Academic activism is a hobby for academics who do not understand politics

Academic activists don't understand how politics work, says Chris Aalberts. Convince people of facts, not of your opinion, he argues.

Can you, as an academic, speak out about the rise of the far right, climate policy or the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians? It had completely passed me by, but apparently there has been extensive discussion about this recently. Not only at our university, but at others as well, and they are now going to continue discussing it among themselves. It strikes me as busywork for academics who understand nothing about politics. After all, the answer to how academic activism should be handled is rather obvious.

Discussions like these immediately make me think of Scientist Rebellion, a sister organisation of XR with more than two hundred scientists. Plenty of complaints on the website: letters have been written, petitions launched and lectures given, yet emissions continue regardless. Politicians are still not taking enough action, no matter how many alarming IPCC reports are published. Scientist Rebellion therefore believes that the scientific community should join the vanguard of the climate movement.

Activists like these do not understand what politics is. Scientific knowledge can be a reason to change policy, but it is not the only one. Scientists do not occupy a privileged position in public debate. They do, however, run the risk of appearing partisan. Or of looking like complete idiots, of course. You know the type: those people in white lab coats at XR demonstrations. Most people find them laughable. If they do not, they can be irritating. You can almost hear people thinking: with your salary, I could afford an electric car too.

You may expect scientists to share their knowledge and, in the case of climate change, that is genuinely useful. Surprise: scientists do this on a massive scale. At the same time, there is bad news: politics also involves other arguments, including those put forward by people who have not studied the subject. When science starts telling politicians what policy should be, it neglects other legitimate perspectives, ignores scientific uncertainty and regularly advances demands that fall outside the expertise of the scientists concerned.

Academic activism is often synonymous with an undesirable politicisation of science. Many people question whether that is something that should be funded ‘with our taxpayers’ money’. This certainly also applies to – since everyone is so eager to talk about it – Israel and the Palestinians. Academics with relevant expertise should absolutely share their knowledge about the history of this conflict, its political complexities and human rights violations. But they should stay away from claims about what the Dutch government ought to do. How many academics nowadays speak out on issues they have never researched themselves?

Of course, everyone is free to express their opinions through newspapers, blogs and X in an effort to persuade the wider public of all sorts of things. But persuade people with facts and then let them decide for themselves what their political views are. If the facts are convincing enough, the public will undoubtedly draw the right conclusions. There is no need to spell them out. The good news is that the university will then also face fewer accusations of being activist, politically biased or ‘left-wing’.