TU Delft is now recruiting a brand-new Vice Rector Magnificus, following the departure of Rob Mudde. Sadly, students and staff will not have any meaningful say in this process, so all we can do is speculate. Who is it going to be this time?
Well, as a student who is concerned about the fossil fuel industry’s influence in academia, I think it’s clear who it cannot – or rather, should not – be another fossil fuel industry lobbyist. And it is not just common sense that dictates this, but the very advice on Fossil Industry Collaboration that the Executive Board has agreed to follow. The Moral Deliberation Chamber (section 6.2 – 6) report reads: ‘Ensure staff have the moral competence to participate in moral deliberation on collaboration with the fossil fuel industry’. It also says (section 5.2 – 5) that ‘… a successor to the moral deliberation chamber could advise and support the Executive Board, faculties and staff in decisions on working with the fossil fuel industry. […] Decisions on collaboration with the fossil fuel industry should be taken by the Executive Board.’ As the decisions on collaboration ultimately lie with the Executive Board, it logically follows that the Executive Board should have ‘moral competence’ on this topic, which, in my opinion, implies that there should be no conflicts of interest.
It is hard to achieve significant change when the people taking decisions are the very ones standing in the way
One could easily argue that the moral competence of the current Executive Board is dubious. Tim van der Hagen is both Rector Magnificus, Chair of the Executive Board and is on the Supervisory Board of Gasunie (an energy distributor), which is by definition a conflict of interest (besides an unprecedented concentration of power in a single individual). Is it just a coincidence that, unlike other universities, the conversation on the fossil fuel collaboration started with the assumption that ties would not be cut? Beyond collaboration with the fossil fuel industry, it is hard to advocate for the moral competence of Tim van der Hagen following this year’s outrageous series of failures on social safety, among which threatening to sue both the Inspectorate and TU Delft’s news platform. It is hard to achieve significant change when the people taking decisions are the very ones standing in the way.
Based on the Fossil Industry Collaboration report, significant change could indeed be achieved. Most importantly, it states that partners can be blacklisted because of human rights violations (recommendation 3) and concludes that ‘[…] the dilemmas discussed apply equally well to other third-party collaboration, [which include] collaboration with the chemical industry, defence, or parties that themselves work closely with the fossil fuel industry.’ I believe that TU Delft deserves courageous leadership that could implement this report in its most ambitious interpretation.
However, since our Rector stubbornly holds on to his post and the Supervisory Board refuses to fire him, we can at least call for a few basic requirements for the new member of the Executive Board. We deserve a Vice Rector who is not paid by the fossil fuel industry (nor the defence industry, while we’re at it) in the past nor the present; a CEO who runs the university like a company; and, definitely not someone whose attempts at social safety are continuously deemed ‘inadequate’.
In short, the report opens the door to significant change in the way TU Delft operates, but only if someone pushes for it from the top down instead of the other way around. For now, although there is no timeline in sight for taking the report forward with clear guidelines, it is clear that whoever takes decisions on fossil fuel industry collaboration should not be associated with this industry. This conclusion is obvious, but unfortunately the Executive Board is not bound to it. It is up to students and staff to hold them accountable and push for change.
Comments are closed.