Zuhal Demir and the Politicisation of Universities
- Marc Cogen
- 5 days ago
- 3 min read
Zuhal Demir was sworn in as Flemish Minister of Education in September 2024. After twenty months in office, it is time to make a preliminary assessment of her record in service of education in Flanders, particularly her attitude toward Flemish universities. Let us begin with her own words on why she entered politics. In an interview on June 29, 2025, she stated that she would no longer allow herself to be constrained by party colours or political positions, claiming instead to defend “the general interest.”
What is the general interest of university education?
A good starting point is the conviction that university education should not teach students what to think, but how to think. Western academic traditions and scientific practice are based on rational reasoning, measurement, and observation. Political convictions, however, are not necessarily grounded in these principles. On the contrary, they often rest on self-interest, a desire to gain control, and a willingness to dismiss opposing views.
Unfortunately, political thinking has increasingly become the foundation of Flemish university education. The minister appears unaware of this development. Radical DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) doctrines and extreme theories of social justice have now become embedded in a range of university programs. These ideas are promoted by a radical yet influential group of professors, trade unions, and student organisations.
University autonomy as a shield of immunity
Under the broad university autonomy first established in the University Decree of June 12, 1991, ideologically driven groups have, according to critics, gained increasing influence. Academics are appointed by faculty departments, and some departments no longer select future professors primarily on the basis of academic competence, but rather on loyalty to the dominant ideological current. This has created a vicious circle and helps explain the hidden dynamics of radicalisation and one-sidedness among parts of academia and in the education of students.
It is ironic that the very professors who advocate diversity and inclusion are often the ones appointing like-minded individuals as future faculty members. Once a department or faculty falls under their control, those with different viewpoints are effectively excluded.
The evolution since 1991 has had significant social consequences. Education shapes society upstream, while the labor market lies downstream. Every year, thousands of students are trained within a politicised university environment. After graduating, they carry this one-sided message, what they are expected to think, into positions within government, the media, the many state-subsidised NGOs, and the corporate world.
Who is ultimately responsible for the current university crisis?
The Flemish government denies and conceals the politicisation that became plainly visible during the Gaza war. University buildings have repeatedly been occupied by students wearing keffiyehs and covering their faces. Although this represents only a small but vocal minority, thousands of students feel intimidated by the occupations and by slogans that are often repetitions of those used by ISIS and Hamas.
The right to protest and to express opinions is part of our democracy, including within our universities. But the manner in which those opinions are expressed is equally important. One does not need to occupy buildings or deface them with slogans and flags in order to voice an opinion. The right of others to pursue their university education without disruption is not respected through occupations, slogans, or graffiti on university buildings.
In a pluralistic society, freedom of expression belongs to everyone. Intimidation through problematic activist behaviour undermines that freedom for every student and academic.
Weak university administrations do not dare to take action. Zuhal Demir, the Flemish Minister of Education, remains silent. Radical one-sidedness is becoming banal and normalised within university life in Flanders.
Who is ultimately responsible for stopping politicisation of universities and the radicalisation that follows from it?
The answer is the politicians themselves, who hold both legislative power and control over funding.
The Flemish Community finances the universities. If university administrations fail to organize education in a safe and serene environment, the ultimate responsibility lies with the Flemish government and particularly with Zuhal Demir. Universities should face sanctions if they are unwilling to guarantee the minimum standards of serenity, academic dedication, and neutrality. Urgent measures are needed in the general interest.
Universities risk becoming breeding grounds for activist minorities. The passivity of university administrations is justified by the claim that they are protected by law—by a decree that supposedly grants them absolute autonomy and immunity.
This cannot continue. Image credits: NV-A , Marc G. E. Cogen
