Dilemma: should everyone be allowed to participate in a debate at a university?

At the end of October, Ido de Haan, a democracy expert and professor of Political History at UU, qualified the behaviour of the Executive Board and the board of the Faculty of Law, Economics and Governance as “morally and politically reprehensible”. He did so in an open letter signed by forty academics and students, demanding that an election debate on 22 October featuring the politician Thierry Baudet, from the political party Forum for Democracy (FvD), should not take place at this university.

Last week, the university and faculty councils questioned the Executive Board about this, and it emerged that the Executive Board has accepted De Haan's invitation to discuss the subject further. Ahead of this encounter, DUB asked the professor why he wrote the letter, why he chose such a fierce tone, and, above all, why he is so concerned.

First of all, why did you and forty academics and students write a letter calling for the election debate featuring Thierry Baudet from Forum for Democracy to be cancelled?
"This is about the university's social responsibility in defending democracy. Universities should not offer a platform to anti-democratic groups such as FvD. As a political historian, I see it as my responsibility to take a stand on this crucial issue and to draw on research, such as Harvard professor Daniel Ziblatt's work, which shows that the stance taken by authoritative institutions, such as universities, determines whether fascist movements gain broad support. In addition, as a professor, I have a role model function, and I have made that clear as well."

What did you hope to achieve?
"It would have been nice if, after receiving the letter, the faculty board and the Executive Board had decided that a debate with FvD was not a desirable initiative at Utrecht University. We also wanted to send a very clear signal that the university has an important function as a role model when it comes to democracy."

Your letter was very strongly worded. You call it “morally and politically reprehensible” that the faculty board of Law, Economics and Governance allowed FvD to participate in a debate organised by students of Utrecht University. According to you, the board failed to show moral leadership and “thus neglected its duty”. You wrote: “It is a betrayal of the ambitions of Utrecht University and a betrayal of democracy.” Where do these strong words come from?
"Calling someone to account for their moral responsibility can be confrontational, but there is also a lot at stake. The tone is appropriate to the seriousness of the subject. There are now seven fascists in the House of Representatives, and a total of 68 seats are held by parties that based part of their campaign on xenophobic views, excluding part of the citizens in this society. We want to send a signal: Where have we arrived in Dutch society?"

Which parties are you referring to?
PVV, JA21, FvD, BBB and VVD.

So does that mean VVD should no longer be allowed to participate in a debate at the university?
"That's nonsense. VVD is not an anti-democratic party, but FvD is. Given the values the university represents, it has a responsibility to defend democracy. The university is based on values that must be upheld."

What values are those?
"First of all, the participants in a debate should respect and show respect for other participants. In addition, the willingness to express your opinion on the basis of arguments. Furthermore, respect for others in society. If you say that certain groups do not belong here and would be better off deported, as FvD does, then your opinions are aimed at excluding others from the outset. The university stands for open discussion. Those who do not want that should not be given a platform.

Such is the paradox of not tolerating intolerance. A debate is not something that everyone can just participate in. If you talk about 'replacement' and use euphemisms such as “remigration” to refer to cultural minorities, you are, in fact, advocating ethnic cleansing through deportation; you are not trying to convince others but to seize power. It is fiction to think that a debate can take place without rules and values."

Did you follow the debate yourself when it took place?
"No, because FvD was given a platform at Utrecht University to express its anti-democratic ideas. That's not right. It should not have happened. I am not going to contribute to that, not even by listening to it."

Last week, DUB followed discussions in the University Council and the Faculty Council of Law, Economics and Governance regarding the Executive Board's decision to allow the debate featuring Baudet to proceed. We have summarised the Board's positions and the Council's questions and concerns here. 

UU Rector Wilco Hazeleger defended the decision to allow the debate to proceed, both in an email to the authors of the open letter and at the University Council meeting that happened last Tuesday. He stated that such debates should be allowed at the university because UU wants to be at the heart of society and be part of society.

He supported the decision by saying the following: "FvD was on the electoral list. It was possible to vote for them within our democratic constitutional state. There was no question of a criminal offence, and at that point you must accept that there are different views in such a constitutional state and that those views can also be put on the table."

According to Hazeleger, scientists can use their academic freedom to respond to what is said during the debate. "Scientists have a duty to explain what the views expressed mean for our society. That brings us back to the university's role, which is to interpret the data and facts of the society in which we live." In short, he believes that a debate featuring FvD must also be allowed to take place at the university.

You clearly disagree with each other. What now?
“I have invited the Executive Board to continue the discussion during an Institutions for Open Society meeting on the Futures of Democracy. The Executive Board and the faculty board have both accepted this invitation, so I do not want to pre-empt the content of this discussion. But I would like to say that I naturally consider it important that the university has a social responsibility to interpret phenomena. We must continue to do so.

However, the university also has a second social responsibility. It involves the question: what values do you promote? Do you offer a platform for extreme views? I would like to make a distinction between extreme and radical views. Radical views are views that are taken very firmly in a discussion within the context of the constitutional state. Extreme, and in this case, the extreme right-wing views of FvD, are aimed at undermining the rules of the democratic constitutional state itself. FvD is a movement that breaks into the democratic constitutional state in order to destroy it.

The first responsibility I mentioned, interpretation, is the daily responsibility of scientific researchers. The second responsibility is a responsibility relating to the social significance of the university: namely, contributing to society by upholding certain values."

FvD, as you stated in your letter, is not a normal party but rather a fascist movement aimed at destroying democracy and the rule of law; a group that abuses parliament to propagate the theory of population replacement and advocate the deportation of groups they dislike; a club that uses anti-Semitism, Islamophobia and sexism as selling points; and an organisation that aims to discredit science. What is your basis for this?
"The radical right-wing nature of FvD is explained, for example, in the work of political scientists such as Sarah de Lange, Professor of Dutch Politics at Leiden University, and Léonie de Jonge, Professor at the Institute for Research on Right-Wing Extremism (IRex) at the University of Tübingen in Germany, who have both thoroughly researched such extreme right-wing movements. They emphasise that FvD propagates Renaud Camus' racist theory of the Great Remplacement, for example.

In addition, FvD saw an exodus of prominent members in 2020, such as Joost Eerdmans and Annabel Nanninga, because of the racism and anti-Semitism that were rampant in the party.

Finally, as Robin de Slaa, the leading historian of fascism in the Netherlands, has shown, FvD propagates biologically based racism and an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory about a sinister elite that is plunging the Western world into an existential crisis with a secretive grab for world power.

De Jonge and Te Slaa also point out that such ideas are sold using veiled language about a 'homoeopathic dilution' of Dutch culture, the danger posed by “globalists”, and the desirability of “remigration”. In this way, what is unacceptable in a democratic constitutional state is normalised.

That is why I share the commitment of these colleagues to make it clear what we are dealing with here: FvD is not an ordinary party but a fascist movement. You should not engage in discussions about whether there might be something to be said for racism and anti-Semitism, or whether climate science is a left-wing hobby. Fascists should not be given a platform; instead, they should be fought with all the legal means at our disposal."

Finally, under what conditions do you think a political party can participate in a debate at a university?
"If a party respects the other participants and their right to exist, they can participate. You cannot have an open debate with people who advocate the deportation of those who do not fit in with their idea of Dutch culture or European civilisation, so you should not facilitate such a debate. I am glad that we will continue the discussion on this subject because it is essential to clarify what the university's responsibility is in this area."

What would you say to people who read this and think: ‘Where is freedom of expression in this argument?’
“This is not about freedom of speech. FvD can say whatever they want within the limits of the law, but not at a university that stands for certain values, which I have just outlined. I will not call for a ban on FvD. They can do whatever they want, but we should not offer them a platform.”

Ido de Haan is a Professor of Political History at Utrecht University. He specialises in the modern history of Western Europe, focusing on the consequences of regime changes, revolutions and large-scale violence, especially the persecution of the Jews. He also studies the history of political thought, the development of citizenship, the state and civil society in Western Europe, and Dutch political history in the 19th and 20th centuries.