One clear example of discrimination (although positive) is the preferential policy for female scientific staff, which was recently celebrated as a huge success. Even under the assumption that the chair of the EB meant that there is no negative discrimination at our university, I would argue that the statement is still questionable. Discrimination is unfortunately still a problem in higher education in the Netherlands. In my eight years at this university I have encountered many such cases in my direct environment, in which most victims were reluctant to speak up, fearing their concerns would be ignored—or worse, that they themselves would face sanctions. These cases involved not only gender-based discrimination, but also biases concerning someone’s country of origin, for example.  

I suspect that there is no ill intent behind the aforementioned quote; nobody actively wants discrimination to take place in our organisation. Smits probably means that there are no negatively discriminating policies at this university. The problem, therefore, is that he describes the situation we want to achieve as if it is already a reality. And that can be harmful. As I warned previously, we cannot solve problems if we cannot even acknowledge that these problems exist. The statement by Smits is, to me, a clear indication that our management may not fully realise this. It exposes a broader pattern at this university: it seems difficult for us to reflect on our shortcomings openly and critically.  

We can find examples of this pattern on multiple different fronts. Take, for example, the report on irregularities surrounding Cursor that was published last year. The managerial response to this report glossed over the more critical findings of report. Or in the response to the widespread concerns in the community regarding the new Unit4 system: time and again, we were assured that the transition could not have been any less painful, while the actual concerns were never truly taken seriously. 

With this attitude, we are at risk of creating a culture in which problems and mistakes are systematically denied, under the pretext that we should focus on the future rather than dwell on the past. But how can we progress if we are unable to show that we learn from the past? How can we solve the most urgent problems if we refuse to acknowledge them?  

Establishing core values such as openness, respect, and responsibility is a good first step, but words alone are not enough. If we truly want to move forward, we must not only express our intentions but also demonstrate the willingness to critically examine how we operate and take action. After all, ignoring cracks in the foundation doesn’t make a building stronger; it just makes its collapse inevitable.  

Max van Mulken is a doctoral candidate in the Department of Mathematics & Computer Science and also a member of the University Council. Views expressed in this column are his own.