Denial of UU Council's right to consent in sensitive dossier is telling

After years of protests arguing that the university is complicit in the genocide in Palestine, among other things, it became clear that the university has a pressing lack of guidelines on the ethics of research collaborations.

Now, a committee has devised a new assessment framework that the Executive Board has submitted to the University Council for advice. The University Council, however, believes that it should have the right to consent on the matter. 

The members reached this conclusion on the basis of Article 5.h of the University Council’s regulations:

Article 5 - Consent

The Executive Board requires the prior consent of the Council for any decision to be taken by the Executive Board regarding the adoption or amendment of:

[...]

h. guidelines relating to ethical aspects connected to the activities of the university.

The message seems clear: under Article 5.h, the University Council has the right to approve or reject the new assessment framework. Yet the Executive Board maintains its position, and the University Council has now requested legal advice.

This dispute is more than a procedural disagreement: it raises questions that are increasingly being asked at UU – not only about who gets to participate in decision-making, but also about the sort of decisions in which the voices of students and staff genuinely carry weight.

From experience to research
Our engagement with these questions began with the critical thinking that we learned at this university and elsewhere. In practice, this translated into conversations we held over the past few years with the board of the Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences about the demands of the pro-Palestine movement.

They were willing to talk, but we saw little structural change afterwards. We had to trust that our input was taken into consideration "at the top", by administrators, and then wait patiently.

For Jura, this experience led to a thesis project: she conducted five months of fieldwork at Utrecht University between September 2025 and February 2026 as part of her research master’s in Cultural Anthropology. She spoke with administrators, policy staff, and council members, both current and former. She held focus groups and observed committee meetings and events.

What emerged from this research confirmed what we had already sensed in those earlier conversations: that a persistent tension exists between the formal powers of the participation body and the everyday practice of decision-making and influence.

A say without substantial influence
The University Council consists of twelve elected students and twelve staff members: on paper, it is the most important participation body at UU. From the conversations Jura conducted for her research, it became clear that council members find their influence limited in practice.

Multiple interviews indicated that when complex dossiers are discussed, the University Council is heard, but the Executive Board has already set the direction anyway. The board considers itself best equipped to make politically sensitive decisions.

It is striking how the Executive Board defends this distribution of power. When the University Council invoked its right of consent, the Executive Board stated that “a decision of this nature is not commensurate with the responsibilities of a representative body.” Furthermore, the board argued that an “advisory and reflective role for the participation body” would be appropriate for this policy, “without the risk of these subjects becoming heavily politicised.”

Council members experience the situation differently. In a focus group, one council member described the Executive Board's attitude as a form of paternalism: “It’s like this paternal figure saying: I'm doing everything I can to make this good for you, you have your things to play with, so just stay there. […] They cannot even envision sharing that responsibility with others.”

A popular topic
It is not the first time that student protests have led to a focus on the nature of internal decision-making. In the 1970s, large-scale protests secured a far-reaching form of participation, which was later rolled back. The 2015 Maagdenhuis occupation at the University of Amsterdam also put the issue on the agenda.

Right now, both the pro-Palestine protests and the cuts to higher education play an important role in the renewed attention to participation.

Annelien de Dijn's recent column in DUB about the democratic deficit at the university and the efforts of WOinActie to make universities more democratic further indicates that this is a widely held concern at UU. This topic is also central to this week’s upcoming event “Democracy & The University”*.

Not just conversation partners
The conflict over Article 5.h is, at first glance, a difference of interpretation. However, it touches on a recurring question: who has authority in decision-making at UU?

In this important and weighty dossier, the University Council is reduced to an adviser: the Executive Board allows it to have a say, but not to co-decide. It is telling that even a group that meticulously turns to the board in accordance with formal procedures struggles to be heard. At the same time, history shows that protest and collective action repeatedly expose this tension.

We are curious about the legal advice the University Council has requested. But above all, we hope that this moment opens people's eyes. We call on students and staff to continue organising themselves, whether through protest or by voting for the University Council in the upcoming elections on June 1, 2, and 3.

We, students and staff, are the university, and we demand that the Executive Board treats us not just as conversation partners, but as co-decision-makers.

This op-ed was submitted to DUB. The opinions expressed belong to the author and do not necessarily represent DUB's view.