Education on thin ice

Last week the impact of code orange (code orange is the second highest weather warning system in the Netherlands) was not only clearly visible on roads and railways, but in the lecture halls too. Heavy snowfall, dangerously slippery conditions, and cancelled trains made travel uncertain and risky. Yet, teaching and exams continued as usual at a lot of institutions, including at TU Delft, and physical presence was largely expected. This put the institutions – literally and figuratively – on thin ice.

The KNMI (Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute) and Rijkswaterstaat (Directorate-General for Public Works and Water Management, in Dutch) advised people to stay at home when possible. There were hardly (in Dutch) any trains and the infrastructure was under pressure because of a thick layer of snow. Yet, this undisputable advisory was not adopted in a clear policy in higher education. In practice, lectures and exams are only cancelled when a code red (the highest weather warning) is issued. There is no clear framework for code orange.

So the academic institutions adopted a variety of measures. The Boards of Utrecht University, the University of Applied Sciences Utrecht (in Dutch) and the University of Applied Sciences Zeeland decided to cancel physical education and do it online. Teaching at the Free University of Amsterdam (in Dutch) and Tilburg University (in Dutch) continued unabated. At TU Delft, the responsibility was largely left to teachers and faculties that had to decide for themselves what was doable. Students who were not able to come had to rely on goodwill. Or not, depending on who the decision-maker was. So it is not strange that the ISO (Dutch National Student Association) and the LSVb (Dutch Student Union) expressed their frustration about this fragmented policy which did not consider what would happen should public transport largely stop working.

The return journey after an exam is even more uncertain if the conditions become more slippery and trains are cancelled

For many students and staff members, there is then only one option: the car. And this implies another assumption in the decision-making process – that all students and staff members have access to a car and are able to drive themselves independently and safely in these wintery conditions. The question is whether it is reasonable to expect this from staff members, let alone students. Further, the risk is not only on the way to campus. The return journey after an evening exam is even more uncertain if trains are cancelled and the conditions become even more slippery after sunset.

To me, this touches on a much more fundamental point. In general, it is not responsible to continue assuming physical presence when code orange is issued. Not because everyone is automatically in danger, but because institutions consciously accept risks and then make these risks the responsibility of individuals. Of course students can do resits, and of course staff members can confer with their supervisors. But these actions normalise the risks instead of limiting them. And this feels like passing the buck.

The question that needs to be asked, which is not easy but is necessary, is whether we accept the risks associated with code orange and have students and staff members come to campus? If the answer is yes, then let’s be honest about it. But if we put safety first, then there needs to be clear, centrally made guidelines – for code orange too. So not guidelines that pass responsibility onto individuals as the answer would then still rest with the same group, namely students and staff members, who would then still be moving on thin ice.