Four Factors
Alexandra van Huffelen responded by saying that we are a wonderful university, but that we are facing four mutually reinforcing challenges: the outgoing government has decided to reduce funding for (higher) education; 2. The number of students will decline in the coming years; 3. Costs have increased; 4. The outgoing cabinet has decided to slow down internationalisation. It remains important to try to reverse the cuts, but if things stay as they are, to cut where it hurts the least. The first step is to save on square metres by sharing rooms, etc. The second is to cut back on support services, and the third is to make education and research more efficient. But there are also upsides, because we are going to work hard to generate more income. The conclusion is that we can do things, but we will also suffer pain.
External experts
The second question was directed at Suzanne Boelens: why was the decision made to target the Professional Services employees first? Boelens admitted that the support services are indeed being hit hard, as 20 million euros in savings must be achieved. External experts were therefore called in to compare Radboud University with other organisations and universities. This revealed that there is still much to be gained in areas such as digitisation. Boelens, together with employees in each column, is looking at what needs to be done. In doing so, she sometimes receives feedback that people are happy with the changes because they have been requesting them for some time.
A political attack
In response to a question posed to him, Mathijs van de Sande replied that too little is being invested in the capacity to mobilise for action. The cuts are fuelled by a political agenda that is hostile to science and the public sector. It is therefore a political attack. The defence must therefore not only be carried out by lobby organisations behind the scenes, and politicians do not seem impressed by our actions. But higher education is not the only sector under attack. According to Van de Sande, there needs to be more cross-sector organisation. Because when universities go on strike, it has little impact, but when primary schools down tools, the country grinds to a halt. Van Huffelen agrees; we must make it clear how damaging the cuts are, and we must be visible, because people in The Hague will immediately forget about you if they don't hear from you for a while.
Carefulness first
Why was the model of cost-cutting in columns chosen, Leijenhorst asked Boelens? According to Boelens, this leads to a fair approach across the entire university. Processes can be simplified and duplication eliminated by not organising everything at faculty level. Moreover, there is still much to be gained in the area of digitisation. She understood that there is dissatisfaction with the fact that it all seems to be taking a long time, but argued that the carefulness of the process is paramount. She also indicated that it is still unclear when this uncertainty can be removed; this also varies per column. For HR and IS, there will probably be more clarity before the end of the year, and for the other columns in the spring of 2026. Van Huffelen added that the discussions with the faculties are running parallel to this; the starting point is that we will remain a broad university.
Stacking stones differently
Leijenhorst followed up on this: how can we be a broad university with a varied range of courses while at the same time emphasising efficiency and rationalisation? That sounds like the abolition of small programmes. How are you going to combine these two things? Van Huffelen responded by saying that the main focus will be on organising faculties more intelligently, for example through collaborations that eliminate duplication. In other words, she said, we are going to “stack the bricks differently” so that we can maintain our breadth. In addition, the ratio of research to education will change, with more emphasis on education, and efforts will be made to generate more income.
The flip side of a positive story
Van de Sande responded by saying that vision requires more than just a perspective on the future. Moreover, the desire to paint a positive picture also has a downside, namely that it makes it seem as if the cuts were a good idea. According to Van de Sande, we need to emphasise much more strongly that the cuts will simply lead to a decline in the quality of education. Moreover, many colleagues already conduct their research in their spare time, because all their working hours are spent on teaching. If you want to parry the attack from The Hague, you must continue to clearly indicate that the cuts are causing problems. Nevertheless, Van Huffelen also saw a glimmer of hope: in the run-up to the elections, it seems that the parties that are currently doing well want to invest in education and research again.
