UU updates its statement about Gaza: collaborations to be critically re-examined

The emergency exits of the University Library in the city centre were blocked for a while, demonstrators did not accept the Executive Board's invitations to talk to a small delegation of them, many protesters were covering their faces, and a great portion of them had been seen by the police a day earlier at the protests at the University of Amsterdam. These were the signals that made the Executive Board feel uneasy about the occupation of the library's courtyard on Tuesday, May 7, and concerned about safety. 

“Together with the police and the 'triangle' (how the Dutch call the mayor, public prosecutor and chief of police, Ed.), we tried to de-escalate things for as long as possible and thus prevent an evacuation. However, we were eventually forced to do it, which felt like a failure,” says Pijpers. “We have contacted them several times and asked to discuss with a delegation. But they said we could only talk to the entire group, many of whom were masked. That was out of the question for us. We will not talk to people wearing face coverings. That way, you don't know if you're really talking to one of our students or employees. I want to know who I am having a conversation with.”

On Wednesday, when the demonstrators occupied the building at Drift 25 after gathering in front of the Utrecht University Building at Dom Square, the university talked to a delegation. None of them were wearing face coverings. “I explained to them that we understand their objections, but the university has around 50,000 students and employees, so we must weigh all interests. That's what the councils and other instances are for. In response, they reiterated their demands, arguing that we should comply. But that's not how democracy works.”

No violence, just coercion
According to Pijpers, it was necessary to evacuate Drift 25 because the board could no longer guarantee everyone's safety, including the safety of the activists. "I am responsible for that safety. If a fire breaks out, I am responsible. We did not have access to the building. This occupation differed from the one carried out by End Fossil Occupy last year. At that time, we had access to the space and good agreements were made with the protesting students.”

Pijpers does not think the police were violent when clearing the courtyard. In his view, they were coercive. He has the impression that most protesting students and employees left after being asked to do so. On Wednesday, however, he couldn't see the evacuation of Drift 25 at all. “I have heard through colleagues and students that some students didn't feel safe when in contact with the police. People are pointing out to us that the police used violence. Colleagues and students who were not present are outraged about the images that were shared on social media, and I understand that. As the board's chair, I felt powerless. You don't want to forcibly remove people from your property. At the same time, we felt compelled to take back the property due to the aforementioned security considerations. Before we did that, they were asked several times to leave the building.”

An occupation is not a demonstration
The damage caused to the buildings is not too bad. Two lecture halls can't be used for a while because the audiovisual equipment has been damaged and slogans have been written on the walls. The furniture used to set up barricades was damaged too. The university will not report the incident and therefore not ask the occupiers to cover the costs of the damage, something that he threatened to do on the day of the protest.

He repeatedly referred to the university's house rules on both occasions. These rules haven't been around for long. “We came up with them after students occupied the Minnaert building. The activists there had already drawn up rules themselves, which enabled us to make good agreements about additional house rules on our part. Thanks to this, their occupation could proceed safely and we have prevented an escalation. Our house rules were also inspired by examples from other universities. In our view, an occupation is not a demonstration. That is stated in the house rules. Occupations will no longer be tolerated.”

Other restrictions are also indicated in the house rules. For example, educational and research activities may not be disrupted, protesters can't prepare food on the premises, face-covering attire is prohibited, flyers may not be distributed and slogans may not be intimidating, discriminatory or damaging. The association of Dutch universities (UNL) has been working on a joint demonstration protocol. According to Pijpers, UU's house rules have served as an example.

UU updates statement on Gaza
Pijpers says that the university's statement of neutrality regarding Israel's actions in the Gaza Strip has been updated following the protests. Now, the university endorses the rulings of the International Court of Justice and the resolutions of the UN Security Council, which call on Israel to combat famine in Gaza and appeal to Hamas to release all hostages urgently. Moreover, they advocate an immediate ceasefire. The university claims not to take a political position. Instead, it wants to provide space for its community to share insights, information, concerns and opinions. Utrecht University must be a safe place for all students and employees, regardless of their origin, background or political beliefs.

UU also states that the list of partnerships with Israel is being updated. Pijpers stresses that the university is taking a critical look at these collaborations, in close consultation with the deans. “We will investigate whether universities contribute to the weapons industry, for example. If they do, that is contrary to our code of conduct.”

Pijpers is not in favour of a general boycott. “Many people criticise Israel's policy, especially within Israeli universities. You should support those people and not boycott them.” But then, how come all ties with Russia were immediately severed? Pijpers: “We followed the call from the Dutch government and the European Union, which was quite compelling. We see now that this has caused major consequences for the university. Scientists who collaborated with Russian colleagues could no longer continue their research. In retrospect, we should have pursued a more nuanced policy as we now advocate with Israel. You could call that progressive insight.”