Student Mandate
Student Mandate stands for clear, fair and student-centred education. We want students to be heard more effectively and for agreements within the UvA to actually be upheld. Education should be predictable and accessible: information about courses, literature, assessment, deadlines and grades must be available clearly and on time.
We are committed to more transparency, better communication and stronger student participation. Students should not have to depend on luck, assertiveness or individual exceptions in order to be taken seriously. Where rules exist, they must also be followed.
By voting for Student Mandate, students choose a party that works in a practical, critical and result-oriented way. No empty promises, but concrete commitment to better education, clearer procedures and a university that puts students first.
Click on any motion below to see the parties explination
Student & Workers Councils should have the final say in all policy decisions
Disagree
The Student Council and Works Council should be involved early, seriously and demonstrably in policy decisions. They must be able to influence decisions before they are effectively already final. However, having the final say in all policy decisions does not fit their role. For some decisions, final responsibility lies with the executive board, partly because they involve legal, financial and organisational considerations for which participation bodies do not always carry the full expertise or responsibility. Strong participation: yes. A general veto over all decisions: no.
The UvA should expand research collaboration and funding partnerships with private sector companies.
Neutral
Cooperation with private sector companies can be valuable for research, innovation and societal impact. At the same time, funding must never influence academic independence, scientific integrity or the content of education. The UvA should therefore not simply pursue more private partnerships, but rather better and more transparently assessed ones. For each partnership, it must be clear who is funding it, what interests are involved, what conditions apply and how independent research is protected.
Calling the police is an appropriate response when protests disrupt education or access to services.
Neutral
The right to protest is a fundamental right and must be protected at the university. Calling the police should therefore never be done lightly and should only be considered when dialogue, warnings and de-escalation are insufficient. At the same time, education, safety and access to facilities must continue. When protests seriously block access or endanger safety, intervention can be necessary and appropriate. Free protest deserves protection, but students and staff must also be able to study, work and use the university safely.
The university should actively prioritise diversity targets in hiring, even when this means deviating from purely merit-based selection.
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.
The Binding Study Advice (BSA) should be abolished.
Disagree
The Binding Study Advice should not be abolished. It can be a useful indicator to assess in time whether a student is in the right programme and is making sufficient progress. However, the standard must remain reasonable, and there must always be room for personal circumstances, guidance and individual assessment. A low and achievable threshold, such as 24 ECTS, is defensible as long as the BSA is not used as a harsh dismissal mechanism, but as part of proper student guidance.
Students wishing to follow honours programmes should be admitted based on academic performance, not motivation alone.
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.
The majority of the food options sold on campus should be plant based.
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.
Occupations should be considered as a legitimate means of protest at the university.
Neutral
The right to protest is a fundamental right and must be protected at the university. Students and staff should have space to express criticism in a visible and forceful way. However, occupations are not automatically a legitimate form of protest. When safety, access to education, workplaces or property are at risk, the university must be able to intervene. We support strong and peaceful protest, but believe that safety and access to the university must always be guaranteed.
Admission to programmes with limited capacity should be based on random lotteries rather than selection procedures.
Agree
For programmes with limited capacity, admission should be as fair and accessible as possible. Selection procedures can benefit students who are better prepared, receive more support or understand the system better. A lottery gives every qualified applicant an equal chance and prevents admission from depending too much on background, network or preparation. However, it must first be clear that applicants meet the necessary admission requirements. After that, a lottery is a fairer starting point than a selection procedure that may reinforce inequality.
The UvA should completely exclude research collaboration and funding from the security and resilience sector.
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.
The UvA should strongly oppose any government attempt to reduce the number of international students.
Agree
International students are valuable to the UvA and to the academic community. They bring knowledge, perspectives and diversity, and strengthen the university’s international character. The UvA should therefore oppose generic restrictions that treat international students mainly as a problem. At the same time, growth and internationalisation must remain responsible: housing, educational quality, guidance and language policy must be properly organised. Restrictions should not undermine accessible and international education.
Study programs should be audited by an independent board on the diversity of the academic and ideological perspectives in their curriculum.
Disagree
Diversity of academic perspectives is important, also within the curriculum. Students should learn to engage with different views, approaches and arguments. However, we do not think a separate independent committee to assess ideological perspectives is necessary. Especially in programmes such as law, substantive quality, academic freedom and disciplinary expertise should come first. Curriculum development should be critical and open, but not through an additional layer of review that may quickly become political or bureaucratic.
The executive board of the university should be elected through an open election by the students and worker's body.
Disagree
We believe that students and staff should have much more influence on the direction of the university. The Executive Board must be transparent, accountable and open to scrutiny. However, an open election is not automatically the best solution. University governance requires substantive expertise, administrative experience and responsibility for complex legal, financial and organisational decisions. We therefore prefer stronger participation, better accountability and meaningful involvement in appointments over an election model that may mainly reward popularity
The UvA should prioritise offering permanent contracts to Junior Lecturers (D4s), even if this leaves less financial room for senior lecturer salary increases.
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.
The university should significantly expand student services like student advisors and psychologists, even if this requires reducing spending on education and teaching.
Agree
Mental health, study guidance and accessible support are essential to good education. Students cannot study effectively if they have to wait too long for help from a study adviser or psychologist. The UvA should therefore seriously expand student support services. At the same time, this should not undermine the quality of education. The right approach is a balanced investment: better support for students while maintaining high-quality education, because both are necessary for student success.
The university should ensure a larger part of the curriculum (of all study programs) is focused on career preparation, even if this takes away from time spent on academic subjects.
Disagree
ALF at the Faculty of Law shows that career preparation can have a place in the curriculum. At the same time, that place should not become too large. Law programmes need sufficient academic and legal depth: doctrine, legal analysis, source-based research and substantive courses should not be pushed aside. Career preparation is valuable, but it should remain supportive of the degree programme. We therefore do not support giving more curriculum time to career preparation if this comes at the expense of academic courses. In the case of ALF, the balance should actually be reviewed more critically.
Every bachelor programme should be offered in both Dutch and English.
Disagree
Bilingual education can be valuable and can increase accessibility for different groups of students. However, at this moment it is not realistic to offer every bachelor’s programme fully in both Dutch and English. There is insufficient capacity, teaching staff, scheduling space and funding for this. The UvA should carefully assess where English-language or Dutch-language education is necessary and feasible, without putting the quality of education under pressure.
The university should prioritise expanding study spaces over investing in additional contemplation rooms.
Neutral
Study spaces are a daily issue for many students and therefore deserve priority. At the same time, reflection rooms should not be dismissed as unnecessary. Every building should have a clear, accessible and easy-to-find reflection room for students who need one. Once that basic provision is in place, our priority is to expand enough quiet, usable and accessible study spaces.
The university lacks sufficient readily accessible gender-neutral toilets and should convert more existing toilets to be gender-neutral.
Agree
Every student should be able to use toilets at the university safely and comfortably. Therefore, every building should have at least one clearly marked, easy-to-find and accessible gender-neutral toilet. At the same time, the university should handle existing facilities carefully and take the needs of all students into account. The goal should be sufficient choice, clear information and practical accessibility in every building.