The atmosphere in the room at The Social Hub on Wednesday evening, 1 April, was peaceful – as intended. A dialogue, as moderator Harry Hummels (professor of Ethics at the School of Business and Economics) explained beforehand, is an attempt to arrive at new insights together, not a debate to be won. It’s about listening carefully and “respecting each other, even if you fundamentally disagree”. And that was exactly how this particular evening unfolded, attended by Observant on condition that all participants remain anonymous. Seated in a circle, participants nodded in understanding, offered words of agreement and took turns to speak.
“I’m nearing retirement”, began one staff member, who said they feel entirely safe at UM. “If I don’t feel able to speak out, who does?” Another participant said he is generally comfortable expressing his views on complex issues, such as Gaza. Even so, he sometimes chooses to remain silent, for example in tutorial groups: “Not out of fear, but because I don’t want to influence students. I try to stick to scientific facts as much as possible.” However, another participant then pointed out that such neutrality is an illusion: staying silent means supporting dominant views.
Safety
Inevitably, the notion of “feeling safe” comes up. What does “safety” actually mean in this context, Hummels asked. “It’s not the same as the absence of conflict”, one participant said. At the same time, you can’t just say whatever you like, he added: you’re bound by the law and the university’s code of conduct. “But if a student feels unsafe simply because we have very different opinions, there isn’t much I can do about that.”
But opinions, one student pointed out, can be physically threatening: what if someone denies the existence of transgender people, as happens in his native country? “I don’t feel entirely safe being open about who I am.” Another student recalled clashing with a course coordinator in a tutorial group (she did not give details). “I was cut off out of nowhere. There was no room for discussion. I can accept conflict, but not hostility.”
The alarm
The evening was organised in response to Dutch university rectors sounding the alarm about increasing pressure on academic freedom in the middle of last year. “Freedom of thought and speech is under threat, both from outside and within”, they wrote in an opinion piece in the newspaper Trouw, calling for a “broad dialogue”. How broad this evening’s dialogue really was, with thirteen English-speaking participants – a Dutch-language session took place earlier in the day – is open to question.
Two more dialogues will follow soon. The Executive Board will reflect on the insights gathered in a panel discussion on 8 June.