Nikola Edelsztejn | Congratulations, you’ve become an office clerk!
Vice-Chair Richard Goldstein’s plans to provide 0.7 workspaces per UvA employee in future have gone down a bit on the wrong side with columnist Nikola Edelsztejn. “Particularly for a job with social significance, it is an indescribable absurdity to cut back on workspace.”
After spending roughly two months doing so little with my life that I was counting down the days until the start of the new academic year, on 7 September I read the interview with Richard Goldstein, Vice-Chair of the UvA Executive Board, and immediately wondered why on earth I was still trying to campaign for a better university.
The interview, in which Folia asked Mr Goldstein about the future of space utilisation at the UvA, unfortunately reached the conclusion that was visible from a mile away: greater efficiency, further downsizing, and a greater focus on the existing modern buildings.
I have often written pieces centred on my aversion to the interior design choices made by the UvA, and to avoid sounding a bit repetitive, I would like to focus on a point made by Mr Goldstein, about which I still have my doubts as to whether this is really the right way to steer the UvA.
Regarding the better utilisation of workspace at the UvA, Mr Goldstein states that the starting point for the future is that there will be 0.7 workspaces available per full-time employee. This is a daft idea, and if the person behind it doesn’t realise this themselves, they should let someone with vision sort it out. Although in my opinion pieces I usually take a stand against the Central Executive Board out of personal resentment (and with great relish), I consider it of the utmost importance that this issue is addressed on behalf of all UvA staff, who, under this plan, are simply being reduced to meaningless office clerks who do not need an academic environment at all to thrive: surely you have a home?
One of the most common complaints about the UvA is, in fact, that it has become far too corporate an environment, with little scope for aesthetics or social interaction, and that in almost no way fulfils the role of a “living room” for students and staff. The Central Board’s phenomenal idea, then, is: let’s make an absolute brutta figura with yet another round of cutbacks!
It is truly absurd that even a university is succumbing to the prevailing – and psychologically flawed – notion that it is of the utmost importance for people to be able to work from home and to have the choice to agree amongst themselves when it is best to come onto campus. Particularly for a job with social significance, where a healthy, liveable, academic environment is precisely what is crucial for achieving good results, it is an indescribable absurdity to cut back on workspace. After all, various studies have already shown that switching to flexible workspaces is disastrous for academia: it reduces social ties, collaboration and commitment to the university.
If the UvA were genuinely committed to being a good employer for its staff, it might be a good idea to provide employees with a space where not only a love of the work, but also a love of the place itself, plays a central role. This cannot be achieved when one of the employer’s guiding principles is: “Just work from home, because that’s where the real magic happens – so why should we offer you a decent place to work?”
The nice thing for the UvA, of course, is that it’s nice and cheap: less space means less maintenance, so that saves a few million. Attract a few more international students and that gap will be filled again. Does this rhetoric remind you of anything? Exactly: a business-like, liberal approach, in which the focus is not on the value of the work, but on its production value.
We’ve known for some time that the Netherlands is devoid of a sophisticated civilisation. It is the land of soft sandwiches for lunch and creamer-free espresso extracted from Arabica beans, but for a long time the Netherlands was indeed the land of job satisfaction, of good working conditions and an egalitarian culture where ideas could flourish thanks to close-knit bonds in the workplace.
The UvA, however, is now keen to present itself as a cultural innovator and is apparently so alarmed by the shortfalls in the “production value” of work that it felt compelled to look, as quickly as possible, at how the “education factories” on the other side of the ocean tackle this: efficiency, efficiency! To hell with aesthetics, experience and social sustainability – get to work!
The future of the UvA looks rather bleak for true academics, who know that they flourish best in an environment that also provides them with non-research-oriented resources to foster meaningful connections and inspiration. After all, a sense of belonging isn’t something you buy from an equipment supplier; it arises from affection, mutual respect for one’s profession and personality, and a flexible approach to the rules, so that people dare to colour outside the lines to achieve results. Perhaps if the coffee at the UvA were a bit better and the sofas weren’t made of polyester, people might one day come to realise this.
