Which of these three questions should DUB explore in depth?

The idea is inspired by the French outlet Le Drenche, which elucidates questions proposed by the student population, approaching them from different perspectives. you can help us decide which of the three topics we will cover more deeply by filling in a form where you can indicate which one you are most interested in and what you would like to know about that discussion.

Question #1: To what extent can individuals be compelled to act sustainably?

A vegan sandwich. Photo: DUB

Utrecht University's Year Theme for 2025 is "a healthy planet." Everyone knows the climate is changing and we must do something about it, but to what extent can individuals be compelled to fight global warming? How far can individual freedoms go and when can the university and the government infringe on those freedoms for the greater good? For example, some students and staff are in favour of plant-based canteens and flight bans while others feel that people should not be forced to give up meat and travel by train. How should the university deal with that? 

The same question applies to government measures. The municipality of Utrecht will soon introduce new environmental regulations. Cars that run on petrol and are over 15 years old will no longer be allowed to circulate in the city as of 2030. The municipality also plans to ban campfires and barbecues. Some criticise these plans by saying they will generate inequalities and that such measures have little impact in a small city like Utrecht.  
 

Photo: DUB

People's engagement in the fight against climate change also depends on how convincingly scientists can get their message across. Many researchers and climate activists feel unheard. Will compulsory measures work if the message is not getting through? 

If you would like to know more about this topic, all you have to do is choose it in our form and indicate your main questions and suggestions. You can also suggest which scientists and experts you think DUB should talk to when covering this topic.

Question #2: Will AI make our diplomas obsolete?

Photo: DUB

University students spend years pursuing a degree. But will the diplomas obtained by some of today's students stay relevant in a world where much of the knowledge and skills they acquired will also be easily accomplished by computers? Will they still be able to find a job if artificial intelligence can do the same thing, only cheaper?

Some people say that jobs will not disappear. They will just be different. After all, AI still needs humans to direct it and give them tasks. But does that mean that current students will only be able to find a job if they have followed a programme in which AI is a big part of the curriculum? What can students graduating now expect from the labour market? 

Photo: Pexels. By Mojahid Mottakin

Many universities see AI as a threat, while students are using ChatGPT to write their papers and theses. Shouldn't university education embrace AI to make it easier for students to find a job in the future? After all, one can't put the genie back in the bottle. Should society set limits to AI to prevent it from taking our jobs? Would that help ensure that degrees retain their value?

If you would like to know more about this, fill in our form and indicate what makes you worried exactly. You can also name scientists and experts you think DUB should talk to.

Question # 3: Should there be boundaries to the right to protest?

Photo: DUB

The Netherlands is a democratic constitutional state where everyone is allowed to express their opinions. But how can citizens express their dissatisfaction? Should there be limits to the dissemination of certain opinions? There is an ongoing debate in the Netherlands about what types of action fall under the right to demonstrate. Utrecht University has recently established house rules that state that occupying buildings does not fall under the right to demonstrate, while Amnesty International says it does. 

In addition, the House of Representatives is debating whether or not face coverings should be banned. A motion was recently passed stating that demonstrators who occupy motorways should face criminal prosecution. This motion specifically had Extinction Rebellion activists, who recently blocked the A12 motorway, in mind. But does a protest even make sense if it does not cause a nuisance to anyone? 

In Utrecht, a demonstrator was given a prison sentence for spraying paint on the door of a UU building. The University of Amsterdam recently filed charges against a group of pro-Palestinian demonstrators who disrupted a lecture by Defence Minister Ruben Brekelmans. Is disturbing a lecture allowed under the right to demonstrate or is it going too far? Is there a difference between what is legally allowed and what is ethically justified? Is it okay to prevent someone from expressing their views?

What exactly does the law say about the right to demonstrate? How does the Netherlands compare to other countries in this regard? Is the law different in Germany, France, Spain or England? To what extent do ethical considerations play a role in those rules? Can actions like strikes, sit-ins and roadblocks be considered a nuisance and, if not, where does one draw the line? 

If you would like DUB to take a deep dive into this subject, fill in our form and indicate the aspects of this debate that concern you. You can also suggest scientists and experts who could make a useful contribution to our coverage.