OmniUM, the working name of the new dialogue centre, offers a space for all kinds of (sensitive) subjects, states the memo for the University Council. “It is important to offer an open and safe space to come together for honest dialogue and to share opinions.” And no, UM will not be getting a new building for this dialogue meetings. They will take place at Tapijn Z, student community Kaleido’s ‘living room’.
Before the details of OmniUM could be discussed, the Executive Board and (fellow) organiser Rob van Duijn from Studium Generale dwelled upon the cancellation of the first ‘dialogue table’ on 18 January, about the situation in Israel and Palestine.
President Rianne Letschert and Van Duijn spoke cryptically about “signs from the community, some people thought differently about the set-up of such an evening”. Van Duijn had previously spoken in this newspaper about “possible actions”, there are whispers about demonstrations and protests. On top of all that, moderator of the ‘dialogue table’ Evanne Nowak (a freelancer, not connected to UM) received a “disturbing e-mail from Students for Palestine” the evening before, she said to Observant, “in which they strongly advised me to step down”. It was decided after that to cancel the programme, Van Duijn concludes in the University Council meeting. According to Letschert, the Executive Board is thinking about an “appropriate reaction to this behaviour”, referring to the tone of the e-mail to the moderator. “This is worrisome.”
Student member Lea Bilić also wonders why the dialogue has halted because of this. “It is not okay if a letter [e-mail, ed.] prevents all further dialogue.” Van Duijn explains that “the set-up of the evening, where people would share and listen, was too vulnerable. We couldn’t guarantee that it wouldn’t be disturbed.” He is hoping for a second chance, “but we have taken a step back for now”.
Regarding the set-up of OmniUM – for and by students, is the idea – there were also a few critical questions. Because, what about the promised open and safe space? Various perspectives can be presented during such a dialogue, people may give their opinions without being scared or discriminated against. “How do you guarantee that nobody’s feelings will be hurt?”, student member Andrew Scrivener wants to know. Donna Yates, member on behalf of the academic personnel, is not convinced with the guarantee that such a meeting would be safe. You don’t know if somebody is secretly filming and then puts it on social media, she says. Also, can you force others to respect boundaries of the others? Van Duijn cannot give any guarantees, but would like to give “a number of guidelines about how to behave with one another” during such a dialogue evening.
Letschert: “If we don’t make an attempt to have an open and safe dialogue, I will lose faith. So yes, we do need good guidelines. And if that doesn’t work, we will have to have a different discussion at this university, namely, how we raise young people.” In other words: Has it come so far that they can’t and don’t want to listen to each other anymore?