‘PRIDE STARTED AS AN ANTI-COP RIOT!’ reads a protest sign held up by a student on the university boat during Pride last Saturday. Another sign reads: ‘LEIDEN, DON’T TURN YOUR BACK ON POLICE VIOLENCE!’ and ‘THIS SIGN IS NOT POLITICAL BUT PRIDE IS!’
The slogans refer to Pride 2023, when activists demonstrated against pinkwashing and the commercialisation of the event. Police cracked down hard on the protest. Demonstrators were struck with batons. One officer completely lost control and started ‘beating away at one of us’, one of the activists told Mare at the time. ‘Why are they knocking us off the bridge?’
In response to this reporting on the violence, questions were raised in the Leiden municipal council. During last year’s Pride edition, there were also protests against the police intervention on the university boat. This in turn provoked anger from the Pride organisers, who had banned political statements on participating boats. The university promised to abide by this rule.
ANOTHER PROTEST
Commotion ensues on the university boat on Saturday when a number of students refuse to comply with the ban. ‘Because Pride is inherently political’, says Cal (20, Psychology), one of the protesters holding up a sign. ‘It’s the perfect place to protest.’
The protest causes friction. Looi van Kessel, assistant professor in Gender Studies and chair of the Leiden University LGBT+ Network, is also on board. ‘He and other university staff told us we weren’t allowed to hold up the signs’, says Cal.
‘If we did, the boat would be taken out of the parade’, say a protesting student and a staff member, who prefer to remain anonymous. ‘But we held up the signs anyway’, says Cal. ‘Van Kessel and another staff member then tried to get us to put them away again. They told us we were being selfish and that we were ruining Pride.’
‘It’s true’, Van Kessel admits. ‘That was indeed my initial reaction, which I regret. I felt humiliated by the students and reacted emotionally. I did apologise at the end of Pride.’ He explains why he reacted that way at first. ‘I’m one of the people ultimately responsible for what happens on that boat and how the university presents itself. I had made an agreement – also with the students of Queer Leiden University – and my word counts for something. But an agreement with one group of students doesn’t automatically extend to allstudents.’
When a protest was held after all, it caused a problem. ‘The skipper told me the police had spotted the signs. They were to be removed, otherwise the boat would be taken out of the parade.’ The skipper also saw that police officers were taking pictures of students with protest signs. Officers made fairly intimidating gestures at us, even though the signs said nothing that wasn’t allowed. Last year, they also tried to remove us from the parade.’
The police deny having played any part. ‘There was no disturbance of public order’, says spokesperson Tonya van Tol. ‘We did not take any action. It’s not up to the police to decide whether or not a demonstration is allowed – that’s up to the municipality.’ The municipality of Leiden did not respond to questions.
SILENCING STUDENTS
Out of a ‘sense of responsibility’, Van Kessel ‘strongly’ urged the students to put the signs away. ‘They stood their ground. Which I think is very brave, because it takes guts to stand up to your lecturer like that.’ According to Van Kessel, this put him in an ‘impossible position’. ‘If I had stuck to that agreement with Pride and silenced my students, it would have gone against everything I teach. I tell them they must stand up against injustice. Some students rightfully pointed out to me: ‘If you silence us now, what are your lectures even worth?’
‘I never should have made that agreement and I should have told the organisers that these kinds of protests are part of Pride. I should have protected my students.’
In the end, Van Kessel and his colleagues stopped opposing the protest. ‘He told us that he actually agreed with us’, says Cal. ‘We turned off the music on the boat, and one of us gave a protest speech through a megaphone as we passed the jury table (judging the boats, Ed.). Then, the music started blaring again, drowning us out, and the skipper snatched the megaphone from the person giving the speech.’ ‘He also took the paper with the speech’, one of the other two demonstrators adds.
‘He was quite aggressive on the whole’, Cal continues. ‘He shouted at us, trying to rip the signs from our hands. He jabbed one of the protesters with his finger. And none of the staff on the boat intervened, which was concerning.’ ‘They had the choice to help us, or at least support us’, say the others. ‘But they put themselves first.’
AGREEMENTS
Chairman of Canal Pride Leiden Lorenzo van Beek says he does not wish to comment on the incident in Mare. ‘If the interview I gave to a colleague two years ago had been handled with the slightest degree of professionalism, I would have been happy to answer questions now’, he says. ‘But since Mare is so biased, I don’t think it’s a good journalistic outlet.’
The university is not pleased with the students’ actions. ‘We think it’s important to be able to participate in Pride’, responds university spokesperson Caroline van Overbeeke. ‘Therefore, it is very unfortunate that the event has once again been disrupted by protests on the university boat. After consultation with our networks, the university has re-registered and committed to the Pride regulations. Freedom of expression is an important right for everyone, but if we participate in Pride, we must also abide by the agreements. Apparently, some participants still feel the need to protest during Pride. This is the third time this has happened. We would like to discuss this with the parties involved in the near future.’
In part because of the incident, Van Kessel decided to step down as chair with immediate effect. He has also expressed criticism of the university’s diversity policy (see text box). ‘I decided to step down because my position has become untenable. I would not be true to myself and would not be acting with integrity if I had remained in this position.’
‘I’m angry with the university for not supporting us’, says Cal. ‘They don’t have to agree with us on all counts, but they should let us speak our minds. It’s frustrating that the university, which calls itself a bastion of freedom, doesn’t stand up for our freedom. They’re guilty of pinkwashing. They have a boat at Pride, but they don’t really support queer students.’
With contributions from Mark Reid and Tirza de Graaf
In a LinkedIn post announcing his resignation as chair of the Leiden University LGBT+ Network, Looi van Kessel expresses criticism of the university’s diversity policy. The way the networks are organised is just ‘window dressing’, he writes. ‘What the university organises is a buffer between the administration and the students it does not want to enter into dialogue with.’
‘I wrote that post out of frustration over my own experiences with the LGBT+ network’, Van Kessel explains. ‘Before I became chair, I was also a member. The university has various diversity networks, but they are falling apart one by one. The Leiden women’s network was run by very dedicated staff members who did everything on a voluntary basis.
‘The Leiden University LGBT+ Network was founded in 2018. On top of our already very busy academic jobs, we were given additional responsibilities. And we receive no compensation for this. We regularly called for attention to this issue, but nothing ever changed. The women’s network has already ceased to exist; people changed jobs or simply stopped.
‘Meanwhile, the university is using us to make itself look good. There is a monthly meeting for new employees. The presentation for that meeting includes a slide showing all ‘our networks’, even though many of those networks are now inactive.
‘The university should allocate funds on a structural basis so that someone can dedicate themselves to that network, even if it’s only for 0.1 FTE, instead of that person having to arrange complicated matters in the evenings and around other work.’