Rien Wijnhoven: ‘University democracy is in the danger zone’

After ten years, Rien Wijnhoven has stepped down as chair of the University Council. According to him, the Council faces major challenges. ‘The group of people who really stand up for democratic decision-making is becoming dangerously small.’

He admits, it took some getting used to when he took office as chair of the University Council in 2014. Making rapid decisions and moving on, that’s not always in the cards during meetings. But Wijnhoven developed into an ardent advocate for the participation body.

Not only in Tilburg, but also on behalf of all Dutch universities, as chair of the Landelijk Overleg Universitaire Medezeggenschap (LOVUM). There, Wijnhoven had been working hard since 2016 to improve the position of university participation. For the outgoing chair is concerned. ‘By no means everyone has the required appreciation for the democratic process. There are universities where the boards mainly consider the co-determination as a troublesome stand in the way.’

Tired he is not. Nor does Wijnhoven have any complaints about lack of appreciation. During his last University Council meeting as chair, at the Jheronimus Academy of Data Science (JADS) in ‘s-Hertogenbosch, Rector Magnificus and President of the EB Wim van de Donk spoke in praise. Wijnhovens’ strong point: creating a safe atmosphere during meetings so that students and staff are not afraid to speak out.

No, it is simply time to slow down. ‘I am a grandfather by now,’ Wijnhoven laughs, ’the time has come to enjoy other things a little more.’ And with Hans Haans, active at Tilburg University since 2000, the University Council has an excellent successor in the house.

This is necessary because a lot is going to happen to the University in the coming years, Wijnhoven warns. ‘The brakes on internationalization, possible cuts from The Hague, and don’t forget, all the discussions about social safety. Difficult decisions will have to be made.

‘It is necessary to keep the Board on its toes in the future. And employees and students need to be well represented and informed. That is, in fact, what makes a community strong and cohesive.’

At the last meeting in JADS, you urged the Executive Board, ‘Nurture participation.’ Is that happening enough in Tilburg?

‘By the current Executive Board for sure. They have a good idea of the value and position of the participation body. You notice that co-determination is sought out and involved in decision-making. Cherished may be going a bit far but appreciated: absolutely.’

‘That doesn’t mean you always agree with each other. For example, there are tough discussions about the Strategy. The Council has also been critical in this regard: It’s a good story, but the details really need to be improved.’

In the University Council, there is recurring criticism of the provision of information by the administration. Documents are delivered too late or incomplete, which sometimes makes it difficult for the Council to exercise its advisory and monitoring function. This is still an area for improvement.

‘This is something of all times. You have to imagine: the Board knows its own files inside and out but cannot always properly assess the exact information requirements of the participation body. The employee representatives sometimes feel, rightly so, that they have been short-changed. Then it is also my role to urge the Board to provide additional information.

‘Awareness of the urgency of co-determination is waning, even in Tilburg’

‘Trust and adequate provision of information, those are perhaps the two most important ingredients for a well-functioning co-determination. And safety: that you feel safe as a student and as an employee to contribute ideas and to be critical. Because as a university administrator, you have to be able to take criticism. That’s part of the job. It’s no different in politics.’

Historically, co-determination in Tilburg seems to be firmly established. For example, Tilburg has the highest turnout rate in elections of any university.

‘True. I think it plays into the fact that we are a small and compact campus with short lines of communication. But we cannot be complacent and sit back. Turnout has also been dropping here for a couple of elections in a row. We also have to make a real effort to recruit enough candidates for the participation council; these are important signals to take action.’

As chair of LOVUM, you sounded the alarm two years ago: co-determination is in a downward spiral, at all universities.

‘And I still think so. At some universities, voter turnout is really sadly low. At nine universities, there was a drop in the average from 32 to 21 percent in four years, according to the Education Inspectorate. Sometimes student parties are forced to stop because of a lack of applicants.

‘We are dealing with a declining awareness of the urgency of co-determination. This problem also plays out in Tilburg, even if things look a bit rosier here.’

Why is that?

‘Active participation in the co-determination process should receive more appreciation and support. We also wrote a letter about this to Universities of the Netherlands (UNL) when the Recognition & Rewards program started: include active participation in co-determination in this program, make it part of a recognized career within the university. But unfortunately UNL didn’t want that, and I think that’s a missed opportunity.’

Co-determination needs more support nationwide?

‘Everyone from the UNL to the Department of Education stresses the importance of co-determination. Then people say: you are important, you keep the administrators on their toes. But when the push comes to shove and you ask for better compensation or more facility support, there is only silence.’

Many words, few deeds.

‘Sure. We organized a symposium with LOVUM on the importance of co-determination and invited politicians: almost none of them showed up. That is quite disappointing. The group of people who really stand up for democratic decision-making is becoming dangerously small. I’m really worried about that.

‘The system we have now, with the University Council and School Councils, is not bad in itself. But we have a responsibility to keep academic democracy alive and relevant. If we can’t even do it, we shouldn’t consider it strange that democracy is also under pressure nationwide.’

Why is this internal democracy so important for universities?

‘Universities are complex organizations. Just consider the stratification, with a Board of Governors, School, and Departments. And on top of that, we have an abundance of professionals involved here. For example, many professors themselves often know what is best for their area of expertise.

‘All the creativity, knowledge, and energy present, and the involvement too, you have to ensure those are streamlined and brought together. Managing by hierarchy doesn’t work. Befehl ist befehl, they don’t like that at the University.

‘Universities should not be left to the market’

‘Added to that: universities are public institutions funded largely from public funds. The products you develop, whether it be research or education, serve society. Knowledge and education are public goods. So this type of organization requires internal democratic monitoring and co-determination.’

Are universities still serving society sufficiently? Sometimes they seem primarily concerned with rankings and growth.

‘When I started here in 1996 as Head of Planning & Control, you saw the rise of new public management: organizations had to be efficient, agile, focused on growth, et cetera. That destroyed a lot. Universities have become more and more out of touch with society. Acting a bit like big companies, thinking in terms of competition and competitiveness, of lists and achievements, all wanting to lure in as many students as possible.

‘What you get as a result: public organizations competing with each other in a growth battle. Who has the most students? Who is highest on the lists? That’s wrong. You also see more and more criticism of universities these days. They are said to be just opinion factories, locked in their own ivory towers.

‘Universities need to properly explain their right of existence again and regain contact with society. The participation body can also help to make that move.’

There is growing criticism of this so-called perverse incentive for growth. But we do not really see structural change yet, do we?

‘Innovation is lacking in this area, very unfortunate. I would say: universities should not be left to the market. Or at least not to the market as it is now. Universities are helping to build the society of the future. They are largely about the cohesion and organization of a society. Do not underestimate that. This is another reason why their own co-determination is so important. In shaping that future, some eyes are allowed to look on critically.

In doing so, does the Council bare its teeth often enough?

‘That could be done more often, certainly. But I’m not of the conflict school: if it’s not necessary, you shouldn’t go forward with the battering ram either. Often the Board tends to accede to the wishes of the Council. As a Council, you have a corrective impact anyway, simply by existing.

‘Administrators are more careful when they know they are being monitored. They shouldn’t come up with bad proposals and they know it. They have to have a good story, otherwise you get criticized, and you are sent straight back to the drawing board.’

Translated by Language Center, Riet Bettonviel

_Advertentie.