Photo Sven Menschel The experts provided the Senate with a clear message on Tuesday: the austerity measures in tertiary education cause damages and open the way for lawsuits. Should you want to cut costs, choose a different method.
‘I am not against cuts in tertiary education per se. The public interest may call for such measures,’ said philosopher Ad Verbrugge of Beter Onderwijs Nederland, a protest group opposing the anglicisation of universities. But this cabinet’s austerity measures ‘lack vision’, he added.
He was one of the speakers during the expert meeting held in the Senate on the lawfulness and viability of the budget cuts in tertiary education. The senators are to vote on the OCW (Ministry of Education, Culture and Science) budget shortly and want to be better informed.
Chairs Caspar van den Berg and Maurice Limmen of the UNL (Association of Universities) and Vereniging Hogescholen (Association of Colleges), respectively, spoke first during the meeting. They posed that the cuts are a bad idea. Van den Bergh (UNL) represented the VVD in the Senate until recently. Union chair Douwe Dirk van der Zweep (AOb) explained the issues.
Uncertainty
The discussion focused on issues such as terminating smaller programmes and lay-offs at various universities. But also on uncertainty the cabinet allows to persist: where will the cuts take place? Institutes in the ‘rural’ areas may be exempted from the austerity measures but have no idea how this will be put into effect. Larger institutes fear they will bear the brunt of the budget cuts. They are all preparing for the worst.
One of the thorny issues is the agreement reached by the previous cabinet. In this agreement, institutes were promised funds for the coming decade from budgets the current cabinet is cutting. Can they start a lawsuit to contest the cuts and still get the funds?
Not without merit
‘I believe such a suit is not without merit’, said Maastricht Professor of Administrative Law Raymond Schlössels. He sounded prudent, but the financial agreements are ‘quite concrete’ and give rise to certain expectations. He believes ‘justified expectations’ have been created, and a judge may well rule that certain cuts are illegitimate.
Verbrugge was the most stimulating speaker for those who defend or even support the budget cuts. He denounced the funding model that is based primarily on student numbers. Small programmes are discontinued because they attract too few students, and there is competition even within institutes: programmes prefer their students refrain from pursuing a minor at a different faculty. He argued that it is not an issue of too little funding for education but an issue of how the funding is distributed. He also criticised the high costs of central services and administration.
‘I feel it is very unwise to implement austerity measures without considering that context’, Verbrugge underscored. As long as that is not done, institutes will discontinue smaller programmes, even if they are linked to the rest of the education they offer. Examples include German and French language programmes. On the other hand, the Anglicisation of tertiary education has ‘gone much too far’, he added. The English-spoken programmes attract many students.
Reduction
He called it ‘ridiculous’ that reduction in tertiary education is considered an issue. ‘Reduction is not an issue at all. It leaves you with more money for fewer students, enabling you to intensify education.’ Not within the current funding system, however. The current system means colleges must cut costs when they the influx of students declines.
The funding system cannot be easily changed. JA-21 senator Karin van Bijsterveld inquired what the current options are. ‘After all, there is a real chance the proposed measures will be implemented. We must be honest about that.’ Her party supports the cuts after a deal with the governing parties.
Universities and colleges agree that there is room for improvement in the current funding system. This system only works ‘in an ever-expanding market’, said Van den Berg. ‘In other words, if Dutch students continue to increase, and there is always, bluntly put, a well of international students you can tap into.’ In a shrinking market, the entire system will collapse, he argued. Colleges also face a decline in student numbers and call for ‘more stable funding’, Limmen stated.
More supervision
But they want as little interference from The Hague as possible. Verburg envisioned an entirely different scenario: He wants more supervision. ‘These are public funds that call for democratic accountability’, he argued. Otherwise, the logic of competition will apply, and small programmes and domains will disappear from the Netherlands.
The question now is what the senators will do with all the input. They may demand better substantiation and extract promises from the minister. They may even reject the budget. However, no budget has been rejected since 1907, and the governing parties (PVV, VVD, NSC and BBB) have ensured they have a majority in the senate through a deal with the three Christian parties and JA21.