Louise Gunning’s resignation as chairwoman of the University of Amsterdam’s Board of Directors (CvB) starts a new phase but the struggle against the privatisation of higher education continues many fronts.

Donya Alinejad recently argued in a Roarmag article that forcing Louise Gunning to resign would have been a major intermediate victory for de Nieuwe Universiteit (DNU – student movement) to continue negotiations with a divided Board during the occupation. The eventual resignation of Louise Gunning is an intermediate victory while the committees on democratisation and the university’s finances are implemented. So begins the transition towards a new university while pressures from both the managers and protestors continue to confront each other.

The story of DNU’s demand for the CvB’s resignation began as a side-note semi-joke in a press release during the Bungehuis occupation (February 14th-24th 2015). Frustrations grew within the DNU as the Board refused dialogue with the occupiers until after a court ruled in favour of eviction. They suggested that a ‘Festival of Sciences’ could be held in exchange for our voluntary departure. The eviction of the Bungehuis by riot police (with 46 students arrested) instigated a large protest (1000+) that ended with a large unorganised group entering the Maagdenhuis where the Board of Directors works.

On the first night of the Maagdenhuis appropriation, the Board made an appearance in the spotlight, in front a televised General Assembly. The student facilitating the discussion wisely and courageously demanded that Louise Gunning ‘raise her hand before speaking’. At that point, it was clear that the power dynamic had shifted: from subjects of repression and silencing, the students of DNU had become powerful actors who set the scene by transforming political discourses and showing the example of how a new university should function. The many workshops, lectures, debates and social events held at the Maagdenhuis over the 47 days of occupation exemplified this.

Fast forward a couple of weeks and the Board demanded that the occupiers leave the Maagdenhuis as pressure on the CvB itself increased (through mockery and other ludic tactics). They were at full discretion to determine the pace and structure of the negotiations, setting an ultimatum after which the university would subpoena students if they failed to leave the building. The concession they made was to allow students to request permission to use the main hall in the Maagdenhuis for public events. This deal, considered a humiliating example of the Board’s constant unwillingness to compromise, was rejected in a press conference. Instead, DNU re-stated that the Board resign and staff member Rudolf Valkhoff stated that ‘harder actions would follow’. This created a lot of panic within the academic community, especially since some felt that the fragile trust towards the Board was being somewhat restored at this point with the establishment of the committees. Finally, after much consideration and debate, the occupiers decided to leave the Maagdenuhis after organising a Festival of Sciences and consequently leave ‘with a big bang’.

Despite widespread support from the academic community for the Festival, the Board carried on with the subpoena, won in court and demanded an immediate eviction. They allegedly went directly to the police and around the Mayor’s back to make sure the eviction took place before the Festival. They argued that the premises were unsafe for a large Festival to be held, despite security measures having been taken by the student organisers in coordination with the University of Amsterdam’s security guards who were present in the building since the start of the Maagdenhuis appropriation. The security argument mirrors those advanced at the London School of Economics occupation (Vera Anstey Suite), that was recently ended after the ‘Festival of Radical Ideas’ was deemed a safety hazard by university management.

The eviction itself was astonishingly violent considering that little resistance was presented to the riot police. Only one person remained in the building, while all the others willingly went outside. When the police started to arrest people (the first few were quickly de-arrested by the police themselves), we locked arms and walked together down the Maagdenhuis stairs on the Spui to continue the Festival. Silent cops arbitrarily arrested a couple of recognisable students from the group of 20 that remained on the square (and within the perimeter). The police also dragged away a couple of professors from Rethink UvA who bravely continued giving lectures and were surprised to be forcefully removed.

The eviction of the Maagdenhuis was the final straw which clarified that the ‘trust’ allegedly being built through the establishment of the committees and the 10-point plan was non-existent. Some people in DNU felt that the occupation could not end as long as the committees had not been formed and given a clear mandate. Two days after the eviction, a demonstration of 1500 students and members of staff demanded the Board’s resignation and marched through central Amsterdam. This march merged with the We Are Here refugees’ sit-in in front of Amsterdam’s City Hall after their recent eviction from yet another squatted space (Vluchtgarage).

This show of solidarity was powerful, especially considering that Dutch students were being held in foreign detention because they refused to reveal their identity after the eviction. Under Dutch law you have the right to withhold your identity. Putting people into foreign detention for this reason became illegal since the Schrijnheilig ruling of 2011. The attorney argued that the police force was suspicions there were illegal aliens in the Maagdenhuis. The only evidence they presented was from Powned, a right-wing pundit comedic show. The detainees were all eventually identified by the police and released. They were compensated 105 euros per person for each of the 3 days they spent in foreign detention. What a small price for such a large sacrifice which was not followed up by any sort of public apology.

The anger which grew from the eviction’s handling by the Board of Directors triggered Louise Gunning’s final demise as Chairman. The Raad van Toezicht (governmental supervisory board) quickly and privately negotiated an exit strategy for Louise Gunning to stop down and appointed Rector Magnificus Dymph Van der Boom as the interim head of the Board of Directors over the weekend. Louise Gunning was offered her old position as a well-paid member of the academic staff, but her career as a politician has been permanently damaged. The next step for students and teachers alike is to see a future democratically-elected Board. The Board has committed to a transition phase which would implement the committees and its 10 point plan. They claim that it will ‘vigorously address the concerns of the academic community’.

The dean of the Law Faculty, Edgar Du Perron, was appointed to mediate the links between management and staff/students while the 10 point plan is being implemented and the committees are formed. Du Perron was not appointed as a de facto member of the Board and, as a consequence, has very little de facto decision-making power. The result of this appointment is two-fold: on the one hand, dialogue with the Board has improved considering the openness and accessibility of Du Perron. He is a friendly reformist who is always available to answer the academic community’s concerns. On the other hand, du Perron’s communication skills reinforce the risk that student and staff dissenters get co-opted into a dialogue under the Board’s terms and refrain from direct action because of the energy and time consumed in dialogue.

To uphold the pressure on the Board, a group called the Students First of May Committee occupied the Service and Information Centre at the University of Amsterdam on April 30th. They barricaded the doors and hung a banner stating ‘Students & Workers Unite & Fight’. Their demand was the restoration of May Day as a holiday and permanent contracts for flex workers. Du Perron expressed his concern with this action, that was deemed unnecessary and harmful the ongoing dialogue. ‘What dialogue?’, some students wondered, deeming that the Board has yet to address the issue of temporary contracts at all. The nine students quickly left the building out the back door as police raided the building.

On May 3rd, the Festival of Sciences was finally held under the title ‘Festival van Wetenschappen: Rethinking Academia’ at the Felix Meritis in central Amsterdam. This beautiful building, created for the purpose of promoting arts and sciences, often hosts events attended by the Board of Directors and their friends. This was a huge symbolic victory considering that students stigmatised as ‘professional activists’ were able to hold the Festival originally planned by the Board in such a luxurious venue based on donations only. DNU re-appropriated the Board’s own idea and brought together a network of university activists. The discussions, lectures and workshops about civil disobedience, diversity and the role of universities in society displayed what de Nieuwe Universiteit is all about. It ended with a panel discussion on the new higher education law being proposed by parliamentarian Jasper Van Dijk (Socialist Party) and members of several centre-left youth parties.

Beyond the transition enacted at the University of Amsterdam, the Maagdenhuis occupation was the source of many immediate successes at the national level. A fundamental shift in discourse occurred as a result of the occupation. Many student activists claim that this movement contributed to the fact that ’activism is no longer a dirty word in the public debate’. The issue of rendementsdenken (efficiency thinking), a major concern in all semi-public institutions (health care, education, etc.), suddenly became a major focus in the public debate.

Furthermore, a new generation of activists has emerged after having witnessed that change is in fact possible. Rather than awaiting change to come from above, direct action is being taken throughout Dutch universities; including the #redsquareeverywhere street art, shockupations like the one at the University of Groningen’s Starbucks and occupied student spaces like Terecht at Radboud University Nijmegen and de Verrekijker at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. The Maagdenhuis experience spilled over to every university in the country, where ‘De Nieuwe Universiteit’ and ‘Rethink’ branches were created. The long-term effects of the movement will become more clear as the committees are formed and a whole generation of young activists continue to reclaim their rights.