The dust has settled: our council statement on Yantai

by | Feb 22, 2018 | News | 0 comments

Thank you Chairman,

Unfortunate. That is the word that dominated the faction of Lijst Calimero during the first month of this year. Unfortunate that we had to say No. Unfortunate that we had to oppose this plan. Unfortunate, but unavoidable.

The fact of the matter is, Lijst Calimero isn’t opposed to branch campuses, or to China. We don’t see fundamental objections. But that does not mean that we are automatically in favor of every plan that is put forward. We take our responsibility very seriously and only underwrite good plans. And those weren’t there. Not because Yantai is a bad idea or because there were no opportunities.

On the contrary: we saw opportunities for gaining international experiences and doing research in a foreign country. But that is now cancelled, as the project was so badly arranged that we couldn’t vote in favor in good conscience. The Yantai Report of the University Council, whose findings have been underwritten by all factions in the council, is therefore unrelenting.

I don’t have to repeat the report for everyone, but that the plan lacked on such crucial aspects is shocking. An inadequate budget, an underestimation of staff effort, no plan for recruiting staff, no quantitative advantages. We couldn’t consent on these plans because it relied on the support from programmes that simply wasn’t there and we did not have the confidence that the quality of education could be guaranteed. Every self-respecting council member couldn’t be in favor of these plans and we are therefore happy that the council has prevented our university from making a huge mistake.

Unfortunate was also, to see how a large academic institution handles dissent and criticism. Even though our faction has done nothing else than taking its responsibility: we consent on good plans and oppose bad plans. Nothing simpler than that. That fact that after three years of preparation, adaptations and working groups the plan is still in such bad shape, raises questions. Why did this process turn out this way? At what cost did we see our academic community become divided? Which lessons can be learned from this? We would certainly support an independent evaluation.

Thank you.