Over the past two years, pro-Palestinian protesters have repeatedly occupied university buildings. In May 2024, the Executive Board only threatened to call in the police; just over a year later, it actually did. On 10 June 2025, after half a day of occupation, police officers removed fifteen activists from the University College Maastricht (UCM) building on Zwingelput.
According to Pamela Habibović, then rector and now president of the university, the Executive Board took the decision “with a heavy heart” but felt it had no alternative. Not everyone agreed: 54 staff members of the Faculty of Law signed a critical statement describing the police intervention as a “disproportionate measure” and reminding the university of the rights of protesters. This led to talks between some of the Law staff members and the Executive Board, during which it was decided that a group of seven legal experts from UM would draw up a report on how the university should handle such situations.
Chilling effect
The report was published last week on the staff intranet, UMployee. Among its conclusions is that “intervention should only be considered when strictly necessary to protect the university’s core functions”. Moreover, calling in the police must always be “a last resort”, partly because of the potential “chilling effect” on demonstrators. The university should first “make an effort to engage in dialogue with activists and look for alternative forms [of protest]”. Intervention is justified only if demonstrators refuse to engage in dialogue, if all “less severe measures” have been “exhausted” and disruption to teaching and research is “serious and persistent” – and there are no other ways to resolve this, such as relocating teaching or exams – or if there is “an immediate and acute risk of serious physical injury, death or property damage”.
The report does not specify what exactly was “disproportionate” about the police action that ended last year’s UCM occupation. In their statement at the time, the 54 Law staff members stated that the university had made no serious attempt to engage in dialogue with the activists. “But the Executive Board later stressed that it had tried to do so”, says Eva van Vugt, an assistant professor and co-author of the report. Even so, she believes things could have been done better. “In Utrecht, a similar occupation lasted two weeks, because the university simply relocated teaching. The UCM occupation didn’t even disrupt teaching, as it took place during exam week.”
Safety
The Executive Board, however, argued that “the safety of those in and around the building” could not be guaranteed: they had no way of knowing what was happening inside, as security cameras had been covered. “But the demonstrators were never asked to remove the tape covering the cameras”, says Van Vugt. “Yes, they probably covered them for a reason, but the university should have at least tried. Staff who were present also said, ‘Let us go inside to see if everything is safe; we’re neutral.’ But the Executive Board didn’t act on that suggestion, either.”
Notably, the report had already been submitted to the Executive Board in early February – well before 2 April, when another occupation, this time at Oxfordlaan 55, was ended by police after about eight hours. In this case, too, the Executive Board said that mediation efforts had failed and pointed to safety concerns, arguing that the presence of fMRI scanners with strong magnetic fields and cooling gases such as helium and nitrogen posed “a dangerous and potentially life-threatening situation for non-specialists”. The report states that earlier intervention may be justified if occupiers disregard safety regulations or refuse to allow the university to monitor this. “That does seem relevant here – it’s a different type of building from UCM”, says Van Vugt. “But it’s difficult for me to assess without having all the facts.”