Exactly one year ago, a student on campus was bitten in their leg by a police dog. Recently, it was announced that the officer involved will be prosecuted for deploying the dog. Today, a protest march will take place on campus. ‘Even after a year, there is only a little bit of recognition that we were right all along.’

May 7, 2025, is the day that left a Radboud University student with lifelong scars. During a police operation on campus, the student was bitten in the leg by a police dog. Graphic footage quickly spread online. The incident remained a topic of debate for months—on social media, within various university governance bodies, in a report by consultancy firm Bureau Berenschot and even in the city council.

The student has previously said they will carry the consequences of the bite for the rest of their life. Physically, due to the large scars on their leg. But also mentally: a police dog biting for more than ten seconds and refusing to let go has made the campus into an emotionally charged place for them.

Today, the activist group Nijmegen Student Encampment will hold a protest march across campus. Although the Openbaar Ministerie is prosecuting the dog handler, the group says there is still insufficient attention for the fundamentally flawed system.

Distance from the university

‘Physically, things are improving. I can put normal weight on my leg again’, the student that was bitten says, sitting at a picnic table next to the Maria Montessori building, the site where a large pro-Palestinian encampment stood in the spring of 2024. ‘But mentally, I’m not back to who I was. I’m still in therapy to process everything that happened. Sometimes it suddenly hits me how lucky I am—given the circumstances. I could just as easily have ended up in a wheelchair.’

‘I’m a bit behind in my studies, and I feel a distance from the university. There are lecturers and fellow students I get along with well. But the people in charge here don’t share my values. I don’t feel welcome here.’

Two months ago, the Openbaar Ministerie announced that it would prosecute the dog handler for violating official use-of-force guidelines. A judge will also determine whether a 24-year-old protester is guilty of assaulting two university security guards and resisting arrest.

‘It certainly won’t be easy, but I want to exercise my right to speak as a victim’

According to the prosecution, the use of the dog against the student was unlawful. The student did “not pose such a threat that deploying the dog against this demonstrator was justified”, the statement notes. And: “This demonstrator was already on the ground and did not commit any acts of violence against the police. The person was also unaware that the police intended to arrest them and therefore did not resist.”

The police officer will appear before the so-called ‘Blauwe Kamer’, a division of the Midden-Nederland District Court that handles cases involving alleged misconduct by police officers. A hearing date has not yet been set. The student says they intend to attend. ‘That certainly won’t be easy, but I want to exercise my right to speak as a victim.’

Institutions

What hurts the student most is how institutions handled the situation. ‘From the very beginning, it was clear that the police response was excessive. But institutions like the university, the police, and several media outlets kept insisting that it wasn’t. The Berenschot report (the consultancy firm was asked by the confidential advisors and university participational bodies to look into the events of that day, eds.) even stated that I had reached over the police dog, based on an anonymous witness.’

‘Why would someone claim otherwise – and why is that person presented as a credible source’

The student shakes their head in disbelief. ‘That’s simply not true—the dog came from behind. I’ve said that from day one. But my own account of the attack that I sent to them was not included properly. The prosecution’s statement also reflects that there was no threat from me and that I was unaware of the arrest. So why would someone claim otherwise—and why is that person presented as a credible source in such a report?’

‘Only now that the Openbaar Ministerie supports my account you can see the narrative beginning to shift a little bit. The university’s Executive Board is now distancing itself from the police violence in its statements, just to save face. However, they still don’t condemn it. In several media outlets, including Vox, the Executive Board’s response was presented first, portraying us as the instigators. Why is their response more important and more credible than ours? That shows how flawed the system is: even after a year, there is only a little bit of recognition that we were right all along.’

Drop in the ocean

Although the student is relieved that the prosecution considers the use of the police dog excessive, they see it as a drop in the ocean. ‘It’s being framed as a single incident: ‘Wrong place, wrong time’. But we’ve seen police dogs on campus multiple times, both before and after May 7.’

‘The OM even concludes that the use of force – both batons and police dogs – was generally permitted that day. Just not in my specific case. That singles me out as an isolated incident where things went wrong. But the bigger picture, police violence on campus, apparently remains acceptable…’

‘I want to stress that no activist deserves to be mauled by a police dog the way I was. How can one freely and safely express their views if institutions say using force against demonstrators is okay – and when there is no commitment from the CvB not to employ such a police force on campus again?’

The protest mars starts today (7th of May) at 12.30h at the Erasmusplein.