Dear friends (no names, regrettably),
Many thanks for your invitation, which I in no way regard as a provocation or baiting; on the contrary, I understand you motivations and frankly am impressed by your engagement and concern. Nonetheless, I do not agree with the arguments you put forward. I would therefore like to briefly set out my vision, noting that I would be happy to meet with you to discuss this further at your earliest convenience, and pledging to give honest answers to all of your questions.
The Financial Situation
1. The seven million euro deficit threatening to develop by 2017 if policy does not change stems principally from a combination of falling student numbers, reductions in indirect government and contract research funding and students failing to meet credit and degree requirements (with outlooks rapidly worsening in recent months due partly to the declining Bachelor's graduation rate at our Faculty over the past year – the only Faculty where this has happened – which is down seven per cent).
2. After much heated discussion, a framework letter that was under consideration last summer/early September, proposing additional cuts to funding for education that would have triggered rapid and large deficit increases (most notably at the faculties of Humanities, Law and Social & Behavioural Sciences), was ultimately scrapped from the draft budget presented last week. Incidentally, this amendment of the framework letter/budget is also to blame for much of the conflicting communication about our financial situation over recent months.
3. In short, the deficits that already exist and that will only increase if policy does not change are hardly or not at all attributable to policies newly implemented by the Executive Board, nor to changes in the UvA's allocation model, which, it is worth noting, is still more favourable for the faculties of Humanities and Social & Behavioural Sciences than for Law and Economics & Business.
4. The Faculty of Humanities' declining performance already prompted cuts last year, and a further set of measures for 2014 and 2015 were agreed this past spring. Yet even before the summer it became clear that these measures would be insufficient due to the drop in Faculty performance. Accordingly, the need for another round of cuts had already been widely communicated before the summer, including in letters to all staff members. Therefore, the current measures, which are designed to prevent the deficits from actually reaching the seven million euro mark, have by no means come out of the blue.
5. Furthermore, the root cause of many problems, in my view, is attributable to policy laid down not by Amsterdam, but by The Hague, with continuing cuts to funding for higher education that will eventually make faculties with a broad spectrum of education and research specialisations untenable, as is already attested by the problems that other humanities faculties have experienced over the last few years, such as at Utrecht, Groningen, Tilburg and VU in Amsterdam. In the end, the only way to resolve this problem would be if Parliament or the minister were to decide to allocate a structural higher funding factor to the humanities, analogous to the sciences (here it should be emphasised once more that the UvA has recognised Humanities' special position internally by allocating us a higher factor than e.g. Law).
The General Outline
1. The agreement to develop a long-term plan was made for three reasons: (1) to avoid having to make cuts right and left without any clear policy, which would indeed boil down to the forced termination of a large number of small degree programmes; (2) to take targeted steps to strengthen individual (and particularly smaller) degree programmes and consolidate their position within the Faculty; and (3) to enable us to call on financial resources pledged by the Executive Board to facilitate this transitional period.
2. If we do not develop a vision for our future at this juncture, but wait another year or even six months to do so, the plans will not even take effect until 2017. The consequences of this, we believe, could be disastrous, not only for our finances, but also for the quality of our degree programmes.
3. The first version of the Profile 2016 was a discussion document – not a draft plan, as some have suggested – and sketched two possible scenarios, each providing for various options. That document was discussed, as required, with the Faculty's College Council (12 members), Graduate School Council (12), Research Council (11), Faculty Council of Department Chairs (8), Faculty Student Council (12) and the Works Council (12). We also attended a number of departmental meetings, at which many dozens of staff members were able to share their views. The accusation that there was no opportunity for people to provide input is manifestly untrue. In fact there was a great deal of input, and mountains of arguments against scenario 2, in particular, to which we paid close attention.
4. Our conclusion on the basis of all of these discussions was that the first scenario will not be investigated any further. On 1 December, a number of task forces (comprised of students, staff members, department chairs and programme directors) will be established, which will be given full freedom to develop proposals for a new Faculty profile. This new profile will subsequently be re-submitted to all of the above councils for review. But that's not all. We will also bring our Boards of Studies (200 members), amongst others, into these discussions. I therefore utterly reject the accusation that there has been insufficient consultation, or that we have sought to avoid it.
As stated, I support your engagement and share your concern, but the chief causes of the financial problems are not attributable to Executive Board policy. As an executive officer committed to this Faculty heart and soul, I feel we must act with all due speed to turn the tide, tackling these persistent problems – both financial and programmatic – in order to maintain and, where possible, strengthen the quality of Faculty teaching and research.
In view of the above, you will understand my conclusion not to take part in the demonstration. I will visit Spui Square and am happy to join in accepting the petition and to engage in a dialogue there or at any other time.
I hope that you of Humanities Rally will be willing to commit yourselves with the same level of engagement to the search for a constructive solution. For, if we do not, I fear the consequences may be catastrophic, even opening the way to razing the entire field in Amsterdam. Even the mere spectre of this would cost us dearly.
Yours faithfully,
Frank van Vree
