‘Humanities' transition plan will lead to monoculture'

The Faculty of Humanities will be forced to make significant cutbacks: the current budget will have to shrink by 10 percent. This is partly a result of recent government policy and partly a reflection of the university administration's long-term wishes. 

In this context, the faculty has announced that, as of September 2026, no students will be admitted to Bachelor's programmes with a current intake of 25 freshers per year or lower. These programmes shall be terminated in 2030 to allow the last cohorts to graduate. The measure affects six programmes, including Religious Studies and Islam & Arabic.

Two things stood out to me in an information session from the faculty board. Firstly, they failed to ask for input from the disciplinary groups themselves. This is surprising as no one would deny the serious financial problems or refuse to brainstorm solutions. Secondly, they failed to provide a financial substantiation or a substantive motivation. In other words: in which financial scenario does one see the faculty continuing to exist healthily after 2030, and what profile do they have in mind for the Faculty of Humanities?

Missing calculations
To address the first point, small programmes are not necessarily costly. The cost of a programme also depends on factors such as course participation and study performance, i.e. the number of ECTS credits the programme "produces". Courses in Religious Studies and Islam & Arabic are not only well attended, but most students also complete them successfully, whether or not they follow it as part of a minor or track. For example, in 2023, we had an average of 40 students per course, with recent peaks of around 100 participants, which is quite exceptional for Humanities.

In terms of study performance, those courses also score significantly higher than courses belonging to some of the larger programmes offered by our faculty. However, this calculation and the calculation of the consequences of closing both programmes, have been completely disregarded in the decision that has now been taken.

Moreover, closing two programmes leads to a broadening and expansion of the range of programmes elsewhere, which in turn generates all sorts of other problems. What scenarios are foreseen here, and what role will the lecturers involved with the programmes soon to be closed play?

Traumatic experience
In fact, you can only make such quick cuts through reorganisation, a process that takes several years and is subject to legal provisions, including the faculty council's right of approval.

I experienced that in 2010-2013 as a member of the Faculty Council and its financial committee and as someone involved in what was then called the Theology and Religious Studies programme. That was a rather traumatic experience, but at least it presupposed a future for Religious Studies and Islam & Arabic within the Faculty of Humanities. The communication was open and relatively fair.

What kind of security do my colleagues have this time? I'm especially thinking about my younger colleagues, who are seeing their tireless efforts rewarded with a sudden deterioration of their working environment. When it comes to research, both disciplinary groups excel, as evidenced by recent ERC, Veni, Vidi and Vici awards, which were partly won by those juniors (yes, indeed).

Burt if the Bachelor's programmes are terminated, the rug is being pulled out from under both disciplinary groups. What effect will this have on the assumption that the current earning capacity will be maintained? Religious studies and Islam & Arabic will also be given a place in thematic, interdisciplinary subjects, but this plan is not substantiated and therefore seems unrealistic. Is dismissal the next, logical step?

A landscape
Now, let's consider the substantive side: what vision does the transition plan offer for the faculty's future? The metaphor of a financially sustainable "landscape for Humanities" was used during the presentation. The use of "landscape" is rhetorically revealing in this metaphor as it suggests transparency and accessibility to what the faculty has to offer.

The plan mentions a "demand-driven" Bachelor's portfolio based on an interdisciplinary approach. This concerns the essence of the Humanities. We're not talking about a clearly defined interdisciplinary study of human culture benefitting from years-long disciplinary deepening in one of its sub-facets, or a method, to gain insights into the bigger picture.

The metaphor is also concealing. After all, a helicopter view is only good and meaningful if it's used in addition to a careful exploration of the countless "ecological systems" within a landscape, both on and below the surface. You basically traverse a landscape to get to know it well before placing it in a transcendent perspective.

Such is the importance of long-term education in a language or the meaning of a phenomenon such as religion. Disciplinary goes hand in hand with interdisciplinary, which justifies the existence of small courses as part of a broader palette.

"Orchid subjects" such as Religious Studies and Islam & Arabic are precisely the ones showing impressive results, as evidenced by recent thesis prizes. That is only possible thanks to disciplinary deepening. Students appreciate the importance of both programmes by participating in courses, even without following the major.

Scaling up logic
The "landscape" metaphor, which only shows large programmes, conceals the destruction of a long-standing tradition in Utrecht. By eliminating Bachelor's with few students, that landscape is being reduced to actual pasture landscapes around me, which have been ruined by nitrogen deposition and monoculture. Humanities are not a matter of monoculture as large programmes benefit greatly from small ones.

I therefore urge the Faculty Council not to go along with this scaling-up logic. As long as student funding remains unchanged, another reorganisation will soon be upon us. The Faculty of Humanities is degenerating into a neoliberal academic production machine. Stand up for the small fields and the future of my younger colleagues. Say no to the transition plan, in the name of the values ​​Humanities claims to represent.