With Roderik Van De Wal and Klaas Landsman, I show how criticism of fossil ties is smothered in academic ‘dialogue’. It’s fine to have your say – as long as you don’t think it will be taken seriously. For the full story our opinion piece in Trouw.
In the Dutch polder landscape, there seems to be no greater sin than not engaging in dialogue. After all, isn’t it always good to keep talking to each other? In many cases it is. But the widely accepted value of dialogue also makes it a strong rhetorical tool that administrators like to use to stifle critical voices. Academic administrators are masters of this too. They like nothing better than to promote the conversation only to let existing interests prevail and leave everything as it is.
This is what we experienced as concerned scientists at Scientists4Future when we wanted to talk to NWO (Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research) about severing ties with the fossil industry. It turned out that the lines of communication with the Dutch big polluters were so short that we were only allowed to come as part of a ‘dialogue session’ with the chief executive of Shell, the director of strategy of Tata Group and a top official of EZK. It also turned out that the topic of the session had changed. According to NWO, we would jointly examine ‘under what conditions cooperation is possible’. Because the fact that scientists had to continue working with big polluters at all costs was apparently already established.
When we openly questioned what purpose dialogue under these conditions actually serves, the matter was immediately settled. Soon, NWO itself will issue a statement on cooperation with social partners in academic research. We do not expect any surprises. At most, fodder for a new round of dialogues and collaborations with Shell, Tata and other wonderful partners in the Netherlands.