To what extent should the government determine the direction higher education takes?

Until the 1970s, the Minister of Education was the one who appointed professors at Dutch universities. The institutions nominated candidates, but they could be rejected if the minister considered them too young or not well-educated enough.

Until 1995, universities and universities of applied sciences did not have a budget of their own for real estate. They had to ask permission for every renovation or new building.

Today, things are very different: the ministry keeps its distance from universities and universities of applied sciences. It all started with a revolutionary official memorandum from the 1980s, best known as HOAK (Higher Education, Autonomy and Quality).

In their book De Tussenruimte (The In-Between Space), Ron Bormans and Sander van den Eijnden describe how things progressed when the relationships changed. The two authors spoke with former ministers, senior civil servants, student leaders and researchers. They were also able to draw on their own memories: they began their careers as civil servants at the Ministry of Education and later became chairs of the boards of universities of applied sciences (Arnhem, Nijmegen and Rotterdam for Bormans; VU Amsterdam and Leiden University of Applied Sciences for Van den Eijnden. 

Among other things, the authors describe how the then CDA minister Wim Deetman was troubled by a request from Tilburg University to start a degree programme in leisure studies. What was he to make of this? Senior civil servant Roel in 't Veld said to him: ‘Wim, you shouldn't get involved with the institutions at that level.’

Such issues – and the more business-like spirit of the times – led to HOAK's establishment. But when the government distances itself from higher education while still providing funding for it, the two authors argue that this creates an “interstitial space”: a space in which the government may or may not interfere in higher education and in which education administrators may or may not set the course together.

Could you say that the autonomy of higher education was invented forty years ago?

Bormans: ‘In the case of professional higher education, yes, because it used to be part of secondary education and was then given a completely new status. For universities, it was more a matter of modernisation and privatisation.’

Van den Eijnden: ‘You could also say that things sometimes need to be reinvented. Universities became state universities in the late nineteenth century. Before that, they were more independent. HOAK did indeed bring about a fundamental change in the relationships. Universities and universities of applied sciences were no longer a subdivision of the department.’

What was lost when the government distanced itself from higher education?

Bormans: ‘A certain homeliness and trust. In the past, you had to contact the ministry to build a new gym, which made for a certain closeness; people knew each other. But you can't build Utrecht Science Park or Bio Science Park in such a system.’

Van den Eijnden: ‘Society became more complex, so the system had to become more flexible. Universities and universities of applied sciences had to be enabled to respond to changing circumstances, which is why they were given more freedom of choice. We call that autonomy, but that also creates a gap between the educational institutions and the ministry. Since Deetman, every minister has struggled with the question of how to shape that.’

The authors describe different attempts by ministers and state secretaries to gain sufficient control while still reaping the benefits of the autonomy enjoyed by institutions. Ministers find it difficult at times to defend administrators against heated criticism from members of parliament – for example, when internationalisation at universities gets out of hand or when administrators close programmes with a small number of students. Or, in the more distant past, when administrators of universities of applied sciences abused the rules to obtain as much money as possible in what became known as the HBO fraud.

One of the difficulties is that institutions are primarily responsible for themselves, while the government is responsible for society as a whole. If you give institutions freedom, you can never be sure that they will make choices in the interests of everyone, despite all the supervisory and consultative bodies. After all, they may also put the interests of their own institutions first."

How can the government ensure that autonomous institutions make sensible decisions?

Van den Eijnden: "If you want institutional administrators to bear responsibility that extends beyond their own institution, you must lay that down in law. Describe that responsibility, determine who supervises it and define what happens if administrators fail to take that responsibility.

Don't forget that administrators are often left to their own devices. If a board of directors decides that psychology courses will be taught in Dutch, psychologists will be angry and other departments will either remain silent or show solidarity with the psychologists.”

Bormans: "I once proposed reducing the size of the economics sector in higher professional education, given the needs of the labour market. After all, we need more teachers, nurses and technicians. That proposal didn't stand a chance, even within my institution: if thousands of students were to transfer to another university of applied sciences, would we have to lay off colleagues? You wouldn't get anywhere. Either the universities of applied sciences have to make a collective effort, or you need a government that says: 'Let's all make this sector a little smaller. We'll put a cap on it.' You would then have to make binding agreements about this."

Isn't such government interference a threat to, say, the humanities or gender studies?

Bormans: “That danger is very real, but the eroding legitimacy of higher education is also a major risk. If people no longer feel that higher education is good for society, what will happen then?”

Van den Eijnden: ‘People who do not respect the rule of law will not allow themselves to be stopped. It really does matter who is the minister. But the institutions are stronger if they have a joint plan. Take internationalisation, for example. Every programme can come up with good arguments for attracting foreign students, but what about the national level? How many students should we attract, why, and to which programmes?’

Now the politicians have also fought it out. Regions have successfully resisted the stifling of internationalisation.

Van den Eijnden: "I wouldn't celebrate too soon. Moreover, the pros and cons of internationalisation haven't been properly discussed yet, people haven't properly talked about who benefits from it and who pays the price. What exactly is the regional argument worth? Explain it to me. You can say that international students are important for a certain region, but that's about as meaningful as saying 'Amsterdam is cosmopolitan'.

The lobby has been successful, but is it right that we depend primarily on lobbying power rather than joint consultation? We think that the gap needs to be filled differently. You must try to reach an agreement based on facts, figures and arguments. Is aligning programmes with the labour market a problem or not? The government has a democratic mandate to intervene if we cannot resolve this issue.’

Almost everyone finds a job after graduating. How does one go about determining what we need?

Van den Eijnden: 'For the individual, it's great to find a job after studying communication or attending a university college. But if we in the Netherlands are no longer able to care for the elderly or educate young people, what then? That's not necessarily the best outcome for society.'

Is autonomy a value in itself or primarily a means to good education and research?

Bormans: ‘I have changed my opinion somewhat on that, now that I see what is happening in the United States. Autonomy is not only effective but also important in a free society. Robbert Dijkgraaf referred to it in our conversation with him as a pillar of the rule of law. We also need ministers who respect the principles of the rule of law, of course, with all its written and unwritten rules.’

Bas Belleman / HOP

De Tussenruimte – 40 jaar hogeronderwijsbestuur (The In-Between Space – 40 years of higher education governance). By Ron Bormans and Sander van den Eijnden. With a foreword by Minister Eppo Bruins. 25 euros.