Demonstration, security and university ties: Executive Board answers University Council’s questions
Report
The University Council meeting on 2 June was largely dominated by the demonstration, occupation and policing in The Hague last month. Questions were also raised about the university’s ties with Israeli universities and a report on university security.
Vice President of the Executive Board, Timo Kos, opened the well-attended University Council meeting by reading a statement in which the Board expressed how deeply affected it had been by the unscheduled demonstration, the occupation of the building and the violence outside. ‘We were surprised by the scale of the protest as well as by the number of arrests made by the police and the use of violence. We understand that the community has lots of questions.’
What happened during the protest?
Although the Board does not yet have a complete picture of the events of 6 May, Kos summarised what happened during the demonstration and the response to this. The demonstration began at around 13.00 hrs., with around 150 protestors inside and another 150 outside the building. The main entrance to the Wijnhaven building was closed to prevent more demonstrators from entering. The police were present outside before the university contacted them – something it routinely does in the case of unscheduled demonstrations.
The demonstration was largely peaceful. However, as the protestors had chained shut some of the emergency exits, a potentially dangerous situation arose, Kos explained. At that point, many students and staff were still in the building. The decision was therefore made to have our own staff evacuate the building. Once the building was almost empty, the university asked the police to remove the remaining protestors, but these left voluntarily before that could happen.
Meanwhile, the mood outside had become tense. There was a large police presence – the decision of the mayor, the Public Prosecution Service and the police (the so-called ‘triangle’). The Board later asked them what had prompted their actions and caused them to arrest 75 demonstrators. According to the police, this was because of public disorder, vandalism and violations of the General Municipal Bylaw.
University Council: response lacked human touch
Several council members expressed concern about the use of force by the police. Some demonstrators were injured and a number became unconscious. The Council criticised the Board for not immediately condemning the police violence in its communications, and felt the first reactions were missing the human touch. ‘We were obviously shocked that the situation outside escalated and that people were injured. It’s really awful’, said Kos. ‘It’s still unclear what prompted the police to intervene. The mayor will have to explain this to the municipal council.’
Kos explained that the initial communication did not say much about the policing because the Board based its response on what was known at the time. The police had indicated that some of those arrested were checked on site by paramedics but that no one needed to go to hospital. It was only later that week that reports began to emerge suggesting that more people may have been injured – and more seriously – than was initially thought. ‘Perhaps we should have said in our communication that we didn’t yet have the full picture’, Kos told the Council.
Right to protest
The Board also stressed during the meeting how much it values the right to protest, freedom of expression and open debate. ‘We do a lot to ensure there is space for this, that events can be held and protests can go ahead’, said Kos. ‘Even when this is challenging, because of security concerns, for example, or the possibility of controversial statements being made. We don’t take a position on what is expressed.’ At the same time, Kos explained, the Board is responsible for safety, and that can raise dilemmas, as it did on 6 May.
The university has announced a broad evaluation of the handling of the demonstration and occupation on 6 May as well as the meetings that preceded and followed them, such as the walk-out at the Lipsius building.
University security policy
Questions were also asked during the meeting about the university’s security policy. A freedom of information request has led to the release of documents on this subject. These mention the threat of ‘anti-institutional extremism’, referring to activist groups that constantly challenge the university’s internal authority with calls for democratisation (see article in Mare).
The report also contains generalising statements about groups of people, which raised concerns among Council members.
The Executive Board noted that the report was commissioned by the university’s security affairs department and produced by an external agency. The Executive Board has not adopted the report’s recommendations. ‘The report doesn’t align with university policy and we have distanced ourselves from it’, said Kos. ‘A counter-evaluation has been carried out, which raised criticism of the content, form and sources. We also think that a number of generalising statements do not reflect our values and principles – including those about anti-institutional extremism, Islam and diversity.’ At the Council’s request, Kos had a clear statement about such comments in the report. ‘We as a university do not tolerate racism or any form of discrimination whatsoever.’
A new security policy is nearly complete and will be discussed with the University Council at the next meeting on 14 July.
Executive Board awaiting advice on ties with Israel
The University Council once again called for the university to sever its institutional ties with Israeli universities. A few Council members noted that various international organisations – or their representatives – have described the actions of the Israeli government and armed forces as ‘genocide’. As on previous occasions, the Executive Board said it abhors the current violence in Gaza. However, Rector Magnificus Hester Bijl said she wants to await the advice of the committee currently considering the matter. This, she believes, is the correct, academic approach.
Bijl added that the decision was made a year ago to suspend institutional student exchanges until this advice has been issued. When establishing the committee on human rights and conflict areas, and specifically the committee on institutional collaborations with Israeli partners, it was also decided that no new collaborations would be initiated until a decision had been made following the committee’s advice. The Executive Board promised full transparency about the advice and the subsequent process, and provided the list of committee members. Bijl said she hopes the Board will receive a preliminary recommendation on exchanges with those universities before the summer break.
Human Rights and Conflict Zones Committee
The Human Rights and Conflict Zones Committee is chaired by Professor of Criminology and former dean Joanne van der Leun. The permanent committee members are Dorota Mokrosinska (Professor of Practical Philosophy), Dirk Engberts (Emeritus Professor of Normative Aspects of Medicine) and Rick Lawson (Professor of European Law). Petra Sijpesteijn (Professor of Arabic) will join the committee for the research on the current institutional collaborations and student exchanges.
Further meetings
- Two meetings will be held in Leiden in June to take a closer look at the background to the Israel-Palestine conflict and how we as an academic community can approach it with both care and respect. The dates will be announced soon.