The day of national protest on the 4th of March 2014 is as good a place as any to start this article. The New University of Amsterdam called on students and teachers from all Dutch universities to protest on the 4th against the efficiency-mindset currently dominating the entire university system, both nationally and internationally. In response, studentfactions Front and SAM announced that no protests would follow in Tilburg: according to the factions, students enjoy a healthy relationship with the Executive Board.1
And then it turned out that there actually were TiU-students protesting on the 4th of March. The message was clear. There is more than enough reason to protest. Or as Univers-journalist Frank van den Nieuwenhuijzen stated: "The studentfactions are more and more institutionalized. [..] Studentsfactions hinder the process rather than strengthening the oppositional voice. [..] In short, there is enough reason to be less quiet.2
Naturally, both studentfactions responded to the Universe-article. The reactions of the factions can be seen as symptomatic of the underlying problem that afflicts Tilburg University: the culture of silence prevalent among students and staff. Indeed, the responses show the distinctive and telling way in which the factions deal with Van den Nieuwenhuijzen`s criticism: the studentfactions respond to this criticism – that institutionalization has made our student participation toothless – by giving examples of how perfectly well they are institutionalized.
So for instance, one can look at a somewhat trivializing statement put out by faction Front. According to the group there is no protest in Tilburg but action 'in the context where it belongs', in the basket, at the 'negotiations-table', where critical voices are muffled by a cloak of conformity.3 SAM even gave a very proper list of activities, displaying how it simply returned to the institutional body the day after the national protest in March, business as usual.4
One could of course argue that Tilburg University does not have a culture of silence. The relationship between the various parties and the Executive Board is, according to some, a healthy one. Where the parties feel heard in their criticism and all interests are weighed in the decision making process. New University Tilburg (NUtilburg) suggests that the opposite is very much the case: our university has bigger problems than the University of Amsterdam, exactly because of the fact that most problems we face are comfortably placed under a dome of institutionalized silence. To explore and demonstrate this culture of silence a number of issues will be presented in this article. These examples will also demonstrate the fact that the efficiency-mindset has left its mark in Tilburg.
To be clear: our criticism is not that the studentfactions or staff do not offer any push-back to the Executive Board or the deans, the criticism is that this happens too inconsistently; which is indicative of an unhealthy and uncritical atmosphere. Also, the criticism is not directed at individuals, but at the cultural mechanisms that on the one hand maintain a status quo of compliance and conformity, and on the other, stifle critical discussion.
Executive board dismissing a critical petition
Let's go back to the summer of 2014, long before the occupation of the Bungehuis occurred. Eric van Damme and five other full professors at TiU put together an online petition in which they called upon the Executive Board to reconsider their Strategic Plan for the years 2014-2017. The Strategic Plan was according to the professors trashcan worthy. In a report that formed the theoretical foundation for the petition, van Damme stated that the plan mostly contained 'quasi-academic nonsense.5 The burning question that was asked by the six professors was a simple one: where were the academic values in this plan?
So what did the deans and the Executive Board do with the criticism that was put forth by the six professors and 161 others who had signed the petition? Virtually nothing. With their official response the Executive Board and the deans invited 'the authors of the petition and the entire academic community' for some coffee and so-called constructive dialogue.6 A response so disappointing that the six professors wrote the following in a letter to the Board7,8: 'When differences of opinion exist, there are two possible responses: pretend that they are not there and continue; or discuss them, in order to sharpen the view on the merits and weaknesses of the different points of view. In your response, you have chosen the first option.'
Although the official response of the Board painted a picture of an administrative layer that welcomed discussion, one can safely state that behind the scenes many were reprimanded or lulled into silence.9 Mainly the form in which the criticism was presented - a public petition - was not appreciated by everyone in the aforementioned support layer: one should not wash their dirty linen in public! One source reported to NUtilburg that the Board had made the request to the six professors to postpone debating the petition in public, at least during the summer. Several TiU-employees confirmed that it was almost as if a 'cordon sanitaire' was brought to bear on the subject matter. "Consciously or unconsciously students and staff censored themselves - it was not necessary to call them back in line10. In the days after presenting the petition, van Damme also pointed out the prevalent culture of silence when he stated that "some staff have not signed the petition for fear of negative repercussions'.8
Ultimately, the whole issue was pushed back and forth for months, to disappear, at least until now, altogether from the public sphere. Really? Is this truly what Tilburg University has become? Where has our critical university gone? We, students and staff, must ask ourselves whether this is a desirable atmosphere. Can we please collectively make a fist and demand real right of say and more transparency?
Studentfactions failed with BEST
Another example is the austerity-plan called BEST. The plan, at least what's left of it, currently entails that TiU loses an unnamed number of FTE (full time equivalent) of support-personnel.11 The number will be defined more precisely somewhere in the reorganization proces with a maximum of 5.5 million. BEST began at the request of the Executive Board with a scenario of 150 FTE12, which dropped after criticism to 58 FTE, and ultimately fell to a vague promise of x FTE.
In exchange for these austerity measures TiU will receive 90 FTE of academic staff, at least on paper. But how will academic staff operate without support-personnel? The severity of this problem is particularly evident when one looks at one of the problems caused by the efficiency-mindset in the university system: scientific staff is primarily judged on the economic merits of their research, and only to a lesser extent on their merits in the classroom. Teaching is seen as merely an appendix, undervalued and less important. This effectively means that at the moment researchers barely have time to prepare their lessons. How will the quality of education be affected after BEST, when researchers are left with absolutely no time?
Here, we must ask ourselves if factions Front and SAM have managed to represent the interests of the students? If one reads the official records the answer is a clear no. Despite the fact SAM actually points out the relationship between support staff, academic staff and education, it fails in materializing these concerns. The concerns remain just that, questions and observations.12 It is one thing to criticize, it is another thing altogether to be truly critical and act accordingly. The downsizing of, and critique of, BEST is primarily due to the Independents faction and ABVA-KABO. Again one has to wonder where the critical student has gone. Does Tilburg University have a prevailing culture of silence?
It is also an issue at Tilburg University!
In the past few weeks NUtilburg has spoken to many students of almost all disciplines, and one can state confidently that the issues outlined in this article are also a pressing topic of discussion here in Tilburg. Many students share the idea of a better university, with academic values instead of financial ones. But at the same time we see that the criticism that students - and even candidates of Front and SAM - dare to share with us in a personal conversation, is the same criticism that students do not dare to speak of in public. And that is a clear signal!
In addition to students approaching us, a large number of researchers from different faculties have also approached us. And there seems to be something similar going on there. Each time a sensitive topic is broached – a topic that would seemingly affect the status quo – the possibility to express criticism is curtailed: a cordon sanitaire. We have seen this happen with the New University movement, we have seen this with the aforementioned petition, and we have seen it again with BEST.
There is a culture of silence. And it is our task - the students, the teachers, but also that of Univers - to keep asking the question: why? It is our duty to be the watchdog of the university. It is our duty to remove this mindset of patching things up and moving on without addressing the fundamental issues; to remove it in its entirety.
In recent weeks NUtilburg has held its ear to the ground. We have formed a pretty good picture of what is happening on campus. Coinciding with the developments in Amsterdam, there has also been a shift among TiU students. What students want to hear at this moment in time are statements regarding the issues raised here. This is why NUtilburg calls upon the studentfactions to focus on the following question in the upcoming elections: what kind of institute should Tilburg University be? A school for critical thinkers or a soap factory?
Let's begin, let us start the discussion together. Especially here in Tilburg, where criticism by teachers and students is perceived as an undesirable side effect of administrative decisions. The idea that one can take 'two aspirins, and firmly ignore the painful reality' can no longer be the status quo.
Sources:
1. http://www.fractiefront.nl/voorpagina/protesten-niet-aan-de-orde/
2. https://universonline.nl/2015/03/06/opinie-stilburg
3. http://www.fractiefront.nl/voorpagina/tilburg-geen-protest-wel-actie/
4. http://fractiesam.nl/geen-stilburg-tilburg/
5. Van Damme, E. (2014). Trying to make a difference, p.24. Accessed via:
https://pure.uvt.nl/portal/files/3169023/Challenges_for_Tilburg_University_2_May_2014_Final_.pdf
6. https://universonline.nl/2014/07/04/reactie-cvb-en-decanen-op-petitie-tilburgse-hoogleraren
7.https://universonline.nl/2014/07/07/opstellers-petitie-teleurgesteld-over-reactie-cvb
8.https://universonline.nl/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Letter-EB-Response-to-response-EB-6-juli.pdf
9. Multiple employees and students haven spoken to us on the subject matter on condition of anonymity.
10. A reworked sentence from P. Bourdieu (1996). On television. New York: The New Press: 'Consciously or unconsciously, people censor themselves - they don't need to be called into line.'
11. https://universonline.nl/home-nieuws/best
12. UR 1781 A – report University council, February 5th,2015