Keynote 

Mr. Baldewsingh raised alarm bells and wasn’t optimistic about recent developments. His office as a whole is under threat of dismissal under the current government. His keynote focused on three different dimensions:  

1. Everyday racism: Research shows that over the past five years, people generally feel freer to think racist thoughts and act upon them.  
2. Institutional racism: Reports on the police force, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the national tax office, DUO and more have shown that institutional racism has played a role in these scandals, with devastating impact upon individuals, families and communities.  
3. Political racism: We’re witnessing active political pushback against DEI values and policies. In itself, polarisation can contribute to a healthy political climate, but what we’re seeing today is increasing genuine political racism. This happens not just in political statements and parliamentary debates but also in the governmental bureaucracy since the new government has taken power. 

Clearly, change will not come from politics, it has to come from society. Students are the citizens, politicians, workers and leaders of tomorrow, and mr. Baldewsingh stated that his hope is on them. In addition, he said: ‘We have to address these issues more explicitly. We cannot be content with celebrating inclusion. Academia and universities have an important role to play in helping to nourish our democracy, support our societal thinking about important values and help to organise grassroots organisations and movements to counter the pushback.’ 

Are the values of diversity, equity, and inclusion in conflict with academic freedom?  

Participants discussed three cases that demonstrate this tension: 

• Minority students proposing to do a project on ‘minority topics’ are often required to change the subject as such topics are deemed ‘too personal’. This does not happen when majority students aim to investigate a ‘general topic’. Minority students are apparently not trusted with the same academic neutrality as majority students. 
• When adjustments and enrichment of the traditional westernised curriculum and courses are proposed, this is not considered a priority – even when it is clearly detrimental to all students (e.g. when dermatology courses did not contain examples and figures of non-white skin diseases). 
• Staff experience self-censorship when topics are explored that seem to oppose DEI values and policies. E.g. researchers avoid projects that could show that female leadership is less effective than male leadership. 

Potential strategies to counter such tensions between DEI and academic freedom: 

• More representation of minority students and staff in relevant bodies, while being very transparent about membership and processes. 
• More explicit demonstration and explanation of the value and advantages of DEI policies and actions in society and academia. 
• DEI values should be integrated in the entire ecosystem of academia & science, including funding processes, journal’s editorial (anti-bias etc.) policies, and so on. 

Political scientist dr. Saskia Bonjour responded to these topics by emphasising how DEI values and anti-racism policies do strengthen academic freedom, but we have to be aware that sometimes values might clash with each other, including clashing with academic freedom or DEI values. Consequently, we have to force ourselves to discuss openly and continuously with each other such potential tensions and reflect upon the role of DEI values in such tensions. 

Criticism of social safety policies: are we creating a university for “softies”? 

Participants considered whether the policies aimed at promoting social safety and inclusion are overprotective. They observed the following: 

• Social safety is a shared responsibility for all. Students and staff need more training on the topic of navigating ‘hot moments’. 
• Generational differences play a role in unsafe situations, so how can we create social safety policies that are embraced by all generations? 
• How can we develop social safety policy in such a way that it is really effective? 

Social policy advisor and Movisie institute member Fayaaz Joemmanbaks responded by noting first that using the word ‘softies’ stigmatises people who raise genuine concerns. Such talk risks normalising transgressive behaviour and gaslighting people who signal such behaviour. Yes, social safety is a shared responsibility, but power differences make some people more responsible for policies that protect those with less power or in minority positions. Hoemmanbaks emphasised the role of bystander interventions, as these can not only support victims of transgressive behaviour, but also create new social norms. 

Divisions within diversity: how to strengthen cooperation and connection?  

Participants established the following: 

• We need to be carefully informing and involving people in positions of power at the UvA, as their influence can have an impact upon the continuity and impact of DEI efforts. 
• Some DEI themes are getting more attention than others. This can lead to competition between incomparable themes. 
• Decentralization of DEI efforts and resources may mitigate the competition between DEI themes or communities, since direct confrontation then becomes less likely. It could also lead to more accountability if efforts are more distributed across the institution. 

Former politician and activist Tofik Dibi pointed out that DEI is never aiming just a single minority or target group as each effort for DEI has some effect on others as well. Yet he did emphasize that money should be specifically invested there where you want to create change. Nonetheless, some competition between groups or targets can be healthy as it enhances creativity. However, it should not be necessary to fight over basic needs: we should gather around shared values, rather than around shared groups or people with whom we identify. 

UvA’s Executive Board’s Chair prof. dr. Edith Hooge closed this evening by thanking the keynotespeaker and experts for their opinions and all participants for their contributions, of which she had carefully taken note. She emphasised the importance of such deliberations about DEI by the wider UvA community as the university’s diversity, equity and inclusion policy and actions will only benefit from this community’s joint experiences and valuable insights.