University rectors have no shortage of advisors these days on how they should address the conflict in the Middle East. Ethicist and philosopher of law Raf Geenens (KU Leuven) promotes the neutrality of the university (DS 4 January). According to philosopher of science Maarten Boudry (UGent), we must free ourselves from the woke straightjacket (DS 8 January) – what he calls a “perfidious ideology that has been growing for years inside universities and beyond”, which ensures that universities automatically and purely on ideological grounds demonise the West (in this case Israel) as a coloniser. While referring mostly to recent events in the United States, he also lumps universities in this country together.
Both are reacting to previous calls and opinions from colleagues to boycott Israel and put an end to all academic cooperation with institutions in the country. As a rector, I consider this advice with an open mind. I also see every day how the conflict stirs emotions among students and colleagues. Last Monday, the VUB campus was covered in graffiti, applied overnight to reinforce the call for a boycott. Yet there are plenty of billboards and other channels, including digital ones, for sharing opinions.
The fundamental question is: as a university, must we be neutral? I don’t believe so. No university should be neutral, and certainly not mine. As the Council of Europe puts it, a university is far from neutral in the sense of being without values. A university is by definition dedicated to the public good, to democracy and human rights. VUB is above all a philosophically oriented university and is therefore certainly not “neutral”. Take the struggle for the right to abortion or euthanasia. VUB is part of these debates and not neutral. From a humanist perspective, we always advocate for the individual right to self-determination and respect for universal human rights.
Research-based
But as a university, we do practise objectivity. We are as objective as possible because we are founded on scientific knowledge, expertise and research. We take into account democratically supported decisions and reports from international institutions, especially the European Union and the United Nations, when determining our position. In other words, it is not woke ideology that sees Israel as an occupying and colonising power, but research and EU and UN reports.
We therefore stand by the position we previously took alongside the Hannah Arendt Institute. We urgently call for an immediate ceasefire and unequivocally side with international law, in particular the recognition and protection of human rights. We oppose both the use of terror as an instrument, which can be attributed to Hamas, and the Israeli system of occupation and colonisation. In so doing, we consistently call a spade a spade. That’s precisely what academic “woke activists” fail to do, according to Boudry.
The VUB has no structural relations with Israel. There are, however, occasional research projects with Israeli universities – just last year, we began a project on the detection of breast cancer. We have had structural exchange agreements with Palestinian institutions in Jerusalem and the West Bank for several years. Alongside the other universities in the Flemish Interuniversity Council (Vlir), we are already preparing policies that would enable the reconstruction of Palestinian higher education institutions.
Academic diplomacy
In principle, then, we are not advocates of an unconditional academic boycott. We are still proud, for instance, to have awarded an honorary doctorate to the leading humanist Israeli scientist Yuval Harari. In line with the appeal in my speech at the academic opening at the European Parliament in September, we are instead advocating for greater academic diplomacy. Building bridges in academic circles can have a positive impact, in places where other diplomatic efforts have not yet yielded results.
In all collaborations, however, our university will consistently apply a human rights test and tighten procedures for academic collaboration with third parties. There are already related agreements in place within Vlir that we will refine. Flemish universities are working on an objective framework that considers the human rights situation in a country, the characteristics of individual institutions and the content of a specific research proposal. This allows us to assess risks and make informed decisions. Objective, but not neutral.
This opinion piece was published in De Standaard on 11 January (in Dutch, paywall).