Since the outbreak of the Israel-Hamas war, international geopolitics has also drawn attention at TU/e. While the protests on the TU/e campus have fortunately not been as violent as those in Amsterdam, they have largely echoed the same demands: Universities must sever ties with Israeli organizations. Events and guest speakers should be scrutinized by the Boycott-Divest-Sanction movement, scholarships should be provided to affected Palestinian academics, and spaces should be designated for teaching Palestinian history. These demands were described by Lucas in his column as the “absolute minimum.” 

However, fulfilling these demands is incompatible with our neutral academic culture. 

What characterizes these demands is a strong political and ideological thread, which is difficult to weave into our academic neutrality. This scientific neutrality, along with the political neutrality tied to it, is what makes our university so powerful; regardless of political, societal, or religious differences, research is conducted on subjects that are scientifically relevant. This freedom may seem self-evident in our technical fields, but this neutrality has allowed groundbreaking and controversial research in other fields, such as sexuality and psychiatry. This may seem irrelevant to a potential boycott during wartime, but both touch on the same core value. The argument that this neutrality equals support for war crimes is unconvincing. Holding TU/e co-responsible for “alleged genocide” is, for the same reason, nonsensical. This seems to be an ideological interpretation of neutrality that only causes more polarization; as academics, we should rise above this “if you’re not with me, you’re against me” rhetoric. 

But why does the executive board speak out against government budget cuts? Is it not hypocritical to take a political position here? I don’t think so. It is the task of the Executive Board to represent our university and fight for its interests. These budget cuts go against the university's interests and affect all students and academics within the community. Therefore, the EB must take action against these cuts. The Israel-Hamas war, however, is not a conflict in which the Executive Board can adopt a universal position that unites the entire community. Academic neutrality is crucial here to maintain social cohesion during these challenging times. 

This is the case for most schools and other publicly funded organizations. Should a library that speaks out against VAT increases on books also express an opinion on the Russia-Ukraine war or the current refugee crisis? Or is it acceptable to express political opinions within one’s own interests and remain neutral outside of them? I would argue it is; not every layer of society needs to be actively politicized. 

In addition, the accusation that the university does not listen to its students frequently arises. I strongly disagree with this. I regularly work as a photographer during TU/e events, where briefings almost always explicitly state that potential demonstrators should be given time and a platform to express their views. Furthermore, discussion evenings are organized, and demonstrations are allowed on campus within reasonable boundaries. However, the only way the university seems able to “listen” in the eyes of this group is by fully adopting their list of demands. This is an unrealistic, unnuanced, and polarizing view of collective decision-making; after listening, the answer can still be “no.” 

Another important issue also arises: is there even any support for these demands within the TU/e community? Activists organize demonstrations to demonstrate support for their vision and demands. During such protests, the number of participants can indicate how many people stand behind their cause. If the recent protests at TU/e are representative of how many people support the vision of Eindhoven Students for Palestine (ESFP), a bitter reality stares them in the face: most TU/e students seem more interested in their academic work than activism. On ESFP's Instagram, video reports usually show the same group of 20 to 30 activists chanting slogans at different campus locations. In the background, uninterested and apathetic students often wait to move on with their work. This atmosphere was also present during the tent encampment on the Koeveld last academic year. During an emotional speech accusing TU/e and its students of having blood on their hands, most attendees seemed uninterested. Their lunch in the sun seemed more interesting and important to them at the time. Another indicator is the recent list of demands sent to the EB, which at the time of writing has 133 verified signatures. Of these, 54 claim to work or study at TU/e. Along with the turnout at protests, one can conclude that there is no broad support among TU/e students for these demands, providing another reason for the EB not to implement them. 

The academic and political neutrality we enjoy in the Netherlands is a great asset. It is valuable that the executive board maintains this neutral academic culture to ensure a diverse and pluralistic community and to remain a university for everyone. Executive Board, keep your back straight for this!

Levi Baruch is Human Technology Interaction at faculty IE-IS at TU/e. He is active as photo/videographer on campus. The views expressed in this column are his own