They’re ready for an in-depth dialogue, the teachers, students and administrators of Utrecht University. What they get is a ‘statement’. The spokesperson of the Utrecht pro-Palestinian student movement is given the floor and simply reads out a statement in which he calls a discussion impossible. Then he walks off.
A few minutes earlier, the moderator had called upon everyone to ‘really’ listen to one another. The thirteen people present, Jewish, pro-Palestinian, administrator or scientist, all have an intense year behind them, full of demonstrations, occupations and harsh accusations of complicity in genocide. Activists don’t feel heard, administrators see how their rules are trampled upon. Really listening seemed like such a great way to get closer together, in Utrecht, right before the summer, but it didn’t work out.
'Non-negotiable'
It’s not the only university where the discussion grinds to a halt. In Amsterdam, where the protests started almost a year ago, a spokesperson of the student movement also says there’s ‘very little’ contact between students and the university. Or take Groningen. There, administrators do want to talk, but don’t want to listen, the students claim. “Our demand is that the ties to Israel are completely severed. This is non-negotiable.”
That the discussion has come to a stop is also what consensus specialist historian James Kennedy, professor at Utrecht University, observes. “There are many attempts to organise gatherings, debates and dialogues. And sometimes they get stuck.” And sometimes they don’t, because there’s a lot we don’t hear, Kennedy insists on emphasising.
Of course, a discussion can also be abused to stifle the debate, says Kennedy. “But most people in the Netherlands still want discussions to be successful. If we don’t manage to reach an agreement by talking to one another, we’ve failed. Well, it’s actually the other party that did most of the failing, but still.”
Good discussion works
The great thing is: having a good discussion actually works. Carla Roos, assistant professor at Tilburg University, studies difficult discussions on polarising topics. She recently came across research that shows polarisation decreases if people have an open listening attitude. Parties actually get closer to each other.
So why don’t activists and administrators just talk to each other? There may be a simple reason for this: sometimes, activists first want to increase the pressure and get the public opinion on their side. “Saying you aren’t heard is also a means of pressure”, says Roos.
Increasing the pressure and forcing things to go your way, that is indeed one of the strategies of the protesters, says conflict specialist Carsten de Dreu, professor at the University of Groningen. As far as he’s concerned, this conflict is following the regular pattern: first, there are attempts to discuss things, but the universities dismiss these. Then, activists switch to coercion or violence to get their way.
Don’t forget we mainly see the conflicts. Just like Kennedy, De Dreu emphasises that constructive talks may be taking place under the radar. “But some protests have escalated. This makes the space to reach an agreement by talking to each other very limited.”
Administrators too may have their reasons to avoid the discussion, De Dreu explains. Protesting takes a lot of time and energy and students are putting their reputations on the line. And in a while, they’ll have to graduate too. “Administrators obviously hope the protest will fizzle out on its own. Based on previous protests, that’s also the most likely scenario. Only when the protests go on long enough will there be a point where it’s more costly for both parties to uphold the protest than to talk to each other.”
Tricky
But with whom to have the discussion? There are conflicting interests, so firm negotiations are in order. That’s tricky with activists that often want to stay anonymous and don’t have clear leaders. And once you’ve made agreements, will everyone abide by them? Not only De Dreu, but also James Kennedy has his doubts in this respect. “Compared to the past, the protesters are more democratic; they give less room to leaders. But this does hamper the usual method of negotiating.”
The protesters don’t see it that way. They’re not the problem, they believe. “I’ve also been on the central student council”, says Carlos van Eck, involved in the protests at the University of Amsterdam. “You can talk a lot, but will this lead to something actually being arranged…? The preconditions to a good talk aren’t there. It’s incredible how difficult it is to have a concrete discussion with the board.”
That’s the very reason the protests started, says Van Eck. “I’m always up for having a good discussion, I look for reconciliation, but with the university it seems impossible. Before the occupations, we tried to get through to them for half a year, but everything was summarily dismissed. The discussion only starts when a building is occupied.”
Mutual
Without discussion, you automatically end up in a situation where only one party can win. It becomes a zero-sum game, says De Dreu, where one player’s victory means the other player’s defeat.
You have to get past this, however difficult that may be. With a good talk, administrators can gain trust, Roos thinks. And whatever happens, don’t let it be just a theatre performance to relax the atmosphere, she says. “People know full well when administrators are only pretending to listen.”
