Humanities still concerned about changes in the curriculum

Around fifteen students gathered on Monday afternoon outside Janskerkhof 3. An emergency meeting of the Faculty Council of Humanities was held there soon afterwards. "Stop murdering faculties," said one of the signs hung beneath the bronze statue of FC Donders.

The message was directed at the Executive Board of Utrecht University, which the protesters hold responsible for the extensive cost-cutting measures planned for the Faculty of Humanities, as it gave the faculty three years to achieve financial stability. It must save about 9 million euros by this deadline.

The demonstration was organised by the student union Vidius, which was alarmed by a petition expressing serious concerns about the changes the faculty intends to implement to its Bachelor’s programmes to meet the cost-cutting targets. Launched last month, the petition has been signed by around 300 Humanities students. 

Compulsory course
The plans were discussed on Monday at an additional faculty council meeting. The public gallery was filled with around sixty students and lecturers. One of the agenda items was the final report, which contained no fewer than 39 recommendations from a project group and the faculty board’s response.

According to many, the most far-reaching plan is the introduction of the so-called "connecting packages", which consist of four interdisciplinary modules on themes that should interest students enrolled in any degree within the faculty. The faculty board proposes five themes: democracy, sustainability, heritage, migration, and AI.

Students would be required to take this package starting in the 2027–2028 academic year. A course with the working title "What is my discipline?" would be included in each package. This means that programmes would be forced to offer fewer disciplinary courses "of their own", and that students would have less freedom of choice.

Extensive learning
In addition, the course structure for all modules would need to be revised. At present, students typically attend one lecture and two seminars per week. A proposal suggests replacing one of the seminars with an "extensive structured learning activity" such as an e-learning module or a knowledge clip. However, this could also involve sessions in which students study literature together or work together on an assignment. Deviations from this new format will only be permitted in exceptional cases.

The faculty board hopes that this will require fewer teachers. It also believes that Humanities students currently receive a relatively high level of face-to-face teaching compared to other students at UU.

Furthermore, there are proposals to develop alternatives to written Bachelor’s theses and to establish a new framework for student supervision and tutoring. Nonetheless, much remains unclear, particularly regarding tutoring, which is a concern for students on the Faculty Council.

According to the board, the measures aim to keep the degree programmes affordable and also make them more attractive to future students. However, a large proportion of students and lecturers fear a counterproductive effect whereby programmes would lose scope for their own discipline and, consequently, lose quality and appeal. The petition is also a sign of that. Furthermore, they fear that the bonds between students, their lecturers, and their degree programmes would weaken. Many lecturers wonder whether the plans have been sufficiently researched.

A vulnerable position
Some faculty members expressed more moderate views. Opinions often depend on the department or programme somebody works for, or the position they hold. Previous Faculty Council meetings had already shown that the faculty holds divergent views, ranging from highly critical to more sympathetic.

“Everyone agrees there is a clear need to take action, but there is less consensus on the extent to which this should be done and on the specific measures that should be taken,” stated Toine Minnaert, chair of the staff delegation, when he opened the discussion on Monday.

During the meeting, members of the faculty board reacted to the various concerns and criticisms raised by the council members. For instance, staff representative Kila van der Starre asked why the faculty did not take the time to properly examine the proposals.

According to Dean Thomas Vaessens, the faculty does have sufficient information to justify the measures. He argued that all reports written over the past twenty years on the vulnerable position of the Faculty of Humanities point to the same conclusion: small-scale education and fragmentation are hampering the disciplines. “That is crystal clear,” he said.

Moreover, he stated that the faculty has been discussing policy measures to foster greater collaboration and cohesion across its various academic disciplines and among its 21 Bachelor’s programmes for much longer. In his view, these discussions have gained momentum following the previous cabinet's announcement of substantial budget cuts. 

Vaessens added that there is simply no time to stand still. The agreement with the UU Executive Board contains firm commitments regarding the scale of the budget cuts and the timeframe within which the university intends to absorb the deficits. The Executive Board does not wish to deviate from this agreement.

Reassuring
Vaessens also sought to address the concerns expressed by critics who fear that the new measures will jeopardise independent disciplinary programmes. He emphasised that the proposals that were initially on the table were much more drastic and included a major downsizing, which could have hit several disciplines even harder.

Moreover, the dean argued that well-known independent disciplinary programmes will play a significant role in student recruitment, an area in which UU intends to invest more. He is confident that the revamped programmes will soon be able to hold their own in an increasingly competitive landscape, given demographic trends.

The Faculty Council would have liked to see figures regarding the expected benefits of the plans. Director Miranda Jansen addressed questions in this regard. According to her, the mandate to save money was already included in the remit given to the project group a year and a half ago, with the starting point that 85 full-time positions would have to be made redundant. “Fewer people can carry out fewer tasks. The measures are therefore aimed at adapting the tasks so that they can be carried out by fewer people.”

Executive Board supports the measures
All 24 council members, without exception, were deeply concerned about lecturers' ever-increasing workload. Earlier this year, they issued a statement highlighting the consequences of the accumulation of changes, which they argue places greater demands on lecturers. “How are we going to ensure that lecturers do not suffer as a result?” asked council member Toine Minnaert once again.

According to the dean, a new commitment from UU could provide some relief during the transition period. The faculty is allowed to use 815,000 euros from the funds set aside by the government in 2025 for "Workload and Talent Policy" to give lecturers time to work on the reforms. The agreement stipulated that all unforeseen income should go into the faculty’s reserve fund. The Executive Board is adding a one-off sum of 100,000 euros to this amount to alleviate the workload in support services.

The Vice-Dean of Education, Els Rose, welcomed the additional funding but said that workloads will inevitably increase significantly. She argued the faculty board is doing its best to phase in the measures and emphasised that this is a temporary situation. “Not everything has to happen at once. But an investment is necessary on the way to that new reality.”

Top-down
A major sticking point remains: the recurring criticism that the faculty board implements measures in a top-down manner. During the meeting, Vaessens disagreed with that view. “We have placed the responsibility for this, first and foremost, with the directors of education, where it belongs. These aren’t just any old people; they have the relevant knowledge and also know what’s going on on the ground.”

According to Vaessens, more and more people have been consulted over time, and the circle of stakeholders has grown steadily. An approach that makes sense in his view: “You simply cannot devise plans of this kind with 1,200 people.”

At the same time, the dean acknowledged that the faculty board still has a long way to go to win people over. Referring to the project group’s risk analysis, he highlighted that many staff members feel that financial and substantive considerations are constantly mixed up, which could be disastrous for support.

As for the project group's advice, one of the things the faculty board is considering is appointing "ambassadors" to provide explanations within the programmes. This information made the staff member Marloes Beers suspicious: “It’s not that people don’t understand the measures or that they don’t see the need for them. The dissatisfaction is mainly about the process. Many people feel that they haven’t been heard.”

Vaessens emphasised that he, too, realised the faculty board needs to do more than simply continue explaining its intentions. According to him, substantive discussions are already taking place at several levels, and this will also be the case during the major faculty meetings about the changes on 10 and 11 June.

Council member David Napolitano was still not convinced at the end of the meeting. He advised the faculty board to ensure that they do not just talk to “experts” but also to “people on the floor”. This closing remark led the people in the public gallery to rumble their hands on the tables.

Right of consent
The Faculty Board regards the project group’s final report as marking the end of the planning phase. The Faculty Council will now consider a recommendation to the Faculty Board, which may also include a request to incorporate the amendments into the faculty section of the Teaching and Examination Regulations.

This would mean that the Faculty Council would be granted the right of consent regarding the plans. In an extreme case, council members could vote individually. During the meeting, the council member Maarten van Houte made it clear that he considered this appropriate given the potential impact of the plans on the quality of education across the entire faculty.

Vaessens did not wish to comment on this at this stage. So far, the Faculty Board has argued that the changes primarily concern individual degree programmes, on which programme committees have the right of consent. 

The group of protesters outside, on Janskerkhof Square, had already dispersed by then.

Niels van Miltenburg was one of the initiators of the petition calling for a pause. According to the signatories, the proposed measures had not been properly researched and had been imposed from the top down. The petition attracted around 300 signatories, while the faculty has 1,200 staff members. 

The assistant professor is disappointed with the responses from the faculty board and the University Executive Board. In his view, the Executive Board was not actually interested in addressing the substantive criticism expressed by the Faculty of Humanities. In a written response, UU President Hans Brug emphasised that, given the financial crisis, the faculty must take cost-cutting measures quickly and that the faculty board is communicating carefully in this regard.

Van Miltenburg: “Our petition does acknowledge that the faculty faces financial challenges, and our criticism is not directed at a lack of communication. Our objection is directed against the accumulation of measures currently being proposed. The consequences of these measures have not been sufficiently investigated, and we fear that they will lead to a decline in both the quality of education and student numbers. In the long term, this will worsen the faculty’s financial position even further.”

The faculty board invited Van Miltenburg for a meeting, along with professors Kiene Brillenburg Wurth, Remco Raben, and Paul Ziche. According to Van Miltenburg, the main message of this meeting also was that the board wishes to improve communication but sees no scope for further investigation or alternatives, as it aims to adhere to the established timetable.

“This is extremely worrying. Our petition shows there is not enough support for these measures. We were hoping this would give the faculty board the mandate to request more time and proceed more carefully. The fact that the faculty board is now trying to push these measures through anyway is extremely irresponsible, as far as we are concerned.”

The faculty board has indicated that it will respond in writing to the petition's content at a later date.