSR members from other parties, potentially delay or even completely block the appointment process.
Legal Procedures
In practice, however, that idea proves difficult, if not impossible. The UvA has announced that the procedures for appointing members of the Executive Board are laid down in the Higher Education and Scientific Research Act (WHW). This Act (in Dutch), which applies to the whole of the Netherlands and to all universities based in the Netherlands, states that the representative bodies of educational institutions have the right to advise, but not to approve, the appointment of members of the Executive Board. The members of the Executive Board are appointed by the Supervisory Board, which also applies to the whole of the Netherlands. No distinction is made between the appointments of the rector and other Executive Board members.
A blockade of the CSR’s advice in the appointment of the rector magnificus would therefore almost certainly produce the same result as last week: a smooth appointment without the CSR’s advice, since the council would effectively remove itself from the process.
Even less power
According to Nieboer, who notes that the Activist Party “had a different interpretation” of the procedures surrounding the appointment of the rector magnificus, the party’s point would only be confirmed if it turns out that the CSR’s advice does not play a decisive role. Ironically, the power of the CSR appears to be even smaller than the protesting members had already assumed. Nieboer said, “We want to make the university more democratic; that’s why we also started the ‘Our University’ campaign and organized a petition. Students should be able to exert influence over their university. The CSR should not just be a rubber-stamp body.”
