Politics of home at the university : different ways of dealing with diversity in public universities

1

Politics of home at the university

Different ways of dealing with diversity in public universities University of Amsterdam Graduate School of Social Sciences Master Thesis in Sociology, Track Urban Sociology First supervisor: Dr. F. Janssens

Second supervisor: Dr. P. Brown Colette Laseur

July 2, 2015 10006214

Abstract Keywords: diversity, excellence, politics of home, public institutions, right to belong, home, silent rooms.

Dutch universities play an important role in the government’s aim to become a knowledge economy. Universities profile themselves as excellent, international research and educational institutes. In order to become a knowledge based economy public universities focus on their students academic growth. Therefore, they incorporate diversity, mostly addressed as internationalization, an indispensable condition. In this context, the concept of diversity, i.e. diversity of perspectives is seen as a necessary condition for creating an excellent academic climate. The University of Amsterdam is used as a case study to show how diversity can be used as unique selling point, while there is exclusive neutrality implemented to deal with this diversity. However, reality shows that different actors within the academic field conceptualize diversity in different, conflicting ways. The University of Amsterdam is used as a case study to investigate how two interpretations of neutrality conflict with one another and how a specific interpretation that is implemented by the University of Amsterdam is contested by staff members and students. This research gives more insight into the processes and discourses involved in this contestation of exclusive neutrality. These different conceptualizations of diversity and neutrality are strongly related to the politics of home and the tension between private and public space.

3

Table of Contents I. Introduction 4 II. Literature review 2.1. Diversity 5 2.1.1. Process of making difference 5 2.1.2. In- and out group mechanisms 6 2.2. Principle of neutrality 7 2.2.1. Exclusive neutrality 8 2.2.2. Criticism on exclusive neutrality 8 2.3.3. Inclusive neutrality 9 2.3. Feeling at home 9 2.3.1. Elements of ‘home’ 10 2.3.2. Four spheres of belonging 11 2.3.3. Politics of home 11 2.3.4. Quasi-neutral spaces 12 III. Methodology 3.1. Operationalization of key concepts 14 3.2. Case study: University of Amsterdam 14 3.3. Data collection and analysis 16 IV. Findings 4.1. Exclusive neutrality in policy of University of Amsterdam 4.1.1. Diversity as internationalization 22 4.1.2. Diversity versus excellence 23 4.1.3. Pursuing neutrality 24 4.1.4. Passive way of welcoming 26 4.1.5. Responsibility of the university 28 4.1.6. Negative experiences with diversity 30 4.1.7. Conclusion 32 4.2. Contestation of exclusive neutrality 32 4.2.1. Claiming of ‘home’ by majority 34 4.2.2. Stereotypes and invisible thresholds for minorities 37 4.2.3. Politics of home: claiming a silent room 43 VI. Conclusion 50 VII. Reference list 53 VII. Appendix 6.1. List of codes 55

1

I. Introduction On March 26 this year twenty students decided to create a ‘silent room’ for people who need a moment of rest, meditation, prayer or reflection at the University of Amsterdam. This relative central place within the building is henceforward ‘occupied’ by students who promote a more inclusive learning environment. Namely, according to the student initiative UvaInclusief the board of the University of Amsterdam has failed to meet the convergent needs of the students and academic staff. Such student protests started already in 2014 at the Harvard University. The students at Harvard College started a photo campaign on a Tumblr account to ‘highlight the faces of black students’. These students state on their Tumblr account that ‘their voices often go unheard on this campus, their experiences are devalued, their presence is questioned. This project is their way of speaking back, of claiming this campus, of standing up to say: We are here’ (I, Too, Am Harvard, March 2014).

In response to the protest of particular groups of students at Harvard College, a group of UvA-students started also a Tumblr account to express their ‘unheard’ voices. The Tumblr account I, Am, Too, UvA started this year to show that not everybody feels recognized at the university. These student initiatives reflect that certain minority groups within the university, but also within other public universities, try to claim literally and figuratively space at the university. In this discourse they highlight their right to express their identity and their associated practices.

This explicit way of claiming space by these groups seems to be quite contradictive with the way University of Amsterdam profiles itself as a university that is diverse, open and very strongly rooted in Amsterdam. In this sense, diversity is seen as a unique selling, which is reflected in the campaign posters of the University of Amsterdam. And they have reasons to do so because research has shown that their participants significantly higher rate organizations that incorporate diversity in their policies than organizations that do not manage diversity (Williams & Bauer 1994). Universities are relevant in this context for two reasons. Firstly, the public university and the broader academic sphere can be seen as a representation of society. As universities are a microcosm of their surrounding society, these institutions have to adapt themselves continuously to a changing environment (Possamaia & Brackenreg 2009: 355). Yet, the role of the university as an educator, social institution, and producer as knowledge requires at least some reflection on diversity issue (Ibid: 355). Secondly, the academic sphere is subject to demographic diversification both in terms of surface-level diversity, such as gender, and in terms of more deep-level diversity, such as cultural background (Rhee and Sagaria: 2004).

2

Recently, the focus on diversity is coming from the wider political context of the Netherlands. “Quality in diversity” is the title of the new strategy of the Ministry of Education, Research and Science for higher education in the Netherlands. ‘Diversity’ within this discourse is also used as the unique selling point. The Ministry of Education, Culture and Science found out in 2011 that the quality of Dutch higher education had to be quickly improved to compete with other international societies on the quest for knowledge (OCM 2011: 70).

From this perspective, diversity is interpreted as internationalization of higher education, universities have to profile themselves as excellent, international research and educational institutes on the global scale. This international orientation of universities is reflected in the attempt to attract the best and most talented students and academic staff from the global market. The future of Dutch higher education focuses more on discovering and expanding top academic talent. The internationalization of higher education is accompanied by increased diversity among the universities’ population. By attracting students and staff members from abroad, the diversity in a wide range of attributes, varying from cultural background, prior education, to English language skills, is greater. Thus, international oriented universities try to attract a diverse group of students and academic staff in order to create a vital, critical and innovative academic climate.

However, this use of diversity as a unique selling point might be very problematic. Due to the complexity of the concept diversity, it is unclear to which differences universities and other public institutions are referencing when they use the concept. For instance, universities often prefer differences in perspectives among students and staff members, while religious diversity is often less valued in the academic context. Thus, diversity is very complex, because different actors can mean very different things by using the equivalent concept. Therefore, in this study diversity is understood as the process of making relevant differences by the interactions of actors within the field. The use of diversity as a unique selling point is very interesting is a context of a public university that aims to be as neutral as possible. In this sense, particular differences, i.e. specific life styles or cultural, religious or ideological backgrounds, are less relevant or even conflicting with the neutral and secular character of most of the Dutch universities. For example, in most of the cases religious diversity complicates the neutrality and secularity of universities. In this sense, principle of neutrality are often implement in policies to deal with the increasing diversity among students and staff members. Although neutrality seems theoretically quite clear, the empirical reality shows that neutrality can be interpreted in different ways. The academic community broadly supports the principles of neutrality and equality, whereas there is disagreement about the interpretation of these principles within an institutional context.

3

The University of Amsterdam implies exclusive neutrality, which implies that the university is ‘blind’ towards religious, cultural and ideological differences. This blindness is reflected in the sense that the University excludes every religious, cultural or political expression, in terms of arguments, organizations or the use of symbols, from the public sphere of the University (Van der Burg 2011: 4). From this perspective, the university does not make any differences in the cultural, religious and ideological backgrounds of students and staff members. Thus, neutrality is interpreted as giving equal treatment by being blind towards all types of diversity.

However, exclusive neutrality, i.e. blindness towards differences, is highly contested by actors within the field. In correspondence with the literature, the contestants of exclusive neutrality claim that the neutrality of spaces cannot be guaranteed and in fact the markers of the dominant culture mostly characterize these ‘quasi-neutral’ spaces. In this sense what is presented as ‘neutral’ is an expression of the norms, values, attitudes and behaviour of the native majority (Duyvendak 2011:118). So, in other words, they claim that exclusive neutrality actually enables the majority to claim their right to feel at home at the university.

From this perspective, students and staff members are convinced that differences should be taken into account in order to treat everybody equally in an effort to be a ‘home for everybody’. This illustrates that the feeling of home is not simply a place for everybody, but has to be constantly bargained for and negotiated by ‘players within the field’ (Duyvendak 2011: 106). Will different groups be able to collectively manifest their sense of belonging, on streets and public squares and in schools and other public spaces? This remains a burning and unanswered question.

Although there is a large body of literature written on the principle of neutrality, specifically on the separation between church and state, there is less known about how exclusive neutrality is questioned by policy of the individuals that inhabit these public, neutral and secular institutions. The university in this context is very interesting in the sense that many involved people are convinced that there is no academic community without diversity, whereas expressions of diverse identities are exiled as much as possible within the ‘public space’ of the university. As a result, there are certain groups of students and academic staff who mobilize them selves and claim literal and figurative space to express them selves and their associated practices within the public space. Part of this rhetoric is that the challengers of exclusive neutrality claim that the ability to feel at home and to integrate with the university is necessary for successful study performance and persistence. This tendency creates new challenges for public institutes such as the university to deal with various types of diversity such as gender, cultural, religious diversity, within their institution.

4

In this thesis I will use the University of Amsterdam as a case study to show how the notion of exclusive neutrality is contested by specific groups of students and academic staff. Therefore, the following question is central to this study.

How do students and staff members within the University of Amsterdam contest exclusive neutrality?

To answer this central question, this research project firstly tries to investigate how exclusive neutrality is implemented both in the policy of universities and within policy discourses of groups of students, academic staff and board members. This first section covers the first sub question: How is neutrality conceptualized within the policy and policy discourses of the University of Amsterdam? Secondly, I will explore how exclusive neutrality is contested by claim making practices of particular groups of students and staff members. This will give an answer to the second sub question: How do staff members and students contest exclusive neutrality?

This research will investigate how different actors within the universities challenge the notion of neutrality in their discourses. This entails an examination of the discourses that is related to the policy, the discourses of the involved actors and their understanding of the policy, such as the advocacy of students associations. The University of Amsterdam was chosen because it is known for its strong interrelation with the city of Amsterdam, and for its openness and tolerance. The University of Amsterdam has no explicit policy towards diversity among its population, so therefore it is interesting to see how this playing field is composed in an informal way. It is important to consider the University of Amsterdam as heterogeneous group of people. There is no such thing as ‘the UvA’ or ‘the students’, because there are many differences within these categories. This study is fundamentally concerned with the right to belong and the ability to feel at home. It also explores academic issues on notions of neutrality, diversity and space in a specific university context.

5

II. Literature review 2.1. Diversity The unceasing reference to diversity by various groups within the university requires a further exploration of the concept. There is a lot disagreement about the meaning of diversity. The following theoretical framework will provide insight in how diversity should be interpreted in order to understand the differences between individual people in public institutions.

Diversity is a broadly defined and inherently problematic concept. There is diversity in different aspects and among different levels, varying from the individual level to even beyond the level of the nation state. Therefore I have to narrow down this definition to the social categorizations that people make. However, it is important to consider that the foundation on which people make distinctions is strongly related to larger social structures. In order to understand diversity it is important to understand the interactions in which people make meaningful differences. In this sense, the perceived relative homogeneity or heterogeneity of a group of people depends on whether people make distinctions. For example, a group of twelve men with the age of 35 is not homogenous if age and gender are not relevant in this context, whereas the same group would be relative homogeneous if age and gender are perceived as relevant differences. So in order to understand the conceptualization of diversity it is important to understand on what basis people make difference among people.

2.1.2. Processes of making difference

Tajfel & Turner (1987) assume in their social categorization theory that diversity is inevitable within society. They say diversity is the result of the natural tendency of people to categorize people in order to simply the complex world. Every human being has a wide range of salient and less salient attributes. People use attributes that happen to be available and which are the most salient to make categorizations. The effects of diversity can result from any attribute that people use to tell themselves that another person is different. For instance, the blonde hair of a woman can become prominent for a person with dark hair, but the blue eyes of the same blonde woman can also become salient for a woman with blond hair and green eyes.

In this social categorization process any attribute that is underrepresented in a given group is likely to become a potentially salient basis for categorization (Ibid: 81). For example, a headscarf could be a salient attribute in a context in which there is no other religious people presented. Or imagine being a romantic poet among mathematicians. Thus, although a large number of possible attributes can be used to differentiate individuals, the salient attributes in a given situation are the most important markers of diversity.

6

This definition is supported by literature that makes a distinction between surface-level diversity and deep-level diversity. These surface-level or highly visible demographic characteristics are easily observed and measured. This type of diversity also reflects the underlying differences underneath the surface level, but the surface level diversity is also likely to evoke stereotypes and biases (Harrison, Price & Gavin 2002: 3). However, there is also a complementary theory that is involved with an investigation on deep level or less visible diversity. Deep-level diversity includes individual differences such as personality traits, deeply embedded values, attitudes, preferences and beliefs (Ibid: 3). 2.1.3. In- and out group mechanisms

In the previous section the basis on which people make distinctions was explored. Now it is important to understand the implications of the social categorization process for interpersonal contact. At the University of Amsterdam, certain students want to demonstrate with their Tumblr account I, Too, Am UvA, that differences have actual consequences for the way people interact with one another.

According to the social categorization theory, people define themselves in the process of social comparison. In this process of self-categorization people classify themselves and others in social categories using salient characteristics, such as ethnicity, age, organization membership, status symbols or religious symbols (Williams & O’Reilly 1992: 84).

Subsequently, the social categorization based on similar attributes, ranging from attitudes and values to demographic variables, increases interpersonal contact, liking and cooperation. That means that the more people are ‘similar’ in attributes, the more likely it is that they have interpersonal contact and like one another. Thereby, the in-group is seen as very attractive, whereas ‘otherness’ is seen as less attractive. The differences that are made by the interactions among people become normative in the sense that a certain attribute becomes better than other attributes. This normative character of this process of self-organization, in relation to the ‘other’, is very common in human interactions. However, the process in which differences are made can lead in certain situations to polarization or stereotyping (Williams & O’Reilly 1992: 84).

The small group of people that is relatively ‘less similar’ than the majority can be seen as minority groups. The term minority refers to a group of people that differ in some features – like national origin, gender, physical condition, age, sexual orientation, religion, financial or social conditions, or lifestyle - from the pattern of the majority group (Kossek & Lobel, 1996; Milliken & Martins, 1996). The minority status of group could be disadvantageous in terms of power and opportunities. Discrimination refers to practices that treat certain people

7

of a subordinate group differently in ways that disadvantage them (Williams & O’Reilly 1992: 84).

2.2. Principle of neutrality

In order to understand how public institutions deal with diversity among its population it is important to explore the concept of neutrality. In general, it is expected that important public institutions should try to reduce discrimination, exclusion and harassment of specific groups within their organizations. Therefore, many public institutions highlight the right on equal treatment regardless nationality, social class, age, religion and physical abilities, in their policy and have their procedures to deal with these concerns. Therefore, many public institutions underline the ideological position which assumes that everybody regardless their specific background should have an equal treatment. However, neutrality can be interpreted in different ways. Initially, the existing literature focused predominantly on neutrality towards religion, but this focus advanced to other controversial views of the good life (Van der Burg 2011: 2). The main argument of neutrality is based upon the principle of equality. This equality principle ensures that the state does not have any preference for a particular view of the good life. This also means that the neutral state does not attach any value on a particular worldview of a given individual. Therefore, the neutral state should protect and respect religion and other forms of sense making, because of the value of religion for particular groups of citizens (Ibid: 3).

From this perspective, the neutral state can and should give special protection to any kind of view of the good life based on two assumptions. Firstly, religion and other views of the good life are important for people, because this specific way of seeing is most deeply internationalized by people. The second assumption is that controversial views of the good life are often the grounds of persecution, discrimination or unfair treatment by the state or by other groups and individuals within society. For instance, Jewish or Islamic extremist ideologies in a modern society are often subject to discrimination, exclusion or harassment. Therefore, the state can be a special institutional safeguard to protect those citizens with controversial views (Van der Burg 2011: 3). The freedom of religion is an example of these special institutional safeguards. Van der Burg (2011) extends this argument by saying that the neutral state should also treat other deep commitments in the same way (p. 3). These deep commitments may include cultural backgrounds, language, clothing customs or sexual orientation (Ibid: 3). However, it is important to take into account that there is often no clear boundary between religion, culture and other deep commitments. For both the persons and for the state is it often impossible to distinguish cultural and religious practices. For instance, the use of a headscarf is mostly seen as a mixture of religious, cultural and moral practices (Van der Burg 2011: 4).

8

2.2.1. Exclusive neutrality There are two main versions of the principle of neutrality. The first type of neutrality is exclusive neutrality, which means that the state should be completely blind to religious and cultural differences. This implies that every religious or cultural expression, in terms of arguments, organizations or the use of symbols, should be excluded from the public sphere (Van der Burg 2011: 4). In an educational setting, exclusive neutrality means that teachers and students should not introduce any topics in their curriculum or in the classroom that are controversial in the broader community. Public educational institutions are obliged to serve equally their diverse publics (Kelly 1986: 113). This contractual agreement of equal treatment is violated by the inclusion of controversial topics for several reasons. Firstly, it is difficult to give a fair or impartial hearing to all the particular personal, religious or political affinities. Secondly, a classroom discussion with provocative values is likely to undermine the institutional norms of order on which teachers are evaluated (Kelly 1986: 113). Therefore, the schools that exclude these issues try to preserve the neutral status of the institution. Exclusive neutrality implies that schools should stick to the value-free teaching. The sound knowledge of value-free teaching is based on scientific investigation and broad consensus within the community (Kelly 1986: 113). This shows how exclusive neutrality should be applied to educational institutions, but could also be applied to other public institutions, such as hospitals and prisons. Hospitals and prisons are also institutions that should operate based upon value-free, broad-based principles. 2.2.2. Criticism on exclusive neutrality However, the literature sees the position of exclusive neutrality as untenable and undesirable. Predominantly in this critique, the value-free nature of scientific discoveries is considered as obsolete. Therefore it is impossible for teachers and curriculum to remain value-free and uncontroversial (Kelly 1986: 115). Another critique on the position of exclusive neutrality is that higher education fails to be a tenable site for a meaningful and civic education (Ibid: 115). So the first argument states that it is impossible to remain neutral, but it is not impossible for teachers and students to address value issues in a fair, impartial manner. In this sense, neutrality implies the norm of impartiality, which is a tenable achievement in classrooms. However, this critique does not take into account that it is also very difficult for teachers and students to be completely value-free and give a fair hearing to all the perspectives. According to Kelly (1986), the fair handling of controversial issues in classroom discussions is essential for two reasons. First, in particular schools that are financed by the state, have moral responsibility to develop understandings, competences and commitments that are

9

necessary to be effective citizen. In order to achieve the capability to make informed judgements about public issues, it is important that teachers include rather than exclude public controversy (Kelly 1986: 116). Furthermore, important controversial issues directly and indirectly affect students and teachers. The public institutions that do not take into account value positions do not fit with the issues that play a role in wider society. In summary, according to the critics of exclusive neutrality, this interpretation of neutrality is untenable and therefore they claim that values and value controversies inevitably permeate education and should rightfully belong in educational settings (Kelly 1986: 116). 2.2.3. Inclusive neutrality The second version of neutrality is inclusive neutrality, which means that there is room to take religious and cultural differences into account. This implies that citizens are free to express and organize themselves in the public realm based on their religious or cultural identity and thereby the state is able to support religious and cultural activities (Van der Burg 2011: 4).

Subsequently, Van der Burg (2011) divides inclusive neutrality into two subcategories: proportional neutrality and compensatory neutrality. Proportional neutrality takes into account religious or other views of the good life by making a representation of minority groups or state support proportional to their size. This requires that every group should be represented in policy boards, funding for schools or advisory councils in accordance to their share in the total population (Van der Burg 2011: 4). The pillarization of the Dutch society can be seen as an example of proportional neutrality. The pillarization of the Dutch society enabled ideological or social-economic groups to establish institutions, such as schools, labour unions, hospitals, based on their own ideology. Compensatory neutrality requires that a smaller group gets more support than it proportional share. The neutral state gives this disproportional share to the members of the groups in order to create equal chances for them to participate in society and accommodate special needs within society (Van der Burg 2011:4). For instance, financial subsidies for minority cultures support for gay and lesbian organizations or providing prayer rooms are examples of compensatory neutrality. Even though this latter form of neutrality can be theoretically justified, it is often very controversial in the political debate. 2.3. Feeling at home The previous section dealt with the different versions of neutrality that could be applied by the state to deal with diversity among its citizens. This exploration is also important for public institutions, such as the university, that has to deal with a diverse group of people. The population of the university consists not only of people with different roles, such as lectures,

10

researchers or students, but these people have also different backgrounds that might be relevant in the academic sphere. In this context, the university and also many other public institutions can be seen as a ‘home’ to a group of diverse people. For students and staff members the university functions as a relatively central place in their daily life. The university enables this by offering facilities to study and to be educated, to eat, sport, relax and connect with one another. Most of the time universities profile themselves as a ‘home to everybody’, whereas reality shows that home is a difficult concept. The concept of home deals fundamentally with the right to belong and the ability to feel at home. According to Nowicka (2007), the emotions related to ‘feeling at home’ have to be taken seriously, because belonging is an existential need for most of the people, even the most chronically mobile among us.

However, the concept of feeling at home is very complex and therefore I will explore the meaning of the idea. It is important to consider feeling at home as a plural and layered sentiment that can be applied to the individual household, the workplace, the neighbourhood and the nation (Duyvendak 2011:52). In order to understand the term home I will use the book The Politics of Home (Duyvendak 2011) that provides a basic classification of the elements of home.

2.3.1. Elements of home

The first element of home is the experience of familiarity. On the one hand everybody has an intuitive sense of what home means, whereas on the other hand it is difficult to describe the meaning of home. In general, people describe that they feel at ease, safe and comfortable. Familiarity is a necessary condition for feeling at home in a particular place. Mostly, these places are besides familiar, also predictable, secured and often segregated (Duyvendak 2011: 48). Although the literature does not explicitly elaborate on this, it is likely that familiarity is guaranteed by a limitation of diversity. In this sense, people who are conceived as different often violate the familiarity of the place, because it is difficult to identify with others. Due to this familiarity, it is not surprising that if one feels at home, the person is in a passive state where things seem to be self-evident (Ibid: 27). The first aspect, familiarity, it is the precondition for the second and the third element.

The second element of home is concerned with feelings of safety, security and privacy. This implies that the particular place should be physically safe, but also mentally safe in terms of predictability. Furthermore, the place should facilitate moments of retreat, relaxation, intimacy and domesticity. These aspects are most often related to the individual household. The final element of home is more related to the collective experience of a place. In this respect, the place should where one can collectively be, express and realize oneself. The

11

individual should feel publicly free and independent. In this sense, home can be seen as a material and symbolic place with one’s own people and activities (Duyvendak 2011: 52). Also this latter element suggests that home is very exclusive place, i.e. one’s own people and activities, and therefore the ability to feel at home must be negotiated by actors that belong to different groups with different activities.

2.3.2. Four spheres of belonging

The feelings at home at one scale are not necessarily connected to the meanings attached to home at another scale. For instance, a teacher that belongs to a minority group could feel at home at the university, whereas the teacher does not feel at home in the Dutch society in general (Duyvendak 2011: 4).

In order to understand the sense of belonging Duyvendak (2011) makes a distinction between four spheres of belonging: the sphere of the individual household, the economic sphere of the workplace, the associational sphere of the community and, finally, the politico-cultural sphere of the nation-state (p. 112). Subsequently, he associates these four spheres with privacy and publicity. The associational sphere and the politico-cultural sphere are concerned with the collective and public sphere, whereas the individual household and economic sphere are more concerned with the individual and the private sphere.

Finally, Duyvendak (2011) states that particular spheres of belonging are more concerned with heterogeneity and other spheres are more concerned with homogeneity. There is already a certain extent of homogeneity within the individual households, because individuals in this sphere mostly feels at home with their own people in their own place. The same principle applies, to a lesser extent, to the communities. However, in the workplace and in the politico-cultural sphere it is more likely to people make differences among people. Thus, in private life and in associations there is the ability to choose with whom to socialize, while in the economic and the politico-cultural spheres is necessarily more characterized by heterogeneity (Duyvendak 2011: 112).

2.3.3. Politics of home

Duyvendak (2011) states that feeling at home is increasingly dependent of the behaviour of others. In a rapidly changing world, characterized by globalization and increased mobility, the inability to feel at home is increasingly the result of interactions with others who claim their right to feel at home. In other words, people can claim a particular place as their own in relation to others and their place. Thus, from this perspective the concept home becomes a distinctive, particular place (Ibid: 30). The feeling at home is an excluding mechanism per se. The feeling at

12

home becomes a zero-sum game, in which certain people only can be insiders if others remain outsiders. From this perspective, what felt as home can be seen as a dialectic process between what feels like ‘inside’ and what does not and who are considered as in-group and who are labelled as outsiders (Duyvendak 2011: 31). Thus, home is not just a place for everybody, but it has to be constantly bargained and negotiated. So, whether different groups can collectively manifest their sense of belonging on streets, public squares, in schools and other public spaces remains a burning issue. Thus, although feeling at home is an important emotion for all, at the same time it is a discriminating phenomenon: nobody feels at home everywhere and with everybody (Ibid: 106).

2.3.4. Quasi-neutral spaces

The university is a public institution that faces heterogeneity and therefore it is necessary to examine the ways to deal with diversity within the public sphere. There are many ways to deal with diversity in the public sphere. One way to deal with diversity relates to exclusive neutrality, which tries to banish all particularities within the public. This refers to the French laïcité model that claims that only neutral public spaces can guarantee social peace. This implies that deeply rooted feelings of belonging have to remain restricted to the private sphere (Duyvendak 2011:118). However, the neutrality of spaces cannot be guaranteed and in fact the markers of the dominant culture mostly characterize these ‘quasi-neutral’ spaces. From this perspective, that what is presented as ‘neutral’ is an expression of the norms, values, attitudes and behaviour of the native majority (Ibid: 118). Duyvendak (2011) continues this by saying that the French model and the Dutch anti-multicultural positions are, in fact, quite similar.

Another way of dealing with diversity in the public domain is to give different groups certain rights. This approach can vary in thick or thin notions of multiculturalism, but all the versions of multiculturalism face the same fundamental problem: the wish to feel completely at home in the public sphere may lead to clashes between groups whose expressions of feeling at home are not completely compatible (Duyvendak 2011: 118-119). For instance, the VU University that is known as a university that enables multiculturalism has faced difficulties with a Turkish student association that wanted to invite an imam with polarizing views.

The popular political discourse, mostly by right-wing politicians, fostered the idea that multiculturalist policies have created feelings of homelessness and alienation among the Dutch native residents. In this sense, multiculturalism is seen as treat to the feeling at home of the native residents. The media often uses popular subjects, such as the building of mosques, the use of religious symbols, Islam-inspired political extremism, to portray the affected Dutch culture (Duyvendak 2011: 98).

13

However, it is a misunderstanding that the Netherlands has developed into a pluralist, highly diverse society. On contrary, after a period of intense cultural polarization during the 1960’s, the majority population has rapidly become more culturally homogeneous in the 1970’s (Ibid: 98). This means that the majority of the Dutch population, despite slight differences between more and less highly educated people, has developed rather uniform, progressive ideals than pluralist ideals (Achterberg 2006: 55). For example, more than elsewhere in the world, the majority population in the Netherlands is convinced that divorce or homosexuality should be acceptable. This culturally homogeneity of the majority of the population makes the Netherlands now among the three least culturally polarized countries in Europe (Achterberg 2006: 55). Furthermore, the demand of the majority groups that migrants, and other minority groups, share their ‘progressive’ and ‘modern’ values reflects the strength of the consensus among the majority population in the Netherlands (Duyvendak 2011: 90). Thus, the cultural consensus of the majority of the Dutch population is strongly related to the rejection of other values. Although Duyvendak (2011) reflects on the contradiction between the relative dominant progressive majority and the minorities on a national level, this dynamic could also be applied to the institutional level. In summary, the sense of feeling at home is always situated within a broader, national and political context. The crisis of home is related to the current debate about the integration of immigrants, seen as newcomers, is increasingly framed in terms of ‘who belongs here?’ In this sense, it is likely that people start to claim their ground and their territory as their own (Duyvendak 2011: 24). Therefore, the feelings of home cannot be detached from larger structural forces. Namely, the way in which people attach meaning to place cannot be separated from social struggles involved with class, race, gender and sexuality (Ibid: 5). Although Duyvendak (2011) focuses mainly on the national level, he also argues that home in the Dutch debate is a multi-scalar phenomenon, which means that there are with significant links between the micro, meso and macro-levels (p. 24) Therefore, it is important to investigate how these mechanisms play out on the meso-level and the micro-level. I will contribute to solve the lack of literature in this respect by exploring the university, as one of the most important public institutions of society.

14

III. Methodology The understanding of how exclusive neutrality is contested within public institutions is the main focus of this research. Both the concept of neutrality, its implementation in policy and its difficulties is already discussed in the literature review. Also the concept feeling at home is explored. This study uses the University of Amsterdam as a case study to understand how public institutions deal with diversity among its population. This research will investigate how this implementation of exclusive neutrality is contested by other interpretations of neutrality.

Thereby I will firstly elaborate on what kind of data I will collect to answer this question. This implies the operationalization of the key concepts that are used within this research. Secondly, I will elaborate on the case study that is selected as a site to investigate the contestation of exclusive neutrality. Finally, I will examine what kind of methods is used to investigate this question and also reflect on why these methods are the appropriate methods for this study. I will also reflect on the limitations of the set-up of this study.

3.1. Case study: University of Amsterdam

The research is based on a case study design in order to provide a detailed and intensive analysis of one case. The University of Amsterdam is the largest university in the Netherlands with seven faculties and approximately 31.000 students and 5.500 staff members in 2014 (UvA 2015). The University of Amsterdam is founded in 1632 as the Athenaeum Illustre by Caspar Barlaeus en Gerardus Vossius (UvA 2015). In 1815 the Athenaeum Illustre was recognized as an institution for higher education, but the Athenaeum Illustre was not able to confer the highest educational degrees. Athenaeum Illustre became a municipal university in 1877, which means that the university possessed the same rights as the national universities, but was financed by the municipality of Amsterdam. This implied that the professors and the other lectured were appointed by the city council. Originally the University of Amsterdam is founded as a public university to accommodate different groups within society.

Although the University of Amsterdam is known as a liberal, open and progressive university, the claiming of the silent room in the B/C building at the Roeterseilandcomplex made my curious about the inclusivity of the university. The issues concerning with stereotyping and diversity are relatively more highlighted by the actors within the Faculty Social and Behavioural Sciences. Probably this consciousness about diversity and processes of in- and exclusion is strongly informed by the socio-scientific knowledge of the involved students and staff members. There are also some student parties of the student council within the faculty of Social and Behavioural who are actively involved with diversity and inclusivity. This strong involvement

15

with diversity and inclusivity can be seen as a bias in this research. Probably there is less awareness among the students and staff members at other faculties within the university. One the one hand, the focus on the faculty Social and Behavioural Sciences might give a inaccurate representation of the contestation at other faculties, but one the other hand this faculty gives more understanding in how contestation of exclusive neutrality in other faculties could take place. In the following section I will elaborate on how the key concepts are operationalized in order to answer the research question.

3.2. Operationalization of key concepts

Exclusive neutrality is operationalized as the blindness towards any form of difference. In policy terms, this implies that any expression of identity, in terms of arguments, organizations or symbols, is excluded from the university. In fact, the investigation of exclusive neutrality is searching for ‘what is not there’. Or in other words, the absence of any form of cultural, political, religious or ideological arguments, organizations and use of symbols. Ideally this implies that any form of religious, political or ideological arguments does not inform the content of scientific education. The education is solely based upon scientific evidence. This applies also to the type of organizations and the use of symbols. A student service desk that offers student chaplaincy or meditation courses is unthinkable in a university that implements exclusive neutrality. Exclusive neutrality implies that the university does not make any difference in any respect. For instance, the university does not have special catering for Jewish students who prefer kosher food, but solely ‘standard’ or ‘usual’ food. I will investigate whether there are formal arrangements for specific groups within policy or maybe less formal ways of dealing with particular groups. For instance, staff members who support students with migrant background relatively more than native students. However, already in the operationalization of the concept is becomes clear that ‘not making any difference’ is hardly possible. What is seen as ‘usual’ or ‘neutral’ is always informed by ideas that are broadly supported by society. Thus, neutrality in the strict sense of the word is impossible, but this study tries to study the University of Amsterdam as an institution that at least tries to be neutral as much as possible.

The literature on the politics of home of Duyvendak (2011) becomes relevant in this context. Namely, Duyvendak (2011) states that the neutrality of spaces cannot be guaranteed, because in fact the markers of the dominant culture characterize these ‘quasi-neutral’ spaces. The space that is presented as ‘‘quasi-neutral’ is an expression of the norms, values, attitudes and behaviour of the majority. In this perspective, the ability or inability to feeling at home reveals important power relations between majority groups and minority groups. Therefore, I use the concept of ‘home’ to show how the concept of neutrality is contested. I will

16

investigate how the students and staff members use the concept of ‘feeling at home’ in their rhetoric to question the neutrality of University of Amsterdam. The classification of the elements of home of Duyvendak is used to operationalize the feeling of home.

Although several students and staff members also literally mentioned the word ‘home’ or ‘feeling at home’ in the interviews, there were also less explicit references to the feeling of home that can be used. The feeling of home can be expressed by feelings of familiarity, mental and physical security, privacy and the ability to express oneself. For instance, an interviewee mentioned that he had some difficulties to participate in classroom discussions due to her uncertainty about his regional dialect. By using an interpretative framework in the analysis this statement shows that the interviewee does not feel free to express oneself. During the interviews I will ask the interviewees whether they feel familiar, safe and comfortable at the university. Furthermore, I will ask the interviewees whether they feel themselves mental and physical secure, which can be operationalized as the feeling of predictability. And finally, I will inquire whether the students and staff member feel free to express and realize themselves. So if the students and staff members see the university as a symbolic place to be with one’s own people and one’s own activities.

Whereas inclusive neutrality implies that the university takes into account cultural, political, religious or ideological differences and the associated activities. This entails that students and staff members are free to express and organize themselves in the public sphere based on their identity and thereby the university is supporting in this. 3.3. Data collection and analysis This study is based upon a case study research design. A case study design entails the detailed and intensive analysis of a single case (Bryman 2012: 66). The University of Amsterdam is used to understand how actors – students and staff members - negotiate the ability to feel at within a public institution.

Although the University of Amsterdam is used as an example of a public institution that houses a diverse group of people, it is quite imprudent to generalize the analysis of this specific setting to other settings within public institutions. There has to be considered that the results of the investigation of this case study cannot be generalized to other case studies, such as a medical care institution or a prison. Instead, this study generates an intensive examination of a single case, in relation to a theoretical framework. This study can be seen as exploration of how the concept of feeling at home, that is originally subjected to level of the nation state, is used within institutional settings. Although the external validity of this case study is doubtful, the selection of University of Amsterdam can be seen as an exemplifying case. The

17

University of Amsterdam is selected as institution that epitomizes a broader category of cases in which issues concerned with the implementation of exclusive neutrality are present. The understanding of how the ability to feel at home is negotiated by the students and staff members requires a qualitative research design. Namely, this study tries to investigate feelings of familiarity, comfort and mental and physical safety, which cannot be expressed within numbers. Furthermore, investigating the formal and informal ways there is dealt with differences among students and staff members require an interpretivist epistemological position. This study assumes that the social world must be understood by how the students and staff members interpret that social world. Furthermore, this research is based on a constructivist ontological position, which assumes that social reality is constructed by the meaningful interactions of students and staff members. For example, feelings of exclusion or discrimination are constructed and perceived as social reality by the interactions of students, staff members in relation to the policy of the University of Amsterdam. In the following section I will expand on the main research methods that are used in this study.

Document analysis

The analysis of documents is the first research method that is used in this study. By analysing these documents an interpretative skill is required, because these official documents do not speak for themselves (Bryman 2012: 543). Furthermore, the interpretative skill is needed because this study also investigates what is not in the documents, or in other words, what is consciously left out in the documents. In this study I have focused on the official documents that are derived from private sources (Bryman 2012: 550). Annual reports and strategic plans are examples of official documents for private organizations. Firstly, I started investigating policy reports by document analysis to understand how the University of Amsterdam deals with diversity in a formal, explicit way. Therefore, I have analysed several policy documents of the University of Amsterdam, such as policy the Strategic Plan Eye for Talent 2011-2014 and the profile of the university that are published in 2012. Unfortunately, I did not get access to private documents, such as minutes of intern meetings. Furthermore, I did take into account the mission and the strategy on the official webpage of the University of Amsterdam. The policy documents are limited in the sense that they merely reflect the way the university frames the identity and the strategies of the university, but one the other hand this framing is very relevant for my research. The framing of the university as a public institute that welcomes staff and students, but at the same time as a university that explicitly select for excellence and international students shows much the envisioned image the university wants to attach to itself. However, it is also

18

important to investigate the informal, less intended ways of dealing with diversity, so therefore I investigated the policy discourses by semi-structured interviews with board members.

Therefore, I have interviewed the Dean of the faculty Social and Behavioural Sciences and the director of the College Social Sciences. Both board members were interviewed at the same time. This interview was very interesting in the sense that both board members disagreed on several points. In this sense, the interviews took the form of discussion, in which both board members asked each other critical questions. This was very helpful for me to keep up my objective stance in this discussion. In order to understand the policy and policy discourses I have used qualitative content analysis. The qualitative content analysis comprises a searching-out of underlying themes in the documents and discourses (Bryman 2012: 557). I have done this by deriving relevant fragments or quotes from the documents and policy discourses. Semi-structured and in depth interviews This study also used semi-structured interviews to capture the perceptions of students and staff members about diversity and the role of the policy of the University of Amsterdam. I have also investigated the personal experiences of students and staff members about the feeling at home at the university. Therefore, I used a list of questions of fairly specific topics to be covered, often referred to as an interview guide (Bryman 2012: 471). The use of semi-structured interviews is chosen because this leaves more room for the interest of the interviewee. It is interesting to see why the interviewees attach feelings of home or why they did not attach feelings of home to the university. When it comes to experiences of stereotyping and exclusion it is important to make sure that the interviewee feels free to express itself and give his or her own input, rather than subjecting the interviewee to the fixed list of questions.

In the data analysis the interviewees are labelled as ‘student’ or ‘staff member’ two reasons. Firstly, due to the sensibility of the interview topics it is important to keep the interviewees anonymous for privacy reasons. Secondly, by naming nationality, gender or religious beliefs, I probably perpetuate existing stereotypes and categorizations, while this whole study is designed to investigate the process of making differences among people. In the selection of the students there is attempted to compose a diverse group of students, in terms of nationality, religious or ideological beliefs and gender. However, it was very difficult to differentiate in age, because the most of the students are between 18 or 23 years old. In total I have interviewed ten students, six of them were female students and four of them were male students and all the students were between 20 - 24 years old, excepted one 44 years old student. Five of the ten students were non-religious, three students had Christian beliefs and two students had Islamic beliefs. Most of the students had a Dutch nationality, with the exception of a

19

student from Eritrea, two students from Morocco and one Kurdish student. All students said they were heterosexual. Furthermore, all the students studied at the faculty of Social and Behavioural science, with exception of one student that studied Accountancy and Control. This homogeneity in study orientation could be seen as bias and therefore it is important to be cautious about generalizing the students towards other faculties. It is also important to consider that I selected one student who is actively involved with Amsterdam United, which is a student platform at the University of Amsterdam that is concerned with diversity. Furthermore, I have selected one student that is actively involved in the Faculty Student Council of the faculty Social and Behavioural Science. I have selected these respondents purposely as key figures in the contestation of exclusive neutrality, but also as key informants to bring me into contact with board members and staff members that are also concerned with neutrality and diversity. With these students I have in depth interviews.

Subsequently, I have interviewed seven staff members of the faculty Social and Behavioural Science. Three of the interviewed staff members were female and four staff members were male. All the staff members mentioned that they were non-religious, Dutch and heterosexual; with exception of one Baptist Orthodox Christian staff member and one gay staff member. I had three in depth interviews with staff members and four semi-structured interviews. One semi-structured interview consisted of a group of three staff members, which took the form of a focus group. The staff members asked each other questions and responded to each other's views.

Participant observation

I used participant observation as a method to immerse myself in the social setting of the silent room in order to gain an appreciation of the group of involved students and staff members (Bryman 2012: 431). Approximately four or five times in a period of three months I was present in the silent room for approximately one hour. I made use of field notes to write up the interesting events or quotes of visitors of the silent room. Furthermore, I participated once in a meditation course for one hour. Uvainclusief organized this meditation course, which is the promoter of the silent room. The meditation course was open for everybody and announced on the Facebook page of Uvainclusief. About ten people participated, led by two meditation teachers. The group was sitting on the pillows and a few candles were lit to create an intimate atmosphere. The meditation teachers asked all the participants alternately why they participated in the course and at the end what they had experienced during the course. As an observing participant in an overt role, I observed the interactions between the participants and how the participants freely expressed their emotions with one another. I did not take field notes

20

during the meditation course, because I was convinced that this would violate the privacy and my trustworthiness in the eye of the participants. After the meditation course I made some field notes. Data analysis

The data analysis started with a transcription of all the interviews with students and staff members. Subsequently, I made use of coding to identify important concepts in the interviews. In the appendix there is a list of codes. These codes were partly derived from the literature, such as ‘exclusive neutrality’, and other codes were made based upon the themes in the data. Subsequently, I made groups of codes and related them to each other in order to answer the two sub questions.

21

VI. Findings

In this research the University of Amsterdam is used as a case study to investigate how students and staff members contest exclusive neutrality. By using semi-structured and in depth interviews, and document analysis it was attempted to answer this question. The first part of the data analysis will provide an answer to the question how neutrality is conceptualized within the policy of the University of Amsterdam. The second part is concerned with the contestation of exclusive neutrality within the discourses of students and academic staff.

4.1. How is neutrality conceptualized within the policy and policy discourses of the University of Amsterdam?

The way the University of Amsterdam deals formally and informally with diversity among its population is quite paradoxical. One the one hand, the University of Amsterdam uses diversity as a unique selling point. On the other hand, diversity in prior education and cultural background is seen as a derogation of the excellence of the University of Amsterdam. They profile themselves as the university that provides academic training in all areas of science and scholarship and welcomes students and staff from all backgrounds, cultures and beliefs (UvA 2012: 2). This intention is reflected of branding of a ‘super diverse university’ on campaign posters in the building and on their online webpage (see picture below). These campaign posters in the central hall in one of the main buildings of the University of Amsterdam show pictures of a diverse group of students in terms of ethnicity. Figure 1: campaign poster in the building Source: Author In accordance with this image the University of Amsterdam states in a policy report that ‘a high-performing university needs a diverse workforce with a wide spectrum of talents, competences and skills’ (UvA 2011: 26). Therefore, the University of Amsterdam aims to have a recruitment and selection policy that is keyed to fulfil that need to diversity. However, there are no examples

22

available of explicit policy that is likely to accommodate all sorts of diversity. The only explicit effort of University of Amsterdam is their internationalization policy. In the following section I will focus on the conceptualization of diversity as internationalization. 4.1.1. Diversity as internationalization From this perspective, the University of Amsterdam indeed tries to attract a diverse workforce in the sense of a wide spectrum of talents, competences and skills, but only if this is beneficial for the excellence of the university. Other attributes, such as religious or cultural backgrounds, are conceived as less relevant and perhaps even harmful for achieving excellence. So the University of Amsterdam implements exclusive neutrality, i.e. making no differences, when it comes to certain attributes of a person, such as cultural and religious background. Whereas the University of Amsterdam makes differences when it come to attributes that matter to the performance of the university. The University of Amsterdam tries to attract a workforce that is ‘diverse’ which is based upon the differences that the University of Amsterdam considers as relevant, such as speaking and writing in English, excellent grades or foreign citizenship. These latter attributes are made relevant in the policy discourse of the University of Amsterdam because they contribute to the image of an international-oriented and excellent university.

By attracting diversity, the University of Amsterdam aims to be a key player on the global stage, because higher education is becoming increasingly international and this trend will probably determine the shape of higher education in 2020 (UvA 2011: 7). This tendency towards the internationalization of universities is reflected in the growing popularity of international academic rankings. These rankings are important indicators for ambitious students to base their choice of university, especially when it comes to Master’s and PhD programs. The University of Amsterdam see the Shanghai Jiao Tong Academic Ranking of World Universities as the most important measure and therefore the UvA aims to be part of the top 75 of this ranking (UvA 2011: 7). The University of Amsterdam is convinced that their location, which they call ‘world capital Amsterdam’, is an excellent starting point (Ibid: 7). Furthermore, internationalizing their curricula, recruiting talented students, lectures and researchers from abroad and offering supporting faculties for them, will stimulate the internationalization of University of Amsterdam (Ibid: 9). Due to the internationalization the University of Amsterdam acknowledges that they feel responsible for creating a climate of respect and hospitality in the university (Ibid: 26)

The internationalization of the population of the University of Amsterdam is a way to create a more visible diversity within the student and staff population. The internationalization policy reflects that the University of Amsterdam prefers the attributes of students that

23

contribute to the excellence of the university. In the interviews many students and teachers mentioned that the diversity among people at the University of Amsterdam is derived from international students. From this perspective, diversity is conceptualized as internationalization. Many interviewees highlighted the explicit commitment of the University of Amsterdam to attract international students to Amsterdam. ‘But I think the diversity at the UvA is more focusing on international students, not on the national students, so they just want to attract the best students from everywhere to here, so this is a reason to become more internationalized. So, I think this is more their idea of diversity’ (staff member) The data that is derived from in depth- and structured interviews corresponds with the previous part of my argument. The only explicit policy in which the University of Amsterdam makes differences among students and staff members is in their policy towards the internationalization of the university. In this sense, there is a strong focus on the visible aspects of diversity or in other words the differences in apparent characteristics. The interviews revealed that most of the teachers and students refer to the visible markers of identity, such as ethnicity, age and gender. The visible aspects of diversity are important indicators for a person to consider whether there is diversity. Thus, the internationalization policy demonstrates that the University of Amsterdam is not exclusive neutral with regard to all differences, but on contrary, the University of Amsterdam is quite explicit in expressing their preference for the attributes of international students.

4.1.2. Diversity versus excellence

As said, diversity is paradoxically conceptualized. One the one hand, the section above mentioned that diversity is used as a unique selling point and thereby the visible diversity is promoted. But on the other hand, diversity is also seen as derogation for the excellence of the University of Amsterdam. This presumption is explicitly expressed in the strategic plan for 2011-2014 of the University of Amsterdam. According to this policy report the University of Amsterdam expects a growth in their student population and as a result an increased diversity among students. In particular, they refer to the different types of prior education and cultural background that vary immensely among the students (UvA 2011:10). Subsequently, the University of Amsterdam questions in this strategic plan whether this strong growth and accompanied diversity will result in an automatic decline in the quality of education (UvA 2011:10). It is noteworthy that the University of Amsterdam does not elaborate further in this policy report on the relationship between the increased diversity of the student and the quality of education. Therefore, the University of Amsterdam assumes that certain differences among