by Ava Wood
It’s March 8th, and International Women’s Day (IWD). It is traditionally a day of revolution, of protest and action, not one of complacency or for timidly accepting the gains we have made thus far. Each year, the interfaculty network Radboud Gender and Diversity Studies, and Radboud Network of Women Professors, organise a conference. A key point? It is not organised by the university but their collective, and this allows a freer platform to voice criticism and discontent.
This year, the programme centred on the theme of academic freedom, introduced by host Dr Anya Topolski. She foregrounds the conference with an impassioned speech, detailing her disagreement with the dismissal of Dr Susanne Täuber, this year’s keynote speaker, and the university’s inaction on Palestine. She introduces Täuber to the stage, who was unceremoniously dismissed by the University of Groningen on IWD 2023 for her exposé on gender discrimination in academia. In 2020, she published her thoughts on the Rosalind Franklin Fellowship programme, designed to promote gender equality, and funded by the EU. In her paper she argued that the scheme caused and reinforced inequalities, failing to address their structural underpinnings, and properly support and integrate the women involved.[1] She makes a key point in her paper – that “having an equal opportunity program is [not] equivalent to being an equal opportunity employer.”[2] This is a sentiment carried through the conference.
In her speech, Täuber is weary but firm, and articulates these systems of inequality, approaching the issue intersectionally and highlighting that this lack of proper integration means that the innovations of minority groups remain unrecognised and unutilised. She focuses on language, arguing that we need to develop the language to be able to describe these nuances of injustice. In the later panel discussion (“Critical Thought, Critical Practise?”), this idea of a lack of intersectional integration and support is carried on, with Josias Tembo, a PhD researcher at RU accompanied on stage by his baby, echoing the dichotomy between having and being. He highlights that when a student comes to the university they come with ‘community baggage’ – they come with experience. At the moment, this experience is not appreciated, integrated or supported. Universities forward the pretence of care, but take no action.
Panellist Ikraam Maalim is a PhD student and member of the Radboud University (RU) based collective the Anti Racism Awareness group (ARA). When asked if she feels support from the university she answers no, but mentions that there has not been backlash at least. At this the panellists begin laughing, with a grim awareness that what we are often reduced to nowadays is an appreciation that at least things aren’t worse. Later this idea is returned to, and Maalim highlights that the university offers space for academic freedom, but not to those who challenge the status quo. As Tembo said, for those who carry baggage. As Täuber also contributes to the panel – ‘the university does not make space’ for others. But it accepts them in its equal opportunity schemes.
There is an emotional pause as the panellists and audience grapple with the solution to the issue. Is it to return home? Tembo asks – what do you do if there is no community for you in your university? Do you stay, or do you go? One of the panellists is moved by this after having delivered a touching account where they confessed their disappointment in the university’s lack of action, especially in the recent months, as it ignores the genocide in Palestine. They are weary, and question the utility of critical thought in the face of inaction.
The outcome of this panel discussion? It is necessary to fight, but it is vital to recharge, and for that you need your community. Täuber makes an eloquent point – highlighting that it is thus necessary to challenge neoliberal Dutch structures, that emphasise individuals and not community achievement, resulting in isolation. This reminds me of a quote from Jackaline Kemigisa – on IWD “instead of collective and confrontational resistance, we see awards, narratives celebrating ‘the first woman this or that’.”[3] We are confronted with individual achievement in an effort to disguise our communal exploitation. In order to divide and separate us from our communities.
On the panel are also Dr Nahed Samour, and Topolski. In Samour’s talk beforehand, she emphasises the necessity of intersectional and feminist perspectives on international criminal law and discourses around violence; violence against women is inseparable from war, from war crimes, and from genocide. Her talk focuses on the effect of the war on the women of Gaza, and the essentiality of considering breaches of reproductive rights against Palestinian women and others. Bringing this discussion back to the theme of academic freedom, she argues that universities, as public institutions, may have a duty to act to not be complicit in genocide. She mentions that five Norwegian universities have suspended relations with complicit Israeli universities. Radboud has refused.[4] The university currently maintains “two inter-institutional agreements to facilitate student exchanges with Tel Aviv University and the Hebrew University of Jerusalem under the Erasmus+ program” as well as joint research and teaching programs. Both Israeli universities are complicit in the genocide. It also uses HP laptops for all staff – and HP sells computer hardware to the Israeli military.[5]
There are several organisations based in Nijmegen in support of Palestine, and Nijmegen for Palestine in particular involves students and staff, and frequently organises protests on campus and in town. It has nearly 1.5 thousand Instagram followers, and attracts many students at each rally. Nevertheless, the university, whilst allowing the demonstrations, appears to pay them no heed. The ARA, whom Maalim is representing at the conference, also accuses the university of platforming their organisation with little follow-up action. They have been able to hold anti-racism awareness weeks at the university for several years now, but in 2023 there was still dissatisfaction – the university “has not shown enough initiative in promoting social safety on campus” and has been accused of covering up issues of transgressive behaviour.[6]
As for women? RU allowed there to be a space for today’s discussion, but was not an active participant in it. Additionally, whilst they supported this event, and also the ‘Women in the Spotlight’ event taking place on the same day, they have been complicit in covering up sexual harassment for years – see the sexual harassment perpetrated by rector Van Krieken that was not declared on official records for six years.[7] There is plenty of evidence to support the feelings of the panellists that universities, including Radboud, do not truly support marginalised students and their allies.
Samour’s point, that universities may be complicit in genocide if they fail to act, raises an interesting question on the role of universities as occupying a mediatory space between us, students, academics, and local communities, and our governments and states. In my post-conference discussion with Garjan Sterk, Coordinator of gender and diversity studies at Radboud and co-organiser of the conference, we discuss this liminal position that universities occupy. They have a possibility to amplify our voices. They also have the power to oppress. She tells me that the theme of this year’s conference was chosen in light of Täuber’s dismissal, but that this is a wider and accelerating issue. Tensions are growing as more universities clamp down on the voices that challenge the status quo. And in reaction, we others send letters and boycott. In this way we see the same polarisation present that is growing in all areas of society. But universities are supposed to be bastions of knowledge, of learning and development, and they are letting us down.
We also discuss tensions that arose during the conference, when a participant questioned the proposal to move from using gendered terms in Dutch hospitals to more inclusive language – such as using ‘people with vaginas’ to replace ‘women’. Sterk, as well as Topolski during the conference, make clear there is no place for transphobia; for co-opting the inclusive space with reactionary questions. The issue here? That the question gives space to the assumption that using inclusive language is a threat to women, and intends to erase their experience. The drama highlights the need for more open spaces and communities to allow education and collaboration, and reinforces the importance of language and difficult discourse.
In sum, the conference is ‘radical’ in its intersectional framing, informed and accessible criticism of academic freedom in universities, as well as its reflection on Palestine. As a Radboud student myself, it encouraged me to think about my relationship with the university, which is what an insightful discussion should do. The conservation also paid heed to the structural nature of the issue, which is something that as critical thinkers, it is essential that we always acknowledge. In this case, it highlighted that the university’s lack of support is symptomatic of a greater divide between university communities and their elites, a divide used to silence contentious voices on a systemic level.
One thing that was highlighted to me repeatedly, was that this conference was not organised by the university central. Perhaps this bears repeating, as once again it is for those affected to organise independently – without backlash but not with open arms. This underscores the message from the conference – universities should be doing more, not to further their own agendas, but to amplify and support the voices of their communities, listen to criticism, and take action. It is regrettable that some of the brightest and most inspiring minds at the university do not feel like they have a place there. And walking around campus, sometimes I feel the same.
The days when universities were places for fostering exciting and ground-breaking research and discussion appear to mostly be over. Instead, we seem to simply be another cog in the machine of the status-quo, a box ticked and subsequently forgotten. Our voices ignored when we raise them, drowned out by a systemic need for silence and complicity. Our minds, pushed aside, when they should be the heart and soul of our campuses. Our universities should not just accept us, they should support us, listen to us, and learn from us. Our universities should be us. They should be ours, and our voices should be theirs.
References
[1] Täuber, S., (2020) Undoing Gender in Academia, Journal of Management Studies, 57(8),1718-1724. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12516
[2] Ibid. 1722
[3] Kemigisa, J., (2022, March 8) Why I no longer celebrate International Women’s Day. Open Democracy. < https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/5050/why-i-no-longer-celebrate-international-womens-day/ > accessed 15.03.24
[4] See: Raffia (2024, February 19) Radboud should boycott Israeli universities. Here’s why and what we can do about it. < https://raffia-magazine.com/2024/02/19/not-in-our-name-radboud-cut-your-ties-with-israeli-partner-universities-now/ > accessed 22.03.24
[5] Situating Palestine Collective (2024, January 29) [Opinion] It is time for Radboud to take action on the genocide of the Palestinians. ANS. < https://ans-online.nl/artikelen/opinion-it-is-time-for-radboud-to-take-action-on-the-genocide-of-the-palestinians/ > accessed 14.03.24
[6] Okker, I., (2023, October 16) Studenten plakken teksten over borden 100-jarig bestaan RU: ‘We willen meer transparantie’. ANS. < https://ans-online.nl/nieuws/studenten-plakken-teksten-over-borden-100-jarig-bestaan-ru-we-willen-meer-transparantie/ > accessed 15.03.24
[7] NL Times (2023, September 23) Radboud University concealed incident of sexual harassment by rector for six years. NL Times. < https://nltimes.nl/2023/09/23/radboud-university-concealed-incident-sexual-harassment-rector-six-years > accessed 14.03.24
Raffia 