This became evident from the advice Alternative Perspective 2028, obtained by Mare.

The advice was drawn up by a core group led by professor of Greek language and literature Casper de Jonge, in close consultation with the faculty’s programme chairs.

On 18 October, the Faculty Board asked the core group of programme chairs to provide additional advice on the drastic austerity plan disclosed by Mare two days earlier.

This plan proposed scrapping the bachelor’s programmes African Studies and Latin American Studies and merging Chinese, Japanese, Korean and South and Southeast Asian Studies into a new bachelor's programme called Asian Studies. French, German and Italian were to be combined into the bachelor’s programme European Languages and Cultures, and certain master’s programmes would also be scrapped or merged. All in all, the cuts should result in a reduction of three hundred courses and dozens of FTE staff positions.

The plan sparked great controversy among students and alumni as well as columnists and members of the Lower House. The programme chairs felt they had not been sufficiently involved in the plans.

Therefore, they were subsequently given the opportunity to provide input and this resulted in the advice that was sent to the Faculty Board at the beginning of this month, said Dean Mark Rutgers recently during the Faculty Council meeting.

Interestingly, Council member Adriaan Rademaker suggested discussing the content of the document in an ‘informal meeting’ in the new year: without the public and the press. The rest of the Council and the Board responded in agreement.

In the advice, the programme chairs urge the Board ‘not to take irreversible decisions’. ‘Drastic educational changes require careful consideration and support and should not be rushed under high pressure’, they write. ‘There are many uncertainties regarding finances, especially in the medium and long term.’

The core group wants to ‘expand teaching capacity, offer much more shared teaching than is currently the case, increase synergy between programmes, reduce the number of courses, improve course efficiency, streamline governance, and economise on non-primary processes’.

The faculty’s expertise must be preserved. ‘It can only be retained if students are trained in it at the bachelor’s level.’ The advice emphasises the value of bachelor's programmes such as African Studies and Latin American Studies. ‘Only Leiden trains specialists in those countries and regions. Moreover, International Studies relies on expertise existing in the faculty, and this expertise is at risk of disappearing if specialised programmes are scrapped.’

Far-reaching collaboration

That is why the core group advises ‘to retain the CROHO labels’ (in other words: allow programmes to continue to exist independently), in order to maintain visibility. For example, the bachelor’s programmes Chinese Studies, Japanese Studies, Korean Studies and South and Southeast Asian Studies are willing to engage in ‘far-reaching collaboration’ as long as they are not formally merged into the broader Asian Studies bachelor’s programme. They intend to do this ‘by offering and sharing regional courses’ and by merging programme boards, boards of examiners and programme committees.

The same applies to other programmes at risk of being scrapped or merged. They have put forward proposals for ‘very intensive and far-reaching collaboration’ through shared teaching and a reduction of the number of courses. The core group estimates that this would result in a reduction of about 208 courses.

The bachelor’s programmes African Studies and Latin American Studies believe they can continue to exist independently through ‘far-reaching collaboration’ with International Studies and with courses taught by lecturers from the LUCL and LUCAS institutes and the History programme. This collaboration should ‘greatly reduce operational costs’.

The Middle Eastern Studies bachelor’s programme has ‘designed an alternative programme’ that reduces the number of courses by 22 but retains the tracks – such as Persian, Turkish and Hebrew. German, French and Italian want to collaborate ‘in the areas of shared teaching and governance’, and work together with programmes such as Art History, Philosophy and English.

According to the core group, merging and scrapping programmes would actually lead to extra work and costs. By refraining from doing so, ‘sustainable workload savings and revenue’ can be realised. The Faculty Board must first discuss these proposals with the programme chairs ‘before taking further steps’.

Furthermore, the core group stresses that unique programmes – that are only offered in Leiden – must remain protected. The university should insist that the government continue to support these programmes financially. ‘For the benefit of programmes that are also geopolitically significant for the government and because more and more unique programmes are emerging due to discontinuations elsewhere (Utrecht University, Ed.).’

Education and research are the university’s main tasks, writes the core group. ‘Therefore, the primary process must be protected and spared wherever possible’. At all levels, closer attention should be paid to identifying what we ‘need to have’ and what is ‘nice to have’: ‘Are Honours education and the Humanities Lab really necessary? How many newsletters do we actually need?’

Less money for buildings

The Faculty Board should also ‘urge’ the Executive Board to consider cuts to university-level support services and reconsider the necessity of the Well-Being Week, Healthy University campaigns, personal leadership courses and certain safety matters. Furthermore, less money should be spent on buildings and new construction should be postponed.

In addition, the administrative burden for both academic and support staff could be reduced by ‘scrapping or simplifying mid-term reviews and annual reports’, ‘abolishing the first-year diploma and its ceremony’ and ensuring that curricula do not need to be entered into digital systems twice. ‘This would reduce administrative tasks to about 5 per cent of total working hours.’ The institutes should also be able to operate with fewer support staff if they start collaborating more.

To retain as many courses as possible, the core group proposes that lecturers teach one additional course per year. To prevent a further increase in work pressure, other tasks need to be scrapped. This might involve scrapping interim tests, offering more tutorials instead of lectures and reducing administrative tasks. Additionally, 5 FTE in teaching staff can be saved by having the bachelor’s thesis written during tutorials. These measures would make it possible to ‘keep between 185 and 370 additional courses running’.

The most striking cost-cutting proposal is to ask staff to work less or step back on the salary scale. ‘A collective salary reduction is also theoretically possible in consultation with the unions.’