That is what the students write in a critical letter to the University Council.

‘The Board hasn’t provided any grounds for the allegations’, say the students. ‘To our dismay, we must therefore conclude that the moderator was rejected because she is a Palestinian woman. This discrimination is completely unacceptable.

‘That’s why Dr Zbeidy deserves at least a sincere apology from the university. The fact that no such apology has been forthcoming is worrying, to say the least.’

Last month, the university cancelled a panel discussion on Palestine shortly before it was due to take place. The discussion was to be held during the national Israeli Apartheid Week. That decision led to great commotion and a demonstration in front of the Wijnhaven building.

Soon after, the University Council responded by saying that the organisers had broken house rules. In addition to having an ‘impartial’ moderator, the students had allegedly failed to identify themselves, and the panel supposedly lacked an academic character.

ANONYMOUS ORGANISATION

The students dispute this. They write that they did in fact identify themselves, and that the university was immediately aware of their involvement through the lecturers who helped organise the panel discussion. The lecturers, who had reserved the room for us and later talked to the Head of Communication and the Chief Security Officer, have made it clear from the very first meeting that the request for the room was made on behalf of Students for Palestine the Hague, an activist group consisting of Leiden University students.’

Moreover, the lecturers were not just the students’ ‘spokespersons’. ‘The lecturers were involved in finding speakers, reserving a room and setting up the panel on the day it was supposed to take place.’

The students write that they would indeed rather not identify themselves. ‘For example, several staff members at Leiden University have been exposed to negative reactions and smear campaigns for speaking out about Palestine. These dangers and risks cause a sense of insecurity among us, as students who defend the rights of the Palestinians.’

Nevertheless, they did in fact identify themselves, they write. When the event was cancelled, one of the members made themselves known to the Board of the Faculty of Humanities. The Dean, Mark Rutgers, then offered the students another room, but was overruled by the Executive Board shortly afterwards. Rutgers had also met with the students beforehand, they write. ‘So we did not remain anonymous.’

UNDER PRESSURE

The students also write that they felt pressured by the Board. In an accompanying timeline, they write that on 15 March, less than a week before the event was to take place, they received an ‘ultimatum’ from the Security Department and the Communications Department of the Faculty of Governance and Global Affairs. If they wanted to use a room in the Wijnhaven building, they would have to choose another moderator and write a new action plan. Moreover, the university wanted to talk to the students themselves.

‘Less than a week before the panel, we were told by the lecturers who had been talking to the Security Department and the Communications Department of the FGGA and the Executive Board that they wanted to talk to us directly, without the lecturers present. The lecturers, however, were part of the organising committee. Moreover, this exclusion made us feel unsafe because of the power disparity between students and the Board.’

The university spokesperson denies that staff members were not allowed to join the meeting: ‘The people requesting the room were not the organisers, as it turned out. Agreements about the event and the location are made with the organisation. Attempts have been made to contact the organisation, but these were always unsuccessful. The lecturers indicated that this wasn’t possible. This request had already been made on or around 8 March, and it was definitely not stated that this meeting had to take place without the lecturers present.’

The e-mail correspondence about this, which Mare has read, includes a statement that the university ‘will talk to the original organizers as of now’, referring to the students.

Students for Palestine writes that the University Council did not speak to the students themselves, or to the lecturers involved, to tell their side of the story. ‘In our opinion, the Executive Board did not treat us fairly and we regret that the University Council did not investigate this before making a judgement and writing its letter.’