Last year, a nice book was published about ‘50 years of university newspaper in Groningen’. In it, the UK was called “the first modern and independent university newspaper in the Netherlands. That might well be true (although Folia Civitatis in Amsterdam had been independent much longer, but perhaps it was not as modern then…). It is stated in a chapter entitled ‘On the waves of democratisation’.
The latter is a twofold concept in this case. In those years – the late 60s, early 70s – there was a process of external democratisation in universities: a huge influx of students from all strata of society. And there was internal democratisation, of the management model, with the introduction of university councils and faculty councils. This had been preceded by a hard fight, with the occasional occupation of university building, until finally the matter was resolved in legislation.
The introduction of the councils and the emergence of independent university newspapers were more or less parallel processes. And that was no coincidence: the maxim that a democratically organised community cannot exist without a free press, was widely endorsed.
Statutes
In Maastricht, everything happened a little later, as there was no university yet in those days, but in the late 70s and early 80s, this model also took root here. Not without a struggle either: the initial executives thought little of a University Council, or an independent newspaper. But both were introduced and became more or less natural allies in the ideas of many: after all, both kept a check on those in power.
No, no hand in glove, that would have gone too far. Observant had taken the UK as its example, the statutes from Groningen were more or less adopted literally, with the emphasis on the newspaper’s independence. The tenor was: Observant should sound a multiform note and not be the spokesperson for any interest or other group within the university. So, neither for the Executive Board, nor for the Council. Not for anyone. Partly for that reason, the newspaper’s legal status was that of a foundation, avoiding a direct relation of authority with the Executive Board.
There was animosity between the University Council and the university newspaper too. We often discussed the same topics, we kept close track of each other, the roles being different, of course, but still, there was a sort of connection.
When education minister Ritzen greatly dismantled the democratic university structure in 1997, all Councils protested vehemently, also the one in Maastricht. Observant wrote about it. The flaming conflicts with the Executive Board about the interpretation of the new regulations, how much power the University Council was left with: we wrote about it, made room for opinion pieces.
And if executives within the UM got it into their heads to curtail the editorial independence, or tried to achieve the same by cutting Observant’s budget, then there was always the University Council to thwart those plans. For a long time, this applied to all sections in the Council: students, support staff and certainly the academic staff. Although each of those groups occasionally had trouble with the newspaper, when it had published something that didn’t suit them.
Silence
The question is now whether this is definitely a thing of the past? Have University Council members lost the awareness that they are a democratic body and that democracy without a free press – see Putin – cannot exist? Because my goodness, the silence has been deafening lately after miscreants had blocked access to Observant’s online publications by launching a DDoS attack and loudly claimed it because Observant was supposedly ‘transphobic’ (as well as a few other bad things). This reproach is in itself not very precise, intellectually rather lazy, and in this context completely nonsensical, but suppose it was true. Suppose that Observant did indeed publish articles of a ‘transphobic’ nature, is that then reason enough to silence the newspaper? Using cyber terror and brute digital force? Is a free press not an almost sacred principle? Should ‘dubious’ publications not be challenged with other publications? Debate, letters to the editor, opinion pieces?
Rhetorical questions, I would say. But no, apparently not for the present University Council. Not even for the academic staff section. A section that in all those more than thirty years that I followed them, never let themselves be bullied when it came to issues of principle. That always took care of the core of forming an opinion. But that now appears to be caught up in either lack of attention and/or disinterestedness, or has ended up on the slippery slope of ‘it is probably their own fault’. Or is it a case of fear to speak out?
Let’s hope for better times.
Wammes Bos