Exempt universities from the Open Government Act (Woo)? Absolutely not!
That universities are now arguing for an exemption from the Dutch Open Government Act (Woo) is, to put it mildly, remarkable, writes European Studies student Marijn Kerkhoven. “The academic world tolerates no prying eyes: we are happy to make use of your money for academic education and research, but any look behind the scenes is unacceptable.”
The Woo (Wet open overheid, the Dutch Open Government Act) is an important instrument for journalists, activists, and engaged citizens to gain access to information held by public institutions—not only government bodies, but universities as well. It can be used, for example, to find out whether a particular university has ties with Israeli institutions or the fossil fuel industry, or whether it censors certain lines of thought while allowing others in academic research. The Woo played an important role in the emergence of the new “open administrative culture” following the childcare benefits scandal. Recently, however, it is precisely this law that has come under attack.
A letter from Leiden University to its participation council, published last week by Frans van Heest of ScienceGuide, caused quite a stir. In the letter, the university states that the umbrella organization Universities of the Netherlands (UNL) is calling for universities to be exempted from the Woo.
Incidentally, the University of Amsterdam (UvA) cancelled its subscription to ScienceGuide as of 1 January, prompting angry reactions from, among others, UvA professor Rens Bod. This student fully endorses his argument.
Additional compensation
The letter states that “UNL’s primary approach is to create an exception to the Woo for public universities as well.” It also notes that this will likely not be feasible and that it is being explored whether universities could receive additional compensation for the burdens imposed by the Woo. All of this, the letter indicates, has been raised with the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science (OCW).
The latter is not particularly surprising; other public administrative bodies, such as municipalities, also receive such compensation. What is remarkable, however, is that UNL is advocating for an exemption from the Woo. Especially given the reasoning cited in the letter: “It is likely that, at the time of the Woo’s introduction, insufficient attention was paid to the fact that public universities also fall within the scope of the Woo and are therefore subject to its obligations. Special universities are not, which creates a strange situation.”
This seems like a classic case of upside-down logic: it is indeed odd that special universities are not subject to the Woo—let’s change that! A university is, after all, precisely the type of place where transparency is essential. A public institution is one that should, above all, keep its shutters open.
The necessity of transparency
Scientific research requires academic freedom, but as Dutch university rectors already emphasized last year, that is no carte blanche. “It demands responsibility: towards students, colleagues, politics, society, and science itself.”Transparency is essential in this regard.
If the umbrella organization of Dutch universities wants to disregard such an important instrument as the Woo, it sends the opposite signal. The academic world tolerates no prying eyes: we are happy to make use of your money to carry out academic education and research, but that you want to take a look behind the scenes is unacceptable. Moreover, do you have any idea how expensive such a request can get!
UNL’s meddling with the Woo does not occur in isolation; even the self-proclaimed king of decency, Henri Bontenbal of the CDA, is not particularly fond of the law, calling it a “thorn in the side” and “regulation gone too far.” The Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations (BZK) has urged the coalition formation table to “set limits on the scope of Woo requests.”
Transparency
These calls were made with the obvious aim of turning restrictions on the Woo into government policy. Resistance to openness from the CDA is somewhat predictable; they were, with a few exceptions such as Pieter Omtzigt, hardly champions of administrative transparency during the childcare benefits scandal. Universities, however, as educational institutions, should actively advocate for transparency.
The chair of the UNL board, Caspar van den Berg, was quick to respond to the ScienceGuide piece - via LinkedIn and in an interview with Bas Belleman of the Higher Education Press Agency (HOP). According to him, it is incorrect that UNL is advocating for a Woo exemption, as the article claims. Leiden University allegedly invented UNL’s position, he says, with then-rector magnificus Hester Bijl herself serving as a co-administrator.
According to Van den Berg, transparency is “not the issue.” He argues that the costs have become “unmanageable” and the time it takes is “problematic.” He notes that the number of Woo requests at universities is “measured via sampling” and claims that the number of requests has tripled since the law came into effect. (The Woo apparently consumes vast amounts of time - fortunately, there is always time left to count precisely how many requests there are using an abacus.)
A thorn in the side
Belleman asks Van den Berg whether he, like CDA leader Bontenbal, sees the Woo as a “thorn in the side” and “regulation gone too far.” He replies that it is “difficult to say” and that a review of the law is “coming soon.”
Van den Berg has no active recollection of the exemption request, but he is clearly not a staunch supporter of the Woo—otherwise, his answer to the previous question would have been a definitive “no.” This could mean several things: either the Leiden University board recorded the UNL’s position incorrectly, deliberately or accidentally, or UNL did indeed believe an exemption was necessary.
There are two possibilities. Either no exemption will be granted and UNL is now trying to save face, or UNL, together with BZK and the CDA, got what it wanted and cannot accept that the ScienceGuide article casts them as the Woo’s stealthy assailants.
Van den Berg states in the interview with Belleman that he finds transparency “fine,” but transparency is not fine- it is essential. Therefore, UNL and individual universities must issue a counter-call to the Ministry of OCW and the coalition formation table: defend the Woo, expand it where necessary (for example, to special higher education institutions), and ensure that openness is not the exception, but the rule.
