The most radical transformation of the Humanities ever

On Monday, October 28, the board of the Faculty of Humanities published a “transition plan” stating that six Bachelor’s programmes will soon disappear. The dean, the faculty director and the vice-dean of Bachelor’s Education informed the permanent staff working for these programmes on Friday, October 25, saying that the measure was necessary to achieve a restored “financial balance” in 2030.

As staff members of the Religious Studies and Islam & Arabic programmes, we were the last to be called upon. We were presented with a fait accompli. Questions about the financial substantiation of these drastic measures and the resulting savings remained unanswered and were not substantiated with tangible figures.

Added value
It therefore remains unclear what this closure will yield. One thing is clear, however: the calculations and considerations do not take into account the considerable number of students following our Bachelor's courses (an average of 40 per course), or the group's exceptional earning capacity when it comes to second and third flow research. In the past five years, Religious Studies and Islam & Arabic have won three Veni grants, a Vidi, a Vici, an ERC Consolidator Grant, an ERC Advanced Grant, two Marie Curie Grants and an NWA subproject. As a scientist in the programme, I was also appointed Academy Professor by the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNAW) and received the Spinoza Prize from the Dutch Research Council (NWO), the highest scientific award in the Netherlands. Even so, there was and is no room for discussion or input.

Appendix 7 of the transition plan shows that a detailed timeline has been mapped out (as the dean says in an interview with DUB). Appendix 5 also mentions various risks, such as a negative impact on the university's image through possible newspaper headlines such as “UU dismantles Humanities”, “Deforestation in Utrecht”, and “UU kills languages.”

Pathetic disciplines
Indeed, we don't have to think about that ourselves anymore. It is a disillusioning realisation that, right after being informed, we are already being dragged into a timeline from which we are not allowed to deviate. The timeline has long been mapped out by the faculty board, the risks have been explored, and a communication plan has been rolled out in which the dean describes the six disciplines that are losing their Bachelor's degree because "they have not been profitable for years".

As mentioned, we have not seen any financial substantiation that proves this. Based on the inflow alone, this statement cannot be made for the Religious Studies and Islam & Arabic programs. Framing them as "pathetic disciplines" in the transition plan and the emails sent by the faculty board to all employees makes it easier for others to accept the decision as legitimate. There is no room for another narrative. There is no room to mention the efficiency and high quality of our educational programs, the fascinating insights from our research, the international reputation, our “successes” in acquiring research projects and the translation of our research into education. None of that fits in with the story the faculty board wants to tell.

Right-wing government
I acknowledge that these are difficult times for science and how disastrous the austerity measures announced by this right-wing government are. Cutting back on science is part of a far-right plan. It is nice that universities are protesting and calling on people to participate in the demonstration planned for November 14. At the same time, I find it disconcerting how quickly the austerity measures are being converted into policy at UU – emergency policy.

According to Appendix 1, which includes a letter from UU President Anton Pijpers to the dean, the transition plan had to be written during the summer recess, which made it all too easy to exclude the possibility of consulting the faculty by appealing to employees' well-earned right to rest. How this can be reconciled with the Humanities' vision on organisation and leadership (which is about “recognition and appreciation”, “team spirit”, “transparent decision-making structures” and the ambition to be an organisation “that offers safety and trust”) is a mystery to me. These appear to be empty slogans of an autocratic government, I conclude.

Narrow-minded 
It is alarming that this transition plan is being launched in such politically hectic times. Are they using the pressure from The Hague to finally enforce long-desired transformations in the faculty? Are administrators aware that they are contributing to the deforestation of the Humanities? Do they really think that, once a financial balance has been achieved, things will be in order? I see a narrow-minded mentality here, which is unworthy of a university. Why were employees not asked to think along before the transition timeline was set in motion, as befits an organisation that prides itself on a transparent management culture?

And so we are now in the maelstrom of the most radical top-down reconstruction of the Humanities I have ever experienced – and I have been working at universities in the Netherlands since 1990. This is marked by a desire for cutbacks and a rather unclear vision of interdisciplinarity in education in the Humanities, which should attract students to UU in 2030.

Lack of real vision
The proposed interventions may yield savings in the short term, but the price is high. Power and wisdom do not always go together. Where is a real vision of the Humanities that offers tools to interpret the world in all its complexity, beyond the borders of this small country? A vision that focuses on how colonial networks also determine current global relations here in the Netherlands? A vision that sheds light onto how people think and act in the Middle East and Africa, for example, where religion plays a much greater role than here? Not only is there a risk of valuable expertise being lost forever, but the transition plan is also an attack on the much-professed desire for a decision-making process in which the employees of this university are involved. It is also an attack on staff member's trust that the faculty board will operate on reasonable grounds.

I still hope that the faculty board will be open to our arguments and a real conversation. However, I note with deep dismay that less than a week after the plans were announced, we seem to have almost reached a point of irreversibility on the path taken towards 2030. This is a disaster. Our only hope now lies with the co-determination councils (University Council, Faculty Council and the education committees, as well as the Executive Board). Let's get off the express train of emergency measures and set up a task force from the bottom up to explore other possibilities!