Last Wednesday (13th of November), chilling at the library, scrolling and making space in my Outlook student email, I went to the ‘Other’ mailbox (next to the ‘Focused’ mailbox), basically considered the ‘spam’ mailbox for the majority of students.
And there I see the ‘UM News’ e-mail sent on Tuesday, 12th Of November. So now I'm just scrolling through the email… Looking at the different sections… Oh, there’s the program for Studium Generale lectures! Okay, I'm thinking, “Sometimes those are quite pertinent, so let’s see what’s scheduled.” And then I see it.
A lecture on the University's Moral Compass and Academic Freedom? Ring a bell, right?
If you remember well, after the protests and encampment at UM, the University's stance and response consisted in the elaboration and development of a Human Rights due diligence assessment tool to “help make an informed of whether, and if so to what extent, our partners with whom we have an administrative partnership are involved in violations of fundamental human rights standards.” Further in their announcement, they claimed to acknowledge the “impatience and frustration” (referring to students' protests and encampment) of the amount of time and extent it took them to make that decision. Still, UM claimed that this procedure had to be taken with “carefulness”, which would produce a “more sustainable outcome”.
Further, along that, UM also stated they wished to “involve our entire community in the next steps to develop the tool and engage in a university-wide dialogue”, hence the 13th of November Panel of Discussion.
So, there it was. THE discussion to again “involve our entire community in the next steps to develop the tool and engage in a university-wide dialogue”. Then I thought, how can the university claim that they wish to engage the student community in the ‘dialogue’ when the only way they communicate the information is through a very much hidden email, that most of the students don’t even look at, and sent the day before the event.
So, I signed up. Went to the event with colleagues, and without surprise, saw no more than 50 people in the auditorium.
The panel of discussion consisted of a mediated session of three academics, involving the audience with Wooclap interactive questions.
First was Prof. Raf Geenens, Professor of Ethics and Legal Philosophy at KU Leuven's Institute of Philosophy, a very historical-philosophical approached academic, which took part in the elaboration of the Human Rights Assessment (2019) with the University of Leuven, a framework to assess the violation of human right, looking at individual universities.
Second was Prof. Ruard Ganzevoort, rector of the International Institute of Social Studies in Den Haag, who mainly waved the flag of academic importance within the university and claimed universities’ independence towards their government stance and politics.
Lastly, the third academic was Markha Valenta, PhD, Assistant Professor on the Intersection of Politics, Anthropology and History, Utrecht University. Wearing a keffiyeh and showing her support for the Palestinian movement, Professor Markha Valenta was applauded multiple times by the audience for her arguments recalling student freedom to protest and claiming the existence of an issue for universities refusing to listen to their students, acknowledging their claims and demands. She also made quite an impression arguing for the recognition of Palestinian genocide, the cut of ties with Israeli institutions, the destruction of Gaza’s academic freedom, and a need to hear and listen to the student community, bearing in mind how “hypocritical it is that we teach our students the principles of international law, human rights, and critical thinking when we go against those principles in the first place.”
Also present were UM rector Prof. Pamela Habibovic and UM president Prof. Rianne Letschert. At the end of the panel, President Rianne Letschert spoke on the practical elaboration and application of the academic compass.
The whole panel went about three questions on academic freedom as a right and the pressure under which academic freedom is. Wooclap was used as a tool by the moderator to offer the audience the possibility to respond to the questions, lived-screened above the stage.
Overall and through the general discussion, panelists debated on ‘thoughtful’ frameworks, institutional accountability, censorship, inclusivity, inconsistent policies, and frustrations with the university’s role.
At the very end, when the president spoke on the role and status of the academic compass, she was confronted on what she claimed to have happened at a former organized event last year. The members of the audience called for a different version, whereas the president still affirmed her position. When the discussion came to an end, members of the audience and advocates for the Palestinian cause went to the stage to reaffirm their position on the matter to the President.
Within all those discussions, I mostly wonder, what is to come now? President Rianne Letschert announced the voting, drafting, and shortcoming presentation of the academic compass to the University Council coming very soon and planned to be finalized in January.
So now what? What will be the response of the university to the long-lasting claims of its student community? For this important and dominant debate, the Maastricht Diplomat team will keep you informed about what is left to come.
Comments