Articles

Representation within the HKU

Students make the art academy. Unfortunately, we are experiencing more and more, how difficult it is to have a democratic say in HKU policy. Especially now that there is a lot going on at the HKU and in the world, we are experiencing a lack of representation and action. By law, a hbo-institution is required to have a representation body at every level of the school, in which students are also represented. This system is complex, and that is why it is important that hbo-institutions communicate clearly, transparently and proactively what influence students (and employees) can have. As a student union, we notice that the HKU can do better.

It is difficult to find clear information about how decisions are made and how students can have influence. In addition, not enough care is taken to ensure that all students have access to co- determination, and there is a gap in co-determination at the level of schools and study programmes. This text will provide a brief overview of how decision-making and co-determination work within the HKU and what changes we would like to see.

The HKU is divided into 3 levels: HKU-wide, schools (e.g. Media, Design and Fine Art) and courses (e.g. photography and product design). The Executive Board (CvB) makes choices HKU- wide. The CvB consists of 2 directors, of which 1 is currently interim director. They are appointed by the Supervisory Board (Raad van Toezicht). The Supervisory Board appoints itself. Because the different schools have such a different culture and focus, the policy within the school is decided by a director per school. Then there is a study leader per course.

The HKU-wide representation is fulfilled by the Central Council of Representatives (CMR). The CMR consists of employees and students who are elected every 3 years by the employees and students. They have the right to advise and to approve. In practice, this means that they can block plans from the CvB, but cannot form policy themselves. They only have a say in HKU-wide decisions and not at the course or school level.

At the school level, there used to be a participation council. However, this has been abolished. This means that a lot of power has come to lie with the school directors. The course committee (OC), which previously focused on the course level, has now been moved to the school level. The OC also consists of employees and students. The OC has the right to approve the study programme, which mainly means that they have a say about the content of the study and the study credits. However, they only have the right to advise (not the right to approve) on financial decisions. The HKU calls the OC their ‘mouthpiece’, but it is not clear which voices are heard there and there is a lack of binding representation.

At the course level, the class representatives fulfil the representation according to the information on the student portal. However, the class representatives do not have an official right to representation. They are only called the ‘mouthpiece’ of the students, they have no right to advise or approve. There is no other description of what the school’s obligation is towards the class representatives and the class they represent. In addition, students who are class representatives are also expected to perform all kinds of other tasks. Such as making class lists, arranging reservations and helping with admission days. This means that it is not a good reflection of the students in a program. Only students who are willing/have the space to do a lot of work for the school can make their voices heard. It is not communicated clearly to the students that there is so much attached to this position. Many students cannot be heard within this system and the class representatives have no opportunity to exert direct influence.

For the average student it is difficult to find out exactly how decisions are made within the HKU. There is no clear communication about how a voice can be heard, a large time investment is expected to let your voice be heard, the system does not give space to a larger group of students and there is a lack of power among students to be able to influence policy. With the student union we strive for a place where the voices of many students can be heard. There is a lack of accessible representation for students within the HKU. With the student union we want to put this shortcoming on the map and be an accessible place where students can exercise their representation as a collective.

The intersection of institutional racism and the Board’s neutrality in times of genocide

Since the founding of the HKU student union there have been several issues that have occupied our attention. These subjects are however not disconnected or separate. There are overarching, fundamental problems with the way our school is run that can be ascribed to the decision-making process of the Board (CvB). Some examples of this are the general lack of transparency around the board’s decision-making, and the absence of meaningful consultation with students and teachers that make up our HKU community. The latter issue contains within it a more damning problem: HKU-policy is written and executed from an overwhelmingly white perspective.

The media faculty at Oudenoord has recently encountered this problem directly, after a teacher handed in their resignation citing institutional racism as the cause for their departure. The racism this teacher experienced is however not limited to a single faculty, and cannot be ascribed to a number of specific, clean-cut incidents. The very point of citing institutional racism is that the racism is indeed institutional: the very systems and cultures that make up HKU-life function in such a way as to produce racist outcomes.

The white perspective, and (artistic) expressions of it, are perceived as “standard,” and anything that deviates from that is perceived as “other.” This is not a conscious, malicious thing deliberately done by white people – it’s a subtle thing, hidden in dominant perceptions of what is acceptable behaviour and (artistic) expression. Due to this, people of color experience more setbacks than their white peers and are not heard when they bring this up – at least not in a way that changes anything. The fact that this phenomenon takes place within well-established foundations of a society or institution makes it less observed and condemned. (Carmichael & Hamilton, 1967).

The responsibility of bringing these issues to public attention usually falls upon people of color, who are often completely alone experiencing institutional. Bringing up these subtle forms of racism is a gruelling process. On the one hand, institutional racism often takes the form of a range of small, difficult to point-out incidents that accumulate. These occurrences are not always completely tangible to someone who never experiences institutional racism, as this often takes place in the form of these micro-aggressions. On the other hand, it has become apparent that students and staff of color who put their energy into bringing this system to public attention are often not taken seriously. The subject matter becomes a forgotten or postponed point in meetings, empty statements are made and promises remain unkept. It makes complete sense that students and teachers of color retain less and less energy to keep bringing up institutional racism, when they have to do all this work just to end up talking to a wall. The result is that students and teachers of color stand alone in their struggle to be heard, making them feel alone and isolated.

The institutional racism within HKU can also be felt in the way the Board conducts itself regarding Israel’s genocide in Palestine. The lack of recognition for the ideologically racist nature of the genocide and the lack of urgency in taking action to prevent any form of complicity on behalf of HKU, points to an emotional distance from the Palestinian people. This distance can only result from a privileged perspective, a perspective that has never felt systemic oppression, and doesn’t want to listen when it is explained. The board claims to protect students’ safety, by freezing its ties with Bezalel Academy of Arts and Design, for example. This supposed guarantee of safety is done through a proclamation of neutrality, which calls into question which students you’re protecting by proclaiming neutrality towards genocide. When students and staff of color keep patiently bringing up the fact that they feel unsafe and uncomfortable working for a school that wishes to remain neutral at all costs, the board keeps proclaiming that all students should feel safe. This shows a privileged perspective from which the safety of people of color is perceived as less important than that of white people.

The firm commitment to neutrality during times of genocide is a strategic means to retain the status quo, in which certain narratives are prioritised compared to others. Ziadah (2025) wrote about the ways in which retaining neutrality as a university directly contributes towards maintaining systems of oppression.

“The university’s claim to neutrality operates as both a political choice and a mechanism for maintaining the status quo, where dissent is framed as disruptive rather than a necessary part of transformative enquiry.” (p. 243)

Ziadah argues that neutrality towards the genocide in Gaza contributes towards conserving ideologies that make the genocidal violence possible.

“It reinforces the structural hierarchies that dehumanise Palestinians, presenting their struggle for liberation as an unacceptable deviation from the norms of academic discourse.”

Additionally, the Board’s neutrality is underlined by their call for “dialogue.” Ziadah writes that by placing this emphasis on creating a dialogue, you enforce the idea that the struggle for Palestinian liberation is a “conflict,” in which both sides are seen as equal, where a dialogue can facilitate connection and reconciliation. Through doing this, the historical and political context of oppression is erased and reduced to a “cultural and interpersonal conflict.”

“The Palestinian struggle is not simply a disagreement between two communities: it is a struggle against settler colonialism, systemic dispossession and state-sanctioned violence. By ignoring these dynamics, calls for balance and dialogue present a distorted picture of the situation, effectively erasing the structural realities that define it.” (p. 246)

The Board’s attitude towards the genocide and the ways in which institutional racism permeates all facets of the HKU go hand in hand. The lack of transparency and the dominating culture of a white, privileged perspective create a climate in which staff and students of color are harmed by institutional racism, in which certain (white) narratives are prioritised under the guise of safety in order to evade awkwardness and feelings of guilt. The Board does this by making empty PR-statements and constantly emphasising how important “dialogue” is to talk about “how we can connect with each other regarding societal issues.” If HKU really wants to be a safe place for all their students and staff, and wishes to maintain that “art pre-eminently questions society” then it’s time for the board to start truly listening to its students and staff of color, by actually implementing their suggestions.

It’s the only way forward.

Sources

Carmichael, S., & Hamilton, C. V. (1967). Black Power: Politics of Liberation (November 1992 ed.). New York City: Vintage Books, 4. Ziadah, R. (2025). Genocide, neutrality and the university sector. The Sociological Review, 73(2), 241-248. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/00380261251321336

*For dutch version click here

HKU complicity in the ongoing genocide

Why are we so concerned with Palestine?

If you’ve ever wondered what you would have done during historical periods of great injustice, you’re doing it now. The ongoing mass murder of Palestinians at the hands of colonial settler state Israel is the greatest violation of human rights of the 21st century. All major human rights organizations, including the United Nations, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch agree it is a genocide, with the explicit aim of killing or expelling every last Palestinian, in order to take their land and erase their culture. Every western government, including the Dutch one is supporting this project militarily, financially, diplomatically and rhetorically. This directly implicates all of us as Dutch taxpayers, who this government is supposedly representing.

The board of the HKU, like most Dutch universities, has decided to remain neutral. It has chosen not to speak out against our government’s complicity in the Palestinian genocide, nor fully cut ties with genocidal Israeli institutions. Apart from the great loss of Palestinian life (which, to be clear, should be enough reason for outrage), the way HKU is responding to the Palestinian genocide is a sign of things to come. The western world is becoming ever more fascist, and if institutions like HKU can’t even muster a simple statement condemning the most widely documented case of genocide in the history of the world, we can’t have the slightest bit of hope that it would protect its vulnerable students in any meaningful way if and when the growing fascist project greatly increases their unsafety.

HKU claims to be a safe space for everyone, but it has shown itself to stand for nothing, letting the oppressive forces of the world go unchallenged. This is an affront to life itself. Palestine deserves better, we deserve better, the world deserves better.

The HKU student union wishes to push our board to change this policy in any way we can. As a loose association, we support and invite any initiative with this aim. We are looking for people to help organise a strong and lasting workgroup focussed on keeping up the pressure through talks, protests, or anything else. The union can facilitate meetings, defend the rights of protesters and spread statements, articles and artwork related to the Palestinian cause.

Statement about the new workshop policy

As of the 1st of September 2025, it will no longer be possible for alumni to use the workshops at the HKU. In the past, the rule was that this was allowed in the academic year immediately after your graduation. All students who are currently doing a bachelor’s, master’s or associate’s degree will no longer be able to use this arrangement.

The cancellation of this arrangement was communicated to HKU students on the 1st of April via a short message on the Studentportal. This message states that the CvB (Executive Board) has taken this decision because (part of) the money that keeps the workshop running comes from the government. According to a government policy rule, this money may not be used for ’external parties’ (in this case, graduates). However, the policy rule has been in effect since 2022; it is unclear why this would only influence the CvB’s decision on the alumni arrangement now. It is also unclear why this policy rule would only affect the HKU; other universities of applied sciences (such as the KABK) still maintain a similar alumni arrangement. The CvB of the KABK seems to not have chosen to stop the rule for the use of workshops for their graduates.

The student union does not agree with the cancellation of this arrangement. It is of great importance for the future of HKU graduates that this does not happen. Moreover, students chose their education with the idea that they could continue to use the workshops for a while after graduating. This was not communicated to all students in a timely or effective manner. The list of alternative workshops in the message on the Studentportal cannot be compared to the facilities that are currently available at the HKU. It is of great importance that these facilities remain available for alumni. It is especially crucial for (international) students who have a (financial or other) disadvantage.

As a student union, we are open to your ideas. Do you have something you want to change, something big, or something small? Let us know!

One of the things we are currently working on is the removal of the alumni working at the workshops, but your proposal may encompass any aspect of your time at the HKU.

We’ve been very busy working on this over the past months, read the full update here.

Institutional Racism in HKU

In November of last year, a teacher at HKU-Media resigned because of institutional racism. For years, this teacher experienced comments, questions, and a feeling of loneliness as one of the only teachers of colour. This led to them not feeling welcome at HKU. After years of futile attempts to shine a light on this injustice, they did not see another option other than to resign. The fact that an excellent teacher, and a pillar of support for students of colour, did not feel at home for years is utterly unforgivable.

Unfortunately at the HKU, this is not the exception, but the rule. At HKU there is institutional racism; students and teachers of all studies and locations experience this, and don’t feel as at home as they should. This feeling is not often pronounced because there is a lot of ignorance and incomprehension among students that don’t share these experiences. This ignorance is fed by empty promises of diversity and inclusion that the HKU makes, however there clearly is institutional racism, and the HKU takes far too few concrete actions to change this.

The student union holds HKU responsible for the institutional racism that is evidently present in our community. The HKU has to take more concrete actions to inform students and teachers, so that everyone, no matter their skin colour, religious beliefs or gender, can feel at home at our HKU