The walk-in session in the Van der Goot building was open to all students and staff. About twenty interested people, notably many students and PhD candidates from the Erasmus School of Law, took the opportunity to engage in discussion with chair Ruard Ganzevoort and committee member Liesbeth Enneking.
After a brief introduction of the committee’s new advice, published last week, several attendees called on the committee and the university to quickly boycott all Israeli institutions, but Ganzevoort was not open to this idea. “That is not our mandate and not our role”, said the rector of the International Institute of Social Studies. “The Dutch government has a say in the relationships with Israel as a whole, while the university deals with partner institutions. So it is up to the politics to decide on a boycott. We as a university do not want to exert political influence on another country.” Ganzevoort explained that the committee is not examining a boycott but is primarily concerned with safeguarding the values and integrity of Erasmus University.
Threshold
Ganzevoort also tried to clarify that the university’s premise is collaboration and academic freedom. “Even if that clashes with our values. In some other countries, for example, LGBTI+ rights are not well respected, but we still collaborate with partner institutions there. However, if the differences cross a certain threshold, collaboration can become a problem.” In the case of Israel, this threshold seems to lie at cooperation with the IDF, the Israeli army. But not every collaboration weighs equally, Ganzevoort explained. It also depends on the nature of that collaboration, how that institution expresses itself about the war, and to what extent academic freedom is guaranteed.
The audience wasn’t satisfied with this. Several pointed out to Ganzevoort that the International Criminal Court already termed it ‘plausible’ in January 2024 that what is happening in Gaza could qualify as genocide. Others cited reports accusing Israel of crimes against humanity. Lecturer Jeff Handmaker, known from previous teach-ins about Palestine on campus, suggested ‘reversing the burden of proof’ and requiring Israeli partners to prove they are not collaborating with the IDF. One attending PhD candidate went a step further: “What do we gain from these collaborations? Stop them now.”
Erasmian values
Federica Violi, associate professor of International Law, challenged the committee on the notion that the university does not wish to exert political influence. “Erasmian values, such as social engagement, connectedness, and open-mindedness, are inherently political. How can you then say that the university must remain apolitical?”
The discussion was heated at times. “Why are you trying to justify collaboration with Israeli institutions?”, a PhD candidate asked Ganzevoort at the peak of the debate. “How many babies must die before it is too much for this university?”
'Plenty of evidence'
Handmaker extended a hand to the committee. “This assessment is very helpful. It clearly indicates where the university stands and provides tools for further discussion.” He was critical of the committee’s view that further research is needed. “There is plenty of evidence; I can provide it right away”, he told the committee. “And you do not need to prove anything to stop a collaboration.”
Other attendees felt the scope of the advice was too narrow. “Is the committee also looking at collaborations with Israeli companies?”, Violi asked. This was not currently the case, but the committee will look into it in the future.
'Too little, too late'
The attendees appreciated that the university is for the first time reflecting on the values of a partner institution and that there is now a framework with which partnerships can be assessed. That was not the case when the decision was made to boycott all Russian universities, for example.
Committee member Enneking also acknowledged that this committee may be ‘too little, too late’. “Universities have never critically examined their partnerships until now. They have long said: we do not fall under social responsibility because we are not a company, we are a university.” She emphasised the importance of the demonstrating students, who spurred universities into action.
The audience wondered how long it would take for the committee to provide advice regarding ties with specific institutions in Israel. “That advice will follow in May”, promised Ganzevoort. He reiterated that the committee must make a careful assessment to ‘break ties at an institutional level’. “At the same time, every academic is free to determine with whom they want to collaborate. They can stop today.”
