What to think of a student on the board?

IMO, first and foremost the whole board, including any student representative, should be democratically elected and it should be possible to democratically (by referendum, or by vote of no confidence) be deposed when not functioning. This should be a demand about which no negotiation is possible.

I also think that in addition to a student representative, a teacher representative should also be on the board, and perhaps also a representative from the non-academic staff.

But additionally, I would like to make the point that representation through election (incidentally this is also one of the issues I take with party politics) is a very indirect, and often ineffective, form of governance. It would be better to have a university (and, in theory, a society) in which participants have the ability to directly vote, by referendum, on individual issues. I agree with Willem Schinkel that you cannot contest power when you are in power, power needs to be contested from the outside. But I don't think the two are necessarily mutually exclusive, you can do this and have a student on the board.

Perhaps this would be difficult to implement, but I figured it was a point worth making.

Accept proposal but keep pushing for more, this is only the first step

Having a student on the board is a good idea - provided this student has actual influence on policy decisions, as mentioned above - but it should not be something the board gives to us. Taking this concession from them as such legitimizes their authority.

Direct democracy - as also mentioned above - would be preferable, but in any case we cannot accept this concession.

@J.A.B., I would like to have a discussion on how to implement this.

First point: the law (WHW) explicitly states that the CVB consists of no more than three persons. So I suspect the student will not have equal status with respect to the other board members. Just advisory right is more likely.

Second: it would be very strange to have only student representation and no staff representation

Third: I don't believe in democratic election of the entire board, but I'll explain that in a different topic.

@rubiovaughan indeed, here is the specific law from the 'Wet op het hoger onderwijs en wetenschappelijk onderzoek' which states that the CvB consists of 3 people at most.

3 people? Okay, how about one student, one staff member and one of these manager types, I mean someone who knows how to manage income and expenditure (someone with a degree in economy, perhaps)?

@matthijs noted. I don't have any concrete proposals as of now, only suggestions. If you can think of something concrete please tell me. Right now I'm too tired to think, but I'll get back to you.

Ok, I should be sleeping but one more reply...

Actually, I'm not that much in favor of students or staff members on the board. Groningen shows it's not necessarily a good thing. I want the board to consist of people with lots of experience in an academic institution. This may sound conservative, but I'm also not asking an unqualified person to do the plumbing in my home.

BUT, the board should serve the interests of the academic community. Democracy would be a good tool to achieve this. Students and staff should also have more direct influence on the board, possibly by extending the power of the student and workers councils. Student and staff advisers who assist the board could perhaps be helpful as well.

I think we would be best off with a highly experienced, (partially) elected board, which is very open towards the needs and concerns of the academic community.

Ik ben geen student maar heb wel veel ervaring opgedaan met actievoeren en veranderingen afdwingen. Graag wil ik op een of ander wijze mijn ervaring voor jullie (in zeker zin ook mijn) acties inzetten. Dus voor wat het waard is hier een paar opmerkingen.
Blijf vooral vooropstellen van wat het probleem is en de verandering die je wilt. Samengevat denk ik democratisering van de universiteit en het terugdringen van de benadering universiteit als bedrijf. Kijk uit niet te verzanden in (technische) details. Er zal geprobeerd worden de discussie te verleggen van de brede kritiek naar een discussie over wel of niet gekozen student in CvB, hoeveel invloed heeft deze student etc..
De verandering zal niet volledig in een keer bereikt worden. Het belangrijkste is dat er een proces, een andere weg, in gang gezet wordt en niet dat met het nemen van een of twee maatregelen de zaak opgelost zou zijn zoals een student in CvB. Wees argwanend met voorstellen die van CvB komen houdt zelf het initiatief in handen met voorstellen in plaast van reageren. Voorstellen in een strategie naar werkelijke verandering. De tactiek van CvB, Van der Laan, Bussemaker zal zijn het conflict te pacificeren met zo min mogelijk (ingrijpende) concessies. Mij lijkt een student in CvB, als dat al mogelijk is, niet voldoende en niet de juiste (eerste) stap om een proces van verandering in te gaan. Er moet eerste een erkenning komen dat het probleem meer algemeen, structureel, is. Pas als er overeenstemming is waar het met de universiteit heen moet gaan kun je gaan invullen welke maatregelen er nodig zijn om het mogelijk te maken. Misschien is de universiteit beter af met goede ervaren bestuurders maar die dan wel besturen vanuit een opdracht die overeenkomst met wat studenten en medewerkers willen met een universiteit. Dat er een goede controle is op wat zij doen en dat zij verantwoording afleggen.

In my view a strategy should consist of two elements; first, keep the momentum in the form of direct action, to get the attention of the public. Secondly, work out a detailed plan of an alternative organization, to get the support of the rest of the students and staff.

Neglecting the second element can potentially lead to the decline of the movement. Supporters will see the potential of collective action, which is certainly important for the future, however, something concrete has to come out of it as well, or you will run the risk of losing support. Besides, structure and organization do not necessarily mean concentrations of power.

This brings me to the demands. I personally feel, like others have mentioned before, that the current demands are way too meager.
- ‘The current board must step down’ . In isolation, this demand could easily lead to ‘the board is dead; long live the board!’. In other words, just a change of individuals, not political structure.
- ‘A democratic board’. Democracy is a so-called buzzword, which means it generally has a positive association attached to it. That’s why it’s so often used by politicians. However, it is an umbrella term. There are many different ways to implement democratic structures. So, the question about democracy really becomes; which and how?

Which? This question relates to the overall goal of the movement. Do you want to participate in some way or to democratically control the political processes within the university? And for how much? In my view, you can choose for moderate reforms, such as the two demands above. Indeed, then you are choosing for democracy, but democracy does not merely mean representative democracy. In reality, more often than not, this form of democracy, turns out to be quite authoritarian. Again, it depends on how actually power is kept in check. Another way to approach the matter is to try to revolutionize the organization of the university, instead of reforming it. That is why I think you can better make direct democracy the overall goal, and work from there. Remind that if you want the board to accept your demands, you also implicitly accept that they are in the dominant position and you are not. The current demands do not change the political structure of the university that much, which means they can easily be reversed in the future.

How? Next to an overall goal of direct democracy and the continuing of direct action, I would suggest to an active position to create a concrete plan to change the political structure of the university in general. That is another reason I think the current demands are too insufficient; you’ll have to demand and gather information for practical needs as well. In my view, for now, perhaps transparency should be priority number one: you have to get all the information on how the university is economically and politically structured in the current situation. You can take this as a model and turn it upside down. ‘Build a new society from the structures of the old’ is a well-known activist slogan, and I think it has a lot of value in the abstract, but also the concrete sense.

Now, this remodeling is not an easy task. But, hey, you’re university students, you can do it. There is a lot of knowledge to be found here; sociology, political science, economy, history, anthropology, and so on. Work groups can be formed from people of these studies that would like to help out. For about 15 Euros you can buy information about the current organization of the UvA at the site of the Chamber of Commerce (www.kvk.nl). Obviously, you need more information, which is currently being kept secret by the board. But you can demand these papers. And perhaps some sympathizing staff people can deliver some of it. I know some people in accounting who can help out with the financial stuff. But I would suggest to first make a plan that ignores the economic involvement of the state or private institutions. At least you now can make a plan that does not involve management, which could considerably reduce the costs.

You can make one plan, or several, but all have to be discussed with the students and staff alike. You can do that through a general assembly, or several. There, people can vote for a plan. Yet, when a plan is chosen, in my view it should be handled as an ongoing experiment, which has to be continually refined according to input from students and staff. I also think it should be discarded whenever many people feel like.

Please remind that a pursuing a goal of direct democracy, or collective self-government is not ‘utopian’. History shows many examples in which it worked quite fine. Furthermore, the institutions that are run according to this structure are growing. You have the Mondragon Corporation, for example, which thousands of employees. There are many more examples, including in the Netherlands. This is also becoming more known to the public in general, as VPRO’s Tegenlicht has recently shown in discussing a range of institutions.

Management is essentially about power. It is about institutionalizing the moral assumption that other people are not capable to govern themselves, both individually and collectively. I think the current movement can transcend the goals of the activists of 60’s and 70’s, by implementing their own democratic structures. Furthermore, I think this should not be exclusively the domain of one university, but also of other institutions in society. There are many people struggling in the same non-democratic structures. This movement can set an example, but it has also actively involve other people in society who are victims of similar power structures.

D

Toen de Universiteitsraad nog het hoogste UvA-orgaan was en studenten konden meebesturen, was de voorzitter van de UR een student. Zij zat q.q. bij CvB-vergaderingen. Dus we hebben het al eens meegemaakt. Praat met deze ex-student over haar ervaringen van ingekapseld worden, maar ook over de voorsprong die je krijgt. Ze heet Thera Wolf, is nu PvdA-fractievoorzitter in Bloemendaal en is als politicologe goed in staat over dit probleem te spreken. Nodig haar eens uit.