ÌÇÐÄVlogÆƽâ°æ

The centrist D66 party¡¯s razor-thin victory in the 29 October Dutch general election offered cautious relief in university corridors across the Netherlands. D66, which edged past the far-right Freedom Party (PVV) by just 28,455 votes, has historically championed higher education and research. The result gives hope that proposed cuts of €970 million to higher education, restrictions on international student numbers and the phasing out of the National Growth Fund¡ªa major investment vehicle for research and innovation¡ªwill disappear with the outgoing government.  But whether the incoming coalition will reverse or modify these proposals remains to be seen. A coalition of four, or even five, parties must be negotiated. It is likely to include the centre-right VVD and Christian Democrat parties, neither of whom opposed the previous government¡¯s austerity measures outright. More sobering still was how the previous coalition, which included the PVV, framed its proposals. Speaking last year, PVV parliamentarian Reinder Blaauw  said that the cuts were intended to force universities to choose between ¡°political activism¡± and ¡°proper education and research¡±.

¡°Too long has the activist woke culture been dominant in lecture halls and educational institutions,¡± he told parliament. 
 

Growing tensions

Dutch populists have exploited the gap between the public¡¯s trust in science, which remains high, and their concerns over its application. A showed that while over 70 per cent of those polled trust the scientific method and scientists, only 19 per cent trust science journalism, and just 10 per cent trusts how politicians use scientific insights for policy.
 
Polarisation is growing: the share of from 9.5 per cent in 2021 to 14.6 per cent in 2025, while the trusting middle has shrunk significantly.

This tension is magnified in sensitive areas: trust in health research is over 65 per cent, but it drops to below 45 per cent for research on discrimination and inequality¡ªthe very topics framed as ¡°woke science.¡±

This tension isn¡¯t unique to the Netherlands. Across Europe, populist parties are questioning whether universities, however accomplished, still belong to ordinary citizens. Universities find themselves trying to defend academic freedom while addressing perceptions of political bias; trying to remain both internationally excellent and relevant to the regions and nations that fund them. 
 

Europe¡¯s half-answer

The EU has responded to these pressures with a strategy of strengthening international research excellence. , speaking at the Sorbonne University in Paris, Commission president Ursula von der Leyen launched ¡°Choose Europe for Science¡± initiative. This included €500 million in ¡°super grants¡± to make Europe ¡°a magnet for researchers¡±.  

Von der Leyen was positioning Europe as the stable, welcoming alternative to Donald Trump¡¯s America. She invoked Marie Sk?odowska-Curie¡ªwho, barred from Polish universities, found freedom at the Sorbonne a century ago.  But von der Leyen¡¯s vision addresses only half the challenge. Her speech said little about what happens when the societies funding these institutions begin to question their value. There were many mentions of freedom, excellence and collaboration, but none of community or regions¡ªthe places where trust, or distrust, in science takes root. This reflects a broader pattern. European universities have become extraordinarily good at international connectivity. The Trump presidency makes that comparative advantage even more valuable. 
The risk is that the global focus masks a growing disconnect from the places universities actually inhabit. You cannot build a magnet for researchers if the societies paying for it no longer feel connected.
 

Drifting apart

Our home institution of Maastricht University, which celebrates its 50th anniversary next year, illustrates both the opportunities and tensions. It declares itself as ¡°a European university¡± that is ¡°firmly rooted in the region¡±. Its investments and involvement in innovation parks, industry partnerships and knowledge transfer have had real local impact. But even though Maastricht sits just an hour from universities in Li¨¨ge and Aachen, sustaining collaboration with distant European partners has proved easier than deepening integration across the Belgian and German borders. Fewer young people speak French or German; everything defaults to English. The potential for deep cross-border regional integration remains unrealised.  Nearly half of Maastricht¡¯s students are international¡ªa genuine achievement¡ªbut first-generation Dutch students from working-class backgrounds remain underrepresented. The university is both embedded in Limburg and somewhat disconnected from it. 

The European Parliament¡¯s 2024 Academic Freedom Monitor recorded a decline in the Netherlands. This was not through an authoritarian government takeover like in Hungary, but through subtler erosion. When citizens feel remote from universities, political attacks find purchase, because they contain a grain of truth.
For universities, abandoning their specific places for the Brussels-imagined space of seamless mobility and borderless collaboration, is a recipe for vulnerability. When economic pressures mount or political winds shift, institutions perceived as distant are easy targets regardless of their research excellence. 

Window of opportunity

In the Netherlands, the election result gives universities breathing space to address this, and so provide the missing half of von per Leyen¡¯s strategy. 
First, access. Universities should treat first-generation student recruitment as seriously as they treat international student recruitment. Many already offer support schemes: this should become national policy rather than local initiative. Increased EU support for early-career scientists offers opportunities here¡ªas long as those scientists are drawn from right across European societies, not just traditional academic pathways.

Second, research funding¡ªincluding the EU¡¯s €500m¡ªshould better recognise regional engagement alongside international excellence. Current priorities, such as publishing in elite international journals and collaborating with prestigious foreign institutions, marginalise community engagement, regional partnerships, teaching that serves local needs, and spinouts that generate regional employment. The EU¡¯s proposed European Research Area Act should look to bolster societal connection alongside academic freedom¡ªasking how institutions serve their regions, promote enrolment of first-generation students, and ensure graduates contribute locally as well as globally.

Third, universities and funders must redefine societal impact. Too often, this is measured in purely economic terms¡ªpatents, spin-offs, industry partnerships. It must be expanded to recognise and reward civic engagement. Dutch universities have a chance to show that international excellence and local relevance aren¡¯t competing priorities¡ªthey¡¯re mutually reinforcing. Taking that opportunity means recognising that the current path has created vulnerabilities. 
Universities that face up to these challenges will be stronger, more legitimate, and more resilient. Those that don¡¯t may find the next political shift less forgiving.
A longer version of this article was published in University World News on 12 November 2025. A shorter version appeared in Research Professional News on 17 November 2025.

The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the positions of ÌÇÐÄVlogÆƽâ°æ-MERIT or the ÌÇÐÄVlogÆƽâ°æ.