Dutch consider stronger protections for academic freedom
On 14 October 2026 the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNAW) published two advisory reports calling for constitutional protection of academic freedom, a stronger statutory framework and a strengthening of the Higher Education and Scientific Research Act (WHW).
The KNAW argues that academic freedom is too weakly protected in a country that has long been as secure on this point.
It calls for a national code of conduct that institutions adapt to their own settings.
André Nollkaemper, chairperson of the KNAW Committee for the Freedom of Scientific Pursuit and Professor of International Law and Sustainability at the University of Amsterdam, told University World News: “European comparisons show that the situation in the Netherlands has become quite worrying. The scope for free science is limited.
“We also see that some researchers are facing hate campaigns. Moreover, the political landscape in Europe and the United States is a warning sign. We now realise better how important academic freedom is, as well as what happens when political majorities shift. That is why we need to reflect on this: have we safeguarded it properly? We do not think so.”
The two reports, “Freedom of expression in academia. Core value of an open society” and “Freedom Anchored in Law: Towards stronger legal safeguards for academic freedom”, were commissioned by KNAW after Minister of Education, Culture and Science (OCW) Rianne Letschert asked KNAW to set up two committees, one to provide advice on the legal safeguarding of academic freedom and the other to advise on freedom of expression within the academic community.
Why the Netherlands, and why now
The request came three months after all Dutch university rectors signed an open letter announcing a national dialogue on academic freedom. They described it as not only a right that must be defended but “also a value to be actively lived and a duty of responsibility and professionalism”.
A committee on academic freedom was established, chaired by Nollkaemper. A committee on freedom of expression was set up, led by Professor of Greek Language and Literature at Leiden University Ineke Sluiter.
The scope of both committees covered universities, universities of applied sciences, university medical centres and the institutes of the KNAW and the Dutch Research Council (NWO).
Letschert asked how well academic freedom is legally protected, what options exist for strengthening protection, including constitutional enshrinement, what lessons can be learned from other countries, and what stronger protection would mean for institutions as employers, and how freedom of expression within the scientific sector can be safeguarded.
At present academic freedom appears in Article 1.6 of the WHW but not in the Constitution. The reports identify several pressures: research funding built around predetermined themes, government interference, growing intimidation of researchers, and polarisation inside universities that leaves some scholars afraid to contribute.
Nollkaemper put it bluntly: “European comparisons show that the situation in the Netherlands has become quite worrying. The scope for free science is limited. We also see that some researchers are facing hate campaigns.”
He added that events abroad are a warning. “We now realise better how important academic freedom is, as well as what happens when political majorities shift.”
Two legislative proposals illustrated the risk: screening of students and researchers under knowledge-security rules, and measures on internationalisation and language of instruction. Both would have restricted institutional freedom, and both are shelved for now.
The pattern is not only Dutch. The 2025 Academic Freedom Monitor describes both the Netherlands and Italy as cases where new right-wing governments sharply cut public investment in higher education after a period of growth, leaving the sector with “a serious lack of stability and predictability.” Funding volatility is itself a pressure on academic freedom.
Three protections proposed
The three measures proposed are:
* Protection under the constitution: The KNAW recommends a clause stating that academic freedom must be respected and promoted, without defining it. Peter Maassen of the University of Oslo, who coordinates the European Parliament’s annual studies on academic freedom in the EU, says this “would generally be expected to protect academic freedom better against shifting political alignments”.
* A more precise statute: The WHW should state who is responsible for protecting academic freedom, who can exercise it, and under what conditions restrictions may be imposed.
* A national code of conduct. Law alone will not secure academic freedom in daily practice. Each institution should adapt the national code to its own context and build support structures, possibly including an institutional academic freedom ombudsperson. The code would also clarify the line between general freedom of expression and its academic form.
Professor Peter Maassen at the University of Oslo, who has since 2022 been the coordinator of the annual studies for the European Parliament on the state of academic freedom in the EU told University World News that the package matters beyond the Netherlands.
“The underlying argumentation for the set of three complementary and coherent measures is not just of relevance for the Netherlands but for all EU-EFTA Member States.”
Freedom of expression: the boundaries
The freedom of expression report, treats academic freedom of expression as qualified in three ways. It belongs to members of the academic community. It covers only statements related to their professional role and expertise. And such statements must be true, valid or defensible by scientific standards, to the best of the speaker’s knowledge.
Academic freedom also goes beyond expression in two respects: it covers actions such as conducting experiments, and it has a collective dimension tied to institutional autonomy.
Responsibilities are shared. Researchers must distinguish their views as scholars from those as private citizens, and institutions should help them do so. Government should keep its role as limited as possible, because substantive interference can itself restrict expression. The report asks politicians for a “courage of restraint”.
Will it happen? The politics of feasibility
Nollkaemper acknowledges that the recommendations reflect “what it deemed necessary to protect academic freedom, not what it deemed politically feasible at this particular point in time”.
His central argument is that the principle is not partisan. He told UWN: “The value of academic freedom cannot be claimed by or associated with the political left or right.”
Research on climate change, energy transition or armed conflict may please or displease any party.
“The whole point of academic freedom is that it keeps open and protects all outcomes of academic research; it therefore can benefit all parties. It is this principle that should make the proposal for constitutional amendment appear not so unrealistic as it may appear at first sight,” he told University World News.
Others interviewed by University World News were more cautious.
Daan F Oostveen, University of Humanistic Studies, points to the mechanics. Amendment of the constitution needs two-thirds majorities in both chambers, then a further round after elections.
“In practice, this makes it almost impossible to change the constitution in the Netherlands, which is why the latest major constitutional overhaul is already over fifty years ago.”
Yet he sees little ideological opposition and suggests the proposal could be taken up in a broader initiative for wider constitutional renewal, “given the authority of the KNAW on such matters.”
He is pessimistic about the political outlook, however. “Dutch politics is currently extremely splintered, which makes any major decision-making exceptionally hard.”
Tim de Winkel of the teachers’ union, Algemene Onderwijsbond, expects serious engagement from a healthy legislature: “A functional parliament would seriously consider such advice and come with very strong arguments not to heed the advice.” He warned that “many far-right parties” are hostile to democratic institutions such as universities, and that much depends on the centre-right VVD staying “truthful to their liberal values.”
Evy Kras, president of the Dutch National Student Union, said: “We have seen that academic freedom is not secured like it was before. More and more commercial companies and-or political influence has been part of research and therefore education. Looking at the US we should all be worried that academic freedom should be protected at all costs.”
She backs the proposal but is realistic: “Right now we have a parliament that does not have enough votes to make this happen. They will need to convince other parties to join, and I am afraid no-one will be eager to fight for this. They are really choosing their battles,” she said of parliamentarians.
“It would be a disgrace if the government decided to not work with this proposal.”
The takeaway for observers is that the constitutional route is slow by design. A feasible near-term path may run through the statute and the code of conduct.
Lessons for other countries
Maassen notes that threats have become multidimensional. They combine traditional political interference with newer ones, “such as the harassment of academics and their institutions via social media”. He also cites “the rapid, disastrous decline of academic freedom in the US under the Trump administration”.
Ludovic Thilly of the University of Poitiers, chair of the Coimbra Group (which was consulted on the Dutch work), sees the same trend across Europe.
“The administrative pressure and external pressure on academics are growing in Europe, and we are now seeing regular physical obstructions of lectures, coordinated harassment campaigns, or abuse of administrative power to block research funding for ideological reasons.”
He adds that the effect of budget cuts “should not be under-estimated.” One exception is a February 2026 French Senate vote to better protect academic freedom.
Maassen’s verdict on law versus practice is that “strengthening the legal protection of academic freedom is necessary but not sufficient.”
Legislation takes time, and de facto protection also requires:
• A clear understanding of what academic freedom means in specific contexts, including institutions.
• A frame of reference for identifying when it is threatened or violated.
• Clarity about its limits from an integrity and ethics perspective, including the distinction between general and academic freedom of expression.
He proposes going further to a European code of conduct drafted by university alliances such as the Guild and LERU, endorsed by the European University Association and national rectors’ conferences (he names HRK, the Rectors’ Conference, in Germany, KRASP in Poland, CPU in France, CRUI in Italy, UUK in the UK and CRUE in Spain), and then translated into national codes. The advantage, he says, is that “it would help the academic sector retain its power to define academic freedom.”
Similar debates on constitutional or statutory protection are under way in Norway and at the EU level, notably around the forthcoming European Research Area Act.
Checklist for leaders and policymakers
• Where does your legal protection sit? Is academic freedom anchored in the constitution or only in ordinary law? Is it clear who protects it and when restrictions are permitted?
• Is your funding model a pressure point? Predetermined themes and abrupt budget shifts can narrow what research is feasible.
• Do you have a sector-owned definition? Without one, disputes over expression, protest and public engagement lack a common reference.
• Are individuals protected from harassment? Institutional support for targeted researchers is part of the safeguard.
• Who will lead? Sector bodies that draft codes themselves keep the definition in academic hands.
The KNAW holds the first in a series of meetings on academic freedom on 6 November, with Sluiter, Nollkaemper and others.