Steerless UvA must take action against chaos and polarisation
The UvA seems trapped in a pattern of facilitating protests, while a steerless administration undermines the academy, according to law student Feike Otto van der Zee. He wonders what this means for the future of the UvA.
On 2 June 2025, AT5 reported on a new occupation of the Roeterseilandcampus. Around fifty pro-Palestinian demonstrators had set up fifteen tents and renamed the location Alaa al-Najjar campus. Their demand: the UvA must sever all ties with Israeli universities. Instead of ending this occupation – which is widely regarded as extremely uncomfortable and disruptive, given the lack of explicit permission from the UvA and the disruption of university activities – the UvA has installed two toilets for the protesters.
This is not a neutral stance, but active facilitation, which gives the impression that the university approves of such actions. Last year, a similar occupation escalated with barricades, vandalism and a police clearance. Why does the UvA tolerate the repetition of these disruptions, which make the campus less safe and stifle open debate? The lack of clear boundaries seems to invite further escalation, which further polarises the academic community.
This facilitation is not limited to occupations. On 14 March 2025, during an open day for prospective students, I heard calls for ‘intifada’, ‘revolution’ and ‘From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free’ echoing through the corridors of a the UvA building after a working group meeting. These slogans, which can be perceived as intimidating and threatening, raise serious questions about the image the UvA wishes to project. Moreover, these slogans are discriminatory, hateful, reprehensible and contrary to the inclusive values that the UvA claims to represent. How can future students have confidence in an institution that tolerates such expressions in its buildings? The UvA claims to enforce house rules, but argues that a small group of protesters is ‘unapproachable’. This excuse is unacceptable. Has there been a legal review, for example on the basis of Article 137d of the Dutch Criminal Code, which makes incitement to violence a criminal offence? Tolerating such slogans in an academic environment undermines the core of the university: a place where ideas are exchanged through open and respectful dialogue.
Group liability
There is also a lack of financial responsibility. According to Folia the UvA suffered 1.5 million euros in damages as a result of the occupations in May 2024, without recovering this from the perpetrators. Article 6:166 of the Dutch Civil Code provides for group liability in the case of collective actions, but the UvA refrained from doing so without clear explanation. This reinforces the impression that protests have no consequences, which encourages future actions. Furthermore, the suspension of the exchange programme with Hebrew University of Jerusalem appears to be a capitulation to the demands of protesters. The UvA refers to an “independent advisory committee”, but how does this process guarantee academic freedom? The lack of transparency surrounding this decision fuels the perception that the UvA is bowing to pressure rather than defending its principles.
Ailing chair
On top of these issues, the UvA is struggling with a rudderless administration. With an ailing chair who will not return until after the summer holidays and a Board member who is stepping down, the Executive Board is not functioning at full capacity. This raises questions about the mandate for crucial decisions, such as statements on protests or collaborations.
This lack of leadership may explain the lack of strong action against occupations and intimidation, but it further undermines the trust of students and staff.
Some lecturers who actively participate in the protests or openly support them are neglecting their role model status and their responsibility to guide students. As academic mentors, they should project a neutral and inclusive attitude, in which all perspectives are given space, but by joining the protesters, they reinforce polarisation and create an atmosphere in which students with dissenting opinions do not feel heard or safe. This lack of professional distance undermines confidence in the academic integrity of the UvA and reinforces feelings of insecurity. A university that does not enforce its own rules loses credibility. How can the UvA fulfil its duty of care to provide a safe and inclusive campus if the board does not take decisive action?
Pattern of facilitation
The core of the problem lies in the pattern of facilitation. By tolerating occupations, allowing intimidating slogans to go unpunished, not recovering damages and acceding to protesters' demands, the UvA is undermining its own values. This has far-reaching consequences. Firstly, it threatens the safety of students and staff. A campus where intimidating slogans and occupations become normal is not a safe space for everyone. Secondly, it damages the academic mission. A university should be a bastion of open debate, but how can that flourish if certain voices are drowned out by intimidation? There is little room for students to openly express pro-Israel views at the UvA.
The dominant narrative of pro-Palestinian protests, reinforced by intimidating slogans and actions, creates an atmosphere in which expressing a dissenting opinion is not only discouraged but also feels unsafe. This hinders the honest exchange of ideas, as students and staff who hold different views feel compelled to remain silent for fear of social or even physical repercussions. Thirdly, the UvA is suffering reputational damage. Future students, academics and international partners will hesitate to commit to an institution that tolerates chaos.
Crossroads
The UvA is at a crossroads. Will it remain an institution that bows to pressure and tolerates chaos, or will it opt for a safe, inclusive campus where academic freedom and dialogue are central? There is still hope. By taking strong action – with clear enforcement of house rules, legal action against intimidating behaviour and compensation for damages – the UvA can counter polarisation and restore trust. This requires a Board that takes responsibility, acts transparently and puts academic values above the demands of protesters.
The UvA can maintain its position as a leading university by acting now. This does not mean banning protests – freedom of expression is essential – but it does mean setting limits on actions that threaten safety and the academic mission. A university that defends its core values attracts students and academics who value knowledge and dialogue. The UvA must seize this opportunity to choose a course that secures its future. What will the UvA choose: a campus of intimidation and chaos, or a university that stands for inclusivity, safety and science? The UvA must take steps now to secure its future.
Feike Otto van der Zee is (third year) Bachelor student at UvA’s Law School.
