According to UM President Rianne Letschert, the HRDD framework is needed to strike a balance between international collaboration and staying true to university values. “If a partner institution turns out to be involved in serious human rights violations, this framework allows us to determine whether it should remain part of our ‘family’”, she explained during the meeting on Wednesday afternoon.
Yesterday’s University Council meeting marked the first time the document was made public, in January 2025, even though the Executive Board announced the framework in early 2024. This was prompted by pro-Palestinian protests at universities, including in Maastricht. However, Letschert stressed that the framework does not exclusively apply to Israel. As early as autumn 2023, she explained, a working group started developing a global engagement policy regarding partners in regions such as Iran and Saudi Arabia. Nonetheless, it is clear that the escalation of conflict in the Middle East and the strong call for an academic boycott of Israeli institutions have made this one of the most pressing issues for the university administration.
Guest lecturers
During this pilot year, all existing administrative partnerships with institutions will be assessed – hopefully by October, said Letschert. Israel will be one of the first three cases to be evaluated. The process will be overseen by a newly established body, the Sensitive Partnerships Committee, which will include the chairs of three subcommittees on human rights, knowledge security, and fossil/sensitive industries.
But who exactly will be subject to its scrutiny? The framework applies to so called “institutional partners”, but does it also apply to guest lecturers, recipients of European research grants, and other individual initiatives? This question was raised by assistant professor Ewout Meijer from the Faculty of Psychology and Neuroscience. He argued that academic freedom is at risk. However, Letschert assured him that the framework does not extend to individual activities. Meijer also wondered why UM thinks it’s up to the university to determine whether a country has “clean hands”. “Isn’t that the role of the International Criminal Court? Such investigations take years, and now UM wants to take matters into its own hands. Is that diligent?”
Unwise
Both Eliyahu Sapir and Benoit Wesly, the honorary consul for Israel in the southern provinces of the Netherlands, argued that it is not this university’s place to pass judgement on crimes or engage in politics. Sapir described the policy as “ethically problematic” and “unwise. It will harm UM’s reputation”. Meanwhile, Wesly accused the university of “adding fuel to the fire. UM should steer clear of political involvement. Mind your own business.” This did not sit well with student representative Shari Crespi, who countered, “Universities have always been political institutions. I’m extremely uncomfortable with someone telling me what is and isn’t my business.”
Belgium
Academic staff representative Mark Govers wanted to know why the framework first examines the countries where UM has partner institutions before assessing the involvement of a specific institution, if relevant. “Why start with the country?” Letschert: “It’s our first threshold. Otherwise, we’d need to assess all institutions we have administrative partnerships with, even in countries like Belgium.” Non-academic staff representative Maarten van Wesel echoed Govers’s concerns, citing the example of an American university previously involved in human rights violations. As the US is not considered a “red flag” country, would such an institution escape scrutiny under the framework? It was explained that a solution exists for such cases: whistleblowers can report their concerns to the committee.
With around twenty points of disagreement remaining among council members, the University Council postponed its advice to the next plenary meeting in February. Chair of the University Council Teun Dekker explained that a digital vote will be held to arrive at a unified recommendation.