‘We live in a time when many things that we take for granted are under pressure’, said the new Board president Luc Sels on Monday afternoon during the Dies celebration. Last November, he traded the oldest university in the Low Countries (Leuven) for the oldest university in the Netherlands. His parents – both in their nineties – who had travelled to Leiden to listen to their son’s lecture, were treated to a resounding round of applause from the audience.
‘Slowing economic growth, resurgent nationalism, unrest on the world stage, the call for strategic autonomy and the tightening of migration policy are putting society on edge’, Sels continued. Added to this is the fact that universities are increasingly becoming targets of anti-elite rhetoric, budget cuts and declining internationalisation and autonomy.
Therefore, academics must ‘thoroughly recalibrate’, the Board president argued. ‘It may seem as if universities are losing ground, but in fact, it’s mainly their position in the knowledge landscape that is shifting.’ They are no longer ‘the gatekeepers of knowledge, but they remain a source of it’. ‘But what feels uncomfortable is that their dominant position is under pressure.’
Sels made a stand for the humanities and social sciences. He argues that the fact that these disciplines are under fire is ‘not a neutral policy choice’. ‘Governments seem to want universities that are primarily useful and doubt whether investments in the humanities and social sciences will yield this intended utility. We’re still nowhere near what is sometimes referred to as the humanities apocalypse: the drastic hollowing-out of the humanities. But concern is growing.’
He asked the audience a few rhetorical questions, encouraging them to reflect. ‘Now that China is growing into an economic and scientific superpower, isn’t there a need for more, rather than less, understanding of language, culture and society? If democracies are eroding, shouldn’t we work harder to understand why this is happening and how we can turn the tide? If the energy transition depends on behavioural change among citizens and businesses, is it prudent to limit the space for disciplines that study human behaviour?’
He also wondered aloud whether universities can afford to ‘cut back on ethics and critical social science’ at a time when algorithms control what people see, think and buy.
‘Language may well be the last piece of human magic, so shouldn’t we cherish it rather than reduce it to a technical problem for machines? And doesn’t our society need more, rather than less, historical awareness, now that we’re coming dangerously close to repeating the mistakes of the past?’
He said he wanted to uphold these disciplines. ‘We cherish our unique programmes: not as heritage from the past, but as a foundation for the future. Therefore, we must not only ensure their continued existence, but also shape them in such a way that they fulfil their crucial role: incisive, relevant, interconnected and engaged with society. By doing so, we contribute not only to knowledge, but to a society that is better able to understand, act and coexist.’
A third reason why universities must reposition themselves is because the rule of law is under increasing pressure. ‘The justice system, the media, academia and even electoral procedures are becoming more politicised. This shows how fragile previously established safeguards are.’
Stifling debate or ‘withholding uncomfortable opinions’ is not the way to escape this pressure, said the Board president. ‘Rather, we must allow room for respectful disagreement.’ He also believes that administrators should abandon their keep-your-head-down attitude and no longer shy away from difficult debates. After all, not taking a position mainly results in the tacit confirmation of power relations.’
Sarah de Rijcke, who received the chain of office as the new Rector Magnificus, echoed these sentiments in her address. ‘Within our community, we sometimes engage in heated discussions about what we expect from universities, about who determines what universities are and what they do, about whether the university should take a stance on major societal challenges.’
That is valuable, as long as ‘the debate about academic quality does not degenerate into a struggle over political identities’, according to De Rijcke. ‘Scholarship is more than a symbol in a political debate. I would like to see the major questions about our university discussed calmly and respectfully, especially when we disagree. But I’m also concerned with the substance of the arguments. From an academic point of view, they fall short too often.’
The rector urged lecturers and researchers to ask themselves ‘whether we weigh academic quality against speed or care, whether we still believe in academic freedom when the outcomes are not to our liking, and whether knowledge only counts if it delivers value’. De Rijcke: That conversation still feels somewhat uncomfortable and is not always well informed.’
Both Board members acknowledged in their speeches that geopolitical unrest and eroding trust in institutions such as universities are problematic, but that the current coalition agreement also offers reassurance.
‘Universities are stronger than we sometimes assume, especially now that the new cabinet is improving their prospects’, said Sels. ‘Let’s not forget: democratic erosion complicates their mission, but at the same time, it underscores its importance.’