Humanities scholars want to take a break from bachelor's reform

According to the faculty board, the Faculty of Humanities needs to make drastic changes to its degree programmes to address financial shortfalls. They believe that a more interdisciplinary approach to teaching is required to ensure the long-term viability of all disciplines, and that doing nothing will inevitably lead to layoffs.

In the summer of 2025, the Humanities Dean, Thomas Vaessens, unveiled a "Transition Plan", the most painful part of which was the discontinuation of several undergraduate language programmes. Working groups have been developing the plan over the past year.

To make its education more efficient and attractive, Humanities programmes will have to join forces to offer "linking packages" featuring interdisciplinary teaching. They will also have to reduce the number of students per class and the number of seminar sessions per course. Furthermore, the plan states that alternative graduation options must be developed to replace the traditional bachelor’s thesis.

Rushed
Many faculty members have serious reservations about this process, the proposed changes and the pace at which they are supposed to be implemented, as evidenced by an open letter that started circulating last week. It has been signed by around 180 of the 800 staff members, including several professors. Signatories include renowned faculty members such as the Religious Studies scholar Birgit Meijer, the historian Beatrice de Graaf, and the philosopher Paul Ziche.

The signatories point out that it is by no means certain that the measures proposed will lead to the desired financial and academic outcomes. After all, not enough research has been carried out to support these claims.

Will these new interdisciplinary courses really attract more students? Will disciplinary programmes maintain the same quality if they offer fewer "specialist" subjects? Isn't Utrecht University running the significant risk that students interested in a specific discipline will simply enrol elsewhere?

The signatories are concerned that lecturers didn't have a say or contribute ideas to these plans, even though they are the ones who will have to implement them. For this reason, they describe the process as opaque.

“We are faced with fast, structural reforms that are causing operational chaos. They primarily rely on the ability of lecturers, students and support staff to improvise, putting the quality of education at risk."

Irresponsible gamble
The letter calls for the timetable to be adjusted. In addition, the signatories argue for a more thorough investigation into the underlying causes of the faculty's financial problems and alternative scenarios that would be less "disruptive".

The signatories also acknowledge that it is necessary to act. However, if the faculty board continues on its current course, they believe that it will be taking too great a gamble with the faculty’s future, which is irresponsible.

Not too late
Niels van Miltenburg, Associate Professor of Philosophy, is one of the authors of the letter. He explains that the idea is to present the text, along with the names of all signatories, to the faculty board, the Executive Board, and the faculty and university councils after Easter.

Van Miltenburg says he has received mainly positive reactions to the initiative. “There are a great many people in our faculty who take issue with how things are being handled. Through this letter, we aim to show just how widespread this concern is.” He also calls on concerned students and staff members from other faculties to show their support by signing the petition too.

The associate professor hopes that the process, which so far has been implemented top-down, will be corrected. He is unsure whether the counter-argument that there is no time to take a break holds water. “We learned earlier this month that the university closed 2025 with a surplus of 25 million.”

One could argue, however, that the letter has come way too late. After all, Humanities academics have known what has been going on for a year and a half. “That may very well be,” reacts Van Miltenburg. “For the language programmes that have been scrapped, this is certainly too late. At the same time, some people have asked me if we are not too early. After all, there is still considerable uncertainty about what the proposals will mean in practice. As far as I'm concerned, as long as it hasn’t been implemented, it’s not too late yet.”