During the upcoming university elections (19-22 May), UM students can vote for six parties. Four of those sent a University Council candidate to the annual debate, organised this time by The Maastricht Diplomat in conjunction with the university. They were given the opportunity to set out their manifestos in the auditorium of the administrative building at the Minderbroedersberg, half-filled with students, as well as on a YouTube livestream. DOPE, which currently occupies four of the ten U-council seats (the same number as NovUM), and newcomer Voxis declined the invitation.
The members of the three parties already on the U-council – in addition to NovUM, climate party KAN and List Lex-Motus both have one member on the council – appeared to broadly support the current course of the Executive Board. For example, on the subject of internationalisation. “It’s good that UM continues to emphasise its international character, it’s important for Limburg to attract international talent,” said Lex party leader Bram van den Berkmortel.
Newcomer Lijst voor Nederland has a different opinion: according to party leader (and only candidate on the list) Robbin Rutten, it is time for UM to “prioritise the future of the Netherlands”. He felt that every English-language programme should include a Dutch language course. That should ensure more internationals remain in Maastricht after graduation, “now, only about 11 per cent still lives here, five years after graduating” – a percentage that was twice refuted by the debate’s fact checkers but which was, in fact, published in a recent report by Nuffic.
Compulsory Dutch lessons were a step too far for the other parties, although they would like to see language courses be made more attractive and cheaper. They agreed that would improve the integration of international students, which at the moment, leaves much to be desired – a comment from the audience about the “high level of polarisation between Dutch and international students” was met with applause.
Lagging behind
NovUM candidate Matthieu Marienbach, in particular, was critical of the Human Rights Due Diligence (HRDD) framework – a new instrument to help determine whether partner institutes are involved with human rights violation or other international crimes and which was adopted by large majority by the U-council in February. He pointed to Tilburg University, which had cut ties with two Israeli universities earlier that day. “UM is lagging behind, even though it is very clear what should be done. Really, we should already have frozen ties with Israel from the start. Now we have the framework, we should speed up the investigation.” The subsequent applause was loud.
The other candidates emphasised the careful approach and wanted to give the HRDD tool a chance. “It is a pilot, in a year, we’ll know whether it works,” said Lex’s Van den Berkmortel. KAN party leader Chiara Ring wished for her party “to help ensure the tool is as good as possible, Maastricht should be a leading example in upholding human rights”. She did admit that her party did not vote for the tool in the U-council, “because it hadn’t been worked out good enough”.
Safe
The last topic of the evening: suspending ties with student associations Tragos and Circumflex, a decision made by UM last month after multiple incidents came to light where physical safety and personal integrity had been violated. This time Lex is the dissenting voice: “Cutting off all contact is the worst thing you could do to guarantee safety. That’s how you lose control, and then there’s no code of conduct anymore. The societies certainly aren’t going anywhere, UM students are still going to be members.” On the other hand, the other parties agreed with the Executive Board’s approach. “As a university, you shouldn’t give money to something that isn’t safe,” said KAN’s Ring. NovUM candidate Marienbach noted that study associations should, in fact, be given more money.
Despite the differences of opinion on a few topics, at the end of the debate, all the parties concluded that working together is paramount to ensuring the voice of the student is well represented.