{"id":169078,"date":"2024-06-05T11:35:29","date_gmt":"2024-06-05T09:35:29","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.erasmusmagazine.nl\/en\/?p=169078"},"modified":"2025-12-19T11:27:22","modified_gmt":"2025-12-19T10:27:22","slug":"emotions-run-high-in-u-council-over-leaked-letter-on-gaza-protest","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.erasmusmagazine.nl\/en\/2024\/06\/05\/emotions-run-high-in-u-council-over-leaked-letter-on-gaza-protest\/","title":{"rendered":"Emotions run high in U-Council over \u2018leaked\u2019 letter on Gaza protest"},"content":{"rendered":"

A motion of no confidence against a Council member, two members angrily leaving the meeting and some expletives being hurled. The Council meeting of Tuesday 21 May blew up at the final agenda item. The trigger was an accidentally published letter about the pro-Palestine protests the week before. EM spoke to the Council members involved.<\/p>\n

\"\"

University Council members feared security risks on campus during the Gaza protest on 16 May and sent a letter about this to the Executive Board. <\/span><\/p>

\n\t\n\n<\/svg>\n<\/span>\n\tImage by:<\/span>\n\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\tTyna Le<\/a>\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t<\/p>\n<\/figcaption><\/figure>

In the run-up to the pro-Palestinian protest, slated to take place on campus on Thursday, 16 May, eight Council members, both students and staff, sent a letter to the Executive Board expressing their concerns about safety for other campus visitors during the protest, noting that the protests might disrupt the ongoing Council elections.<\/p>\n

Although the letter was written in a personal capacity, one of the signatories, student councillor Linquendo van der Klooster of Liberi Erasmi, considered it the right thing to do to share the letter with Council chair Ivonne Cune-Noten for information.<\/p>\n

The letter was not marked confidential, and Cune-Noten interpreted it as a document received for discussion. She submitted it to the Council\u2019s presidium, which tasks include setting the Council\u2019s agenda. The presidium is made up of four Council members: students Cagla Altin and Nawin Ramcharan and staff members Pedro van Gessel and Aleid Fokkema. The presidium (in Ramcharan\u2019s absence) put the letter on the agenda for the next meeting. In doing so, it also published the letter, including the signatories, through the University Council documents system.<\/p>\n

Confidentiality<\/h2>

When Van der Klooster discovered this, he contacted Cune-Noten to explain that the letter had been shared confidentially and not as a document submitted. Given that the presidium had already decided to put the letter on the agenda, Cune-Noten did not want to take the decision to remove it at her own initiative. She asked the presidium to vote again on whether the letter should be on the agenda, and the presidium resolved to leave the decision to the Council meeting of 21 May.<\/p>\n

One of the members of the presidium, student Council member Cagla Altin of the Erasmus Alliance party, then decided to circulate the letter \u2013 already publicly available at that time \u2013 among various study chat groups and at least one group of pro-Palestinian activists.<\/p>\n

\u2018Outrageous\u2019<\/h2>

Altin\u2019s actions upset the letter\u2019s signatories considerably. Nawin Ramcharan (Liberi Erasmi) allegedly \u2018threatened\u2019 Altin the Friday before the meeting. According to her, he said in a digital presidium meeting: \u2018You have a big problem the next time I meet you. It\u2019s as simple as that.\u2019 (\u2018Jij hebt een groot probleem als ik jou de volgende keer tegenkom, heel simpel.\u2019)<\/em> As Ramcharan recalls it, his words were somewhat different: \u2018You have a big problem with me.\u2019 (\u2018Jij hebt een groot probleem met mij.\u2019)<\/em> He says this was a reference to the motion of no confidence he intended to file against her.<\/p>\n

At the Council meeting of 21 May, staff member Emese von B\u00f3n\u00e9, one of the signatories, erupted in anger. She called it \u2018outrageous\u2019 that the letter had been shared in an activist chat group and left the meeting prematurely. The chair then suspended the meeting for a few minutes.<\/p>\n

Expletives<\/h2>

During the break, emotions escalated further, as several Council members raised their voices and some expletives were uttered. When the meeting was resumed, Ramcharan read out a motion of no confidence against Altin, accusing her of \u2018deliberately distributing\u2019 the letter among students and activists. He further accused Altin of having removed Council members from other parties from study chats ahead of the elections.<\/p>\n

In the motion, he demanded an apology from her to the Council members involved and a tightening of the Council\u2019s code of conduct, as well as requesting that the Council report the matter to the ombudsperson for further investigation. While the motion was read, Altin also left the room in protest. The motion was rejected by a narrow majority.<\/p>\n

Collecting input<\/h2>\n\t
\n\t\t\n\t\t
\n\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

Read more<\/h2>\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t