OPINION - Whether it concerns social safety or a portrait of a discredited former prime minister; every single time, Radboud University’s Executive Board responds by ‘seeking a dialogue’, as noticed by Klaas Landsman. He argues that such a dialogue is only useful if it is eventually followed by a decision.

The December issue of Radboud Magazine, the publication for university alumni, contained an leaflet calling for donations to place a set of ‘luisterschalen’ (acoustic mirrors, eds.) besides the Spiegelwaal; With these, people can ‘engage in dialogue.’

Mantra

This appears to be the new university mantra. Replying to the allegations published in De Gelderlander (September 30^th, 2022), which claimed that Radboud University is ‘a toxic, hostile workplace for many women’, the Executive Board stated: ‘we will take matters in our own hands and stimulate discussions, in which we will listen to the cares and questions from students and employees.’ Our new rector, of whom I incidentally have great expectations, sees a role for herself to play: ‘engaging in conversations.’

‘I have been waiting more than two years for a decision on Huize Heyendael’s Beel chamber’

In response to my complaint regarding Radboud’s continued support of the Heineken Awards, despite the withdrawal of the KNAW, the spokesperson for the Executive Board told me ‘after(!) this round, the Board would like to engage in dialogue with researchers and other universities to determine the best approach.’

Additionally, there is the question of whether intimate relations between students and professors should fall within the University’s code of conduct; our president hopes to answer this question by ‘engaging in dialogue with colleagues from different universities.’

Beel chamber

I have been waiting more than two years for a decision on Huize Heyendael’s Beel chamber (a posh meeting room at the University’s castle), as well as the oversized portrait of former prime minister and Radboud professor Beel, a war criminal, in the Grotius Building. But of course, the Board did engage in dialogue. The ‘dialogue sessions’ regarding the University’s “identity” started over two years ago. Now, maybe I missed something, but what was the result of those dialogues? Is our identity rooted in our Catholic origins at the early 20^th century? Or in sustainability?

 ‘I don’t necessarily have to agree with the decision; there just needs to be a decision’

‘Engaging in dialogue’ is only useful if one subsequently arrives at a results of that dialogue. The 2019 report Harassment in Dutch academia. Exploring manifestations, facilitating factors, effects and solutions, by Nazaer, Van den Brink, and Benschop, clearly stated what needed to be done to ensure social safety: addressing the hierarchical structure of the University and tackling the cover-up culture. As far as I can tell, none of that has even been considered. All relevant information about Heineken and Beel is out there. And finally, regarding our Catholic culture: twenty years of “participatory observation” suggests that a large majority among students and employees opposes a small elite joined in a hiking society.

Delay talk

In all these cases, all the facts have been on the table for a while; make a decision! Instead, ‘engaging in dialogue’ has turned into what the well-known Dutch poet Lieke Marsman referred to as ‘delay talk in the Dutch tv-show Zomergasten (August 14^th, 2022). I don’t necessarily have to agree with whatever decision; there just needs to be one. At this point, for all I care we might as well call ourselves the “Catholic Colonial Louis Beel University” or “Satan’s Holland Heineken University”; at least then I would know what’s up.

In the meantime, I will not give a single penny for those ‘luisterschalen.’

Translated by Jasper Pesch