Siri speaks of “bullying”; Bruggink refers to “dehumanisation.” “And not by the VSP,” Siri adds, “but by my own party, ChangeVU.”
The two believe the atmosphere within the USC has become so unsafe that they are resigning not only as the executive board, but also as council members. They are also leaving their party. “Trust has been irreparably damaged,” Bruggink says.
They were called “puppets of the executive board” of VU. Harsh accusations were sent to them via WhatsApp. “The language that was used… we were reduced to objects,” Bruggink says. “By people we had known for years, people we were friends with, speaking about us like that. It seems they forget that we are human too.”
Former board member also resigned
Tensions within the USC – then for the first time including VSP representatives – had already led to the resignation of an executive board member in 2024: chair Guido Groenescheij. “At times there were fierce disagreements about fundamental issues, about how cooperation should take place,” he told Ad Valvas at the time. He said he could no longer appear on campus “without someone coming up to complain about someone else.” When he tried to discuss what he described as an unhealthy atmosphere and the boundaries he was running into, he felt unsupported and decided to step down.
“The emotions have escalated to the point where dialogue is no longer possible,” says Siri. “The personal attacks we faced – that’s not how you treat people. We worked hard, ten-hour days, rushing from meeting to meeting – and then someone writes in a group chat that they could just as easily be a board member by doing nothing and collecting the allowance. That’s simply unfair.”
Sexual assault
Tensions intensified particularly after a student was assaulted in late November at Bar Boele by VSP founder Marlon Uljee. A USC member was also allegedly sexually assaulted by another VSP member.
The victim did not wish to go public, but the case became public knowledge after ChangeVU members, frustrated by what they saw as the university’s lack of decisive action, spoke to newspaper Het Parool.
Because of the alleged assault, USC meetings could no longer continue: council members refused to sit at the table with VSP representatives. Siri and Bruggink therefore brought in external experts to explore, through discussions with USC members, how to create a workable structure again.
To avoid disrupting that process, members of both the USC and the Works Council (OR) – together forming the university’s participation council – were asked not to communicate about the matter internally or externally.
No media ban
That request angered several ChangeVU members. In Het Parool, the impression was created that participation bodies had been prohibited by the university from speaking to the media about the VSP.
“That is absolutely not what we meant,” says Bruggink. “By ‘internal’ we meant the USC and the OR; by ‘external’ we meant the executive board. We would never ask anyone not to speak to the media. I have spoken to several media outlets myself.” In hindsight, she says, the wording could have been better.
“Our priority was the integrity of the council and, above all, the interests of the sexual assault victim,” says Siri. “She felt ashamed, and everything we did was aimed at protecting her.”
“It was not up to other council members to make her story public,” Bruggink adds. “I have the impression she felt pressured to do so because someone else had already spoken to Het Parool.”
Exaggerations
Bruggink says she was frustrated by people who, according to her, boasted about having exaggerated or invented details in the Parool article while omitting other facts. “That’s so dumb. If people find one detail that is incorrect, they use it to discredit the entire story. And the facts are bad enough as they are.”
Being labelled “puppets” – marionettes of the executive board – and accused of secretly teaming up with them, hurt both Bruggink and Siri. “We gave the executive board very firm criticism,” they say.
They also believe the anger among council members is understandable. According to them, VU did fall short and did far too little. “If action had been taken earlier, Uljee would not have assaulted that student,” Bruggink says.
Looking back, she believes she and Siri should have involved the rest of the USC more in their discussions with the executive board (CvB). “We did not always have new information to share and then remained silent. We should have communicated more.”
“Some ChangeVU members felt we should take the lead by escalating the situation and threatening to go to the media,” she adds. “I don’t believe in that. You have to keep talking. Not with the perpetrators – I am firmly against that – but with the executive board. And again, I understand the anger, but before sending angry messages to the executive board, take a moment, sleep on it. The next day your anger may have cooled.”
‘We reacted too strongly’
Former USC member Simon Westhoff, still active within ChangeVU, agrees that the response to the USC board was too harsh. “I regret that, and it pains me.”
According to him, everyone within the USC is “overworked” and there is a “sense of powerlessness” within both the council and ChangeVU. “Anne and Oskar are not puppets of the executive board,” he says. “They did what they could with the information available to them, which they were not always able to share. They were rushing from meeting to meeting and could not devote enough time to their regular core tasks.”
He acknowledges that the executive board must operate constructively and follow procedures. “But at the same time, ensuring the safety of all USC members is also their responsibility.”
Westhoff believes they should have taken a firmer stance towards the executive board and kept others better informed about what was happening in discussions between the executive board and the CvB. “But it is not normal that they were burdened with responsibilities of this magnitude. They tried to do what was best for the group.”
‘Tensions? What tension’
“Tensions within ChangeVU? I wouldn’t way that,” says ChangeVU chair Diana Yosifova. “There had already been dissatisfaction about the lack of communication between the executive board and the rest of the USC. We don’t blame the board for that – it has been an unusual year, with Marlon and everything.”
According to her, responsibility lies mainly with the university. “The executive board’s response to the recent Parool article does not help either. It still does not seem to understand what is really happening here – certainly not political polarisation, as it suggested.”
ChangeVU will continue after the departure of the USC board, she says. “A new board will be elected and we will prepare for the upcoming student council elections.”
Can those elections proceed as usual? “The VSP issue has been ongoing for three years. At other universities the VSP has been dissolved, so I see no reason why not.”
Committee suspends meetings
Not only have USC meetings come to a halt due to the VSP crisis; the Research & Education Committee of the Joint Assembly (GV) the joint meeting of the USC and the Works Council – has also decided to suspend its meetings.
The two committee chairs write that there is “insufficient mutual respect and trust to conduct constructive consultation between representatives of students and staff.” They also complain that the Works Council was not adequately informed by the executive board about the incidents involving the VSP.
They demand a concrete plan “aimed at restoring trust within the VU community in general and within the USC and the joint consultation with the Works Council in particular.” Without such a plan, they say, the situation remains unworkable.
Protest
Under the slogan “Take Back Our Campus,” the student union SRVU organised a protest on Thursday 12 February against social insecurity on the VU campus.
According to an Instagram post, SRVU believes the university is failing to safeguard social safety.
SRVU has also launched an online petition urging the university to take concrete measures to make the campus safe again – particularly for vulnerable students – and to re-examine the system of confidential advisers.