UvA Kieswijzer

The UvA should invest in more accessibility for students with functional limitations, such as guiding lines for people with visual impairment, as well as sensitivity towards these students

Activistenpartij UvA

Fully agree

The university should be an inclusive learning space for everyone. To achieve this goal a lot still has to be done. For example: The brand new REC-P building which does not offer barrier free access to all floors. Also when looking at access to educational materials for students with visual impairments the university needs to do more! The UvA has been dangling at the bottom in the ranking on students’ experience with accessibility, as the Nationale Studenten Enquete has shown, and this has to change.

De Vrije Student

Agree

The university should strive for accessible facilities and supportive services. By focusing on physical accessibility and inclusive education, the UvA can strengthen its role as a leader in equal opportunity.

INTER

Fully agree

Investing in accessibility for students with functional limitations is essential for creating an inclusive and equitable learning environment at the UvA. Measures like guiding lines for the visually impaired and fostering sensitivity among staff and peers ensure that all students can navigate campus, access resources, and participate fully in academic and social life, which upholds the university’s commitment to diversity and equal opportunity.

UvaSociaal

Fully agree

As UvASociaal, we strongly support greater investment in accessibility for students with functional limitations. Ensuring that campuses include guiding lines for visually impaired students, accessible learning materials, and a culture of sensitivity and awareness is not optional—it is essential. Accessibility is one of our four core pillars, and we believe that every student deserves to navigate university life with dignity, independence, and equal opportunity. By removing physical and structural barriers, the UvA can create a truly inclusive environment where all students can thrive.

020 party

Fully agree

020 believes that it is the university's responsibility to invest in more accessibility for all students with functional limitations and sensitivity towards these students because everyone must have a right to study and learn in an environment that acknowledges and supports their diverse needs. Furthermore, students must be able to move freely and safely on campus

LIEF

Fully agree

LIEF believes that Science Park is shockingly inaccessible. LIEF members are already working to improve this by advocating for the implementation of blind-friendly infrastructure (such as guiding lines) at Science Park, making text-to-speech technology available through the UvA for students who need it, ensuring that building entrances are accessible for people using wheelchairs or crutches, and removing the unsympathetic article A-6.5.4 from OER-A, as it is "not so LIEF".

The Founding Students

Agree

Vrijmoedige Studentenpartij

Agree

Students wishing to take honours courses should be able to do so based on their motivation, regardless of their grades

The Founding Students

Disagree

De Vrije Student

Disagree

Grades are an objective measure of academic performance and provide a reliable indication of a student’s ability to handle complex academic tasks. De Vrije Student believes that the honours programme should not only reward motivation but also recognise academic achievement. If the programme were based solely on motivation, it could undermine its academic integrity and reduce its value. Furthermore, ignoring grades carries the risk of admitting students who may not have the necessary academic skills to successfully complete the programme.

UvaSociaal

Agree

As UvASociaal, we reject rigid merit-based systems that reduce students to numbers and exclude those who may not fit academic traditions. Motivation, curiosity, and a desire to learn should be valued just as much, if not more than grades. Everyone deserves the opportunity to deepen their education, and the honours programme should be accessible to all students who are eager to engage critically and passionately with their studies.

020 party

Neutral

Although motivation must also be a deciding factor, we believe it may be difficult to measure motivation. We believe that there should be a combination of both grades and motivation for following honours courses. Having a slightly flexible minimum grade for entry into the honours programme would allow for the university to keep the quality of education while also allowing for motivation students to participate in the programme.

LIEF

Agree

The honourstrack offers students the opportunity to expand their studies. By offering honours courses to more students, the honourstrack itself can also be promoted. As LIEF, we believe it is important that as many students as possible can take these courses in order to broaden their academic opportunities. We believe this can be achieved by selecting students based on their motivation rather than their grades. LIEF sees the use of grades only as a last resort.

INTER

Agree

For extraordinarily motivated students, honors classes should be more accessible with more flexibility regarding grades. However, INTER recognizes that honours programmes are meant to be small-scale intensive additional challenges. Often the Honours programs are already in high demand. Most of the time grade requirements should therefore stay the main determining factor. Furthermore, grade thresholds help ensure that students are academically prepared to manage the extra workload, supporting both their well-being and the quality of the honors experience.

Vrijmoedige Studentenpartij

Fully disagree

According to the VSP, quality and excellence must prevail here.

Activistenpartij UvA

Agree

On principle, we believe that every student should be given the greatest ability to pursue whatever courses match their interests. We also question whether a simple GPA is an appropriate measure to assess their suitability for a given course.

More investment is needed in interdisciplinary education (providing students with more than just one perspective on a particular subject, such as honours, PPLE or IIS programs)

Activistenpartij UvA

Agree

With more and more complex societal problems like climate change, ongoing armed conflicts, and rising sea-levels, we also need to invest more into interdisciplinary education. However, this should not go at the cost of other, smaller programmes.

INTER

Fully agree

Interdisciplinary education becomes more and more valuable in a more complex world! In bridging the insights and perspectives of different disciplines through for example interdisciplinary programs like PPLE and IIS strengthens academics at UvA. Both learning interdisciplinary and focused in one discipline should remain to be possible. Opportunities to strengthen and evolve interdisciplinary education should be taken.

020 party

Fully agree

An interdisciplinary perspective will improve quality of education by exposure to a variety of perspectives and method. Moreover, this will enhance students' overall chances for developing a successful and fruitful career.

The Founding Students

Neutral

Vrijmoedige Studentenpartij

Agree

De Vrije Student

Neutral

Interdisciplinary education is valuable and deserves attention, but it should not be structurally prioritised over regular programmes. It is important for students to learn to think beyond the boundaries of their own field. Collaboration between faculties can contribute to broader perspectives and innovation. De Vrije Student supports further development of interdisciplinary education, provided it does not come at the expense of funding and quality in existing monodisciplinary programmes.

UvaSociaal

Fully agree

Programs like Honours, PPLE, and IIS demonstrate the value of approaching complex issues from multiple perspectives. As UvASociaal, we believe this kind of education fosters critical thinking, creativity, and personal growth. By breaking down academic silos, the UvA can offer students a richer, more holistic learning experience that prepares them to engage with real-world challenges in meaningful ways.

LIEF

Agree

Promoting interdisciplinary education has been a core value of LIEF for years. The expansion of interdisciplinary education exposes students to many different aspects of research and society. That’s why more courses should be introduced that address new and interesting topics.

As a way to curb the growth of the university, Dutch language courses should be a mandatory part of all programs

Activistenpartij UvA

Disagree

International students and staff members are contributing to the high-quality discourse which can be found at the UvA. Free Dutch courses should be made available to help internationals to integrate but should not be mandatory. Such a requirement would ignore the challenges it brings to students who are already overworked trying to settle in their study programmes while working for their tuition or looking for housing.

INTER

Disagree

We do not support making Dutch language courses mandatory in all programs as a means to curb university growth. While we agree that the UvA must be mindful of sustainable growth to continue offering high-quality education to Dutch residents, internationalisation has also brought academic benefits and global recognition to the university. Mandatory Dutch courses risk reducing time and focus from the internationally accredited curricula that attract both local and international talent. However, we recognize the value of Dutch language skills for integration and employability. Therefore, we advocate for expanding access to voluntary, affordable Dutch courses instead of imposing a mandatory requirement.

UvaSociaal

Disagree

As UvASociaal, we believe that Dutch language courses should be freely accessible to all students who wish to learn the language. However, we oppose making these courses mandatory. The UvA is an international institution, and students should not be required to learn Dutch in order to fully participate in their studies. Language learning should be encouraged, not imposed.

020 party

Neutral

While 020 agrees that due to capacity limits, the growth of the university should be managed, we do not agree that making students taking mandatory Dutch language courses is the best method to do so. Forcing unwilling students to do so may interfere with students' priorities and wellbeing. We do agree, however, that Dutch language courses should be made free or at a cheaper price to ensure that international students are more motivated to learn Dutch and increase the chance of cultural integration and having a successful career in the Dutch labor market.

The Founding Students

Disagree

Vrijmoedige Studentenpartij

Agree

In principle a good idea. Exceptions reserved of course. Customization offers a solution here.

De Vrije Student

Disagree

De Vrije Student supports free Dutch language lessons for international students and believes the university should actively encourage learning the language. Proficiency in Dutch improves integration and employment opportunities. DVS therefore encourages international students to learn the language. At the same time, we believe students should be free to choose whether they participate; mandatory language courses do not fit with an open and flexible educational offering.

LIEF

Disagree

At Science Park, it is expected that all Bachelor students are proficient in speaking and reading both Dutch and English. This is not the case for Master's programs, and LIEF agrees with this. Master's programs are conducted in English because the fields of study at Science Park expect research to be conducted in English. Furthermore, LIEF does not see any capacity issues with Master's programs at Science Park. Therefore, this regulation is unnecessary.

It is the government’s responsibility to provide mental health support for students. Therefore, the university should not spend extra resources on this

De Vrije Student

Agree

De Vrije Student believes the primary responsibility for mental health care lies with the government. Universities are primarily intended for education and research. While mental health is important, structural solutions and funding should come from national institutions such as the GGZ and not from university education budgets. However, the university can serve a signalling role and seek collaboration with professional care providers.

UvaSociaal

Fully disagree

As UvASociaal, we believe that the university has a direct responsibility to support the well-being of its students. Mental health is a crucial factor in academic success, personal development, and student retention. Waiting for external institutions to address these needs ignores the urgency and scale of the issue. The UvA must proactively invest in accessible, culturally sensitive, and timely mental health services.

LIEF

Disagree

Both the government and the university have a role to play in this. It could be communicated more clearly with the UvA that the waiting lists for specialized help are too long, and that the UvA should be able to support students in the meantime. Student deans and psychologists should offer a listening ear and support to students. This can range from listening, assisting with referrals, providing additional exam accommodations, and/or help with the profiling fund. Before a student can receive specialized help, interim support must be available. University psychologists are often not specialized in complex (mental) health issues and should therefore focus more on supporting students and helping them find appropriate help, rather than referring them to a general practitioner. Furthermore, if you, as a student, are struggling with mental health issues and the UvA psychologists are taking too long for an appointment, check out the initiative by UvA students, All Ears.

020 party

Fully disagree

The university should take responsibility in supporting students' mental health because resources should be made readily available in their environment when in need of mental health aid. The current resources are not sufficient for the student body, leading to dangerous circumstances. 020 believes that all students must have the right to study and learn with mental health guidance. For instance, we would like to advocate for providing more financial support and awareness to student-led initiatives that support mental health such as 'All Ears', but the university must also focus on more systemic changes (Example: More student psychologists)

INTER

Fully disagree

INTER disagrees with the notion that universities should not invest in student mental health support. While the government does play an important role, the university has a direct responsibility to create a healthy learning environment. Mental health challenges impact academic performance, retention, and overall student well-being—areas that the university is directly accountable for. Relying solely on external support systems is insufficient; the UvA must also allocate resources to accessible, timely, and effective mental health services for its students. INTER stands for prioritizing student wellbeing.

The Founding Students

Agree

Activistenpartij UvA

Fully disagree

Many students suffer under constant study-related stress, ranging from an increased stress-levels to severe anxiety. In times of budget cuts where the government clearly acts against student interests, the university must step in to accommodate mental health services for their students. The need for mental health support is underscored by the existence of student-run platforms like All-Ears, who are filling places that should be filled by the university.

Vrijmoedige Studentenpartij

Neutral

Neutral. This is important, but many resources have already been made available for this from the UvA.

The Binding Study Advice (BSA) should be abolished

UvaSociaal

Agree

As UvASociaal, we believe the Binding Study Advice (BSA) should be abolished, as it places undue pressure on students and reinforces a merit-based system that disregards individual circumstances. The BSA forces students to meet rigid academic targets, often overlooking the diversity of learning experiences, challenges, and personal struggles they may face. Instead of fostering an inclusive and supportive academic environment, the BSA can create unnecessary stress, discourage collaboration, and lead to the exclusion of students who may need more time or support to thrive.

Vrijmoedige Studentenpartij

Fully disagree

It is important to apply selection. Everyone should get a chance at the University after a VWO or HBO propaedeutic, but it is also good to apply a lower limit, in the form of the BSA. Customization must of course remain possible for exceptional cases,

The Founding Students

Disagree

LIEF

Neutral

LIEF is not happy with the current form of the BSA, but believes that the BSA should remain in place. We agree that expectations should be set for first-year students. What we find less favorable is that students are required to unenroll before February 1st in order to try the program again the following year. These students should be given extra support earlier on. Often, these students are also still eligible for BSA exemption due to personal reasons. LIEF believes this needs to be improved. This is also the only aspect that can be improved without changing the law.

De Vrije Student

Disagree

De Vrije Student is against the abolition of the binding study advice (BSA). The BSA helps students to reflect on their study choice in a timely manner and prevents unnecessary study delays. It provides clarity and structure for both students and programmes. However, we believe the BSA should be applied reasonably, with consideration for personal circumstances.

Activistenpartij UvA

Fully agree

The university should be a place of learning and personal growth and not a diploma factory which only looks at performance and forces students to finish studying as fast as possible. There is no conclusive proof that the BSA improves study results. We believe the BSA should be replaced by an Advising Study Advice (ASA), aiming to support students in their studies instead of expelling them from their courses. In the faculty of Humanities, AP council members have fought to abolish the BSA in the past years, which has led to a workgroup and pilot with a non-binding study advice.

020 party

Fully disagree

020 party believes that BSA is necessary to gain the university's permanence. However, we stress that there should be more flexibility with the study advice as different students have different needs and lives which might directly affect their personal advice.

INTER

Neutral

We believe the BSA is a useful tool to determine how a student is dealing with their studies at university. However, we believe that it should be utilized with more leniency. In some programmes, a positive BSA only allows students to fail one class a year. This can be hard for students, especially when adjusting from a different study method (e.g. in high school), when dealing with private physical or mental issues, or when the choice of a study program did not prove fit for themselves. On the other hand, completing less than half the credits in a year can signal that a student requires more time and preparation compared to their peers, and that the student’s academic journey would benefit from repeating classes to be on the same level as the rest of the class. Thus, we believe the BSA should stand as one of the tools to determine how students are proceeding in their studies, but it believes that this tool should be used with more leniency and flexibility in assessing single cases.

There should be mandatory attendance for seminars/tutorials

De Vrije Student

Disagree

De Vrije Student does not support mandatory attendance at seminars, unless the educational format truly requires it. Students should have the freedom to organise their studies in their own way. Mandatory attendance does not reflect the trust placed in their independence. Only when active participation is essential to the learning process, such as in labs or intensive discussion groups, can mandatory attendance be justified. In all other cases, the focus should be on learning outcomes, not physical presence.

Vrijmoedige Studentenpartij

Disagree

In the case of lectures, these should be abolished completely. Instead, all lectures should be made available online. In the case of tutorials, (more flexible) customization should be applied.

INTER

Neutral

INTER believes this is a matter that varies amongst the faculties. Tutorials and seminars work differently from program to program and have varying degrees of importance. Still, INTER is convinced that generally UvA needs to put in more trust in its students, who freely choose to study here and pay tuition fees. Making attendance mandatory puts students, who, for illness, work or any other inconvenience have to miss a tutorial or seminar, unnecessarily in stress. The attendance requirements should never stop students who have the academic qualifications and motivation to complete their studies. Decreasing the consequences for missing the attendance requirement is therefore more proportional. We believe in active engagement with the course material, but in a way that reflects students life and that is manageable by students, rather than becoming a mere presence in a classroom.

LIEF

Disagree

LIEF believes that first-year seminar classes should not be mandatory, with two absences meaning that you are not allowed to take a resit for that course. Furthermore, we believe that only classes with added value should be mandatory. In other words, classes where the only added value is the opportunity to ask questions to the TA should not be mandatory. This also applies when it comes to programming assignments.

Activistenpartij UvA

Disagree

While every student should be encouraged to attend seminars/tutorials for the sake of their own education, we also know that life is not always that simple. We need to find housing, go to doctors appointments, or deal with family issues. Making seminars/tutorials mandatory only adds to the amount of stress that students are already having.

020 party

Fully disagree

Making it mandatory takes away the possibility of students to reallocate their study time according to their needs. For instance, some students have jobs and other commitments to support their studies, making it difficult to attend all seminars and tutorials. The current lack of flexibility in regard to absences puts students' education at risk of delay which affects students' financial and well-being circumstances.

UvaSociaal

Fully disagree

UvASociaal fully disagrees with mandatory attendance for seminars and tutorials. We believe that students should have the flexibility to manage their own learning and academic responsibilities. Mandatory attendance can sometimes place pressure on students, especially those who may face personal, health, or work-related challenges. Instead, we advocate for creating a learning environment that encourages engagement and motivation without the constraint of rigid attendance policies, allowing students to take ownership of their education.

The Founding Students

Fully disagree

All board members of study associations should receive equal financial support from the University

De Vrije Student

Disagree

De Vrije Student believes that grants for board members of study associations should reflect the amount of time each individual board member dedicates to their work. If the workload is evenly distributed, then equal compensation is appropriate. However, if there are clear differences in workload or responsibilities between positions, grants do not need to be equal.

The Founding Students

Agree

INTER

Disagree

We disagree that all board members of study associations should automatically receive equal financial support from the University. While all board members contribute valuable work, the scope of responsibilities, time commitment, and impact can vary significantly between roles and associations. Financial support should be distributed fairly but based on criteria such as workload, association size, and level of activity, ensuring resources are allocated where they are most needed and deserved.

Activistenpartij UvA

Agree

We believe that everyone working on a board for a student organisation or association should earn a livable wage at the university. It’s currently not transparent how it’s decided how much financial support boards receive, plus the amount is not adjusted for inflation.

UvaSociaal

Neutral

UvASociaal takes a neutral stance on whether all board members of study associations should receive equal financial support from the university. Financial support should depend on contracted hours and the workload associated with each role. While some positions may require more time and effort, ensuring fairness and considering the specific responsibilities of each board member is key.

LIEF

Disagree

LIEF believes that the board grant for study associations should be based on the workload of the board members. Currently, this is done using a formula that takes into account the number of members. LIEF believes this system can be improved, as some study associations are unable to receive their full board grant due to UvA regulations (a maximum of 24 months of grant per person). This is therefore a disproportionate arrangement that needs to be improved.

020 party

Agree

While there are notable size differences between study associations, we think that equal financial support is a great incentive to build helpful and impactful study associations.

Vrijmoedige Studentenpartij

Disagree

All board members of study associations must receive financial support from the University, but this depends on size, activities and relevance.

The UvA should take a firm stance against the government’s cuts in higher education

The Founding Students

Fully agree

LIEF

Fully agree

LIEF recognizes that the current budget cuts are causing long-term damage to the university. Therefore, LIEF believes that the UvA must take a strong stance against the budget cuts.

Vrijmoedige Studentenpartij

Disagree

This is not primarily a matter for the University, but for democracy, embodied by the House of Representatives and the Senate. However, the UvA must make a strong effort to ensure that, despite any budget cuts, the quality of education is maintained.

020 party

Fully agree

020 party believes that the budget cuts in higher education threaten academic freedom and quality of education. The recent scrapping of the Psychology English Programme shows a lack of firm stance among the UvA Board, and we fear how this might impact other programs. We therefore call the UvA Board to be firmer in dealing with such cuts, with a strong emphasis on quality of education.

De Vrije Student

Neutral

De Vrije Student believes the quality of higher education should not suffer due to budget cuts, but is cautious about symbolic politics. The university should advocate for its interests, but in a careful and substantive way. Taking a firm stand only makes sense if it is accompanied by strong arguments and dialogue with policymakers. At the same time, the UvA must remain critical of its own spending and prioritise resources for high-quality teaching and research

INTER

Fully agree

INTER believes education is key in society. Any cut to higher education is a direct cut to society’s well being. INTER stands against cuts to higher education, as they will result in less opportunities for students and for societal development.

UvaSociaal

Fully agree

UvASociaal believes that the UvA should take a firm stance against the government’s cuts in higher education. These cuts threaten the quality of education, increase financial burdens on students, and undermine the university's ability to provide the resources and support needed for academic success.

Activistenpartij UvA

Fully agree

The budget cuts imposed by the government harm all members of the university community and are a dangerous signal in the age of rising anti-intellectualism. The cuts in higher education are intrinsically linked to the rise of militarisation that is occurring in the Netherlands and abroad. It is important to condemn the use of education and culture funds to further the complicity of the Dutch state in the ongoing genocide of Palestinians. We demand from our university to stand up for its students and to strongly condemn the budget cuts.

The university should be allowed to limit the number of international students.

De Vrije Student

Agree

De Vrije Student (DVS) advocates a targeted and balanced inflow of international students. They are welcome and enrich the university, but growth should never be at the expense of housing, accessibility or educational quality. International students also experience the inconveniences of these shortages, some even have to discontinue their studies, something that DVS finds very worrying. The university must therefore be given the space to limit the number of international students in programmes where there is a risk of overload, while inflow can be stimulated in sectors where there are shortages on the labour market. Growth must be in line with social needs, not just with international profiling.

LIEF

Neutral

LIEF takes a neutral stance on this, as the FSR does not have full control over this matter. Additionally, the university also benefits from international students since they are part of the research community. LIEF also recognizes that Science Park is not currently at full capacity, so there is no need to limit international students.

Activistenpartij UvA

Neutral

The University of Amsterdam is an internationalised university, and brands itself with its internationality. We think that the perspectives that international students bring to the table are beneficial for both the student body and the university as a whole. Internationalisation and multiculturalism are invaluable resources in academia, but internationalisation as a profit model currently poses major problems for all students.

Vrijmoedige Studentenpartij

Fully agree

The Founding Students

Neutral

INTER

Disagree

We fully disagree with the idea that the university should be allowed to limit the number of international students. International students enrich the academic community, bring diverse perspectives, and contribute to the global standing of the UvA. Limiting their numbers risks reducing the university’s international character, weakening academic excellence, and sending an exclusionary message. Instead of restricting access, the university should focus on sustainable growth strategies that maintain quality while embracing diversity and inclusion.

UvaSociaal

Fully disagree

UvASociaal fully disagrees with the idea of limiting the number of international students at the university. The presence of international students enriches the academic environment, fosters global perspectives, and promotes cultural exchange, which are essential aspects of higher education. Limiting their numbers could lead to a less diverse and inclusive campus, reducing opportunities for cross-cultural learning and collaboration.

020 party

Agree

The university already has active policies to limit the number of international students by, for instance, implementing the Numerus Fixus. Limiting the number of international students would help strike a balance between maintaining the internationalization of education and ensuring the quality and accessibility of education for all students.

The UvA Leadership should strongly oppose governments’ policy plans to reduce the number of international students

The Founding Students

Neutral

De Vrije Student

Disagree

De Vrije Student believes the UvA should not oppose national plans to regulate international student intake on principle alone. International students are welcome and enrich the academic environment, but uncontrolled growth can strain housing, education, and accessibility. It is therefore reasonable for the government to provide guidance on this. At the same time, DVS recognises that some current proposals go too far and pose risks to the international character of the university. The UvA should therefore not take a hardline stance based on principle alone but respond wisely, opposing disproportionate measures that would harm the quality of education and international collaboration.

UvaSociaal

Fully agree

UvASociaal fully agrees that the UvA leadership should strongly oppose government policy plans to reduce the number of international students. International students contribute significantly to the diversity, innovation, and global perspectives at the university. Reducing their numbers would not only harm the academic environment but also limit opportunities for cultural exchange and international collaboration. The UvA should continue to advocate for policies that promote inclusivity and ensure that higher education remains open, diverse, and globally connected.

020 party

Agree

Following from the previous stance, there are already active initiatives to curb the growth of international students within the university. Partij 020 does not see the need to develop more policies to limit this growth. We believe that international students (and staff) are an asset to the university's prominence and diverse knowledge.

Vrijmoedige Studentenpartij

Fully disagree

Activistenpartij UvA

Fully agree

The government’s plans as they stand would be catastrophic to the university, effectively destroying many of the study programs currently being offered. We believe that the UvA leadership should stand behind their stated commitment to the international character of our university.

INTER

Fully agree

We fully agree that the UvA leadership should strongly oppose government policy plans to reduce the number of international students. International students are vital to the university’s academic excellence, global reputation, and cultural diversity. Reducing their numbers undermines the openness and international character of Dutch higher education. The UvA must take a clear stand in defending inclusive, high-quality, and globally connected education.

LIEF

Agree

LIEF recognizes that limiting international students harms the academic community. The leadership of the UvA must oppose this.

Calling the police should be an appropriate response to deal with student protests and demonstrations at the university

LIEF

Neutral

LIEF believes that the police can only be used to manage protests and demonstrations when a clear line has been crossed during these protests. What this line is, is difficult for LIEF to determine and should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Generally, for LIEF, this line is violence, intimidation, or vandalism. Only then do we support the involvement of the police in protests and demonstrations. Furthermore, the dean/Executive Board (CvB) must take into account the rich history of disproportionate violence the police have used against (UvA) students.

020 party

Fully disagree

We firmly believe that students have the right to Organize and protest as these constitute an important part of a democratic society. Furthermore, the university should be a place where exchanges of different opinions take place. While we hear that some students may get disturbed by protests, we believe that calling the police on students only fuel an endless cycle of violence and restriction of freedom of expression. Universities must instead involve in dialogue and understanding with student protesters, and be transparent about what took place during the protests instead of purely framing protests as "unsafe and violent".

Vrijmoedige Studentenpartij

Fully agree

Last year, demonstrations on campus have escalated in ways that seriously threaten the security of our university community. It presents a major security risk, especially given the damage already done. The University of Amsterdam must remain focused on its core mission: education. It is not equipped to handle volatile situations involving unknown actors. That responsibility lies with the police—professionals trained to manage escalation and ensure public security. They must be called upon promptly when threats arise. There can be no studying without security. A university should be a space for free thought, not fear. We must protect open dialogue—not allow it to be drowned out by intimidation and chaos.

De Vrije Student

Agree

The right to protest is fundamental and must be protected, including within the university. However, that right ends where the safety of others or property is at risk. When protests escalate into vandalism, intimidation, or obstruction of education, the university must act decisively. In such cases, involving the police is justified. Protest is allowed – but always within the boundaries of the law.

UvaSociaal

Fully disagree

UvASociaal disagrees with calling the police as an appropriate response to student protests and demonstrations at the university. We stand firmly in support of peaceful protests as a legitimate and powerful means of expressing student concerns. The university should foster an environment where students feel safe to voice their opinions without the threat of escalation. Resorting to police intervention undermines the right to peaceful protest and can create an atmosphere of fear and division, rather than one of open dialogue and constructive change.

INTER

Disagree

We disagree with the idea that calling the police should be a standard or immediate response to student protests and demonstrations at the university. Peaceful protest is a fundamental democratic right and an important form of student expression within an academic community. Involving law enforcement in non-violent situations risks escalating tensions unnecessarily, undermining trust between students and the university, and suppressing free speech. Police intervention should only be considered as a last resort in situations where there is actual violence, physical harm, or severe damage to infrastructure. The university should prioritize dialogue, de-escalation, and mediation over force: we want protection, not reaction.

The Founding Students

Neutral

Activistenpartij UvA

Fully disagree

Our university should be a safe space for everyone. We strongly condemn the brutal police violence used on many occasions against our students. Therefore we are clear and loud for "Cops off campus.” The suppression of peaceful protests by calling the police is an antithesis to the principles of open discussion and academic freedom.

The UvA should strive to incorporate a broader range of ideological perspectives into its curricula.

The Founding Students

Neutral

020 party

Neutral

020 advocates for the importance of diversity of opinions. Exposing students to different ideological perspectives allow grounds for mutual understanding, where people may see more common ground than opposites. However, perspectives that incite hate, discrimination, or exclusion should not be included in the curriculum. Therefore, we advocate for a controlled diversity of ideological perspectives: broad and critical, but with clear boundaries. We recognize that the current student body is becoming increasingly polarized, and we believe that thoughtful and respectful exchange of ideas is essential for fostering connection and critical thinking.

INTER

Agree

UvA should always strive to value academic freedom and freedom of expression. A broader range of ideological perspectives can allow students to develop their own point of view on the topic they study. The notion of academic freedom is however sometimes misused to legitimize harmful or discriminatory views. INTER supports a balanced approach that defends academic freedom while upholding the university’s commitment to inclusivity and respect.

UvaSociaal

Fully agree

UvASociaal fully agrees that the UvA should strive to incorporate a broader range of ideological perspectives into its curricula. A diverse range of viewpoints enriches the academic experience, encourages critical thinking, and fosters a deeper understanding of complex global issues.

Activistenpartij UvA

Fully agree

Societal and political issues do not stop at the doors of the university. Ignoring them does not lead to a better education. We think that incorporating and explaining ideological perspectives is valuable not only in an academic context but also important to strengthen student engagement with the most important issues of our time. It is important to note however, that we believe that as a baseline people's identities should be respected and there should be zero tolerance for hate speech, racism, xenophobia and homophobia.

De Vrije Student

Fully agree

De Vrije Student supports a wider array of ideological and intellectual perspectives in the curriculum. A university is not a place for dogma, but for debate, friction, and the critical examination of ideas, including those that currently dominate. Students deserve education that exposes them to various schools of thought, classical and modern, conservative and progressive. The exclusion of certain viewpoints and marginalisation of dissenting opinions leads to intellectual impoverishment. Not every course has to be neutral, but the overall curriculum must be balanced. Only then are students truly prepared for a world full of conflicting ideas.

Vrijmoedige Studentenpartij

Fully agree

LIEF

Neutral

LIEF agrees that everyone should be able to express their opinion, but it should remain within academic purposes and can not cause harm.

The university should stop the prioritisation of students from outside the EU in regard to the university provided student housing.

De Vrije Student

Agree

De Vrije Student opposes the structural prioritisation of non-EU students for university-provided housing. It is unfair that Dutch and EU students, many of whom also face housing shortages, are placed at the back of the queue. Housing should be distributed fairly and transparently, based on need, not nationality.

INTER

Neutral

First and foremost INTER sees it as the universities responsibility to facilitate housing for everyone. The housing market crisis in Amsterdam is affecting everyone no matter whether they are Dutch, EU, or non-EU residents. We therefore demand that UvA, if not allowed to provide housing itself, builds up a secure and trustworthy housing platform bringing students in search for housing together with landlords, providers of student housing and other students searching for roommates. This being said, we recognize special challenges of EU and non-EU citizens such as not being able to attend viewings of apartments or the need for a long term address in advance for the visa application process. Therefore we see the necessity of extra support of non-EU citizens to ensure the longevity of the UvA as an international sphere and place of exchange that goes beyond the EU.

020 party

Disagree

We believe the university should continue prioritizing non-EU students when it comes to housing. In the current housing crisis, international students, especially those from outside the EU face additional barriers in finding accommodation. This leaves them with fewer options and greater risks, as their ability to remain in the Netherlands often depends on securing housing and maintaining their residence permit. Reducing support for this group would not only increase uncertainty but also undermine the university’s commitment to being a welcoming and inclusive institution.

Activistenpartij UvA

Disagree

As a result of government inaction and failed policies, the housing situation in Amsterdam is horrible for all of us. As such, we believe that the UvA should ensure that it has enough housing to accommodate all international students it invites. At the same time, non-EU students need housing to receive their visa, so it makes sense to ensure they have housing in advance. This aids in the maintenance of a university community that is diverse and welcoming to students from a variety of backgrounds.

UvaSociaal

Disagree

UvASociaal disagrees with stopping the prioritisation of students from outside the EU for university housing. For these students, adapting to a new culture can be difficult, and secure housing is crucial for a smooth transition but also keeping in mind the needs of Eu students and not neglecting them.

The Founding Students

Agree

Vrijmoedige Studentenpartij

Fully agree

This is unfair. The Dutch student also deserves a fair chance.

LIEF

Neutral

It is often more difficult for international students to find housing in the Netherlands. In addition, they cannot live with their parents and therefore need to secure housing within the country. LIEF does recognizes that this issue is part of a larger problem: the housing crisis in the Netherlands.

The Numerus Fixus (a limitation in the number of students admitted) should be used to stop the growth of the university

LIEF

Disagree

LIEF does not believe that Science Park is growing too rapidly. We do not see this in the number of students, the capacity of the university and research institutes, or the budget of UvA FNWI (Science Park). Halting the university’s growth would mean less funding, and currently, UvA FNWI is not accounting for this in its budget. According to LIEF, Numerus Fixus should only be used where it is legally required—nowhere else.

The Founding Students

Disagree

UvaSociaal

Disagree

UvASociaal acknowledges the challenges posed by the rapid growth of the university, particularly as it affects the quality of education. While we agree that the Uva's years of global student recruitment have contributed to the current situation, we also recognise that, in some extreme cases, a Numerus Fixus may be necessary to maintain educational standards. However, rather than using it to halt growth, the solution lies in addressing underlying issues, such as expanding resources, improving infrastructure, and ensuring that all students have access to high-quality education. A more comprehensive approach is needed to balance growth with academic excellence, rather than limiting opportunities for potential applicants.

De Vrije Student

Agree

De Vrije Student sees the numerus fixus as a necessary and fair tool to safeguard the quality of education and manage uncontrolled growth. When programs become too large, personal guidance suffers, facilities become overstretched, and the connection to the labor market weakens. Selection through numerus fixus offers more transparency and predictability than random lotteries, where motivated students may unfairly miss out. By steering intake numbers deliberately, the university prevents students from bearing the consequences of overcrowded lecture halls and overstretched teaching staff.

Activistenpartij UvA

Disagree

The numerus fixus policy has shown itself to be too reliant on the grades students get when in high school, while they are incredibly young. High school grades are not indicative of future success, and reliance upon them is symptomatic of an elitist system which leaves lower and working class students behind. The Activist Party is in full support of limiting the growth of the UvA through a lottery system, the only truly egalitarian selection procedure.

020 party

Agree

020 agrees that the Numerus Fixus can be a necessary tool to manage the growth of the university, but it must be applied thoughtfully and transparently. When used correctly, it helps ensure that the university can maintain academic excellence by admitting students based on strong credentials, while not exceeding its capacity in terms of staff, facilities, and resources.. However, we also stress that the use of Numerus Fixus should not be a substitute for broader investment in higher education. The current lack of resources is a systemic issue, and limiting student numbers should not come at the cost of accessibility or diversity. 020 believes that the university must advocate for more structural funding to support both quality and inclusion.

Vrijmoedige Studentenpartij

Agree

Not for every study, but for some studies this may be an appropriate tool.

INTER

Neutral

Numerus Fixus can be used as a tool to maintain academic rigour. This does not translate into stopping the growth of the university. INTER stands for a balance between open and numerus fixus programs to ensure an accessible university to all prospective students. Moreover, INTER believes the numerus fixus should be used only as a tool to maintain its high academic standards, and that this should not translate into favoring specific groups of students. For this reason, INTER advocates for the UvA to implement a mentoring system (eg by the student ambassadors) that would help prospective students with preparing the required documentation for the selection procedure. This system would ensure everyone gets a more equal chance at getting in the program on their own merits and motivation, rather than external factors. Finally, INTER values transparency, thus it would ask for the UvA to publish its numerus fixus criteria and eventual acceptance quotas.

Programs should have the sole responsibility in deciding whether they teach in Dutch or in English

LIEF

Agree

LIEF notes that some courses are taught with lower quality when given in English, and therefore believes that programs should be able to decide for themselves in order to safeguard the quality of education.

The Founding Students

Neutral

020 party

Agree

020 believes that academic programs should have the primary responsibility in deciding whether to teach in Dutch or English. We trust that individual programs are best equipped to determine the language of instruction based on the academic content, student population, and future prospects of their graduates. However, we also believe that this decision must be made transparently, with input from both students and staff, and with awareness of how it affects accessibility, inclusion, and the international character of the university.

INTER

Agree

The language of instruction that is best fit for a class can be and should be decided by those directly involved.

De Vrije Student

Agree

The Vrije Student believes that education quality should always come first. Academic programs should therefore have the autonomy to decide in which language they can offer the best education. When a lecturer teaches in a language they are not fully proficient in, it can negatively impact the quality of instruction. At the Faculty of Economics and Business, for example, programs are offered in both Dutch and English. This flexibility allows students to follow education in the language that best suits their preferences and learning process

UvaSociaal

Agree

UvASociaal believes that programs should have the autonomy to decide whether they teach in Dutch or in English, depending on the needs and goals of the specific program.

Activistenpartij UvA

Agree

Programs should retain autonomy over the language in which they teach, these decisions should come from thoughtful conversations between students and staff in each department. For instance, PPLE would not make sense in Dutch due to its international aspect. The same goes for some other programmes and masters, such as Public International Law. As such, we believe this decision should not be enforced on a central level.

Vrijmoedige Studentenpartij

Fully disagree

English is fine, but Dutch should always remain an option for Dutch students at this Dutch university.

Current UvA House Rules should be amended to ensure that students can fully express themselves politically, culturally and socially

De Vrije Student

Neutral

The UvA’s house rules should align with Dutch law and aim to strike a balance between freedom of expression and the smooth functioning of the university. Within that framework, students should be able to express themselves politically, culturally, and socially. Adjustments to the rules are only necessary if this balance is no longer adequately maintained. Clear guidelines are important to ensure both space for expression and a safe, accessible learning environment for all.

Vrijmoedige Studentenpartij

Neutral

Social safety can never be fully guaranteed by house rules. Political freedom at the University should be promoted.

INTER

Agree

This years proposed changes in the UvA house rules including a compulsory identification requirement on campus, a blanket ban on disruptive activities, and an automatic designation of all occupations as not peaceful potentially stands in conflict with Dutch and international law, according to a legal analysis from the Prakken d’Oliveira law firm. Furthermore, they are wrongfully aimed to block the full free political, cultural and social expression of students, especially through their right to protest. INTER therefore demands that these changes to the UvA House Rules are taken back and instead students right to protest and free expression should be guarenteed in the boundaries of violence, physical harm, or severe damage to infrastructure.

UvaSociaal

Agree

UvASociaal strongly advocates for amending the current UvA House Rules to ensure that students can fully express themselves politically, culturally, and socially. Universities should be spaces where diverse perspectives are encouraged and protected, allowing students to engage in open dialogue and activism. By updating the House Rules, the UvA can create an environment that supports freedom of expression while maintaining respect and inclusivity for all members of the university community.

020 party

Neutral

While we recognize the importance of ensuring a safe and respectful environment for all, we also believe that the right to protest and express political, cultural, and social opinions should be protected. The events surrounding the Maagdenhuis protests, where the university itself called for police intervention, underscore the tension between the university’s duty to maintain order and the students’ right to engage in activism. The use of police force in such a situation raises important questions about the balance between university authority and the freedom of expression. We believe that the House Rules should protect the right to protest while ensuring that the university maintains a safe, constructive environment. Future amendments should reflect this balance and involve open dialogue with students, ensuring that peaceful protests and expressions of dissent are respected, not suppressed.

The Founding Students

Neutral

Activistenpartij UvA

Fully agree

The current UvA House Rules stand in opposition to the most fundamental values of freedom of speech and expression, due to their blanket prohibition of political activity. Even if this rule is not enforced, it creates an atmosphere of uncertainty and fear that creates a chilling effect against student engagement. Our university needs to be a space where everyone can safely enjoy their democratic rights.

LIEF

Agree

As a party that stands for inclusivity, we believe it is essential that every student feels welcomed and heard at the university. Studying is about more than just attending courses. The university should be a place where there is room to express yourself in a safe environment, to ensure we have a diverse and accessible campus. LIEF does believe that political expression should remain peaceful.

Peaceful occupations should be considered as a legitimate means of protest at the university

De Vrije Student

Disagree

Peaceful occupations are not a legitimate form of protest within the university. They disrupt education, block access to buildings, and infringe on the rights of other students and staff. There are plenty of ways to express opinions without bringing academic processes to a halt. The university should provide space for protest, but never in a way that undermines its functioning.

Vrijmoedige Studentenpartij

Fully disagree

We believe in peaceful protest. An occupation is not a peaceful act—it's a disruption. Where is the peace when students feel unsafe walking into their own University? There is nothing peaceful about taking over shared spaces. Universities are meant to foster dialogue, not to be held hostage by those who think occupation is a substitute for discussion. Some may compare occupations to past civil rights protests, like Rosa Parks refusing to give up her seat. But that comparison fails. Rosa Parks used civil disobedience to directly challenge a law that upheld segregation. Her action matched the goal—equality in public seating. In contrast, occupying a university only makes sense as a tactic if the goal were to promote the occupation of universities themselves. That is not the case. Let’s stand for true peace: debate, without occupation.

LIEF

Agree

LIEF believes that peaceful occupations, where no destruction or threats take place, should be allowed. The occupations of several universities in 1969 led to student representation within universities. Therefore, LIEF believes that peaceful occupations must be able to continue, so that students can represent themselves.

INTER

Fully agree

We fully agree that peaceful occupations should be considered a legitimate means of protest at the university. As long as demonstrations remain non-violent and do not endanger the safety of others, they represent a powerful and historically recognized form of civil disobedience. Universities are spaces for critical thought, dialogue, and activism, and peaceful occupations reflect the active engagement of students with pressing social and institutional issues. Such actions should be met with openness and dialogue, not repression.

Activistenpartij UvA

Fully agree

Currently, the UvA considers all occupations to be inherently violent and therefore targets for immediate police eviction, even if they do not disrupt the daily activities at our university. This approach is not only detrimental to the safety of all students at the UvA, but is also illegal according to the legal advice received by AP CSR members this year. Our party will always fight to protect students against overreach by the administration and the police.

UvaSociaal

Fully agree

UvASociaal strongly believes that peaceful occupations should be recognised as a legitimate means of protest at the university. When students and staff feel their voices are not being heard, non-violent actions like occupations can be a powerful way to draw attention to important issues. These actions should be respected as part of the democratic right to protest and advocate for change, as long as they remain peaceful and aim to spark constructive dialogue and solutions.

020 party

Agree

020 believes that peaceful occupations can be a legitimate means of protest at the university, provided that they respect the rights and safety of others. Occupations, when done peacefully and respectfully, allow students to express their concerns and contribute to important dialogues on issues such as education, policies, and the university’s direction. However, it is essential that such actions do not interfere with the right of others to access education or disrupt the functioning of the university. We advocate for an environment where students are encouraged to engage in peaceful protest and activism while maintaining the principles of mutual respect and dialogue.

The Founding Students

Neutral

The UvA should address problems such as systemic overwork and bad working conditions among its teachers by giving out more permanent contracts.

INTER

Fully agree

We fully agree that the UvA should address issues like systemic overwork and poor working conditions among its teaching staff by offering more permanent contracts. The current situation, where many lecturers face years of insecurity with temporary contracts, often up to four years or more—is unsustainable and unfair. It leads to stress, burnout, and a loss of valuable academic talent. Permanent contracts provide stability, recognize long-term commitment, and are essential for ensuring high-quality education and a healthy academic environment.

UvaSociaal

Agree

UvASociaal believes that the UvA should address systemic overwork and poor working conditions among its teachers by offering more permanent contracts. These contracts provide stability, reduce the pressure of temporary employment, and allow teachers to focus on delivering high-quality education. Permanent contracts can also promote better work-life balance, job satisfaction, and long-term commitment to the university, ultimately benefiting both educators and students.

Activistenpartij UvA

Fully agree

We stand in full solidarity with UvA´s staff members in regards to better working conditions. Non-permanent contracts cause stress, especially in light of budget cuts. We also fight for better working conditions and fair treatment of service and maintenance workers. The UvA can only be a quality institution if the quality of treatment for all is just.

The Founding Students

Agree

Vrijmoedige Studentenpartij

Neutral

LIEF

Agree

UvA offers very few permanent contracts. This causes unnecessary stress for employees and has a negative effect on the quality of education. A symptom of UvA’s reluctance to offer permanent contracts is that, after a few years, well-qualified and passionate employees are forced to leave. In recent years, this has led to people ending up in positions for which they were not qualified — for example, a third-year Bachelor's student becoming a supervisor TA for AI courses.

De Vrije Student

Neutral

Addressing structural overwork and poor working conditions is important, but permanent contracts are not the only solution. De Vrije Student believes that the UvA should offer its lecturers fair working conditions, with attention to workload, career prospects, and education quality. Permanent contracts can contribute to this, but must be weighed carefully against flexibility, educational demand, and financial feasibility. Targeted policies for better support and clear expectations are at least equally essential.

020 party

Agree

020 believes that the UvA should address issues like systemic overwork and poor working conditions among its teachers, including through the provision of more permanent contracts. Permanent contracts offer greater job security, stability, and can help alleviate stress related to short-term employment. This, in turn, may contribute to improved working conditions, reduced turnover, and more consistent quality in teaching.

The UvA should give more training to the teaching assistants

Activistenpartij UvA

Fully agree

Education is the highest goal of the university. Therefore, the UvA should invest in the education of our educators. Although most teaching assistants typically receive extensive training in teaching, this often does not extend to PhD candidates and students who teach. We believe they should receive the same level of training as all other teaching assistants in order to provide the highest quality of education possible.

The Founding Students

Agree

UvaSociaal

Agree

UvASociaal agrees that the UvA should provide more training to teaching assistants. This will enhance their ability to support students effectively, create a more inclusive learning environment, and ensure that they have the tools needed to manage diverse classroom dynamics.

Vrijmoedige Studentenpartij

Neutral

INTER

Fully agree

INTER believes in an education that never stops. Especially in today’s fast paced world, training teaching assistants to the best of the UvA’s capacity is pivotal.

020 party

Agree

020 believes that the UvA should provide more training to teaching assistants (TAs). TAs play a crucial role in the academic experience of students, and proper training is essential to ensure they can effectively support students. More comprehensive training would help TAs better manage their responsibilities, enhance their teaching skills, and ensure they are well-prepared to handle diverse classroom dynamics.

De Vrije Student

Agree

De Vrije Student supports more training and support for teaching assistants. They play an important role in education and deserve the tools and guidance to perform well. Investing in their development enhances teaching quality and reduces the workload for lecturers. If we expect quality in education, we must invest in the people who make it possible.

LIEF

Fully agree

LIEF wants to maintain high educational quality. We notice that teaching assistants are eager to teach, but often lack the necessary skills. Additionally, communication about the current training offerings is limited. By improving this, we can enhance the experience for both teaching assistants and students.

The UvA should involve students in long term plans for study spaces and teaching facilities according to the expected changes in student population

Activistenpartij UvA

Fully agree

Decisions made by the UvA administration very often go above the heads of our student population. To encourage student engagement with the institution, we need to be more involved in decision-making. This approach would also ensure that new facilities would answer the actual needs of the student community, improving our well-being.

020 party

Agree

020 believes that the UvA should involve students in long-term planning for study spaces and teaching facilities, especially in response to expected changes in the student population. Students are the primary users of these facilities, and their input is crucial to ensure that the university meets their needs and provides an effective learning environment. Involving students in this process will help ensure that facilities are designed with their needs in mind, creating spaces that are both functional and conducive to learning. Additionally, involving students in planning will promote transparency and a sense of ownership over the spaces they use.

LIEF

Agree

LIEF supports student representation like this, because ultimately, it is a place for students, funded by their tuition fees.

INTER

Agree

As the UvA’s community is actively shaped by its students, letting students have a say in the planning of long term study spaces would allow for the university to be better suited to the students’ needs. Nonetheless, long term plans should be taken care of by the responsible experts in the specific field.

De Vrije Student

Agree

DVS believes that involving students in long-term planning for study spaces and educational facilities is important to ensure the university meets the needs and expectations of its students, especially given the increasing diversity of the student population.

UvaSociaal

Fully agree

UvASociaal fully agrees that involving students in the long-term planning of study spaces and teaching facilities is essential. As the student population grows and evolves, their needs must be at the forefront of these decisions.

The Founding Students

Agree

Vrijmoedige Studentenpartij

Fully agree

The VSP stands for more student participation.

The UvA should comply with the ethical assessments made by its independent committee on third-party collaborations, including cutting the ties with institutions found to be complicit in human rights violations