[Column] Action and reaction

This month saw occupations by the activists of End Fossil Occupy at universities around the world. The reaction was different in different places. It’s a good thing that democracy and non-violence do not count in university rankings, because we would score badly.

Six of the seven occupations in the Netherlands – that hardly caused any disruptions to teaching or research – ended in removal by the police. In Germany – where several lecture halls were occupied – the police were only sent in at three of the 19 occupations.

Here in the Netherlands, Utrecht University was the only one to set the right example (in Dutch). The Executive Board there took the opportunity to critically review its ideas and policy in an open, equal and substantive discussion. Well done! Here at TU Delft, Vice-Rector Rob Mudde got no further than waving away the demands of End Fossil with some generalities during a very quick visit.

Mudde said that the Executive Board supports the goals of End Fossil, but has different ideas as to how to get there. But that is nonsense. End Fossil is fighting for a university that is not influenced by the Shells of the world. The Executive Board refuses to recognise the inherent bias that funding from the fossil fuel industry entails.

Mudde said that the Executive Board cannot reject the fossil fuel industry at the Delftse Bedrijvendagen and at career events as these are organised by students. But that is nonsense. TU Delft routinely decides on conditions that activities on campus must meet. Just recently, it imposed a ban on alcohol. So a ban on oil and gas is also possible.

Mudde also said that things are being done. It turns out that they intend to ‘introduce a moral deliberation, in which a discussion can be held about the terms under which collaboration with industrial partners can speed up the energy transition’*. But what this would look like, exactly, is unclear.

Just recently, it imposed a ban on alcohol. So a ban on oil and gas is also possible 

It annoys me that the details about these kinds of plans are never made public. References are made to them here and there, but the contents remain unclear, as do both the reasons for taking this course of action and any other options that may have been considered. This makes it impossible to have an academic debate about them – in concrete terms, substantively argued, and on the record.

If I understand it correctly, the Geoscience and Engineering (GSE) department held a similar moral deliberation last year. The outcome? Direct contributions to oil extraction is perfectly fine as long as you write a ‘transition paragraph’ about how any lessons learned could, potentially, at some point in the future be useful for the energy transition, perhaps.

I’m exaggerating a bit of course. But given that the most detailed publication about the policy of GSE appears to be a spiffy infographic, I find it hard to take it more seriously. I also find it bizarre to leave the setting of guidelines about the funding of research by the fossil fuel industry to exactly those research groups that benefit from continuing to accept that money.

Four years ago, Mudde was present when someone from Utrecht University came over to explain the responsibilities of a university to us. Perhaps the Executive Board should watch that lecture again.

*The quote about the plans for a moral deliberation comes from a news item on tudelft.nl that has since been removed.a moral deliberation comes from a news item on tudelft.nl that has since been removed.

Bob van Vliet is a lecturer at the 3mE Faculty and is specialised in design education. Reactions are welcome via B.vanVliet@tudelft.nl.

Bob van Vliet / Columnist