The election battle is nearing its conclusion, but there has been very little discussion during the campaign about the future and funding of education and research, according to acting Board president Timo Kos, who is responsible for, among other things, the university’s finances. ‘But that doesn’t mean we’re standing still’, he emphasises. ‘We’re working ourselves to the bone behind the scenes and fighting across all political parties for proper funding for education and research at our universities.’

Nevertheless, there was hardly any talk about it during the campaign. Why do you think that is?
‘I think the issue doesn’t matter enough to voters. They are more concerned about other things, such as housing, migration, healthcare and nitrogen. Long-term investments in something that’s already going relatively well are harder to sell.

‘Last time, it was more relevant – international students were being scapegoated then. Party manifestos are now more nuanced on this issue, which is a step in the right direction, although the Balanced Internationalisation Bill is still on the table. It still needs to pass through the Lower House by the end of the year.’

How are things going with the lawsuit that the universities have filed against the government over the unilateral termination of the outline agreement?
‘We’re going to contest the fact that the billion euros in investments pledged by the Rutte IV cabinet have been reversed by the Schoof cabinet. We’ve brought the case before the administrative court and the decision on whether it will actually proceed is still pending. But it’s quite exceptional – and a telling sign – that universities are taking legal action against decisions made by the government. It’s simple: we want the cuts off the table because we consider them unlawful and highly imprudent.’

Could the lawsuit be dropped if a new cabinet is formed soon that will invest in universities again?
‘No, because we want to ensure that future cabinets do not break administrative agreements just like that. It’s a matter of principle. That said, if the case does go to court and we win, it doesn’t automatically mean we’ll receive the money after all.

‘There are many reasons to invest in research and higher education. According to the Lisbon Strategy, which has been in place since 2002, all countries in Europe should invest three per cent of their gross domestic product (GDP) in research and development. The Netherlands hasn’t been doing this for years and, at 2.3 per cent, falls well below that standard, while neighbouring countries are meeting or even exceeding it.

‘So it’s a miracle that we continue to perform at such a high level in education and research, but due to increasing workloads, this comes at the expense of our staff. We believe that 2.6 billion needs to be invested in education and research in order to meet that standard.’

According to the Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis, the parties that intend to invest most in education are D66, GroenLinks-PvdA and Volt, respectively. So should we vote for these parties?
‘I’m not going to give any voting advice here, but the analyses of the election manifestos are indeed publicly available. Freedom of education and research is also at stake. The parties also have different ideas about that. Unfortunately, we see that the majority of them are undermining fundamental democratic rights with unconstitutional proposals. Our democratic rule of law is something very valuable, which can be lost very easily but is very difficult to rebuild.’

An independent committee of legal experts has concluded that the only parties with a programme fully in line with the rule of law are Volt, GroenLinks–PvdA, Denk and the Party for the Animals. Are you sure you don’t want to give any voting advice?
‘No. I think these are very important issues for our sector, and I find it unfortunate that they receive little attention. But people have to make their own decisions.’

Leiden University has to cut five per cent from its total budget. Six months ago, the Executive Board estimated that this would amount to structural cuts of 30 million euros. Has that figure increased or decreased since?

‘Our finance department has recalculated our estimate, and it proves to be broadly accurate. So the situation has not deteriorated, but it’s still very painful. It affects people on temporary contracts who can’t stay on, and courses are disappearing from curricula because they are no longer viable. These are all unwanted and unpleasant, but necessary, cuts. Project groups and advisory committees are in the process of working out the details.’

Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam and the University of Twente were forced to lay off staff. Last spring, Annetje Ottow, then Board president, stated in Mare that there was ‘a possibility of reorganisation’ in Leiden as well. Is there any more clarity on that front?
‘There are no plans for a reorganisation for the time being, but I can’t rule out that it may be necessary at some point. The universities where this has happened were already faced with a much sharper decline in student intake than we are. The cuts then came on top of that.’ 

At the same time, you are challenging the cuts in court. So isn't it too early to implement them?
The cuts have already been booked by the Ministries of Finance and Education, Culture and Science, so we have no choice but to prepare for them and proceed accordingly. But should a cabinet be formed that makes fewer cuts and invests more, we can hopefully mitigate those cuts or perhaps even reverse them. Of course, we hope that the financial outlook will improve after the new cabinet is formed, but by then we’ll be a year or more further down the line.’

You said earlier that the university is lobbying hard behind the scenes. Can you give an example?
‘The Schoof cabinet asked Peter Wennink (executive officer and former CEO of ASML, Ed.) to issue advice on what companies and the public sector should invest in to meet that three per cent of GDP standard. Wennink identified twenty themes on which he wanted to see plans developed. One of these is biotechnology, an area in which Leiden University, together with companies such as Johnson & Johnson, is a leading player.

‘We helped draft a plan to raise five to seven billion euros for the Leiden Bio Science Park. If that proves successful, it would give a huge boost to the development of life sciences and biotech. Forty per cent of the jobs in biotechnology are already based in Leiden, and if this continues to flourish, it will have a pull effect on students and researchers.’

What about the social and behavioural sciences and humanities?
‘This is a so-called technology strategy, so you can see the one-sided focus of the government and industry. But that’s why I say: the cuts need to be taken off the table, because a healthy democracy also requires high-quality education in law, the social and behavioural sciences and humanities. Technology alone won’t solve that; in fact, some of it poses a threat to our freedoms.

But if we’re no longer economically competitive, it will become increasingly difficult to finance education and research. Because no growth in GDP means no money to continue financing it. Investments in technology are the engine of our future earning capacity and determine the extent to which we can continue to finance education and research. If we don’t do that, we will have to make even more cuts in the future.’

Polls suggest that a future cabinet will be more favourable towards higher education.
‘Fingers crossed: polls are polls. I hope for a good outcome with a stable and strong cabinet. That’s what we need.’