Han van der Maas | Psychology gets off with a scare
Friday 30 January was a special day: not only was the new UvA chair announced, but a coalition agreement was also presented that included the end of the mandatory Dutchification of Psychology. “But opponents of English-language higher education will continue to make their voices heard,” writes columnist Han van der Maas.
Last Friday, 30 January, was a special day for the UvA and for my department in particular. The new UvA Chair, Vinod Subramaniam, was announced and the Rector, Peter-Paul Verbeek, is leaving for the KNAW after four tropical years. The coalition agreement was also presented, with a structural investment of 1.5 billion euros in education and science. In addition, the incoming government will abolish the Foreign Language Education Test (TAO) for new programmes and maintain the current range of foreign language programmes. This means that the UvA’s psychology programme has been spared.
I understand that this may mean little to non-psychologists. As a reminder, in order to avoid the Foreign Language Education Test (TAO), the universities (united in Universities of the Netherlands, UNL) proposed to Dutchify only the psychology programmes in the Randstad, in other words: to throw them under the bus.
A bloody mess
Our first opinion pieces against this proposed compulsory Dutchification date back to 2019, and since then we have published dozens of opinions and columns. Opponents of English-language education have also made their voices heard. Beter Onderwijs Nederland (Better Education Netherlands) in particular gained momentum when they found Omtzigt and his party NSC on their side. A year ago, the case seemed settled and the TAO a fait accompli. In that light, the UNL’s list, which sacrificed the psychology programme, was somewhat understandable, even though it remained a bloody mess.
But then the cabinet fell, Omtzigt withdrew (notably because of psychological problems) and his party imploded. In the new, still right-wing parliament, the proposed Dutchification of the Utrecht economics programme was particularly unpopular.
Reorganisation
We will probably never know exactly what happened in last week’s negotiations, what role the commotion surrounding that programme played, and whether our actions and appeals over the past year contributed in any way. More importantly, we can now move forward with our top-level research and our highly regarded programmes. The threat of reorganisation has been averted for the time being.
For the time being, I say, because opponents of English-language higher education will continue to make their voices heard. Opposition to English-language education has a long history and various motives. One motive is the preservation of the Dutch language. A century ago, people fought against Germanisms; now they fight against anglicisation. The Bond tegen Leenwoorden (Association against Loan Words) is a good example of this. The website Onze Taal provides a good overview (in Dutch). But this is not my battle. As a language utopian and advocate of radical spelling reform, this is not my battle.
Elitist
A second motive is the idea that anglicisation causes a division in Dutch society, or at least reinforces it. Because advocates of Dutch as cultural heritage strike me as rather elitist, I have never taken this argument very seriously. I find no support for my plea for spelling reform among this group. But perhaps the polarisation in the Netherlands is indeed related to the command of English, which, incidentally, is nowhere as high as it is here (at least as a second language).
A third motive is the idea that education in the mother tongue is necessary for academic training. Indeed, people process information faster and better in their own language, as shown by various small-scale experiments. But there is no evidence that Dutch students who follow an English-language bachelor’s programme achieve a lower final level, while they are able to participate fully in English-language academic discourse.
Reputational damage
The fourth motive concerns the number of international students in the Netherlands. This number grew rapidly, which was grist to the mill for populist parties. But we ourselves also asked for instruments to keep this influx in balance. For example, psychology has had a numerus fixus for decades that has remained roughly the same and aims for a balance of approximately 50/50 international and Dutch students. Our clinical master’s programmes are in Dutch.
In short: there is something to be said for each of these motives, but together they inspired very radical measures, advocated in particular by NSC and also by Beter Onderwijs Nederland. Now that the number of international (and Dutch) students has been falling for the third year in a row, these measures have been shelved for the time being. However, the effects of the proposal will continue to be felt for some time to come. Due to global demographic developments, competition for young talent, wherever they may be, will only increase in the coming years. The damage to our international reputation could cost us dearly.
Han van der Maas is full professor Methodological Psychology.
