University Council questions evaluation of security measures: ‘What lessons are being learned from this?’

The evaluation of the security measures during the Opening of the Academic Year remains a heated topic. Student parties and staff members have voiced strong criticism about both the content and the lack of conclusions in the report. The Executive Board acknowledges that mistakes were made but emphasizes that there was no discriminatory policy.

Tensions surrounding the strict security at the September 1 Opening of the Academic Year—during which students wearing a kufiya were reportedly denied entry—flared up again during Thursday’s University Council meeting. The evaluation conducted by Van Genugten, who was tasked with independently investigating how the incident occurred, was deemed inadequate by many council members.

Panka Toma from the Progressive Student Alliance (PSA) called the report contradictory. “Van Genugten concludes that there was no policy of discrimination, but then what were the instructions given to security?” she asked. “There is video and audio documentation of students who were discriminated against. The facts are right there.”

David Schindler from TiU International also described the evaluation as disappointing. “The report is difficult to read and poorly structured. It reads like a ‘he said, she said’ story. We hope that future investigations will be conducted in a more structured and professional manner.”

Gone too far

Rector Magnificus Wim van de Donk reiterated during the meeting that the Executive Board has already apologized for the incident, but rejected the claim that there was a policy aimed at discrimination. “No instruction was given to stop people wearing a kufiya,” he said.

“Conversations were held with demonstrators earlier that day, and agreements were made about holding a protest at a designated spot outside. When people went inside anyway, security staff acted according to those agreements—not out of discrimination. Perhaps some went too far in doing so.”

At the same time, Van de Donk acknowledged that the university must learn from what happened. “The right to protest has always existed and will continue to exist. Discrimination is never acceptable,” he said. “But we must ask ourselves what can be improved. Were the instructions to security clear enough?”

University absent

Katya Ivanova from the Independents group called for more clarity about the next steps. “What lessons are being learned from this? What are the points for improvement? That’s not clear to us.”

Her fellow group member Marinus Verhagen added that the university itself was too absent during the incident on September 1. “Someone should be present on behalf of the university in situations like this—someone who can explain what’s happening and engage in dialogue with students and staff.”

No video footage during public meeting

When PSA member Toma proposed showing the video and audio recordings of the events, Van de Donk advised against it. “As the Executive Board, we are responsible and must learn from this. But this is a public meeting. It would be inappropriate and a violation of privacy to show videos of directly involved individuals here.”

Student parties Front and SAM also urged the Executive Board to present a concrete action plan outlining how the university will handle future protests and security measures. “We want to see what lessons are being learned; there needs to be a clear action plan.”

The council decided that a separate, closed session will be organized between the University Council’s executive committee, Van Genugten, and the Executive Board—provided that Van Genugten is willing to attend. Whether this closed meeting will restore confidence in the evaluation remains to be seen.

The university is also expected to announce its decision regarding cooperation with Israeli partner institutions next Tuesday.

_Advertentie.