”Can we even protest in the first place?” asks Lisa Thomas in a sarcastic tone, commenting on the new demonstration rules. She is a University of Groningen (RUG) student and activist who has experienced demonstrating against the university.
The new rules proposed by the University Board (or College van Bestuur, CvB) include a ban on protests later than 19:00, a requirement not to disturb activities going on in the building, and a prohibition on anonymous statements (like flyers that don’t indicate who their author is). A proposed ban on photos and videos of demonstrations has recently been rescinded from the policy because of legal concerns.
These rules immediately drew the ire of around 40 different organisations including the Groningen Student Union (GSB). They called on the RUG to withdraw the regulations as they undermine freedom of expression and the right to protest.
‘House rules’ for protests inside the RUG buildings were discussed at the 8th of February University Council meeting. Now, the CvB is to decide on their final shape.
The regulations have been the target of criticism also from the University Council and from students who have protested in Groningen before. One of the biggest student parties, Lijst Calimero, officially came out against the draconian rules. Representatives of other factions also had many reservations.
Wider trend
The University of Groningen is no stranger to being on the receiving end of protests. Most recently, the facade of the Academy Building was defaced with pro-Palestinian slogans (which were washed away), another protest took place on International Women’s Day, and in 2023 there were at least two occuptions – one in March and the other in April.
The Board seems to worry new protests, also inside the university premises, might be coming.
“Regrettably, the UG has seen two instances of buildings being occupied, as well as multiple threats of occupations and demonstrations in University buildings, in a relatively short period,” RUG spokesperson Elies Wempe Kouwenhoven told The Northern Times explaining the rationale behind setting protest rules.
“Given that this is a nationwide trend, Universities of the Netherlands (UNL) has come up with a joint baseline for how to deal with rallies. This baseline forms the foundation for the administrative framework set out below,” she explained.
Indeed, student-led occupations happened in Amsterdam’s UvA (January 2023), Leiden (November 2023), Delft (February 2024), and many other places across the country. They concerned different causes, often touching on university policies students found wrong.
The details of the guidelines for universities’ response to manifestations remain largely unknown.
Points of controversy
Perhaps the most criticised point of the new regulations was the ban on photos or videos of the protests. Ale ten Cate of Lijst Calimero highlighted that multimedia evidence of the eviction of their group’s latest occupation was crucial for the protestors and to document the violence they experienced.
This is “one of the reasons prohibiting photos or videos is quite dangerous,” he told The Northern Times. ”They are not gonna treat us kindly,” Thomas added in a sarcastic tone.
Without the footage, police violence “could have been easily disregarded,” stresses Thomas, recalling how she herself and other protesters were dragged across a staircase towards the Academy Building’s back door by the police.
As the rule raised legal concerns, it was eventually removed from the proposed regulations, Manuel Reyes from the University Council Personnel Faction told The Northern Times.
Negative attitudes
According to the new rules protests will need to finish by 19:00, which is “strange, because the [Academy] building only closes at 22.00,” Reyes said.
”Does democracy end at 19:00?” Reyes asked. “It makes me think of how democratic are we as a university.” Besides, setting a timeframe at the very beginning of the conversation does not set the tone for a good dialogue. “It’s not a good first step,” ten Cate said.
Reyes says they can understand it “from the facility perspective. The issue is that […] these occupations are not happening three times a week. We might need to accept some nuisances.”
Sam, who herself protested against the university and prefers to keep her surname unknown for social safety reasons, thinks the problem lies even deeper. “Why are there regulations only towards protesters?” she asks.
”The university owns the buildings and grounds, and therefore, the university can impose conditions for their use,” spokesperson Kouwenhoven said in response. “These conditions apply to users and visitors and do not limit the authority of the Executive Board itself.”
According to Sam, the new rules show the university’s attitude towards manifestations even before they start. They “paint a picture of people who are not respectful, not peaceful,” she says. This image contrasts much with what she has seen among the group that occupied the Academy Building last year which she herself was a part of.
Dialogue, but on whose terms?
Sam argued that regulations obliging activists to engage in talks with University Board representatives only benefits the Board instead of being a neutral way of resolving conflicts.
“It’s good for the public image of the university to enter conversations with the protesters,” she said. For activists, it’s rather the contrary.
“A lot of the time people who experience the injustice cannot talk to [the Board].” The cause is power imbalance: being dependent financially on the UG as an employee or the impact of interrupted studies on a residence permit are some examples. “What happens is you suddenly have people who have to represent them because they are more protected,” Sam says. Often, this means students are protesting when staff cannot.
That’s where another power imbalance comes into play: in negotiations, a student representation is naturally in a weaker starting position.
“A lot of the cases it just ends up being students who have to talk to people on the Board who have been doing this job for over twenty years, who have a lot of experience and who also have experience in negotiations.”
Thomas, who also remembers the last time activists talked with the board would agree. She says the new rules can be misused “considering how manipulative the board was with the people negotiating with them.”
That’s why, Sam would argue, a dialogue with CvB’s representatives should not be mandated. “When a protest happens, it’s because the uni [already] lost their opportunity to talk.”
Case by case
“What if there’s an occupation that’s not even against the Board?” Reyes wonders and points out that in that case, being obliged to enter negotiations doesn’t make any sense. “It’s a little short-sighted,” Reyes says about the protest rules in general.
Both Reyes and ten Cate say demonstrations should be handled on a case by case basis. “They are all very different,” ten Cate highlights.
Despite what the university might fear, sit-in protests inside the Academy Building do not happen on a regular basis, also because they are a rather demanding form of protests.
“Occupations have to be seen for what they are:” reminds Sam, “the last resort.”
