'The university must actively defend democracy'

What is the university's role in protecting democracy? That was the main question discussed on Wednesday afternoon, when several UU scholars gathered for a debate. The event was prompted by the participation of the far-right Dutch politician Thierry Baudet (from the party Forum for Democracy) in an election debate organised by three study associations of the Faculty of Law, Economics & Governance last autumn. Forty students and staff members took issue with the invitation and wrote a letter to the Executive Board and the Faculty Board of Law, Economics & Governance to express their disappointment at the university's decision to give the politician a platform.

Ido de Haan, a Professor of Political History, took the initiative for the letter. At the start of Wednesday's debate, he reiterated his position that Utrecht University should have prevented “extremist and fascist ideas from being given a platform for propaganda and mobilisation”. He hoped that the university would learn from this episode. 

Around seventy students and staff members secured a spot in the lecture hall in the Minnaert Building, where the debate was held on Wednesday. They couldn't help but notice that the question of whether UU should have excluded a democratically elected politician from participating in a debate held on its premises was addressed only briefly. The debate soon became much broader.

For example, the board members of the study associations that organised the election debate featuring Baudet were present in the audience and wanted to know if they had "betrayed the university and democracy", as the letter's writers argued. However, they did not get an explicit answer to that question. Either way, the panellists and audience were deeply convinced that, in times of rising right-wing extremism, the university must take a combative, concrete, critical and active stance to promote democracy both internally and externally.

Led by Professor of Political Philosophy Rutger Claasen, eight panellists engaged in two rounds of discussion. The first explored the question "Is democracy in danger?", while the second asked: "Does the university have a responsibility to protect democracy?"

All panellists answered the first question in the affirmative, albeit with different approaches. Professor of Urban Futures Maarten Hajer mentioned the dangers of the “digitalisation” and “mediatisation” of our society. According to him, the impact, influence, and power these two phenomena exert on people's lives must be curtailed so that people can interact in person more. "Sometimes, the first thing you see in the morning is Trump's face on your phone, before you even see the face of your loved one next to you in bed."

Several panellists, such as Ido De Haan and Professor of Political History Annelien de Dijn, pointed out that almost a third of the seats in the Dutch House of Representatives are currently occupied by politicians who can be described as “far-right”. They were referring to the parties Forum for Democracy, PVV and JA21. The latter party was founded by politicians who departed from Forum for Democracy. 

Jurgen Goossens, Professor of Constitutional Law, argued that autocratisation is undeniably on the rise around the world, and the Netherlands is certainly not immune to this phenomenon, as the Dutch constitution offers relatively little protection against it. "We have fewer constitutional safeguards compared to other countries." According to Goossens, one should "continue to work for democracy, every day, including here at Utrecht University."

Some audience members, most of them students, pointed out that “working together to keep democracy alive” has become a tough task, given that people's views on what democracy means are highly divergent. They said that students on the right side of the political spectrum seem to interpret democracy as a “zero-sum game”, a battle in which the majority gets its way, and the minority has no say. “We're looking at the same thing but interpreting it differently,” observed Gerhard Blab, Education Director of the Physics programme and a member of the University Council. 

The second round of discussion delved into the university's role in all this. Does it have a responsibility to protect democracy? Several panellists believe that the university can make a contribution by embodying democratic principles in its lecture halls, its administration, and its interactions with society at large. Theory must be, therefore, more closely linked to practice. Many people suggested that the university should experiment with randomly selected councils of staff and students, who would be selected by lottery to contribute ideas on certain aspects of university policy.
 

According to Professor of Modern Dutch History James Kennedy, “engaged education” is the best way to instil a sense of citizenship in students, something he believes has virtually disappeared in his country of origin, the United States. During his speech, Kennedy quoted Ronald J. Daniels' book What Universities Owe Democracy, which emphasises that universities must seek to connect with society at large, with "optimal inclusivity" and "room for people whose ideas we despise". At the same time, universities must have "discernment". Kennedy said, "The main purpose of education is to distinguish sense from nonsense. We should equip students with the skills to question each other critically and respectfully, asking questions like: 'How do you know that?' or 'Is this information reliable? Where does it come from?'" In Kennedy's view, the university is not a place where political parties should spout their ideas unfiltered.

Marc Hertogh, Professor of Social & Institutional Dimensions of the Rule of Law, argued that the university should not be a platform for political parties, but rather engage in “platforming for democracy”. He believes it is the university's role to convince critics of the importance of the rule of law. He said this can be achieved by linking education and research more closely to reality and by investigating where improvements can be made. He also finds that academics should engage more often with citizens who have lost faith in democracy.

Annelien de Dijn, Professor of Modern Political History, was the most vocal panellist, warning that universities should be seriously concerned for their own position. Given what is going on in the United States, she feels this is "a very urgent issue" in the Netherlands.

“It is clear that certain political parties have no respect for academic freedom or understanding of it. How are we doing to deal with that threat?” she said. In Texas, a Philosophy professor was forced to change a lecture on Plato and gender because the university was no longer allowed to discuss gender at all. What if something similar happened in the Netherlands? Both audience members and fellow panellists noted that UU academics who speak their minds in the media often receive threats. Some of them even need additional security.

In De Dijn's opinion, university administrators should take a firm stand against any form of censorship. Above all, she believes that universities should recognise that their own undemocratic organisational structures pose a risk in the face of an existential threat. She advocates a substantial “course of action” in this area. “We need to think about how our university currently operates. It is organised undemocratically and is, therefore, vulnerable.”

De Dijn's arguments were supported by other panellists later that day, including Assistant Professor Stefanie Beyens, chair of the Faculty Council of Law, Economics & Governance. According to her, the debate between supporters and opponents of Baudet's presence at her faculty was good, but it ultimately carried little weight. She also noted that university administrators often make decisions without involving the university community, under pressure from the broader political context. "And we're just supposed to accept that."

Therefore, Beyens advocates for an elected rector. "Why not make the UU Rector a position students and staff could elect? If this were an elected position, the rector would be accountable and responsive to our university community. This would prompt us to start thinking collectively about what we believe needs to be done to counterbalance all the political violence."
 

Another panellist, Juliette Mattijsen, Manager of the Life Science community at the Planetary Health unit, underscored that the university should be mindful of whom it associates with. "UU should be a guardian and protector of the knowledge we produce. It should stand up against disinformation." In her view, the university should not have any ties with the fossil fuel industry, which abuses the university's knowledge, nor should it collaborate with multinationals that normalise violence and militarisation. She then asked: "Does the university have ties with British Petroleum? Are we complicit in the genocide in Gaza?"

Ultimately, it was the historian and University Council member Eleni Braat who managed to link the debate to its immediate catalyst. She wondered if the university should give a platform to all opinions. As far as she is concerned, there is a difference between freedom of expression and academic freedom, as the latter requires more framing. She proposed that, when faced with "controversial" invitations, the university should debate whether to grant a platform to someone. "I think we could invite such a person, but we must provide a framework for it. For example, there should be room to contradict the guest and ensure that a scientific debate takes place." Her comment was met with applause.

At the end of the debate, Elaine Mak, Dean of the Faculty of Law, Economics & Governance, and the rector, Wilco Hazeleger, were given the floor. Mak still stands behind her decision to allow an election debate with Baudet's presence. She said she was proud of the study associations that organise these debates every election year, arguing that students should be able to practise and learn about democracy in this way.

Mak stated that, as an administrator, she wants to set a good example so that all students and staff can express themselves and organise events. "At the same time, I feel responsible for thinking through our invitation policy, even more carefully. We must keep monitoring its long-term impact."

According to her, both the moderator and the Perikles board member Justin Hermsen adequately challenged Baudet when he tried to dominate the election debate held at her faculty.

Hazeleger emphasised that, even though they are not elected, he and the other members of the Executive Board feel a great responsibility to protect academic freedom and be accountable for their decisions. "We do have something to defend. It pains me to see censorship and self-censorship."

He also pointed out that the seventy people present in the audience were probably not representative of the entire UU community. “The university is diverse, more diverse than what is represented here. Society at large also looks pretty different from this. Therefore, for the sake of the university's legitimacy, we must consider: 'Is this still correct? Do we take society sufficiently into account? How do we teach scientists to be critical?'”

The rector stands by the decision to invite Baudet. "But we, too, are wondering if we have sufficiently considered all perspectives and framed the debate adequately. And, if we have, did we make all that sufficiently visible? We must learn from this experience, and the present debate will help us do so."

Commenting on the concerns about the university itself, the rector assured the audience that the Executive Board "truly stands for an open university," even when that's painful. "When the going gets tough, we have a little more to fight for." He concluded with the words: "I am ready to fight."