Nella Geurts, a sociologist and assistant professor, focuses on identifying various forms of discrimination and the actions bystanders can take. Her goal is to mobilise the silent majority so that, together, we can create a meaningful impact.
Johan Derksen: “He’s not a Frisian, come on”
“It started for me at a birthday party, during a discussion about Johan Derksen,” Geurts recalls. Derksen had once said on his TV show that Habtamu de Hoop, a Black politician, could not possibly be of Frisian descent. For Geurts, this was clearly a racist remark, yet some family members saw it differently. That fascinated her:
“How is it that people like me, with similar upbringing, education and political views, hear the same thing, but see something completely different?”
Election rhetoric often suggests that ‘we’, as potential bystanders, agree on where the line lies between ‘a joke’ and ‘discrimination’.
To combat discrimination, we have established clear definitions, policies, campaigns, and training programmes, all grounded in the assumption that everyone shares a common understanding of discrimination. “However, that’s not true,” Geurts points out. “If we want to engage bystanders effectively, we must first understand the diverse ways in which people discuss discrimination.”
So, what is discrimination again?
The Dutch Constitution broadly states that equal treatment should be given in equal cases, regardless of origin, religion, sexuality, and other factors. But in practice, it is far more complex. “Many people think of extreme cases with malicious intent,” Geurts explains. “Yet subtle microaggressions, a joke, a glance, also have a substantial impact.”
She compares it to an iceberg: above the water, you see the undeniable incidents. Below the surface lie countless other, often more implicit forms of discrimination that pave the way for structural inequality.
The silent majority
With the general election approaching, the word ‘inclusion’ features prominently in many party manifestos. But policy is blind if we do not first understand how differently we recognise discrimination. Geurts: “Election rhetoric likes to suggest that ‘we’, as potential bystanders, agree on the boundary between ‘a joke’ and ‘discrimination’. My focus is not on the loud extremes, but on the silent middle: people who hesitate, who want to help but do not yet dare.” “If you can move the silent middle, the norm shifts. That’s when policy plans come to life.”
The method
Geurts works with real-life stories, which she translated into concise case studies. In surveys, she asks respondents, "What do you see here?" To what extent is this a problem? Would you call this discrimination? If so, why? She then deliberately selects contrasting participants for group discussions: people who recognise ‘almost everything’ and those who see ‘almost nothing’ as a form of discrimination. “Precisely these contrasts reveal the hidden criteria: when do we call something discrimination? What do we need to feel confident enough to name it?”
When reports lead nowhere, bystanders give up
One insight already stands out: many bystanders wait for certainty. “They want to know the intent, all the context. But that need for certainty – which rarely exists in reality – paralyses action.” Her preliminary advice: when in doubt, do something, even something small. Action does not always have to be immediate. “You can return to a remark later, or offer support to the person affected,” Geurts emphasises. The point is to show that I see this and take it seriously.
The bigger movement
Are bystander trainings the ultimate solution? “They help, but they are stronger when part of structural change,” says Geurts. “If reports of discrimination lead nowhere, bystanders disengage. We need to ensure that bystanders not only act, but also feel supported.”
So, if you think, 'Should I have said something?' this might be the moment to stand next to someone and ask, 'How did you experience that?' Bystanding rarely begins heroically. It starts with looking, doubting – and still acting. That is precisely where this research aims to make a difference.
Veni grant
For her project: Seeing eye to eye? How our understanding of discrimination affects challenging it Geurts received a Veni grant.