In this blog, we reflect on how this case exemplifies a troubling shift: academic decisions increasingly shaped by political pressure rather than academic judgement, and made through processes that bypass those with relevant expertise. We argue that the process through which this decision has been reached should serve as a wake-up call that academic freedom can easily be lost.

As part of the Balanced Internationalisation Bill (Wet Internationalisering in Balans; WiB), the Dutch government proposed at least two thirds of Dutch bachelor programmes should be offered in Dutch and permission must be obtained through a central language test (Taaltoets voor Anderstalig Onderwijs; TAO) for all English-taught bachelor programmes. The TAO intended to limit the growth of English-taught bachelor programmes. Many universities have criticized the TAO as rigid, top-down, and difficult to implement in practice. In response to concerns about the TAO’s rigidity and administrative burden, UNL successfully lobbied for so-called self-regulation to get the TAO off the table. In return, they proposed to discontinue the International Bachelor in Psychology (IBP) at five universities, including Leiden.

While we applaud the efforts to remove the TAO from the law, the sacrifice of bachelor programmes without proper academic or societal argumentation breaches the core values of our university. The IBP programme is academically sound, in high demand, and contributes to the international position of Dutch psychology by enhancing the Netherlands’ ability to attract talented students, researchers, and lecturers from around the world. Yet it was sacrificed as a concession to meet political demands. In our view, this sets a troubling precedent and raises serious concerns about the future of academic freedom.

Academic freedom includes the freedom to determine the content, scope, and language of instruction based on disciplinary standards, scientific relevance, and the best interests of students. The use of the English language in Psychology is not just to attract international students; psychology is a globally oriented discipline and English is the dominant language of research and scientific communication. These concerns are not limited to the IBP decision: the TAO itself also posed a serious threat to academic freedom by imposing rigid, centralised control over language of instruction. Replacing the TAO with self-regulation might seem like a win, but sacrificing the IBP to achieve it still undermines academic autonomy — in both cases, academic decisions are steered by political goals rather than academic reasoning. Trading course programmes for changes in legislation instrumentalizes education by turning degree programmes into bargaining chips in political negotiations, thereby eroding the principle that universities are autonomous institutions devoted to knowledge, critical thinking, and the global exchange of ideas.

When decisions about education are guided by short-term political goals rather than academic values, we risk losing sight of the university’s purpose. The purpose of a university and its educational programs stretches beyond providing credentials for the national workforce. We believe that the current form of self-regulation (where self-regulation resembles uncritical obedience) risks reducing the University to a diploma factory and undermines critical thinking and debate about important strategic decisions. This threatens our identity as a place of independent thought and stray away from the university’s purpose, which is not just to pursue fundamental knowledge, but also to stimulate critical thinking, encourage debate, and reflect on society.

Of course, universities do not exist in a vacuum, but are embedded in societal contexts, and are not immune to political decisions. However, if such a trade-off decision as the sacrifice of IBP Psychology BSc programmes is deemed necessary, those responsible for the relevant programmes must be part of the discussion and the Institute or Faculty Board should at least be consulted. The decision to discontinue IBP bypassed academic governance and excluded those with direct pedagogical and disciplinary expertise from the process. Staff directly involved in teaching and curriculum development are best placed to assess what is needed to prepare students for their future careers, and should therefore be given a voice in such a decision-making process. Greater transparency from the CvB and genuine dialogue with the academic community would allow academics to voice their ideas, concerns, and perspectives on how to navigate the challenges ahead.

In short, when universities conform their educational offerings to satisfy political deals rather than academic reasoning, they send a message that core academic values are negotiable. This time it affects Psychology, but if far-reaching decisions can be made without transparent consultation or solid justification, which also became apparent in the latest employee survey that trust of the university's employees is eroded by a perceived lack of transparency, then there is no telling what will be next. However, current tensions between the government and universities in the US paint a painfully clear picture of what might be at stake.

This statement is issued by Young Academy Leiden. Text written by Julie Hall & Zsuzsa Bakk