On administrative cowardice, moral selectivity and the loss of academic Courage

There are moments when a university must redefine itself—not through buildings, rankings or policy documents, but through the way it relates to truth, power and public pressure. The continuing protests surrounding the Israeli–Palestinian conflict represent such a moment. What began as student activism has, in many places, evolved into an institutional crisis in which university leaders appear increasingly uncertain about the principles they are expected to defend.

The problem is not that students protest. Protest is a legitimate feature of a free society. The problem arises when universities themselves cease to act as places of intellectual distance and instead become participants in political and moral struggles. In doing so, they risk abandoning the very role that distinguishes them from other institutions: the pursuit of truth through open inquiry.

The university as a moral actor

A university should be a place where ideas collide without individuals being destroyed. It is therefore troubling how quickly intellectual dissent can once again become morally suspect. Not through formal censorship, but through social pressure, reputational damage and collective intimidation. Contemporary academic culture presents itself as open and pluralistic, yet increasingly exhibits signs of intellectual conformity. Those who challenge dominant narratives often discover how quickly disagreement becomes social suspicion.

Dutch universities increasingly present themselves as moral actors, issuing statements on war, colonialism, climate change and international affairs. Yet the moment a university adopts explicit moral positions, it inevitably influences what is regarded as legitimate within its own community.

This dynamic has become visible in the treatment of Israel and of Jewish scholars within parts of academia. Activist narratives are often given considerable space, while dissenting perspectives encounter heightened scrutiny. Demonstrations aimed at severing ties with Israeli institutions are facilitated or tolerated on some campuses, while Jewish students and staff regularly report feelings of isolation, insecurity and, in some cases, intimidation.

These concerns are no longer merely anecdotal. Research conducted by Amanda Kluveld and Eliyahu Sapir into the experiences of Jewish and Israeli students and employees in Dutch higher education points to growing feelings of exclusion, insecurity and hostility since 7 October 2023. Respondents describe an academic climate in which pressure to distance oneself from Israel and the concealment of visible Jewish identity have, for some, become part of everyday university life.

A similar dynamic emerged during a meeting at Leiden University on academic freedom. The fact that a discussion about the conditions necessary for free inquiry itself became the target of disruption reveals a broader paradox: conversations about protecting intellectual freedom increasingly become occasions for attempts to restrict it.

The deeper question is whether universities remain willing to accommodate perspectives that diverge from dominant assumptions. Once events are judged less by the quality of their arguments than by the perceived acceptability of their participants or conclusions, the university begins to shift from a community of scholars to a community of ideological arbiters.

Perhaps most striking is not the intensity of activist pressure, but the hesitancy of university leadership. Administrators speak readily of inclusion and safety, yet often appear far less certain when Jewish students and staff report feeling isolated, stigmatized or unwelcome. The challenge facing universities today is therefore not merely political. It is institutional. The question is whether they still possess the confidence to defend the principles upon which academic life depends.

The danger of one-sided narratives

A university ought not to be a space for propaganda. Its purpose is to examine dominant narratives critically, not to reproduce them. Yet contemporary academic debates increasingly reveal a striking moral asymmetry. The issue is not that certain perspectives are discussed—that is central to academic freedom—but that some interpretations are treated as self-evident truths, while others are regarded as suspect before the discussion has even begun.

This tendency is particularly visible in the treatment of complex historical and geopolitical conflicts. Concepts such as the Nakba are often presented less as subjects of historical inquiry than as moral points of departure. At the same time, alternative historical perspectives and competing interpretations frequently receive far less attention.History ceases to function as scholarship when it is reduced to a simple division between oppressors and victims.

The same pattern can be observed in the treatment of slogans and symbols on university campuses. Expressions whose meanings remain contested are often embraced with little critical examination. Many students encounter only one interpretation of these slogans, while others understand them as denying Israel’s........

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)