UvA introduces new house rules and code of conduct after lengthy wrangling
After a difficult process lasting nearly two years, the UvA’s revised house rules and code of conduct have now officially come into force. The Executive Board adopted the new guidelines last week, after the university’s representative bodies approved them in April. The revision introduces more extensive rules for demonstrations at the university.
Demonstrations in UvA buildings must be registered at least 48 hours in advance. Occupying university buildings or staying overnight on campus is explicitly prohibited. Exams and patient care may not be disrupted by protest actions. In the UvA’s new house rules and code of conduct, which have now come into effect, considerable attention is devoted to the regulations surrounding demonstrations at the university.
1. Demonstrations on UvA premises must be registered with Facility Services at least 48 hours in advance.
2. Occupying buildings, blocking entrances and exits, and disrupting exams or patient care are not permitted.
3. Overnight stays on UvA premises are prohibited.
4. You must be able to identify yourself on UvA premises. Security staff may only ask for identification if there is a specific reason to do so.
The revision of the house rules followed the impactful pro-Palestinian campus protests that the university experienced in 2024. At the time, students and staff frequently criticised the UvA’s “vague house rules”. According to the Central Student Council (CSR), the rules were written in such a way that the Executive Board could “use and misuse them as it saw fit.” The previous rules merely stated that “expressions of a cultural, political and/or religious nature” were not permitted on UvA premises.
Draft rules
To provide greater clarity and to “clearly enshrine the right to protest”, the UvA therefore presented a proposal for new, clearer house rules in 2024. Among other things, the proposal stated that demonstrations and protest actions must be conducted “peacefully,” without blockades, occupations, or disruption of other students’ education. An explicit ban on staying overnight at the university was also added, replacing the earlier provision that UvA buildings and grounds “may only be used for their intended purpose”.
Dissatisfaction
The Central Works Council (COR) and the Central Student Council (CSR) – both of which had approval rights over the new house rules – were not immediately satisfied. COR chair Gerwin van der Pol described the proposed rules as “unworkable and unenforceable”, while the CSR said it had “serious concerns about students’ rights to protest and express themselves freely”. Both councils sought legal advice and for a long time withheld their approval, arguing that the rules were “too vague” and “too restrictive”.
As a result, the debate over the house rules became a long-running process for both the university and its representative bodies. The Executive Board (CvB) made several amendments to the text, but both the CSR and the COR repeatedly refused to approve the revised rules. It was only in April – a year and a half after the university first presented the draft regulations – that the representative councils finally gave their consent.
Amendments
The rules that were ultimately approved by the CSR and COR differ in several respects from the 2024 draft version. For example, it has been clarified that security staff may only request identification when there is a specific reason to do so. The prohibition on disrupting other students’ education has also been softened somewhat, with an acknowledgement that “a demonstration may involve a certain degree of inconvenience”. In addition, the explicit ban on face-covering clothing has been removed from the house rules – although a national ban on wearing face-covering clothing at Dutch educational institutions remains in force.
In addition, an explanatory note has been added that appears to soften some of the stricter aspects of the rules. It emphasises that students and staff will not be sanctioned if they fail to register a demonstration in time, and it introduces a proportionality test, requiring the Executive Board (CvB) to assess in each specific situation whether restricting a protest is proportionate to the objective being pursued. However, this proportionality test is explicitly stated to be “not applicable” in cases involving building occupations or overnight stays on UvA premises. Such actions are prohibited under all circumstances.
Activist Party
This final point was the reason why the Activist Party voted against approving the house rules during the decisive CSR vote. The party – which once again expanded its representation in the CSR elections and appears on course to secure an absolute majority next year – objected to the wording and argued that the principles of proportionality and case-by-case assessment should also apply to overnight stays on university premises. All other CSR members, however, voted in favour of approving the rules, leaving the Activist Party isolated on the issue.
