UU scraps absolute ban on occupying buildings

In a report prepared at the request of the University Council, SIM researchers examined the university's house rules for demonstrations. These house rules are an elaboration of the guidelines that Dutch universities jointly established last year. The University Council had particular problems (link to Solid-id, ed.) with the fact that the amendment positions the university as primarily a private party seeking to protect its property.

The SIM researchers focused on the ban on occupying university buildings and concluded that occupying a university building can be seen as part of the right to demonstrate. They argue that the university is a publicly funded institution and an important pillar of the democratic constitutional state. Based on this idea, university buildings fulfil the function of a “public forum.” A general ban on occupations is not consistent with this. 

Proportionality
However, SIM does acknowledge that the right to demonstrate can conflict with other rights, such as students' right to education. In cases of violence, discrimination, or hate speech, the university is even obliged to intervene. However, UU will have to reassess which right takes precedence in each situation. The researchers argue that the starting point for this must be “proportionality.” Some inconvenience caused by occupations must be accepted. The consequences of police intervention must also be taken into account. "Prohibitions can have a chilling effect and, in the worst case, lead to self-censorship or discourage future protests."

Safety at stake
In its response, UU emphasises that SIM's advice largely reflects what the university is already doing. In each of the six occupations that have taken place, the various rights and interests have been carefully weighed. “We have often decided not to enforce rules, or not to enforce them immediately, to give more space to the right to demonstrate. For example, UU tolerated a multi-day protest in the courtyard of the University Library”, says University President Anton Pijpers on the UU website. 

The university also believes that the SIM report pays too little attention to the responsibility that the Executive Board has for the safety of everyone present in the buildings and the health of students and staff, both those who are protesting and those who are not. For this reason, the university continues to believe that security staff must have access to the entire building at all times. 

Adjustment
At the same time, the board acknowledges that “communication about these considerations — such as the reasons behind certain safety concerns — has not always been sufficiently clear to the university community.” Hence, the decision to amend the house rules, which will soon be discussed with the University Council. In the new version (only with Solis ID, ed.), other issues are also formulated less categorically. 

For example, according to SIM, an exception should be made to the ban on wearing face-covering clothing in educational buildings during demonstrations, as activists may have legitimate reasons for not revealing their identity. In the new house rules, the university now states: “We assume that face-covering clothing will not be worn in buildings and associated grounds of the university, even during demonstrations. In any case, the Executive Board will not speak to demonstrators wearing face-covering clothing.”

Flyering and chalk drawings are also permitted now as part of the right to demonstrate, as long as they do not incite violence or discrimination. Now, UU only states: “However, take care of our campus and leave the place clean. If you're handing out flyers, clean them up.”