In 2024, universities worldwide witnessed an escalation of pro-Palestinian protests. Against the background of established human rights violations by the Israeli government in Gaza and the occupied Palestinian territories, protesters demanded transparency on institutional partnerships with Israeli universities and ultimately called for the termination of these partnerships. In response, Radboud University’s Executive Board commissioned its Partnerships Advisory Committee to assess the institutional partnerships of the university, with special attention to those in conflict zones. To advise the Board, the committee developed an assessment framework integrating three core principles: academic freedom, human rights, and scientific integrity. This three-pronged framework defines the ‘Nijmegen approach’ and has directly guided the Board’s decisions hitherto.

Academic freedom as the foundation

Within the development of the assessment framework, academic freedom took primacy, as being the main and most fundamental condition for research and education. Academic freedom encompasses, among other things, the freedom to choose research topics and to share research results at conferences and lectures, but importantly also the freedom to collaborate with other scientists, scientific institutions, and universities. When considering the termination of an institutional partnership, the latter freedom is seemingly at stake.

However, academic freedom is not absolute and like most fundamental rights, is subject to limits. These can include international sanctions, internal university regulations, and knowledge security guidelines. Crucially, according to our approach, grave and systematic human rights violations as well as systematic breaches of scientific integrity also serve as a minimum limit to academic freedom. Any direct and specific involvement with such violations cannot be justified as being protected under academic freedom and, therefore, calls into question maintaining or entering an institutional partnership.

This naturally raises a few questions: under what circumstances does the committee consider there to be grave and systematic violations of human rights and/or systematic breaches of scientific integrity? What counts as direct and specific involvement? And, when an institutional partnership is terminated, what are the consequences for individual researchers and students? Addressing these questions one-by-one provides a clear illustration of the Nijmegen approach.

Application of human rights and scientific integrity

With respect to human rights and scientific integrity, the Nijmegen approach does not seek to reinvent the wheel. Rather, it aligns itself with authoritative and widely accepted standards. For scientific integrity it relies on the Netherlands Code of Conduct for Research Integrity and the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity (ALLEA code). Regarding human rights this includes frameworks such as the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966) and the Genocide Convention (1948).

Furthermore, in assessing whether there are grave and systematic human rights violations the committee draws from court decisions and legal opinions (such as the Hague Court of Appeal and the UN International Court of Justice) and reports from credible independent sources such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and Scholars at Risk.

Determining whether a university is directly involved in human rights violations can be challenging, as responsibility for such violations typically lies with the government under which the university inevitably operates. Direct involvement, however, may include practices such as active religious or racial discrimination against staff and students, or the systematic undermining of their rights to demonstrate and freedom of expression.

Moreover, as observed in the case of certain Israeli universities (see: TAU, HUJI, BGU), direct involvement may also arise from extensive collaboration with entities responsible for human rights violations, such as the armed forces. Breaches of scientific integrity typically include suchlike actions by governments that undermine institutional independence with respect to research and education.

Academic freedom as an end

Ultimately, the committee has adopted a case-by-case approach, assessing collaborations at an institutional level (e.g. Memoranda of Understanding and faculty-level partnerships). Simultaneously, based on academic freedom, the Nijmegen approach leaves space for individual collaboration. Researchers and students remain free to work, in a personal capacity, with researchers from institutions whose partnerships with the university have been terminated.

The duality between institutional and individual is essential. It enables the university to take a principled stance without imposing a complete boycott. The freedom for individuals to maintain collaboration is preserved and, subsequently, academic freedom is placed at both the beginning and the end of the Nijmegen approach.