Whose university?

Whenever I talk about TU Delft, I say ‘my’ or ‘our university’. Of course, I do live and study here, and I am a member of the TU Delft community. And to be a member of the community should not mean watching from the sidelines – and posting about it on LinkedIn – it should also mean participating actively, and pushing for the changes we want to see. But how much power do we students actually have over what TU Delft does?

In principle, TU Delft recognizes students as its primary stakeholders, and various levels of student representation and participation are generously afforded us through the Student Charter. On paper, through the Central Student Council, Faculty Student Councils, and Boards of Studies, student representatives have right of approval for certain regulations and budgets, advisory powers for others, and sometimes even an ambiguous right to initiative.

Sounds great, until we look at the practical implementation of these rights. Complaints about representative bodies being asked for their approval without being given time to even read what they are approving fall on deaf ears. Meetings are held behind closed doors. And advisory powers aren’t really valuable when those in power have all already made up their minds.

Can we blame activists for lashing out at a university that makes decisions for us, instead of with us?

This treatment of student representation as a formality is representative of an administration that has proven itself quite assertive in its dealings with both students and political principals. If only this strongman façade would persist when it comes to ‘valuable partners’ such as oil companies, weapons manufacturers and the aviation lobby! This Executive Board can afford to challenge both the Education Inspectorate and student and staff representatives, but meekly complies with the demands of private corporations (that fund less than 5% of TU Delft’s budget). Active student participation in such decisions could lead to a healthy critical attitude being applied to all external parties, with the same scrutiny afforded to oil and gas research as to the Inspectorate’s report – though hopefully with fewer consultants.

Recent events show the results of business as usual. Despite having promised a moral deliberation on the issue of collaboration with Israeli institutions, the Executive Board has already signed a letter that defends these collaborations. In effect, an internal decision made by the Executive Board has translated directly into policy – sustained criticism from activists on campus and now even inside the Student Council has not resulted in any shifts in opinion. If the legitimacy that the Executive Board claims in speaking on behalf of students and staff members is not derived from their actual representatives, can we blame the activists for lashing out at a university that makes such decisions for us instead of with us?

Of course, this is just one example in a row of many decisions (social safety, the sale of the Mijnbouw building, the alcohol policy) that affect the university community. Decisions will be made – with or without us. Now as ever, we need to make sure that we are not only heard by those in power, but also listened to. It is the only way we can stop just talking about “our university” and actually make it so.