There is a brick on the window sill of his study at University College Maastricht. It flew through the window last weekend, missing the monitor just by a hair, to then bounce off the wall. He grins, no, this brick has nothing to do with his new position, it is most likely the work of rowdy night-revellers.
He calls himself a “free-floating professor”, a philosopher who writes books about topics such as the role of democratic discussion at the university, who gives lectures in Paris every now and again, was interim dean of UCM for some time, who together with others developed the first semester of the bachelor’s of Global Studies, is chairperson of the ethical committee in the city centre, board member of the Observant foundation, and a much-asked panel leader. He is now opting for the chairpersonship of the University Council. A job that two of his predecessors – recently Amanda Kluveld and before that Jonathan van Tilburg – ultimately had to abandon.
Risk factor
“I realise there is a risk factor. They didn’t manage to reach the finishing line, so you think: what am I getting myself into? But at the same time, this means for me that there is also something at stake: university democracy. I am a university patriot, I am loyal so when I saw the advertisement for a University Council chairperson I thought: maybe I can make a difference here.”
And no, he did not contact his two predecessors. “It is not a case of not wanting to, but I wanted to go through the application process in my own way. I wanted to be open and enter into discussion with as little prejudice as possible. In such a meeting with the board something has to germinate.”
He doesn’t want to say anything about the conflict between the council and Kluveld. “I wasn’t there,” he says more than once during the interview. “I know just like every other UM person that a University Council meeting was cancelled at the end of last year due to ‘internal issues’, that subsequently the chairperson stepped down, after which an investigation into social security was carried out. I won’t be taking sides. Great things happen at this university, but also things that I don’t understand. I won’t comment on the latter.” He also remains mostly quiet with regards to the result of the investigation into social security that was very recently completed on behalf of the Executive Board and about which nobody will talk. The present (temporary) chairperson refers to Dekker when it comes to follow-up steps. He frowns when he hears this. “I know just as much as every employee and student. I don’t know any more than it says on intranet.”
Democratic discussion
Getting back to his new job. What attracted him to it? “I find it exciting to think about the role of the university. What kind of institute do we want to be? What do we need to achieve that? How do we deal with internationalisation? What are we doing with Recognition and Rewards? The University Council is pre-eminently the place where academic staff, support staff and students can enter into discussion with the Executive Board about such matters. My role as a technical chairperson – I have not been elected – is to maintain the democratic discussion and together with the Council determine what our rules of the game are.” In the ideal version of democratic discussion – described, among others, in his last book Seven Democratic Virtues of Liberal Education – it does not get personal, discussions do not become bogged down in a yes-no game, people listen to each other, they are critical, and the focus is on content, he explains. And all that in a positive atmosphere. “The challenge is to put theory into practice.” Grinning: “Even though I am a philosopher, I am rather practical: when I saw the broken window and the brick, I immediately thought: right, how are we going to sort this?”
Life
His most important objective for the next two years? “I want university democracy to be revived. Turnout for the University Council elections last year was 15.5 per cent. That is not good. We need to communicate better, we need to get out there and show the average student and employee what we do as University Council. It is also important that we keep talking with our supporters on the various themes. How? That is something we still need to discuss, but it can be done via social media, via meetings on specific themes, via Observant. In addition, it is also important that the University Council starts working together more with the faculty councils, if you can bring up issues together, you’re in a stronger position.”
Closed doors
Dekker intends to keep the confidential agenda as short as possible, he promises. “We need to have some really weighty reasons why an item on the agenda can’t be dealt with in public. After all, closed doors don’t help when you are trying to revive democracy.”
As for the chairperson’s style, he takes example from retired professor Wiebe Bijker. “He is a former chairperson of the ethical committee in the city centre and one of my idols where it comes to chairing. His friendly peace, his analytic purity, the boyish playfulness and the humour were a joy. You have to offer your members a stage and ensure that they can shine. This is only possible if you support them in all kinds of ways: for example, by facilitating them and providing them with information, but also from a personal point of view. Certainly for students who often are only in the council for a year and don’t really know how things work, support is crucial.”
Success
When will his mission be a success? “If in two years’ time, turnout for the elections has doubled to 30 per cent and membership of the University Council is regarded as an honourable and important task.” So that, for example, professors, who have been quite absent the last few years, also find their way back to the councils.