THE STUDENT PARTIES: ‘THE UNIVERSITY IS SLOW AND BUREAUCRATIC’ 

Although students can choose from seven parties to vote for, there is much common ground between them. How do they plan to make the university a better place?

More participation is a key theme. The new party LTHCS, for example, is calling for students to have a say ‘at a central level’ regarding the ‘rapidly changing range of bachelor’s and master’s programmes’ and the ‘design of education’ in the digital sphere. ‘In our view, there is currently a lack of fundamental discussion on this, and we want to submit proposals on this matter.’

PBMS wants more say in AI policy. ‘We see that AI makes it easier to commit plagiarism, and that lecturers are either doing away with certain forms of assessment or adding more.’ Accessible methods – such as homework assignments that count towards part of the final mark – should, in PBMS’s view, remain in place. The party wants to ‘actively contribute ideas’ to a ‘broadly supported university vision’ and ‘AI guidelines for education and research’.

The parties also want to see a simplification of the digital systems and less bureaucracy. ‘The digital chaos needs to end’, says LSP. The party wants ‘one clear and accessible system for all student affairs’. This means that Usis, MyStudymap and Brightspace should be merged into a single platform. We want the university to set a concrete deadline for this integration. Other institutions have managed it, so it must be possible in Leiden too.’ 

‘Processes within the university are slow and bureaucratic’, says PBMS. ‘Many students run into problems, for example when they want to apply for their diploma or have made a mistake when registering for an exam. We advocate for a tailored approach and a human touch when systems aren’t working properly.’ 

On this point, the party can count on the support of ONS, which also advocates ‘less rigid rules regarding enrolment and resits’.

DSP-SC captures the themes of more participation and less bureaucracy in its main objective: ‘Students’ experiences are often overlooked in decision-making.’ The party wants ‘clarity on who is responsible for what in the maze that is Leiden University’, so that students have a better understanding of ‘who to contact about which issues’.

Accessibility is also a key theme. For instance, DSP-SC wants to launch a pilot project to put Braille on signs in the new Spui Building, ‘so that we make our buildings as accessible as possible for visually impaired students’. It should also become easier to attend lectures online.

LSP agrees. ‘We want to introduce a university-wide requirement for lecture recordings to be made available on a standard basis.’

LTHCS ‘advocates for sufficient study spaces for students, canteens with affordable and healthy options, and university buildings with generous opening hours’. In addition, every university building should have an ‘accessible quiet room for all students who feel the need to withdraw for a moment, such as religious or neurodivergent students’.

ONS wants to improve accessibility by advocating for ‘lower and fairer admission requirements for consecutive master’s programmes’.

The parties LTHCS and DSP-SC are in agreement when it comes to severing ties with Israel. The latter states that it ‘will continue to support student activists who want to keep the genocide in Palestine and Lebanon on the university’s agenda’.

LTHCS also wants Leiden to sever all ties with Israel. ‘We will use every means at our disposal to remind the university of its academic responsibility to be a bastion of freedom, so that Palestinian students too can enjoy their education in freedom.’

But there are also differences. For example, PBMS is the only party advocating for an ‘affordable’ USC. ‘Sport improves your mental health and academic performance. We want to continue emphasising this in discussions on the university’s budget and framework memorandum, and wish to engage in open conversation about the concessions required to achieve this.’

ONS is the only party to speak concretely about improving student well-being and advocates for students to have quicker access to academic guidance and mental health support. It also wants deadlines and exams to be spread out more evenly and for there to be ‘structural attention to workload within programmes’. In addition, the party wants board grants to be increased and for ‘active students to be given more flexible attendance requirements’.

The one-person party Vote Gabe! is calling for more students to become actively involved in university politics, while the satirical Party Against the Student wants Mare to disappear. ‘We don’t need an independent press.’

THE STAFF PARTIES: ‘CAMPUS AT RISK OF BECOMING A SOULESS OFFICE SPACE’

The question of how staff parties distinguish themselves yields strikingly similar answers. 

LAG, FNV and UB all describe themselves as broad-based parties acting on behalf of the entire university. LAG points to its long track record on the University Council, whereas FNV highlights its experience in negotiations and the strong say its members have in shaping the party’s direction.

PhDoc is the only staff party with a clearly defined profile as the party that stands up for the rights of PhD candidates and so-called early-career researchers, who are too often sidelined in university governance. As such, the party aims to foster regular contact between all layers of the university through meetings where all staff can share their views and concerns. To standardise all PhD programmes, graduate schools must be reformed and centralised.

In addition, PhDoc wants to implement a radical change: the university must switch to English as its working language. According to PhDoc, the Dutch language and the lack of resources to learn it pose a major barrier to international staff participating in the university community. As a first step, the party wants English translations of all policy documents.

In its answers to the question of what needs to change at the university, UB tries to present itself as a local Leiden movement consisting of ‘ordinary’ staff members. It does not want to ‘reinvent the university’, but to implement targeted improvements to enhance staff members’ day-to-day work. Rather than starting from an ideological agenda or specific sectional interests, UB looks at ‘what works in practice and what contributes to stronger core activities’, with the human aspect and academic freedom as its guiding principles. Furthermore, UB wants to develop a ‘clear and well-considered approach’ to dealing with AI.

LAG highlights the crumbling sense of cohesion within the university. ‘Due to the overreliance on flexible working, the campus is at risk of becoming a soulless office space where no one has a place of their own anymore.’ That needs to change by providing staff with fixed workstations and encouraging connections between The Hague and Leiden.

In addition, LAG wants more democratic participation in university governance: that is ‘the right of the community.’ The party believes that too many decisions affecting staff’s day-to-day working practices are being taken over their heads.

Finally, LAG draws a red line: no plan may pass through the Council without a workload assessment. Both staff and students need to be protected from bureaucracy such as the ‘unnecessarily complicated registration system for exams’.

FNV, returning after a period of absence, wants a socially responsible university with a pleasant working environment. This means placing the focus on education, research and knowledge sharing. The university must become sustainable, green and free from animal testing, and more must be done to improve the physical and social safety of staff. Following a consultation with its members, FNV also wants the university to sever ties ‘with regimes where human rights are systematically violated, as is currently the case with Israel’.

In order to ‘bridge the gap between policy and practice’, FNV wants to hold the Executive Board ‘accountable for the implementation and realisation of policy plans in the workplace’, such as reducing workload, ensuring equal treatment and accessibility for staff with disabilities.