Update 30/1/2025: The first talks between UM and the student associations, held yesterday, did not provide the clear picture hoped for by the university. According to UM spokesman Koen Augustijn, there were "insufficient leads to properly interpret the signals received". Next week, talks will resume, this time with each association individually. In the meantime, the associations have been asked to "further check with their societies whether student safety is sufficiently guaranteed in all activities. Based on this, we can determine whether measures are needed." According to Augustijn, these could be targeted at specific associations or societies, but also "generically in the relationship between UM and associations".
Last Thursday, UM requested that all independent student societies and student associations that have their own student societies immediately halt all activities for prospective members, after receiving signals that there had been “one or more instances” of misconduct during the so-called ‘A-tijd’, in which prospective members try to prove their worth as members of a student society (dispuut in Dutch).
But how well substantiated are these signals? Is it clear exactly what is alleged to have happened, and where? And was it just one society or were there multiple? Details provided by UM spokesperson Koen Augustijn at the start of the week were still sparse. However, he did say that the university received “multiple reports about more than one incident”. All of which are apparently recent reports. “All in all, it was deemed sufficient cause to stop all activities for now.”
UM hopes for a clearer picture after talks on Wednesday and Thursday with the boards of the four largest student associations (Tragos, Circumflex, Saurus and KoKo) and Onafhankelijk Maastricht (OM), the umbrella organisation which represents 31 independent student societies. “We want to know what reports they have received, and whether they are aware of what is happening in their societies.” Those talks should also clarify whether this is “a false alarm or whether further investigation is warranted”, said Augustijn. He was unwilling to comment on what such an investigation might entail.
False alarm? Is it possible this has all been an exaggeration and that activities were put on hold for no reason? No comment from Augustijn. “First the talks, then we’ll see.”
Last week, the chairs of the ‘big four’ all told Observant that there had been no reports received internally, either by the board or the confidential adviser; only OM refused to comment. Augustijn called those denials “interesting. What does it mean when the university receives signals but the associations don’t? Are the reports we have received inaccurate? Fine, then it will be resolved quickly. But if they do turn out to be true, does their reporting system actually work?”