In autumn 2025, following a request filed under the Open Government Act (WOO request), the university made documents public regarding the tightened security measures in the Wijnhaven building.

After an additional WOO request (#26-13), the university has now released further documents, providing more insight into how the university disclosed the original information.

This correspondence, which has been partially redacted, reveals that the Legal Affairs Department had concerns about how the security policy would be regarded if the WOO documents were made public. In their view, several measures could be seen as ethnic profiling.

‘The question may be asked as to why the university did not provide transparency on this matter earlier’, writes a Legal Affairs staff member to the university’s spokespersons. ‘Questions may also be raised regarding ethnic profiling by security guards and the sharing of personal data (photographs, video footage) with third parties (police, profilers) without permission’.

In a memo to the Executive Board, Legal Affairs also questions whether the closure of Wijnhaven and the subsequent tightened security measures were proportionate to the circumstances that led to them: an Arabic-speaking man accidentally walking into the Wijnhaven building.

‘It can be inferred from the documents that visitors to Wijnhaven with certain physical and/or ethnic characteristics are at risk of being designated as suspicious. The question may be asked whether this was justified.’

The legal experts offer further criticism of the security policy described in the previously released WOO documents: ‘The Legal Affairs Department and the Security Department have reached differing assessments of the following passages’, after which the document quotes a number of excerpts from Security Department policy documents, concerning, amongst other things, so-called ‘proactive security’ and the use of ‘No Access’ stickers in the Wijnhaven building.

Exactly how the assessments of these views differ is unclear, as that section of the document has been redacted.

In addition, an anonymous individual has sent an e-mail to the spokesperson stating: ‘[Anonymous] refers, for instance, to someone [redacted], which many would label as ethnic profiling.’

Also included is a timeline of events surrounding the closure of Wijnhaven. It shows that the Security Department repeatedly urged the police to further investigate the ‘suspicious’ situation involving the Arabic-speaking man. The absence of a response from the police suggests that they did not share the Security Department’s view that this constituted a security risk.

COMPLAINTS

Over the years, there have been repeated complaints about ethnic profiling by security, but the university has never given a clear answer as to whether such profiling has actually taken place.

When Koen Caminada, Dean of the Faculty of Governance and Global Affairs, was asked about this in September 2024, he replied: ‘I’ve seen tough men and women with tears in their eyes at the porter’s lodges because they were accused of ethnic profiling. I want to stay out of the debate on whether that is true or not, but such an accusation deeply hurts people. It’s extremely painful. They themselves certainly don’t believe these accusations are relevant.’

In response to questions, the university states that there has been no ethnic profiling.

The warnings from the legal experts are ‘not an assessment that ethnic profiling was taking place, but a comment that some of the passages could potentially be interpreted as such’, according to spokesperson Mischa van Vlier.

Legal Affairs had also not issued any warnings prior to the release of the documents in autumn 2025.

‘It is important to point out that the security policy has since been amended in several respects. The tightened security policy in force at the time was initiated and developed by the then Chief Security Officer. Under the current leadership, there is a stronger emphasis on openness and transparency, and on timely coordination with the relevant university departments. This is in line with the broader aspiration for the university to be an open organisation.’