Rector reiterates that all political parties are welcome at UU

The debate over Thierry Baudet's participation in an election debate held at Utrecht University in October continues to rage. Three study associations from the Faculty of Law, Economics, Governance & Organisation organised that debate in the Minnaert Building at Utrecht Science Park.

Does the university protect democracy by safeguarding open debate with room for all perspectives? Or is it in the interest of democracy to exclude anti-democratic parties from the debate?

During the University Council meeting held last Monday, both student members and staff members accused the Executive Board of allowing voices that undermine science and the rule of law to have a platform at UU. The subject was also discussed in the faculty council of Law, Economics and Governance.

A group of forty scientists and students had previously sent an open letter to the Executive Board, calling Baudet's participation “a betrayal of democracy”. The letter's author, the professor of Political History Ido de Haan, called on the university to hold a follow-up discussion, as he explains in an interview with DUB. UU responded to De Haan's request for a follow-up discussion. A dialogue is expected to take place early next year as part of Institutions for Open Societies.

All eligible parties welcome
On Monday, 3 November, Hermen Horzelenberg, a student member of the University Council, asked the rector whether all parties, including extreme ones, could be invited as guests to the university. According to Rector Wilco Hazeleger, this can happen if it concerns an election debate, provided the political parties are on the electoral list, as is the case with FvD. "There was no criminal offence, so at this point, you must accept that different views on the rule of law come to the table. We have academic freedom to respond to these different views and explain what they mean for our society."

The rector emphasised that the debate in which Baudet participated was a political event, not a scientific one. "The alternative would be not to organise any political debates at the university at all," which is not a good idea, as far as he is concerned. "Otherwise, we would be observing what is happening in society from our ivory tower."

Open university
UU Council staff member Gerard Blab feels that the presence of extreme political movements and the emphasis on the “open university”, in which free discussion and debate must take place, are at odds with each other.

He wanted to know how the university could simultaneously stimulate and monitor open debate. The rector emphasised the importance of reflecting on a debate after it has taken place. He also believes that the university can only have an impact on society if it participates in the debate.

"It makes no sense to exclude ourselves and only discuss certain topics within our own community. By excluding parties, we are actually excluding ourselves. It is necessary to engage in debate. The academic community must be free to express its opinion and say something based on scientific facts. If that is no longer possible, we have a problem. I fear that the voices that want to restrict academic freedom will only grow louder if we shut ourselves off from it."

According to staff member Elvan Ibiçoglu, anti-democratic parties do not want to exchange ideas or engage in dialogue on political topics, but instead seek to delegitimise the scientific consensus on issues like climate change.

"I fear that by offering them a platform, we are actually contributing to them scoring more seats in the House of Representatives. Once they are in power, they threaten the university and the rule of law. We have seen this in Hungary, the United States and Turkey. We should not be naive about how dangerous these views and political parties are. If it goes too far, it may already be too late."

Rector Hazeleger is convinced that it is a collective responsibility to prevent this, but he believes that excluding parties is not the way to go. Speaking in a personal capacity, he said: "In my previous jobs, I always dealt with climate sceptics in this way. The best approach is to demonstrate how falsification and the collection of scientific data work."

Meanwhile, at the Faculty Council of Law, Economics and Governance...
At the faculty council meeting last Monday afternoon, Dean Elaine Mak defended the decision to allow Thierry Baudet to participate in the election debate. The Faculty Council also raised fundamental questions about protecting democracy and the rule of law, and how the university should deal with parties that attack these principles. Mak also emphasised that the university stands for open debate, with room for different points of view. However, she stressed that there are limits to what can be expressed within a constitutional state.

The dean believes that students' and staff's perspectives on guest speakers should be heard. Therefore, early next year, she wants to resume the dialogue on how a debate works and how one can counter arguments when views contradict scientific facts or the principles of the rule of law. "How do we deal with guest speakers, under what conditions do we find them acceptable, and under what conditions would we prohibit the presence of a guest speaker?"

According to Mak, the university has the scientific knowledge to engage in a deeper debate about the nature of a democratically elected party such as Forum for Democracy. "We can then ask ourselves the question: what does that mean within the limits of the rule of law and the place we want to occupy as a university in society? What does it mean to offer a place for a party with views that go very far? And what does allowing certain guest speakers mean for our community of scientists and students? Some scientists are being threatened by certain quarters."

Municipal elections
During the faculty council meeting, there was also a preview of the municipal elections on March 18. It is a tradition for the Rebo study associations to organize a debate during every election. One council member wants to know whether the study associations will again invite all parties in the municipal council. “Or does the faculty now want to take a different position because of some anti-constitutional parties?”

It remained unclear how the faculty intends to address this issue. Furthermore, it is uncertain whether the study associations will organize another election debate in March, given that they have just concluded one. Mak expressed hope that the dialogue would be concluded early next year in order to provide clarity. 

Mak made several suggestions for what the faculty could do if a decision is not made in time. "We could decide in advance that we do not want to involve certain political parties for the time being, or we could say that we will not organise any events, so that we can postpone the decision for a while. Ideally, we will have found an answer in consultation with the wider community before 18 March."

It is clear to all parties in this discussion that the dilemma is pressing and that the conversation about how to deal with anti-democratic and anti-scientific parties at the university must be continued urgently. Hazeleger, Mak and the author of the open letter, Ido de Haan, are involved in organising the upcoming dialogue on this subject.

Hoogleraar Politieke Geschiedenis Ido de Haan schreef een open brief waarin hij zich keerde tegen de komst van Baudet naar Utrecht. De brief, die werd ondertekend door veertig wetenschappers en studenten, leidt tot een debat over de grenzen van de democratie dat de komende maanden wordt voortgezet. DUB sprak met hem.