Oriental music sounds in the hall of University College Maastricht, where some thirty youngsters –students as well as others – have gathered around midday on Wednesday. A press release issued earlier that morning referred to a sit-in, a banner on the facade calls it an occupation. In the student common room, there are a Palestinian flag and pro-Palestine posters, while lectures are held and a film is shown in the lecture room of the building on Zwingelput.
The demands
The organisers of the occupation – a group that calls itself UM Students for Palestine – are drawing attention to the war in the Gaza Strip and what it considers as “a passive attitude and censorship” on the side of UM about “the genocide in Gaza”.
In an e-mail to the faculty deans and the university board a week before, they had already explained their demands: UM should show solidarity with the Palestinians, use its European connections to lobby in favour of a ceasefire, condemn the Israeli actions, and sever all ties with Israeli organisations.
No UM statement
In short, the university should speak out, say two members of the group. They are not students of UM – one of them is a member of the action group Autonomen Maastricht. Participating students were said to fear disciplinary measures from the university. This fear is confirmed by a student: she agrees to talk with Observant, but only anonymously. She thinks that it is “scandalous that we have to organise this. The university should have done that”. In her opinion, UM makes itself “complicit in genocide” by not issuing a statement about the war.
However, there will not be such a statement: in a University Council meeting last week, the Executive Board was asked about it. President Rianne Letschert answered that a statement cannot do justice to all nuances and that the dialogue about the conflict should be held in the faculties.
Civil disobedience
Meanwhile, UCM dean Wolfgang Giernalczyk, finds it “too bad” that the demonstrating students fear speaking out. “Looking at what is happening here today, such fear is unnecessary. It seems that this stays within the limits of what one would call civil disobedience.”
He did not know about the action beforehand, but decided to let it go ahead after a talk with the students: education – “my primary responsibility” – is not seriously disrupted “and they are behaving calmly. I want to give the students the opportunity to talk about this and discuss the matter, as long as it is done in a way that doesn’t make others feel unsafe. I think I can see that they’re trying to do their best to achieve that.”
Executive Board secretary Jeroen van Velzen cannot see any objection to the ‘occupation’ either. “We want people to feel free to express their opinions. They are not calling for violence or other criminal behaviour, and the education system is not affected, so this should be possible.”
Removed posters
Students for Palestine, on the other hand, reproaches UM for obstructing an open discussion. After all, posters from student organisation Free Palestine Maastricht (FPM) were removed from university buildings during the Autumn break. Van Velzen: “That was done because they were anonymous. When posters contain a term like ‘genocide’, which elicits emotions and debate, anonymity is undesirable. We have since then talked about this with FPM.”
On Wednesday, new FPM posters appeared, including the aforementioned term. This time, they were not anonymous and were allowed to remain. “It is not up to us to determine whether ‘genocide’ is the right term,” says Van Velzen. “Our view is: can that term be proposed as a hypothesis in an academic debate? The answer is yes.” At the same time, such a word can cause discomfort. “We spoke with an informal delegation of Jewish students and this is the case among them; they feel that there is no genocide. But a majority of these students also felt that a debate on the topic should be possible.”
The line
What exactly are the rules about posters in university buildings? Van Velzen: “The university should provide a safe and open environment in which people can express their opinions and discuss these with others. We do draw the line in two cases: they should not be hung up where they block other expressions, and they must not contain slander or call for violence, discrimination et cetera.”