The Language of Education: The Proposed Shift in the Netherlands and Its Implications

The Government of the Netherlands is deliberating on the introduction of a legislative provision that aims to curtail the predominance of English-language coursework in higher education. The proposed bill stipulates that no less than two-thirds of the instructional content of standard bachelor’s degree programs should be delivered in Dutch, barring certain exemptions that universities might secure. Further, it might necessitate international students to acquire a fundamental proficiency in the Dutch language. The prospect of a considerable burden arises due to the relatively short duration of education, typically spanning a mere one to three years in the majority of instances.

This initiative comes in response to the growing enrolment of international students, who presently account for 15% of the total student populace. In light of the broader context, it is evident that the proportion of international students, constituting approximately 15% of the total student population, should not be perceived as an overwhelmingly significant figure. It is crucial to consider this in relation to the Dutch student body, which forms the majority with 85% representation. By emphasising the Dutch component, we ensure a comprehensive understanding of the student population composition, rather than solely focusing on the international students as a minority group. According to official statistics provided by the Dutch government, as of January 1, 2021, approximately 14% of the Netherlands’ total population of 17.5 million comprised individuals born abroad who migrated to the country. Furthermore, an additional 11.4% of the population consisted of individuals born in the Netherlands as children of migrants. These statistics underscore the diverse nature of the Dutch population, highlighting the contributions and cultural influences of both international migrants and individuals born in the country to its social fabric. It is essential to approach this topic from an impartial perspective, acknowledging the intricate dynamics and proportions within the student population while avoiding any partisan bias.

The proposed measures mark a departure for the Netherlands, a nation known for its global interconnectivity and extensive proficiency in English. Anticipated to be promulgated in the near future and implemented from September 2024, this legislation has elicited an array of responses. Detractors contend that this directive could impede the progress of Dutch academia, potentially leading to a decline in the quality of research. They cite studies demonstrating that the fiscal contributions of international students surpass their incurred costs, attributable to the significant fraction that chooses to remain post-graduation. The stringent language requirement, critics opine, may deter globally competitive talent from pursuing education at Dutch institutions.

Due to concerns about capacity, the Dutch government requested earlier in the year that national universities reduce their active recruitment of foreign students. Robbert Dijkgraaf, the education minister, underscored the infrastructural and service burdens precipitated by the influx of international students, numbering 85,955 in the 2022–2023 academic year. The government expressed concern over the displacement of Dutch students from domestic institutions and the potential denial of access to higher education in certain instances. The caveat accompanying the request encouraged universities to refine their selectivity, targeting students likely to remain post-study and thereby contribute to the local economy. Nevertheless, this approach encountered resistance, with critics warning against potential damage to the quality of Dutch higher education and research.

The persistent inquiry arises: how can a mere 14% segment of the population exert such influence as to displace the majority? It is imperative to clarify, from a statistical standpoint, that the assertion regarding Dutch students facing difficulties in securing university positions lacks veracity. In reality, the crux of the matter lies in the inadequate allocation of resources by the government, which impacts students across the board. It is worth noting that international students, in contrast to their Dutch counterparts, confront higher tuition fees and a dearth of privileges. Moreover, this discussion should not divert our attention from the underlying reality that the allocation of these coveted university placements favours the privileged echelons of Dutch society. A notable consequence of this system is the unfortunate impediment faced by numerous prospective students who, due to being sifted out at earlier stages within the inherently hierarchical educational framework, are effectively precluded from pursuing higher education. Regrettably, the current state of affairs in the Netherlands manifests a lack of proactive measures to cultivate national diversity within our universities. As it stands, international diversity appears to be the primary avenue through which diversity is currently being fostered.

The domain of higher education in the Netherlands is increasingly becoming a theatre of national identity politics. The ascendancy of nativist anti-internationalist sentiment, fuelled by populist, anti-immigrant discourse, harbours significant ramifications for both national and international minority students. It is important to highlight the United Kingdom’s concerning policies regarding nativism, aimed at restricting immigration numbers. However, despite the intended objectives, these policies have proven to be ineffective as immigration numbers have actually increased. Paradoxically, this has led to a shortage of workers in critical sectors within Britain. The case of Brexit Britain serves as an unfavourable model that raises concerns about the potential direction the Netherlands may be heading if similar policies are adopted. Such observations can play a persuasive role in appealing to Dutch sensibilities, emphasizing the importance of avoiding such ill-conceived measures. This phenomenon instigates a wave of racialisation in academia, the ripple effects of which permeate broader societal spheres. This racialisation fosters an ‘us versus them’ dynamic, with students from immigrant backgrounds or minority ethnicities often subjected to exclusionary practices. The resultant ramifications are pervasive, engendering a deepening cycle of marginalisation and exclusion, restricting these students’ opportunities, and fostering a sense of alienation. This could also precipitate an intellectual exodus if these students, feeling unwelcome or marginalised, opt to leave the country or cease their education.

Additionally, such attitudes can induce a chilling effect on international faculty. Numerous individuals have established their residences and crafted a meaningful existence within their new surroundings, having been explicitly embraced into the community. However, the sudden emergence of language barriers, particularly for those who were specifically recruited to engage in educational and research activities conducted exclusively in English, significantly hinders their ability to cultivate a profound sense of belonging. International scholars may perceive their work environment as increasingly hostile, their contributions undervalued, and their positions potentially threatened. The intellectual diversity that these international academics bring risks being suppressed, possibly compromising the quality of education, which thrives on a plethora of perspectives. Unfortunately, the Dutch government’s response to these trends seems to echo the mounting worldwide ambivalence towards globalisation. On the one hand, the economic advantages of international students and staff are recognised; they stimulate local economies and enhance the research productivity of the nation’s universities. On the other hand, there is an impetus to prioritise Dutch students and to uphold Dutch culture within the higher education system. The outcome is a policy approach that can appear inconsistent and potentially exacerbate feelings of marginalisation among international students and staff.

Nevertheless, it should be acknowledged that the implementation of certain policies within the Dutch higher education system may not be equally advantageous for all students, specifically favouring those belonging to the Dutch elite. It is unfortunate that numerous individuals in the Netherlands find themselves unable to access university education due to the manner in which they are assessed and filtered through the lower tiers of the educational framework. In fact, the issue of diversity remains a challenge within the Dutch higher education system, even when considering the wider population of Dutch students. Therefore, it is essential to recognise that any hindrance faced by Dutch individuals in pursuing higher education primarily stems from their own national educational structure rather than being solely attributed to the presence of international students. It is crucial to underscore that the aforementioned policy is unlikely to create opportunities for marginalised groups such as the Dutch working class or ethnic minorities, as long as prevailing elitism persists. This observation sheds light on the need to address and rectify the systemic factors that contribute to the limited access and opportunities for certain segments of the Dutch population within the realm of higher education. By doing so, a more inclusive and equitable educational landscape can be fostered, thereby facilitating social mobility and enabling a fairer distribution of educational advantages among all members of society.

The intersection of migration, higher education, and globalisation brings significant potential implications. With anti-internationalist sentiment gaining traction, Dutch universities risk becoming even less appealing to prospective international students and faculty. This could lead to a decline in diversity, a contraction of intellectual breadth, and potential harm to the universities’ international standing. The current strategy threatens the principles of inclusion and equality in higher education due to its nativist and anti-internationalist stance. The aforementioned stance contradicts the articulated objectives of the higher education sector regarding inclusivity, as well as the existing projects and policies on diversity and inclusion endorsed by the government. Regrettably, the implementation of this new policy is anticipated to undermine these important initiatives. It risks deepening societal divisions, alienating minorities, and undermining the value that diversity brings to the academic sphere. The impending challenge for Dutch higher education is to navigate a path that allows for a more inclusive national identity while continuing to nurture the rich diversity fundamental to academic excellence.

The concept of national identity should not be perceived as a rigid, unchanging entity that requires safeguarding against any form of alteration, while also considering other factors. Rather, it should be recognised as an ever-evolving construct that lacks a fixed essence. The Dutch higher education system, which actively engages with global knowledge, has consistently played a role in this ongoing evolution. It is important to address concerns related to the 14%–15% statistic, in order to alleviate any anxieties. The issue lies simply in the fact that the Dutch higher education system does not impose restrictions on enrollment without any qualifiers. Furthermore, the system has endured a prolonged period of financial neglect, and has failed to adequately address the pressing housing crisis. It’s crucial to remember that foreigners in general or international students specifically are not the main cause of this crisis. The underlying root causes of the crisis lie elsewhere, and implementing this particular policy will result in adverse outcomes without effectively resolving the fundamental issues.