UvA adopts sweeping poster policy on demonstrations
That posters are now being removed at the UvA with the call to demonstrate against the cuts in higher education is somewhat ironic, believes associate professor Candida Leone. “The administration now sees its own rules getting in the way of advertising a protest it supports.”
Almost a year ago, I wrote in Folia about the UvA’s house rules. The piece particularly criticised, on the one hand, the University’s tendency to see campus grounds as a private space where it could dictate arbitrary rules, disregarding fundamental rights and public functions. Furthermore, it argued that the house rules’ reliance on distinguishing between political (and hence forbidden) and non-political (hence maybe allowed) expression was questionable in theory and difficult to apply in practice.
Now ten months later, the University wants students and staff to protest! The target of these protests are the planned cuts to research (and, indirectly, education) budgets and the government who announced them. The cuts are very bad indeed and many colleagues are making a plethora of great arguments against them, ranging from corporate interest to social mobility, democracy and human flourishing.
Some well-designed posters have been produced by WO in Actie, and pictures of decorated windows in other university cities are abundant on social media – but at the UvA, the posters have become a problem. While not consistently, these posters have been reportedly removed by Facility Services at several locations – Bushuis, certain floors of REC A, likely elsewhere. Dismayed colleagues and even deans may feel frustrated by this persistent issue – how is it possible that we cannot advertise on campus an event that the University openly supports?
It’s the house rules, again. Over the past few months it has become clear that not all campus can be treated as “just” private property; furthermore, several experts in freedom of expression from my own faculty have warned the University that the house rules are not compliant with established human rights. The rules, however, are still to be changed. We know a proposal has been submitted to the central medezeggenschap a couple of months ago, but the university’s choice to work with “the usual channels” means this process remains out of most people’s sight. Hence the surprise!
We don’t, in fact, know whether poster removals boil down to Facility Service’s strict interpretation of the house rules, or maybe an overzealous concern with fire safety. We do know that posters have been removed before – notably, when people used walls or even their office doors to call for a ceasefire between Israel and Palestine or otherwise express themselves about the ongoing carnage that has unfolded over the past year.
Equally true then and now: Facility Services should never have been in charge of removing or allowing posters. Expression cannot be turned into a bureaucratic concern. The colleagues who now file authorisation requests claiming the posters are ultimately educational material understandably seek a way out – but they make use of an approval procedure that we should simply get rid of, and honestly they lie in order to do so.
The colleagues lie, because the WO in actie posters are of course political. Also political, if you want. And yet they express a genuine concern with a certain view of public education – legitimately so. The colleagues who worry now about these posters may not immediately see that the posters from a few months ago alsoexpressed a view of public education. They should. The Board who now sees its own rules standing in the way of advertising a protest they support may also want to take some time to stand and stare: this bureaucratic (cookie-)monster is nothing else than een koekje van eigen deeg.
Candida Leone is Associate Professor of Private Law. Dr Leone is also chair of the Works Council at the Amsterdam Law School. It goes without saying that the following piece expresses her individual views and bears no connection to her function or the Council.
