According to the rectors of Dutch universities, academic freedom is at risk. At the same time, defending that freedom sometimes comes with devilish dilemmas, says José Sanders of Radboud University.

It is not only in Hungary and the United States that politicians are trying to interfere in the content of teaching and research at universities. This also happens in the Netherlands, albeit to a lesser extent than in those two countries.

Reason enough for the Dutch rectors to publish a joint letter last week speaking up for academic freedom at their universities. According to the rectors, the Netherlands’ falling position on the Academic Freedom Index – within the EU, only Greece, Portugal and Hungary score worse – is a signal to be taken ‘extremely seriously’.

‘The cabinet’s austerity measures restrict the freedom of scientists even further’

In addition to political interference, the rectors point to protests that are increasingly hardening and sensitive issues that are increasingly difficult to discuss. ‘Where space for enquiry, dialogue and doubt is curtailed, through repression on the one hand or taboo on the other, the university loses its essence.’

In other words, says José Sanders, Rector of Radboud University: ‘We see that academic freedom is under pressure and we are extremely concerned about it.’

What are the threats?

Sanders: ‘Scientists are noticing that they have less and less freedom to decide for themselves on what topics and for what purpose they conduct research. When applying for funding, they are increasingly asked: is this research applicable? There is less room for unfettered, curiosity-driven science, when that is precisely what you need for fundamental innovations. The cabinet’s austerity measures restrict that freedom even further.’

‘We also dealing with the Internationalisation in Balance Act, which wants to force us to provide more education in Dutch. And that while some study programmes choose English for reasons that benefit science, for example because the subject itself is about internationalisation, or because you need international recruitment to attract the best students in a particular field. If the government gets involved in these choices, it is hampering science itself.’

Do you advocate for full autonomy for universities? They are, after all, publicly funded institutions.

‘The university may always be asked to justify its actions and choices. It is not for nothing that scientists preface all their own publications with a justification: why this research question, and why is it important now? I can also imagine that the government wants to make some of the funds available to contribute to the solution for a particular societal problem. But if all research is going to be externally driven, that is a major problem. And not just for universities – we will lose a fundamental force in society as a whole.’

‘A lecturer who expresses a very strong opinion may put off students with a different opinion’

Is the threat coming mainly from politics?

‘Politics is a reflection of the public debate. There are plenty of people who question the usefulness of our academic freedom. They want research to be useful and they have very strong opinions on what that usefulness should be. Others dismiss science as ‘just another opinion’, and this cripples confidence in science. It leads to discord between academia and society.’

‘Increasingly, researchers are not being taken seriously in the public debate. Some are even intimidated. As a result, they no longer feel free to step forward. This leads to tension in the debate.’

Your letter describes universities as places where opinions are allowed to chafe and collide. On the other hand, polarisation is a danger. How do you see this?

‘As scientists, we are always pushing the limit of our knowledge. That brings uncertainty and friction – which is inherent to academia. Polarisation becomes problematic when conversations are only about being right or can only be about one topic. We see that some groups no longer give other groups space to take a stand. As a result, some prefer not to speak out anymore: this creates self-censorship.’

Does polarisation stand in the way of progress at university?

‘Where we teach students, or supervise younger staff, we have an additional responsibility to provide space for debate and uncertainty. If people with a different ideology or background cannot or dare not express themselves, we have a very big problem. That is something that worries me.’

Are you referring to cancel culture?

‘Not necessarily. A lecturer who expresses a very strong opinion may put off students with a different opinion. Those students might then think: “I’ll go somewhere else”.’

‘An open conversation with criticism and academic dignity should be possible’

‘Diversity can have different manifestations. Students and staff can also be conservative, for example, or moderate. At our University, there should be room for a broad spectrum, and it is up to lecturers to deal with this as academic professionals in their teaching.’

Last night there was a lecture by Alon Penzel, former spokesman for the Israeli army. Activists expressed their shock at his being welcome at Radboud University. For you, does his presence fall under academic freedom?

‘We assessed this speaker using the same criteria as previous speakers who were controversial, such as (the pro-Palestinian speaker, eds.) Mohammed Khatib and (the pro-Israeli speaker, eds.) Rawan Osman. Both parties felt that the other had on several occasions crossed a line: “this speaker is really unacceptable!”, you would hear people say.’

‘But if a student or staff member argues that a particular lecture is relevant to academic education or academic debate, we as an Executive Board go a long way in providing space for that. We want to provide that academic freedom, unless, for example, the speaker is an undesirable alien (if the government decides that someone is a danger to the Netherlands, eds.).’

‘But it is a struggle – sometimes even a devilish dilemma. An open conversation with criticism and academic dignity should be possible. If it becomes an ideologically charged story, and a one-sided meeting where contradiction is no longer possible, we have to ask ourselves: what scientific purpose does this still serve? After all, facilitating speakers takes a lot of time, attention, and also money. That is something we have to resolve together.’