Humanities Dean about the vexed plans for the faculty: ‘We want to do this together’

The Faculty of Humanities at Utrecht University aims to be financially sound by 2029. This goal has led to the much-discussed decision to close several language programmes and announce a recruitment freeze. However, a revamp of the faculty's bachelor’s programmes is expected to provide the ultimate solution. If all goes according to plan, the faculty will dismiss around 85 full-time staff members.

Over the past year, the Faculty Board has been elucidating how it intends to achieve this. Students from different degree programmes will take modules together in thematic "packages", and teaching methods in which the lecturer plays a less intensive role will be increasingly deployed.

Dean Thomas Vaessens has repeatedly emphasised that the changes must also lead to a renewal of the Faculty of Humanities, as the fragmented range of courses results in heavy workloads and high costs. Moreover, he argues that both contemporary academia and society demand greater interdisciplinary collaboration.

However, many Humanities academics feel uneasy and dissatisfied. They are concerned both about how the plans are being drawn up and the potential risks involved. Will students still learn enough about the discipline they have chosen? How can the dean be so sure that students are interested in this new structure? Won't this cause them to drop out? These are but some of the questions on their minds.  

How do you view the process so far?
“We’re halfway there. After all, we’re halfway through the transition period for which we’re receiving financial support from the UU Executive Board. Our expenditure must be drastically reduced by the end of 2028, and we’re well on track to achieve that. In terms of content, things are also going according to plan. To achieve it, it’s essential that we adapt our work to shrinking staff numbers, which is tense. Many lecturers in the faculty are realising now that things need to change. For them, this is just the beginning.”

Many faculty members complain that this is a top-down process in which lecturers themselves have little say.
“Well, the most drastic changes are already two years behind us. Back then, in the summer of 2024, there was no time for a calm, bottom-up process. It was necessary to change course, especially considering the government’s budget cuts at the time. And I take responsibility for that. However, a lot has happened in the past two years. A huge number of people have thrown themselves into their work with enthusiasm. It’s true, not everyone is on board yet, but the group that feels involved has grown, and I’m very pleased about that.”

What do you say to staff members who feel that everything has already been decided anyway?
“I invite them to the table and try to get them involved in the discussion. Earlier this month, we conducted two incredibly inspiring sessions in which we discussed aspects of the education directors' plans for the new bachelor’s degree programme. People were so excited, and the conversations were so constructive. I’m really looking forward to doing that more often. Perhaps many staff members think it’s a runaway train, which is true to some extent, because there’s a lot to be done. But we want to do that together.”

You often talk about the need to make the Faculty of Humanities more "sustainable" and what is required to keep the disciplines attractive. Does the faculty share your views?
“As far as the guiding principles for our new undergraduate programme are concerned, I think many people do support them. Everyone feels we have a duty to make it even clearer that one-sided technological or economic solutions do not help society move forward. Our knowledge of history, languages, philosophy, art and religion is just as crucial. In addition, everyone feels that we must collaborate more in interdisciplinary contexts and with society's stakeholders. Things get trickier when people see the consequences of this approach for their own programmes. And I understand that.”

One of the main pieces of evidence about people's concerns is a petition that has been circulating in the faculty over the past few months. What do you think about it?
“I think it’s wonderful that many people are coming together and speaking out in support of the Humanities. We take such views into account, of course. We’ve also had a nice conversation with the petition's initiators.”

The initiators are a little bit less positive about that conversation...
Vaessens raises his hands and remains silent.

Among other things, the petition expressed concern that the introduction of interdisciplinary programmes would come at the expense of disciplinary training and drive students away.
“We do not see that as a risk. We are anticipating developments in research, the needs of the labour market and students’ interests. Students from different degree programmes will collaborate more on major themes where our expertise is urgently needed, such as democracy, AI and heritage. Let there be no misunderstanding: we remain committed to what we excel at: recognisable, discipline-oriented programmes. We are simply strengthening those programmes by adding a shared component, which delivers economies of scale and makes the programmes even stronger in terms of content.”

How can you be so sure this is the right course of action?
“We’re guided by the many analyses carried out over the past decades in response to the challenges facing the Humanities. These are all quite clear. The degree programmes are organised on too small a scale and fail to demonstrate our true value. We’ve known for quite some time what needs to be done, and we’re now putting it into practice.”

But how will you know whether you’re on the right track? On what basis will this process be deemed a success?

“We have an agreement with the Executive Board. Before it expires, we must at the very least have fulfilled our financial commitments. Furthermore, as far as I’m concerned, we have three objectives. Students and staff must eventually be studying and working within challenging programmes that are not only relevant but also regarded as relevant by the outside world. In addition, the faculty must become financially robust. Finally, we want to remain internationally leading in our research.”

So, increasing the number of students is not a goal?
“No, we cannot fulfil such an ambition, given the demographic trends. There are fewer and fewer 18-year-olds in the Netherlands. The view on the internationalisation of Dutch education has also changed, and fewer students from abroad are now welcome in the Netherlands.”

That makes success difficult to measure. How will you be held to account in the future?
“I’d very much like to discuss with everyone how we’re going to monitor this process. For now, I’ll say this: we have clear agreements with the Executive Board, and we must honour them. Those agreements stem from a substantive plan covering the three dimensions I just mentioned. This isn’t just a financial exercise.”

And then there’s the workload. Faculty members already had a lot on their plates, and now we're hearing more often that things are “creaking at the seams”.
“One of the core objectives of the transition plan is to do something about that. How are we going to do it? By reducing the number of tasks. For example, we’ll be adopting teaching methods that remain very intensive for students, but less so for lecturers. We call this ‘Model B’. None of this will happen overnight, but by the end of the transition period, lecturers should notice a significant increase in peace of mind and breathing space.”

So, the workload should decrease in the long term, but lecturers first need to develop new courses and adapt their current courses to Model B. How are you keeping that workload under control?
“The Executive Board has made additional resources available for this, which we appreciate. This allows us to give lecturers more time to develop this new teaching approach. Initially, we thought there would be no scope for that, but we really do assess every day which tasks are less essential. Beyond that, all we can do is ask for patience and cooperation until 2028. That’s not an eternity.”

Some people think you should have knocked harder on the Executive Board’s door…
“The Executive Board is already helping us with 9 million euros. That gives us time to implement changes, thereby avoiding a reorganisation, and it gives us the scope to shape the substance of those changes ourselves. It is our sustainability agenda. In short, I already feel very supported.”

But Humanities scholars have read that the university has a surplus of 25 million and that some faculties are having to make an effort to ensure their reserves do not grow too large…
“I understand that. But those faculties have long shown solidarity and loyalty towards the Humanities. That’s wonderful, but also very precarious, especially considering everyone will see student numbers decline in the coming years. As a strong and self-assured faculty, we simply need to be able to stand on our own two feet.”

Your counterpart in Nijmegen resigned because she believes the university's Executive Board is being led by consultants. She was supported by many people. What are your thoughts on this?
“I don’t think that's happening in Utrecht at all. When it comes to the Humanities, our board members make decisions based on the substance of the matter and recognise its great importance to the entire university. They simply demonstrate that.”

Many academics are calling for universities to become more democratic, especially within the humanities. This issue has also resurfaced in the wake of the budget cuts. Why do you not grant the Faculty Council the right to approve changes to the curriculum?
“The student representative body does have the right of consent regarding the new teaching programmes, as these will soon be laid down in the Teaching and Examination Regulations (OER). I fully understand the call for greater democratisation, but I also believe that people too often forget that different forms of democratic safeguards coexist. We have internal participation through the student and staff representative body, and also external democratic safeguards via the Supervisory Board, the Minister and the Parliament, where the main concern is whether we are using public funds responsibly.”

Finally, what about the students? After all, that’s who you’re doing this all for. Won’t your plans result in the bond between lecturers and the programme becoming less close?
“First and foremost, we don't intend for students’ engagement with their degree programme to decline, nor do we want students and lecturers to see less of one another. Absolutely not. What we want is to align ourselves more closely with other faculties that have less face-to-face teaching. We can also learn from them: how do they do this? How do they maintain engagement levels? What teaching methods do they use?”

It's not very helpful, then, that proposals to improve student support have been shelved.
“We really want to focus on students’ professional and personal development, as advocated in the revised university education model. There is now an excellent and ambitious proposal for a more comprehensive tutorial system and a learning pathway running throughout the curriculum. We have not yet reached a decision on this, as there are many factors to consider. Yes, including the cost aspect. But let me be clear that we consider this crucial. Academic success must become student success.”