The paradox of social safety

Today's society is increasingly characterised by polarisation, and education is no exception. From social inequality to geopolitical tensions, complex issues penetrate deep into the lecture halls of colleges and universities. Administrators, teachers and students face activism, heated debates and divisions. Especially in these turbulent times, the importance of participation, critical thinking and dialogue in education is becoming increasingly urgent. The question is how administrators and supervisors in education can best fulfil their key role: creating a culture in which critical participation is possible.

In recent months, we have seen many examples of how not to do it in any case. Pro-Palestine demonstrators occupied faculties and caused destruction: one-sided activism without any chance for dialogue, in which the education administrators were at a loss for words. The violent protest against a visit by Minister Brekelmans, who came to give a lecture at the Uva, also belongs in this list. That the minister was then sent home out of impotence was not a fine example of academic tradition.

Education reflects social tensions while providing a platform to express them. Yet we see that educational institutions often shy away from controversy. After all, this quickly leads to complaints of social insecurity, after which administrators usually opt for safe, procedural solutions, such as referring to confidants or protocols. While this approach may provide short-term peace of mind, it comes at the expense of a core function of education: preparing students for a complex, diverse and often controversial society.

Activism within education can be valuable, but it sometimes risks crowding out the space for open debate and critical thinking. When absolute positions dominate, education becomes a platform for one-sidedness rather than an arena for constructive exchange. This makes it all the more important that educational institutions actively engage in participation and dialogue, rather than shying away from controversial topics.

Current examples of activism within universities, such as discussions on Gaza, racism, and discrimination, highlight the need for open debate. In some cases, activism leads to polarisation and avoidance of discussion. For example, students demand the raising or removal of flags, while others withdraw from conversations for fear of backlash.

To break this dynamic, universities should provide more space for open, scholarly discussions that integrate activist voices. Essential steps include organising debate meetings, providing historical context, and encouraging critical thinking.

To make education a space for collectivity and knowledge sharing again, the following elements should not be missing. First, there should be room for dialogue at all times. Conversations on sensitive topics should not be avoided but rather facilitated. Administrators have an exemplary role in this by showing that differences of opinion are allowed to exist and should be discussed.

Secondly, all students must experience that they are listened to and that their voices count. Co-determination should be more than a formality. It means that diverse voices within the organisation are not only heard, but also used in policy-making.

A third condition for critical participation is the use and acceptance of humour and perspective during discussions. A relaxed and open attitude can contribute to mutual understanding and a sense of community. A fellow student's viewpoint that is not to your liking should not be a reason to feel unsafe. Education administrators can also make this clear and commit to healthy discussion and moderate it if necessary.

Indeed, social safety is often cited as a reason to avoid specific conversations or isolate opinions. Ironically, this approach can actually lead to more social insecurity. Excluding certain voices or perspectives widens the gap between groups and reinforces polarisation. It is up to educational institutions to create an environment where students not only learn to deal with differences of opinion and work together on shared solutions.

In primary education, there is currently an emphasis on citizenship education, focusing mainly on qualification and socialisation. In doing so, this citizenship education is unworthy of its name, because it essentially glosses over the existence of a polarised society. What is missing is the emancipatory dimension: the ability of students to participate critically, question the status quo and actively participate in thinking about alternatives. The idea of ‘good citizenship’ - with core values like loyalty, obedience and avoiding conflict - undermines this process. As a result, students learn how to adapt to the system rather than how to contribute to change critically. 

Participation requires more than expressing an opinion. It involves the ability to reflect, form judgements and be curious about others' input of others. The philosopher Hannah Arendt stressed that plurality - the presence of different perspectives - is essential to human existence. Yet plurality does not automatically lead to collectivity. Only through open exchange and intersubjective testing can new insights emerge and shared decisions become possible. If we want students to learn to live together and cooperate in a polarised world, there is a role for education to prepare them for this actively. This requires courage from administrators, guts from teachers and commitment from students. It would be nice if educational institutions actively invested in a culture of respect, curiosity and inquisitive dialogue. That also means proactively putting controversial topics on the agenda and calling for an open debate. The more controversial the topic, the more strongly it invites participation. Of course, this requires careful preparation and firm moderation. As far as we are concerned, the aforementioned social safety no longer needs to be set in stone, but neglecting it will bring the desired dialogue to a standstill and we will still not achieve anything. Safety is created precisely by exposing pupils and students to other opinions and insights. They will learn that this sometimes leads to new insights by letting these sink in. This ultimately promotes the resilience that our society so desperately needs.
 

Education has the unique task of preparing a new generation for a complex and diverse society. This requires critical citizenship, where students learn not only to think and judge, but also to cooperate and take responsibility. Only by embracing active participation can education fulfil its emancipatory function and contribute to a resilient society where everyone feels invited to make their voice heard. Collaboration, respect, and curiosity about the other are key here. 

Numerous structural barriers within higher education limit student and faculty voice. Efficiency thinking, rigid quality cycles and accreditation processes often limit the space for critical reflection. Initially intended to ensure quality, these normative frameworks can hinder innovation and deepening. Administrators are under pressure to deliver measurable results, but this begs the question: what are students actually being ‘prepared’ for? More flexibility and direction for students over their own study paths could help to better align education with their future needs and role within society.

Administrators have a key role in creating a culture where critical participation is possible. This requires courage to deviate from rigid frameworks and more emphasis on values-driven education. Students and staff should be invited to contribute actively to the institution's direction actively.

Supervisors and the education inspectorate, should additionally develop a broader view. It is important that they monitor not only educational quality, but also the extent to which institutions contribute to a vibrant democratic culture. Facilitating discussion, reflection, and participation is a crucial part of good education. By denying controversy and polarisation, education administrators erode their own organisation. Calling for critical participation can take the first steps towards building a strong community. 

This brings us back to the key question: how can administrators and supervisors break down barriers and promote an inclusive, meaningful educational environment? This should be a starting point for an open debate among all stakeholders.

The first answer at least lies in daring to let go of purely measurable targets and create space for impact-driven education. This means not only practical adjustments, such as more flexibility in the curriculum, but also a fundamental change in how universities see their role as knowledge institutions. Higher education can exemplify how living and working together in a diverse, complex world is possible. But this requires courage, vision, and a renewed commitment to the core values of science and democracy.