Humanities "in shock"

Why so fast? Why weren't we consulted? Does it have to be like this? Administrators were fired with these and dozens of other questions in two well-attended council meetings last month. The administrators were adamant that the austerity measures and adjustments to education at the Bachelor's level would not be taken off the table. Those who hoped that the situation could be changed by protests or a relaxation of austerity measures in The Hague were told that these thoughts weren't realistic. 

In October, the faculty board announced a "transition plan" to stabilise the finances of the Faculty of Humanities in three years. This plan includes two important steps: terminating six Bachelor's programmes and developing a new structure for all education at the Bachelor's level.

Programmes were instructed to offer one-third of their courses in collaboration with other programmes, which would significantly reduce the range of courses on offer. The transition plan establishes that each programme or course must attract at least 25 students.

The faculty board acknowledges the impossibility of a budget of over 100 million euros by 10 percent in just three years without firing anyone. This means that 82 of the faculty's 870 full-time employees will be made redundant. In last Monday's meeting, the dean of the Faculty of Humanities, Thomas Vaessens, said: “You can’t do something like that with natural attrition alone.”

At the same time, according to him, the future income is still very uncertain and the adjustments to be made to the Bachelor's education aren't clear yet, either. He aims to give more details about the nature and scope of the reorganisation by the summer of 2025 at the latest. 

Under pressure
An additional meeting was held on November 18. Once again, the room was dominated by indignation and uncertainty. Dozens of students and employees filled the public gallery, but only the members of the faculty council were allowed to speak. Administrators were showered with questions nevertheless.

Most understand that the faculty is struggling financially and must do something about it. However, the council members have a hard time swallowing the pressure employees are under to overhaul education at the Bachelor's level. They also have doubts whether the course of action adopted by the faculty board has been conscientiously thought out and calculated. 

Their indignation was not only directed at the faculty board but also at the university's Executive Board, who gave Dean Thomas Vaessens a mere three months to devise a plan to stabilise the faculty's finances in three years. Vaessens managed to squeeze in another month but did not refuse the assignment.

More resistance
Many council members consider the Executive Board's request irresponsible and wonder if the dean could have offered a bit more resistance, especially considering the savings to be made by the faculty would not result in a significant reduction of the university's entire budget. Council member Hanny den Ouden said that the faculty's gap of 7 million euros in 2025 could be approached differently considering the university's total budget of 951 million. "The Executive Board is aware that employees do not support these plans, so why don't we go back?"

Vaessens declared he did not consider refusing the Executive Board's assignment. He was convinced that he would have lost control of the situation if he had said no, even though the Executive Board didn't explicitly threaten to do so. "If I had refused, we might have not had an independent faculty anymore."

The dean emphasised that the faculty has "used band-aids" on its wounds for years, surviving thanks to the solidarity of other faculties. These past few years, the Faculty of Humanities has received relatively large sums in the distribution of additional university resources. “But there is no room to do that anymore." Furthermore, the dean pointed out that the faculty itself was already working on a sustainability agenda in which thematic and interdisciplinary collaboration was key, as was cost reduction. “This was already necessary.”

The council members couldn't comprehend why Vaessens did not use the month of respite he'd received from the Executive Board to seek more support for his plans. According to them, the lack of consultation at an earlier stage is the reason for so many employees to be indignant now. “There was no time for a bottom-up process and no room for compromise,” Vaessens stated. “I had to take my responsibility as the dean.”

Considerations are mixed up
Many council members criticised the fact that the proposals seem to mix up financial and substantive considerations. For example, the faculty board calculated that a programme with few students would be several hundred thousand euros more expensive than a programme with more students because the former has financing for diplomas, lower tuition fees, and less education-related research. Council members wondered if that was the main consideration when deciding to close six of the faculty's programmes.

Council member Maarten van Houte was particularly upset about university administrators who “quickly dance to the beat of their drum” when the government announces austerity measures for higher education. "That is one of the reasons why employees are so frustrated. This gives us the impression that the Executive Board told the faculty to just get rid of those six programmes and come up with a story about it."

“No, closing the programmes is a consequence of our substantive choice for scale, which was supported by the Executive Board,” Vaessens replied. "It could also affect other programmes. But we are closing programmes, not disciplines. Our expensive obligation now is to come up with solutions for the future of these six disciplines. We are going to do that because we need them badly.”

That is a bitter pill to swallow, in Den Ouden's view. “So you're saying that closing the programmes will not save us that much money and at the same time you expect those people to put their shoulders to the wheel?”

Toine Minnaert, chair of the staff section of the council, pointed out that Utrecht's long tradition of independent programmes is being lost. “Apparently, we must become more like other faculties. This feels like an attack against what makes the Humanities strong.”

Not proportional
However, the council members know that the six programmes to be axed are not the only ones bearing the burden of the austerity measures. All programmes in the Faculty will be forced to adjust their Bachelor's programmes. Even programmes that don't have any problems in terms of student inflow will have to convert some of their courses into shared courses.

According to the council members, employees are not exactly motivated to devise a different structure for their programmes, especially now that their scatter time (the working hours that are not allocated to specific tasks, Ed.) will be temporarily eliminated. In addition, vacancies will not be automatically filled due to the budget cuts, which means the workload is expected to increase.

Last but not least, the faculty board cannot demonstrate with concrete figures that the plan will indeed make the faculty financially stable in three years. Maarten van Houte: "This is a gigantic operation that affects everyone. Is it proportional?"

Scepticism about interdisciplinarity
Other council members were sceptical about the trend towards more interdisciplinarity. Is that what students really want? The number of students enrolled in the interdisciplinary programmes Liberal Arts & Sciences and Language & Culture Studies is not growing right now. Besides, wouldn't a move towards interdisciplinarity drive away students interested in deepening themselves in a certain field of study, leading them to choose other universities instead? And how would this impact the quality of the programmes? “Have you made this risk analysis as well?”, the council asked.

Vice Dean of Education, Bert van den Brink, noted that the proposed adjustments are in line with the university's revamped education model, established this autumn. The document states that all UU students must be more exposed to interdisciplinarity and collaborate more often with "stakeholders" outside the university. UU programmes must work on achieving this goal over the next five years.

“We certainly do not intend to reduce the quality of education or undermine disciplines,” said Van den Brink, adding that it is not like all of the faculty's education is being poured into broad interdisciplinary programmes. "As for how programmes will fill in those shared 60 credits, we'll leave that to programme directors. It doesn't necessarily have to be done the same way across the entire faculty."

Van de Brink did not deny that employees will be under more pressure in the years to come. "We will have to do more in less time. We will join forces with the programme directors to critically examine what should and especially what should not be done. But I do not have a miracle answer."

At a certain point, the faculty board wanted to withdraw something from the plan. Contrary to what is stated in the transition plan, in exceptional cases, employees will be able to "buy themselves out" of educational duties. This new policy could be a problem for employees who win large research grants or who lead important international research projects. The faculty board has also concluded that this could lead to a loss of income and prestige in certain cases, not to mention the high work pressure for those involved.

Mourning and processing
“A faculty in shock.” That's what the Amsterdam-based professor Ineke Sluiter, chair of a research visitation, said she encountered in Utrecht last month when sharing her otherwise positive preliminary findings on the research conducted by the Faculty of Humanities.

Faculty council members also indicated in the meetings that many employees are mourning or processing the announcements, so they are not ready to engage in constructive cooperation just yet. Besides, the deadline for a detailed plan laying out what the faculty's education at the Bachelor's level will look like is eight months. The faculty fears that things are going much too fast.

Dean Thomas Vaessens acknowledges this but prefers to hold on to contrary signals. “There are also many people indicating their interest in thinking along and brainstorming alternatives. We will always listen to them. Besides, I have a lot of confidence in the attitude of department heads.”

Advisory rights
The faculty council is currently working on an advisory report for the faculty board. However, the rights and involvement of co-determination councils in this process remain vague. Formally, the council has no advisory rights on the plan. It would only have such rights if the transition plan affected the university's strategic plan, which must be finalised next spring. Even then, advisory rights would only apply if the council received a faculty elaboration of the plans and it is not clear yet if that will happen.

Furthermore, the plan envisages several decisions that require a separate consultation procedure. The faculty council will have the right to approve the budget next month. This budget already includes several austerity measures, such as suspending scatter hours and cancelling various courses. If an official reorganisation takes place, the staff members will have the right to advise on the reorganisation plan and approve its implementation.

The closure of the six programmes is something that the faculty board must request from the university's Executive Board. This request will be made next spring and the faculty council will be asked for advice. Then, the University Council must agree with the discontinuation of the six programmes.