Wondering whether Geert Wilders would be allowed to speak at the EUR

Universities should facilitate conversations with the far right, even when there is a risk of unrest and other trouble, argues Chris Aalberts. Ultimately, that would be good for the university’s neutral reputation.

Politicisation of science is a problem, that goes without saying. Science must be neutral, investigate facts and not spread opinions or ideology, except of course the idea that knowledge advances humanity. It’s that simple, but sometimes it suddenly feels complicated. One such question is whether speakers from all political directions are welcome. At colleagues at the UvA, at least, that’s not the case. For example, Tom van Grieken, the party chair of Vlaams Belang, was to be interviewed, but that invitation was withdrawn.

Why that happened, the UvA keeps vague. A spokesperson spoke of ‘a broad consideration’ and that the ‘required impact and commitment’ would be too great. In ‘the broad consideration’ safety had been ‘one aspect’. Someone involved, however, reported that safety played an important role. Geert Wilders immediately wrote an open letter with Van Grieken to rector magnificus Peter-Paul Verbeek. They alleged ‘left-wing filter bubbles’ and ‘one big left-wing ideological safe space’. You know the accusations.

Would Van Grieken – or Wilders – have been welcome in Rotterdam? Let’s see. External speakers are assessed in advance and an application must be submitted six weeks beforehand. There is an extensive form. They look at safety risks and whether the speaker meets ‘academic, democratic and Erasmian values’. There will be a negative decision if there is a major risk to public safety or if it would place ‘disproportionate demand’ on ‘capacity, deployment, time and facilities’.

We can guess whether Geert Wilders would be given a platform. There would be a good chance of a demonstration and that could quickly become a reason for refusal. In any case, there are more reasons to keep the far right out: we don’t need think long about Wilders’ track record on the rule of law, he does not hold any academic titles, he rejects ‘world citizenship’ and the word ‘connection’ doesn’t appear in his vocabulary. Gosh, why do we never see part of the political spectrum on campus?

If you think I want to invite such politicians continuously: no. There is nothing complicated about the ideas of far-right movements so restraint is appropriate. That’s also what’s already happening. But that does have a price: it could be that the university gives the impression of not being very neutral and of being very distant from… well, what many people – rightly or wrongly – are worried about. The question then is: isn’t an occasional invitation better?

If you invite Geert Wilders for a debate or speech, he won’t get the reception he would get from his supporters. In that respect you can safely have him come by: we already know the majority of the audience will disagree with him, that banners will be hung at the entrance and that the discussion will unleash a torrent of counter-arguments to everything he brings up. Would he want such an appearance himself?

Universities should facilitate these kinds of conversations, even when there is a risk of unrest and other trouble. Who actually decides whether Wilders may speak here? Activists? Security will cost a lot of money, but complex social debate has a price. Critics can rest easy: there is little reason to assume these events provide good PR for parties like the PVV. These invitations do more than good for the university’s neutral image.

After one or two appearances it will be like with the journalistic media – then Wilders will henceforth turn down all invitations himself.