'Minister bans art!' - How dangerous propaganda gets a chance in cucumber time

Up to and including the union, the message was shared: outgoing culture minister Ingrid van Engelshoven had allegedly gone overboard with her diversity policy and now wants to ban non-diverse art from universities. It was big in the Telegraaf and former cabaret artist Hans Teeuwen made a few hundred thousand likes me on Instagram. Meanwhile, it has also reached the columns of Het Parool thanks to 'artist' Nelle Boer. Problem is that nothing at all of the message is really true. 

The truth is usually boring and soporific. That is why whipped-up scare stories are always effective: they are never boring and everyone is going to get something out of them. But let's look at the facts anyway. The reason for all the fuss is a Chamber letter by Van Engelshoven, in which she addresses the Chamber's widely supported drive to reduce discrimination at universities. Commendable aspiration. And also important, because if we do not tackle discrimination in education, we will miss out on a hefty European subsidy (5 billion eureo).

Gender

That European grant requires applicant institutions to have a 'Gender Equality Plan'. This Gender Equality Plan (GEP) requires measures in staffing, in the learning environment and in the provision. More diversity in the workforce, for example, but also in how the organisation is set up and how the teaching allows for it. For organisations that currently have a gender blind spot, it is difficult to see where change is needed. The minister has therefore asked a number of experts to look at all the ideas in this area and what is already possible.

To that advice is a lot to do right now. That's why I read it. The weather is bad anyway and the Tour de France is over, as is the holiday, which didn't go at all anyway. Time enough for the boring pieces that the Telegraaf, Hans Teeuwen, amateur propagandist Nelle Boer and the opinion editors of Het Parool do not want to read. Because boring it is, but useful.

'Micro-aggressions'

After a few chapters outlining mainly the frameworks, we come to the 'recommendations', which is apparently what so much is about. This is a list of many pages, containing things like: 'Focal point: - Preventing individual, competitive culture ('chilly climate') and micro-aggressions** - Toolkit: Gender sensitive PhD supervision (Female Empowerment in Science and Technology Academia) - Britton (2017) - Van Engen et al. (2019) - Vacarro (2012) - Beemyn & Brauer (2015) - Fine (2017) - Valentine & Wood (2018).'

For those who have been under a rock for the past few weeks, here comes the word 'micro-aggression' at last. Can we clarify that at the same time. We all know what macro-aggression is. It's what Gooi boys on Mallorca do when they've had too much to drink. Micro-aggression is something else that lurks. It is excluding without explicitly saying you are excluding anyone. That is the omission of women from the canon of the arts, because they often took the man's name after marriage and so there are two artists, one young, the other wife of, and no one adding them up.

Always men

Micro-aggression is also an image group of important scientists of a university, which does not include female Nobel laureates. Such micro-aggression tells that important scientists are always men, when in practice this is not the case at all. So come to the challenged example where the Telegraph, Hans Teeuwen and Nelle Boer directed their misplaced macro-aggression.

It says here: '- Checking the physical environment (accessibility, art, building names, photos, gender-neutral toilets) - Accessibility assessment carried out by Ongehinderd (Leiden University) - Sculptures provide more diverse view of University's history (Leiden University)'.

Representation

This is the only mention of 'Art' in all the pieces that Teeuwen, Telegraph and Farmer base their stories on. And so it is not about removing art. On the contrary. It's about more art. So not taking away anything existing, but something add to make the image more representative. This also says nothing about how the art should be done, only about which artworks could be included. So, in this case, a sculpture gallery of professors, which strangely does not include women, even though there are some.

We quote: 'In 2018, 14 female professors received a portrait in the Senate Chamber of the Academy Building, but the sculpture garden did not yet feature a statue of a female professor. Therefore, the Board of Governors commissioned two new sculptures of two top female scientists.'

Iconoclasm?

And so this is the iconoclasm that has erupted according to the malign propaganda of the (mostly) men of Telegraph and the shepherded cabaret artist Teeuwen and schemer Boer. A commission for two statues, of women. Among men. Not instead of.

Cucumber time is the time for organisations to put out press releases with nasty plans. After all: all journalists with knowledge of the matter are at their holiday destinations. It is also the time when a malicious riot can reach bizarre proportions. After all, journalists who know how things work are also sitting somewhere on a rainy campsite digging gutters around the tent.

That's why I don't go on holiday.