UvA Kieswijzer

The UvA should prioritise offering permanent contracts to Junior Lecturers (D4s), even if this leaves less financial room for senior lecturer salary increases.

UvASociaal

Agree

UvASociaal agrees with this statement, as junior lecturers are often disproportionately affected by unstable working conditions and precarious contracts. While senior lecturers also deserve fair salaries, they generally already have greater financial stability and institutional security, which many junior lecturers lack. Therefore, improving employment security and working conditions for junior lecturers should be prioritized over increasing salaries for those in more secure positions.

The Founding Students

Neutral

Stance: Decision-making regarding contract structures and salary distribution requires specialist expertise and should not be made by the FSR. TFS emphasizes that the quality of lecturers is most important, regardless of whether they are junior or senior staff members. Explanation: Balancing permanent contracts for junior lecturers against creating financial room for salary increases for senior lecturers is complex and requires in-depth knowledge of personnel policy and financial frameworks. TFS believes that such decisions belong at the central level, where the necessary expertise is available and an integrated assessment can be made. TFS emphasizes that the quality of lecturers is paramount, regardless of whether they are junior or senior staff members. Considerations regarding contracts should primarily be based on quality.

De Vrije Student

Disagree

The university needs a certain flexible workforce in order to respond to fluctuating student numbers, temporary teaching demand, and changes within degree programmes. Moreover, the UvA already has relatively strong D4 policy, under which Junior Lecturers can, in our view, receive several years of job security. Any further expansion of permanent contracts should therefore be carefully weighed against financial feasibility and a fair distribution of resources within the teaching team

Meteor

Disagree

Enabling competitive salaries for senior lecturers attracts talent among junior lecturers and is beneficial for students

ActivistenPartij UvA

Fully agree

The Activistenpartij stands in solidarity and fully supports the causes of CasualUvA. The UvA should offer permanent contracts and better working conditions for Junior Lecturers, thus ensuring stable living conditions.

Student Mandate

Agree

The UvA should seriously invest in permanent contracts for junior lecturers. Structural teaching should not depend on temporary insecurity. At the same time, this must be done carefully: the university should not shift so much financial capacity that experienced senior lecturers leave or feel undervalued. Good education requires both continuity and expertise. We therefore support more permanent contracts for junior lecturers, as long as this is part of a balanced staffing policy that also preserves the quality, supervision and experience of senior lecturers.

INTER

Agree

Stable contracts improve educational quality and staff wellbeing, which directly benefits students.

Sefa Student Party

Neutral

Lampara

Fully agree

Job security for junior lecturers is essential for their wellbeing, and the university should treat the wellbeing of its labor force as a priority. Furthermore, beyond worker welfare, permanent contracts for junior lecturers would allow them to do a better job serving the university community as they would not have to deal with the stress of potentially having to be uprooted after their temporary contract ends, which is especially important for junior lectures, coming outside of Europe.

LIEF

Agree

LIEF believes that offering permanent contracts to Junior Lecturers will improve the quality of education. If these lecturers are not offered permanent positions, they only teach at the university for a few years before being replaced. Consequently, the UvA loses educators who have gained valuable experience, which negatively impacts educational standards. Furthermore, providing stability to junior lecturers is the only way to secure the senior faculty of the future. By offering young talent a stable foundation, we give them the opportunity to truly develop into the experienced professionals who will sustain our education in the long term.

PartijMFAS

Neutral

The UvA should completely exclude research collaboration and funding from the security and resilience sector.

Examples of the companies within this sector are the Ministry of Defence, the police, the NFI, the AIVD, RIVM and financial services.

The Founding Students

Neutral

Stance: This issue has limited relevance at the faculty level and primarily concerns a central policy consideration. Explanation: Within the Faculty of Law, research collaborations with the security and resilience sector are rare. The practical relevance of this issue at faculty level is therefore limited. In addition, excluding such collaborations concerns a broader policy-based and, to some extent, political decision affecting the university as a whole. TFS believes that these considerations should be addressed at the central level, where the Central Student Council (CSR) and the university board can make an integrated assessment. At the faculty level, TFS aims to focus on issues directly related to the quality of education.

Lampara

Fully agree

We wanted cops off campus—Now why is defense knocking on our door? We stand against state-sanctioned violence and the appropriation of research, academic material, staff, and students by the military.

UvASociaal

Neutral

UvASociaal is critical of security and resilience funding, as it is often closely connected to military or surveillance interests. While universities should contribute to society, there must be clear ethical limits to how research and education are used. We believe collaborations in these areas should only be allowed under strict regulations and a transparent ethical framework, ensuring that research outcomes are not used to support harmful or oppressive practices.

LIEF

Disagree

Research collaborations with the security and resilience sector can be highly valuable for students aspiring to a career in this field. As an interdisciplinary party, we want to provide students with the freedom to develop themselves across as many disciplines as possible. Furthermore, we find this motion to be too restrictive. Because the security and resilience sector is so broad, a total exclusion would have significant consequences for research areas that are of great social importance even outside the context of defense

INTER

Agree

INTER supports ethical and transparent partnerships, but we should deeply avoiding collaborations linked to human rights violations or harmful agendas

Meteor

Agree

Science can be a powerful force in raising awareness for malicious practices of authorities and keeping them in check. Hence independence is crucial to ensure neutrality and the common good.

Student Mandate

Disagree

A complete exclusion of cooperation with the security and resilience sector goes too far. The UvA should assess each partnership critically to determine whether it is compatible with academic freedom, human rights, scientific integrity and social responsibility. Cooperation with institutions such as Defence, the police, the RIVM or other public bodies can be legitimate and socially relevant. However, the university must set clear boundaries: no cooperation that contributes to human rights violations, unlawful surveillance, discrimination or other harmful applications.

PartijMFAS

Neutral

Sefa Student Party

Disagree

Sefa Student Party believes that the UvA should minimize collaboration with and funding from the arms industry particularly in light of current global conflicts, while recognizing the importance of institutions that contribute to public safety, such as the police, AIVD, and RIVM and emergency services.

ActivistenPartij UvA

Fully agree

Collaborations with the so called security and resilience sector actively contribute to the oppression of the working class. Security has been used in the past to justify major conflicts, such as the Iraq war and internally secures only capital not the people. Our university must not partake in the building of weapons or improving monitoring systems for the police. Collaborations with historical archives for degrees like Military History (Militaire Geschiedenis) are valid for science as a means and end. Careful consideration is necessary when lives are at stake.

De Vrije Student

Disagree

DVS opposes the complete exclusion of cooperation with the security and resilience sector. Such partnerships can produce valuable social and scientific research, for example in the fields of security, forensic science, cybersecurity, or crisis management. However, academic independence, transparency, and clear ethical boundaries must always be safeguarded.

The UvA should expand research collaboration and funding partnerships with private sector companies.

The Founding Students

Agree

Stance: Collaborations with the private sector are possible, provided they contribute to the quality of education and are assessed carefully. A good example of this was the now discontinued ALF minor. Explanation: Entering into research collaborations and funding partnerships with private parties requires specialist knowledge and a careful balancing of interests. TFS believes that such collaborations should in principle be possible, as long as they demonstrably contribute to the quality of education and academic independence remains safeguarded. A good example of this was the now discontinued ALF minor. In this minor, students worked on cases provided by both private and public institutions, ranging from law firms and legal aid organizations to the judiciary and the Public Prosecution Service. These real-life cases provided students with valuable practical knowledge and experience.

PartijMFAS

Neutral

Meteor

PartijMFAS

Neutral

Sefa Student Party

Fully disagree

Sefa student party believes that random lotteries, especially in numerus fixus courses, are an unfair representation of certain factors that must be considered before admitting a student into programme. Admission should reward motivation, commitment, and academic success, and these factors allow UvA to identify students that are academically prepared and aligned with the demands of the programme. A lottery system can overlook hardworking applicants that put a lot of effort into their previous studies.

The university should actively prioritise diversity targets in hiring, even when this means deviating from purely merit-based selection.

INTER

Agree

Diversity improves education and representation, and universities should actively work toward inclusive hiring.

Student Mandate

Agree

The university should aim for a diverse staff body that better reflects society. This requires active policy, fair recruitment and removing barriers in selection procedures. At the same time, quality must remain leading. Diversity goals should not mean that suitability, expertise and experience become less important. The right approach is therefore not to abandon merit-based selection, but to make selection procedures fairer, broader and less exclusionary.

Sefa Student Party

Agree

Sefa Student Party agrees that the University of Amsterdam needs to prioritise diversity targeting. Different backgrounds, experiences, and perspectives contribute greatly to a representative university environment. Sefa believes that UvA should create equal opportunities, even for underrepresented groups.

De Vrije Student

Disagree

DVS stands for equal opportunities, but believes that quality, experience, and suitability should remain the basis for staff selection. Diversity can be valuable, but it should not mean moving away from selection based on merit. The university should remove barriers and encourage broad recruitment, without placing candidates’ identity above quality.

PartijMFAS

Disagree

UvASociaal

Agree

UvASociaal supports prioritizing diversity targets to ensure better representation, while also recognizing that merit remains important in selection processes. However, selection should not be based on a “purely merit-based” system, as such processes are often shaped by existing social and institutional biases. Promoting diversity helps create a more inclusive and representative university community while addressing structural inequalities within education.

Meteor

Neutral

The tradeoff has to be balanced

Lampara

Fully agree

Why does this question pose diversity as costing the quality and merit of applicants? This is an empirically unfounded claim: a variety of studies of workforce management and organizational psychology have shown that thoughtfully implemented diversity policies in no way sacrifice qualitative standards. Lampara stands for a diversity-oriented hiring policy.

LIEF

Agree

LIEF believes that diversity directly improves the quality of education. Therefore, a well-considered balance must be maintained during the candidate selection process.

ActivistenPartij UvA

Fully agree

Activistenpartij fully supports the prioritisation of diversity targets, as we should follow the equity principle in terms of diversity. We strongly believe this approach doesn't hinder merit-based selection, as its purpose is to reverse centuries-old discrimination which precludes actual merit-based selection by excluding anyone and everyone who isn't a white man. Because of this history, those of minority backgrounds systematically encounter more barriers that heavily affect their life chances. UvA should counter this via affirmative action.

The Founding Students

Disagree

Stance: Selection should primarily be based on quality and suitability. Explanation: TFS believes that quality and suitability should always be the leading factors in recruitment and selection procedures. Actively deviating from merit-based selection by prioritizing diversity goals is considered undesirable. Although diversity within the university is a valuable objective, it should not come at the expense of objective and substantive selection criteria. TFS stands for equal treatment and believes that every candidate should be assessed based on their qualifications and abilities.

Disagree

Sefa Student Party believes the University of Amsterdam should maintain a balance between Dutch and international students, reflecting its role as a Dutch institution. While this implies some limits on international intake, the diversity of Amsterdam highlights the value of international students who come to study, learn a new culture, and contribute to Dutch society. A balanced composition supports better integration and mutual benefit.

Meteor

Agree

More international students makes the university a place where on is prepared for a fully globalized future.

UvASociaal

Disagree

Over the past 15 years, the UvA and other universities have actively recruited large numbers of international students without adequately preparing for the resulting influx, which has put pressure on housing, accessibility, and the quality of education. If national-level measures are introduced to better manage this growth and improve educational quality, UvASociaal does not believe these should be strongly opposed. This is not because international students are unwelcome, but because universities invested heavily in international marketing without ensuring they had the resources and long-term planning needed to properly support and accommodate students. As a result, both Dutch and international students have experienced worsening housing conditions and increasing pressure on education quality.

The Founding Students

Neutral

Stance: Opposing national policy plans concerning international students is primarily a central matter. Explanation: Policy responses to government plans affect the university as a whole and require decision-making at the central level. As a faculty-level representative body, TFS has limited direct influence on such matters.

PartijMFAS

Neutral

Students wishing to follow honours programmes should be admitted based on academic performance, not motivation alone.

Sefa Student Party

Fully agree

Sefa Student Party believes the current system works well due to its proven ability to reward top-performing students with the opportunity to receive the additional honors title.

LIEF

Fully disagree

LIEF believes that everyone should have the opportunity to develop themselves beyond the standard curriculum, whether by specialising further or broadening their horizons. The honours programme can form part of this. Whether you ultimately receive the ‘honours’ designation depends on your performance throughout this programme. We therefore see no reason to create barriers for students from the outset. Give everyone the chance to prove themselves.

ActivistenPartij UvA

Fully disagree

On principle, we believe that every student should be given the greatest ability to pursue whatever courses match their interests. We also question whether a simple GPA is an appropriate measure to assess their suitability for a given course.

Student Mandate

Agree

Honours programmes should become more accessible and less closed off, so that motivated students get a fair chance. At the same time, admission should not be based solely on motivation. An honours programme requires extra effort and academic ability. Therefore, performance, study progress and suitability should weigh heavily, alongside motivation. This protects the quality of the programme without making admission unnecessarily restrictive or elitist.

UvASociaal

Disagree

UvASociaal believes that students should be given the opportunity to follow honours programmes not only based on academic performance, but also on motivation, as this is a strong indicator of curiosity and future academic growth. Grades alone do not fully represent a student’s abilities or potential, and relying solely on them can overlook capable and motivated students.

PartijMFAS

Disagree

INTER

Agree

Academic performance should remain an important factor, though motivation should also be considered.

The Founding Students

PartijMFAS

Agree

Meteor

Agree

Makes for the best education, the best universities do this!

UvASociaal

PartijMFAS

Neutral

The majority of the food options sold on campus should be plant based.

INTER

Disagree

INTER supports sustainable campus policies and environmentally friendly food options. However, we respect everyones dietary choices, and as such, we do not wish to impose any restrictions on anyone.

The Founding Students

Disagree

Position: TFS welcomes a plant-based diet. However, students should retain the freedom to make their own dietary choices; standardising options to be plant-based is undesirable. Explanation: Dietary choices are personal and may be influenced by health, culture or religion. Promoting plant-based options may be legitimate on sustainability grounds, but not through a mandatory framework that excludes alternatives. TFS does, however, welcome plant-based food.

PartijMFAS

Disagree

UvASociaal

Fully agree

UvASociaal initiated the Anti-Kantine campaign, advocating for lower food prices and more vegan options on campus, which contributed to the development of De Nieuwe Mensa. We believe food options on campus should at least be plant-based by default, as this is a practical and impactful way for the university to reduce its environmental footprint while still preserving freedom of choice.

Lampara

Fully agree

The animal-based food industry continues its disastrous contributions to the climate crisis. Switching to a primarily plant-based policy with regards to food at university would be the sign of the UvA staying true to its commitment to sustainability.

ActivistenPartij UvA

Fully agree

We are fighting for affordable and sustainable food options for everyone. This means that every food provider should offer a vegan version of the dish as a default with non-vegan options as an addition. De Nieuwe Mensa offers a wide variety of vegan food options and has proven to be very popular among students.

Student Mandate

Disagree

Plant-based options are important and should be widely available, affordable and attractive. At the same time, the food offered on campus should remain diverse, so that students with different preferences, diets, allergies and cultural or religious food practices can find something suitable. The university should encourage sustainable choices, but should not require that more than half of all food sold is plant-based. Freedom of choice and a broad range of options for everyone should come first.

Sefa Student Party

Fully disagree

Sefa Student Party supports diverse food options at the University of Amsterdam, while maintaining that dietary choices should remain with students and not be imposed by the university.

Meteor

Agree

Science says it's good for us and the environment. Lets follow our own teachings?

De Vrije Student

Disagree

De Vrije Student believes that students and staff should be able to choose what they want to eat. Plant-based options can certainly be encouraged and made widely available, but steering what is actually sold goes much further than simply adjusting the range of options. If the university wants to ensure that more than half of the food sold is plant-based, this means actively limiting or influencing freedom of choice. DVS considers a varied, affordable, and freely accessible food offer more important, in which both plant-based and non-plant-based options remain sufficiently available.

LIEF

Agree

LIEF aims to promote sustainability, and encouraging a plant-based diet is part of this. We believe that a target of at least half of sales being plant-based food is a realistic goal, whilst also allowing room for other preferences.

LIEF welcomes the progress that has already been made in this area. However, not all buildings have enough gender-neutral toilets available yet. In existing buildings, these toilets are often treated as an afterthought.

PartijMFAS

Neutral

The Founding Students

Neutral

Stance: TFS does not have sufficient insight into the need for gender-neutral toilets to make a firm judgment. However, TFS is of the opinion that converting existing toilets into gender-neutral facilities would not be problematic. Explanation: There is no principled objection to gender-neutral facilities. Everyone should feel welcome at the university. However, assessing whether the current provisions are sufficient requires insight into the actual demand, which TFS currently lacks. TFS does believe that converting existing toilets into gender-neutral facilities would not be problematic.

Lampara

Agree

It is appalling that the students have to look far and wide to find gender neutral bathrooms in the humanities campus and there is no readily accessible directory to find where the gender neutral bathrooms are in the buildings of PCH, OMHP, and the UB. Many students don’t even realize that we have a set of gender neutral toilets in the back hall of the toilet wing in OMHP. convert more bathrooms into being gender neutral: we need more gender neutral bathrooms with urinals and/or menstrual product bins that are clean and dignified to use. As it is—Everyone’s gender fluid depending on what bathroom’s available anyways.

Motions

The Founding Students

Neutral

PartijMFAS

Disagree

Student Mandate

Disagree

UvASociaal

Agree

Meteor

Agree

De Vrije Student

Disagree

INTER

Agree

Sefa Student Party

Disagree

ActivistenPartij UvA

Fully agree

LIEF

Agree

Lampara

Fully agree

The Founding Students

Disagree

LIEF

Agree

De Vrije Student

Disagree

Student Mandate

Disagree

Meteor

Neutral

Lampara

Agree

UvASociaal

Agree

INTER

Fully agree

PartijMFAS

Disagree

Sefa Student Party

Disagree

ActivistenPartij UvA

Fully agree

UvASociaal

Fully agree

Lampara

Fully agree

De Vrije Student

Disagree

INTER

Agree

LIEF

Agree

The Founding Students

Neutral

Sefa Student Party

Fully disagree

ActivistenPartij UvA

Fully agree

PartijMFAS

Disagree

Meteor

Agree

Student Mandate

Neutral

Meteor

Neutral

UvASociaal

Disagree

LIEF

Neutral

INTER

Disagree

PartijMFAS

Neutral

ActivistenPartij UvA

Fully disagree

Sefa Student Party