“There is no alternative”

This quasi-Thatcherian mantra seems to dominate the ongoing governance discussions at the University of Groningen. The Board, in its ‘houtskoolschets’ of our future, insists that merging certain faculties into others is the only way forward for our university. A university that is portrayed as being too slow to adapt to a fast-changing world; as being bogged down by redundant bureaucracy; and, worst of all, as facing the double existential threat of dwindling student numbers and decreasing government funding.

To be clear, we agree that times are troubling; in general, and for the University of Groningen. But do the challenges outlined above lead, as the Board alleges, to only one possible outcome? Is there truly no alternative?

This has been the question on the Science Faction’s mind over the first weeks of 2026. We commended the Board’s decision last Fall to press pause on the governance plans, taking more time to acknowledge the valuable perspectives shared by Faculty Councils in writing, and to speak to the broader academic community during dialogue sessions. We were curious what this ‘dialogue pause’ would yield in terms of new insights, improved ideas or better corroboration for existing plans. So, we attended the various dialogue sessions, listened to the questions and concerns from staff and students, and to the Board’s answers. We read the Board’s written reply to the Faculty Council letters.

All in all, we’re left deeply disappointed.

Nothing we read or heard was not already put forward in the much-disputed Mol report. None of the many earnest questions from students and staff were given a convincing answer. Requests for a sound problem analysis continue to be met with broad allusions to the state of the world and ‘geopolitical turmoil’. Financial inquiries regarding the total cost of a merger or its eventual benefit continue to be evaded. Profound worries about the damage that an organisational overhaul could do to institutions, to communities, to people, have been replied to with “why can’t you just trust that everything’s going to be fine?”

Our impression is that whatever the Board intended for this participation process to achieve, it accomplished the opposite. When we speak to colleagues now, we find them more discouraged than ever. Moreover, we are now more than ever at a loss for what good a momentous merger operation would possibly do – let alone why there could be no alternative.

Sometime in the coming week, we expect the Board to publish a tentative governance decision. We expect this decision to more or less coincide with the now-familiar ‘houtskoolschets’, that has FRW and UCG merge into GMW, while RCM and FWB go up in LET. We deem it best not to wait any longer in making our position clear: if this is indeed what the Board proposes, the Science Faction will not consent.

Instead, we urge the Board to present a vision that the academic community of Groningen can truly rally behind. A common goal for us all to work towards, instead of a sad state of affairs. Because, in our view, all the talk of merging has clouded an important reality that most staff and students actually agree with: that the University is indeed hampered by bureaucracy, and that harmonisation of processes across the different faculties could promote more and better cooperation between units.

Let’s say we investigate what harmonisation could look like, how it would work, and how it would enable all of us to work better. Let’s also say we use this time and this process to think fundamentally about what we need from university leadership – from heads of programs and departments to deans –, instilling in managers a fundamental attitude of thinking for the greater good of both their own units and of the university as a whole.

In the meantime, there would be nothing stopping the faculties that want to join forces from doing so. If, say, UCG wants to become a part of GMW, we could learn from their merger process, to get a clear picture of what works and what doesn’t, where the costs lie and what the benefits are. And then, once harmonisation is well underway, once we have more clarity regarding financial and demographic trends in the near future, we can reevaluate whether and what more should still be done.

The Science Faction would wholeheartedly endorse a harmonisation plan along the lines described above. But we cannot in good faith say ‘yes’ to a top-down merger plan shrouded in uncertainty that is already dragging down staff morale. Especially not in times that are, as the Board itself stipulates, already so deeply uncertain.

Yours sincerely,

Science Faction (Guido Visman, Thereza Langeler, Marcello Seri)