Kirsty McHenry | “Restoring trust” in the UvA will require laying a new foundation
Restoring trust between the UvA and the protesters will not be an easy task, writes columnist Kirsty McHenry. “For the administration, the end goal will always be a ‘return to business as usual’.”
The day after the brutal destruction of the Oudemanhuispoort encampment I joined a student march in protest, being one of many who was incensed by the scenes of violence in both Palestine and at my own university. Upon our arrival at the Maagdenhuis (the administrative centre of the UvA), we were met by a small crowd of Mobiele Eenheid (ME). Their batons on hand and arrest vans waiting nearby, they stood poised for what would be the fourth day in a row of confrontation. As I registered this, my eyes were drawn to two ME who were standing guard at the doors of the Maagdenhuis – holding back a pair of aggressive police dogs. Despite all the many incidents of brutality, chaos, and panic that I’ve witnessed over the past month, it is this image which burns brightest in my mind every time I hear the UvA administration talk of “keeping [its] students safe”.
Ironic
Coverage of the Pro-Palestine student protests in Amsterdam and the force used against them has affected many, including the UvA’s now former president Geert ten Dam. In a parting interview, she claimed that she “can’t get the videos of the terrible violence here on our campuses out of [her] head”, a sentiment which seems somewhat ironic given that she and the rest of the Executive Board (CvB) authorised much of it personally. The CvB’s willingness to invite ME onto the UvA campus and their steadfast defence of the violence that was caused in doing so has broken what trust there was between it and much of the students and staff.
Even now, a month after the first encampment at Roeterseiland, there has been no real admission of remorse for the danger that the CvB purposefully placed it students in. The CvB maintains that the bulldozing of the encampment and arrest of some 140 protesters was necessary “because unsafe situations ultimately arose”, though it’s since been widely recognised that the original escalation they refer to was an attack on the encampment from an outsider group. Considering how numerous other student encampments across Europe have managed to peacefully co-operate with their universities, it is hard not to speculate how differently the past month could have gone had the CvB not so quickly resorted to violence.
Bussiness as normal
In spite of their response to the demonstrations suggesting otherwise, the UvA administration has continued to proclaim its eagerness to use open dialogues as the solution. However, it appears that student protesters may speak as eloquently or as loudly as they like in these dialogues, as long as their words remain just that; for the administration, the end goal will always be a “return to business as normal”. The result of this approach is that negotiations and dialogues are seen as something of a trick, a distraction done to de-escalate rather than to effect meaningful change. This view was reinforced by the CvB’s actions during the negotiations at the Oudemanhuispoort encampment, where it later became apparent that they had already organised for ME to dismantle the encampment while the negotiations were still taking place. To win back trust that was lost in such bad faith the administration will likely have to offer more than the hollow words we’ve heard thus far.
With the dust from the last month’s destruction having barely just settled, the UvA administration is working to figure out how to rebuild trust. But, with no apology for the police violence that it brought down upon its students and staff in sight and its ties to Israeli institutions still very much intact, this won’t be an easy task. However, the biggest challenge for the administration seems to be admitting that any mistake has been made at all. And though the bricks may have been replaced and the graffiti washed away, the wounds inflicted by their choices last month are going to leave a lasting scar.
