Why the UvA should commission an independent investigation into the protests
The UvA should conduct an independent investigation into the events during the protests in early May, argue Gertjan Hoetjes, David Hollanders, and Jan Teurlings of the Faculty of Humanities’ Works Council in this opinion article.
On May 17th, both the Works Council of the Faculty of Humanities (FGW) and the Central Works Council (COR) advocated an independent investigation into the course of events on Monday, May 6th through Wednesday, May 8th. OR members have different questions and divergent views in this regard but are able to find common ground on this issue. The University of Amsterdam has not yet responded to this appeal, nor has much attention been paid to it in the UvA community. This is unfortunate because the number of outstanding pressing questions is not small.
The FGW OR (not the COR) mentions several issues in particular. Here we repeat three of them, accompanied by interpretive explanations. First, in the opinion of both legal experts inside and outside the UvA, the demonstration of Monday, May 6th, fell under the right to demonstrate. The demonstration was thus arguably lawful. In any case, it is well established that the house rules of a university override neither the constitution nor international law. The legality of the demonstration must be tested. If it was lawful, then the UvA – perhaps unintentionally – made the undermining of a fundamental right possible by its declaration. That would be serious. That touches on the second issue, the conduct of the police. The brutality of the police was excessive and disproportionate. (A doctor present stated in Het Parool, “I saw how non–violent protesters held their hands above their heads while being beaten with the baton. Not only were they hit on their arms and legs, but also on the head and neck.”)
The BoE takes the position that it is not responsible for the response of the police and judiciary – whatever it may be – to its report, and that is technically correct. It is also formalistic. The police typically act violently against students. An investigation may clarify whether the BoE carefully considered what the consequences of reporting would have on the physical safety of students. This touches on the third issue. It is not clear whether the UvA reported the group of masked provocateurs who attacked the peaceful protesters on the UvA grounds on Monday, May 6th. By all appearances, that is not the case, but until that is formally determined, we are not prepared to believe that our university reported peaceful protesters and not provocateurs who engaged in exactly what the Executive Board – rightly – disapproves of, namely violence and intimidation.
The FGW OR (again: not the COR) also mentions other issues, one of which has since been clarified. The CvB – contrary to earlier communication – has confirmed that it will not exclude anyone within the academic community as a discussion participant in advance. That is a win. It is also progress that work is underway on an assessment framework to answer the current question of whether cooperation with organizations affiliated with a regime that plausibly commits genocide is appropriate. These positive things do not alter the fact that questions remain that require authoritative and convincing answers. This is precisely what the FGW OR and the COR advocate. And an investigation – better than repression anyway – surely no academic can be against that?
Gertjan Hoetjes, David Hollanders, and Jan Teurlings are members of the works council of the Faculty of Humanities. David Hollanders is a delegate in the Central Works Council on its behalf. This article was written in a personal capacity.
