Stop the further politicisation and democratisation of the UvA
In their opinion piece two weeks ago, Freddie Kiel and Mic van der Burgt argued for a highly politicised and thoroughly democratised university. According to them, radical democratic reform would bring the university closer to the community again. But many students have no need for this at all, argues Pieter-Joost van der Plas.
In their contribution, Kiel and Van der Burgt paint a picture of the entire student population eagerly waiting to elect the rector, introduce more politics on campus, and further politicise the university. But it is difficult to speak of “a broad desire for more participation” when less than a quarter of students vote at all. A handful of loudly protesting students does not automatically represent the entire community.
Choice
Most students come to university primarily to study, make friends and develop themselves, not to campaign or become part of a political project. To cite the low turnout in student council elections as proof that the university is “depoliticised” is therefore a very hasty conclusion. A more realistic explanation is that many students have no desire for permanent academic politicisation. That is not a shortcoming, but a choice.
It is therefore remarkable that the activist group advocating “more democratisation” rarely talks about what attracts the vast majority of students to university in the first place: good education. This new “democratisation campaign” also fails to pay serious attention to the quality of education. This is striking, because UvA students consistently rate their university lower in terms of educational quality compared to the ratings that students elsewhere give to their own universities.
Tradition
A democratically elected Executive Board (CvB) sounds appealing on paper, but in practice it mainly causes problems. The Netherlands has no tradition of directly electing administrators. And with good reason. Elections reward the best campaigner, not necessarily the best administrator; they create political pressure and encourage administrators to make popular choices rather than necessary ones. In addition, few students have the time or inclination to thoroughly investigate who is best suited to lead a complex organisation such as a university.
The authors refer to the former University Council as if it were some kind of democratic paradise. The reality was much less romantic: responsibilities were unclear, decision-making dragged on endlessly and, in practice, the university was often barely governable, as evidenced by the Dutch article “If you talk nicely, you don't have to occupy the Maagdenhuis, do you?” in Folia on 5 June 1998. It is therefore telling that council members from that time stated in a research article that in the current system of student participation, they are listened to more than they were listened to at the time of the University Council.
Employee participation achieves results
The image of three administrators making all decisions in a top-down manner is simply incorrect. Students and staff have considerably more influence than the authors suggest. The academic community is consulted extensively in various ways when policies are being formulated. Examples include the University Forum and the many dialogue and working sessions on the development of the educational vision and the five-year Institutional Plan.
In addition to broad advisory rights, the democratically elected Student Council and Works Council also have the right of consent on the main points of the budget, on education and examination regulations and on all kinds of important policy documents. That influence is also being used: think of the introduction of reflection rooms, free menstrual products and the initiation of the debate on academic freedom.
House rules
Even the “restrictive” house rules mentioned by the authors are subject to the Central Student Council's (CSR) right of consent. After consultation and various adjustments, in close cooperation between the Executive Board and the CSR, the amended rules are now once again being put to a vote by the student council. In addition, the participation of students is structurally well supported with time, resources and guidance.
Apart from academic topics, the “political” decisions mentioned in the article have also been made primarily through dialogue and scientific principles. These are the guiding principles for a large scientific community such as ours.
Broad involvement
In addition to the right of consent and advice on important documents, students and staff also have a say in the election of administrators. The selection committee for the new Executive Board chair includes a representative from the student council and the works council, and before anyone is appointed, the entire CSR is consulted. It is therefore completely unjustified to claim that students are sidelined when it comes to electing administrators. The reality is that students and staff are already broadly involved in the university’s administration. Further democratisation does not contribute to better decisions, but rather to delays and administrative noise.
Risky
Advocating for a university that explicitly takes a political stance is risky. As soon as a university officially takes a political position, pressure arises to remain within that line. Critical or dissenting voices then have less space. This narrows the debate rather than strengthening it. This is at a time when academic freedom is already under pressure. The disrupted Room for Discussion meeting with Minister Brekelmans shows how positions that meet with resistance are not given space, making debate impossible. Research commissioned by the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science also shows that more and more students, lecturers and researchers are already becoming cautious about what they dare to say or publish. Additional politicisation does not solve this, but exacerbates it.
State of mobilisation
Every year, there is a group of students who see the university primarily as a tool for their own political ideals. That activism is acceptable and belongs at a university. But it is not a reason to redesign the entire administrative structure or to politicise the university.
The vast majority of students want a stable, safe place to study, not a campus that is permanently in a state of mobilisation. Let’s use the power of students and student participation for what really matters: good education.
Pieter-Joost van der Plas is a bachelor’s student in Econometrics & Data Science and a member of the Central Student Council on behalf of De Vrije Student.
