Late last week, I received a message in a slightly annoyed tone. ‘The article gives the impression that this opinion is shared by just about the entire UM community. You’ve made it seem like only a very small minority of UM employees support Rianne Letschert’s position’, it said, briefly summarised.
What was the matter? The message was about the article presenting the views of three UM employees who would like to see the Dutch language restored to universities. It was a response to an interview with UM President Letschert, who expressed her deep concern about the politicians who have for some time been demanding a much greater role for our native language at Dutch universities. Not just in education (e.g., more Dutch-taught bachelor’s programmes), but also in research. It would be a serious problem if Minister of Education Dijkgraaf, who will issue a letter on internationalisation shortly, listened to those politicians, says Letschert. Not just for our highly international university, but also for the city, the region and the province of Limburg – UM is a major driver of the local economy. Long story short: the English language is of vital importance to UM.
There is no alternative
Let me be clear that these three people do not represent the opinion of the entire UM community on the language issue. That’s not what the article suggests, either. On the contrary. Take the sentence accompanying the headline: “Three UM employees who do support the restoration of the Dutch language to universities”. Or the quote from philosopher Rob Houtepen – who, by the way, does not oppose the use of English in higher education at all, but believes it has become too dominant: “I feel very strongly about this, all the more so because no one around me seems to recognise the problem. And because everyone (TINA, ‘there is no alternative’) just continues to meekly follow globalisation.”
Lost battle
The decision to interview these three people was simple: we always try to report on as many different views as we can. And after the extensive interview with Rianne Letschert, it was time to hear some other opinions. The fact that this sparks discussion is only a good thing, in our eyes. Just look at the comments below the article. One commenter thinks the three are fighting a battle that has already been lost, as “the train of internationalisation left the station a long time ago”. Another commenter, pointing out the poor English skills around her, is glad that her colleagues “are speaking up”.
Strongly opposed
Our editorial council, which includes readers from UM and a few from outside UM, welcomes this kind of discussion. At their meeting this week, there was some complaining about Lies Wesseling’s arguing for “degrowth” in the article, and her claim that it’s a better “perspective for the future” in view of “ecological disasters”. One of the members strongly opposed this claim, as is their right. My suggestion: make your opinion heard by sending us a letter or an opinion piece.