Binding or Not?
Tues., May 20, 2025
Disclaimer:
This article aims to provide an objective and balanced overview of the recent voting outcomes within the Central Student Council (CSR) regarding the Advisory Committee on External Collaborations (ACEC) at the University of Amsterdam (UvA). The information presented here is based on publicly available meeting minutes and official statements from involved parties.
To ensure the safety and privacy of individuals, no personal names or identifying details have been disclosed unless already public or explicitly authorized. INTER Times remains committed to maintaining journalistic integrity while safeguarding the anonymity of sources and contributors.
We kindly request readers to respect the privacy of those involved and refrain from making assumptions or sharing unverified information.
Summary
A recent vote in the Central Student Council (CSR) has sparked debate among student parties amidst student council elections, after a campaign poster by Activistenpartij claimed they were the only party to vote in favor of making the UvA’s external collaboration committee’s (ACEC) advice binding for the university’s executive board (CvB).
What is the ACEC and Why is it Important?
The ACEC is the Advisory Committee on External Collaborations at UvA which actively aims to evaluate UvA’s collaborations, partnerships and institutional ties. The UvA Website states that once this framework is adopted, it will prevent the university from “contributing to the following through education or research: violation of human rights, misuse of knowledge for undesirable military purposes, serious damage to the environment” (Universiteit van Amsterdam, 2024) [1]. Since last year, UvA [2] has been actively working on creating new guidelines for external collaborations, making them stricter and far more extensive.
The Central Student Council (De Centrale Studentenraad, CSR) consists of fourteen students, seven of whom will be elected during this election. The council is known to tackle key issues within the student community including, but not limited to, housing, sustainability, academic challenges, etc. By working closely with the Executive Board, the CSR proposes changes that once approved, become official policy.
On February 24th 2025, the CSR conducted a voting procedure to evaluate whether ACEC advice is binding or not. In short, if the ACEC advice is binding, then the UvA’s Executive Board would be obligated to implement or follow their recommendations. If the ACEC advice is rendered non-binding, then the board is not obligated to act on it.
After closely examining the minutes of the meeting (which can be found on the CSR website and will be linked below), members of the council had three main stances in the meeting held on the 17th of February:
-
ACEC advice should be binding,
-
ACEC advice should be non-binding and justification should be provided in case the board decides to not follow the advice
-
ACEC advice should be non-binding and non-justifiable.
Due to varying stances on the issue, the council decided to conduct a “temperature check” vote in the upcoming meeting, i.e., on February 24th.
The results of the voting indicated that out of the fourteen members present, six voted in favour of ACEC advice being binding, seven voted against and one abstained. As a result, the proposal to make the ACEC advice binding didn’t pass. A follow-up voting was also held during the same meeting on whether ACEC advice should be non-binding but require substantiated reasons if not followed. This proposal was passed with eight members voting in favour and six against.
The Vote and The Claims
On the 13th of May, amidst the ongoing elections to elect CSR and FSR members for 2025-26, Activistenpartij published campaign materials claiming to be the only party that voted in favour of making ACEC recommendations binding. Through a carousel of posts on Instagram and printed campaign material, they revisited the CSR meeting during which the voting took place, including an infographic showing all other parties either abstaining or voting against — featuring the logos of several student parties, including 020.
Shortly after the initial claims, 020 published a post on their Instagram account clarifying that they have been wrongly accused of participating in the vote, stating that they currently do not have any representatives in the CSR for the 2024-25 academic year. The party explained that a council member who previously ran under 020 for the Faculty Student Council (FSR) at FEB was mistakenly affiliated with them in CSR records and on social media. “To confirm,” a 020 spokesperson said, “the council member has not been affiliated with 020 since the start of the 2024–2025 academic year… None of us have worked with him directly nor has there been any ongoing association.”
When contacted by INTER Times, a spokesperson for Activistenpartij explained that the voting information was sourced from publicly available CSR plenary meeting minutes. “We brought out the posters to show that AP unwaveringly stands behind its ideology and stances,” they said. “It is not meant to drag council members or accuse individuals of anything… We just want to show what happens after parties are elected.”
How Other Parties Responded
To further investigate the matter, the editorial team at INTER Times reached out to the other parties in question.
-
UvA Sociaal explained that their representatives chose to abstain from the vote, as they cited a lack of clear understanding and transparency regarding the functioning of ACEC at the time. They felt more information was needed before supporting a motion to make its advice binding.
-
We are still awaiting a response from De Vrije Student at the time of this publication.
Why This Matters
Although the elections have now concluded, the discussions surrounding this issue continue to reflect broader questions about elections at UvA about ethical governance, transparency, and the role of student representation. The incident also raises important considerations about the accuracy of campaign materials and the need for open communication between student parties.
As the newly elected councils prepare to take office, this moment serves as a reminder of the value of constructive dialogue and accountability in student politics. For the wider student community, it highlights the importance of staying informed and engaged—not just during elections, but throughout the year.
Sources
Central Student Council (CSR) Plenary Meeting Notes - https://studentenraad.nl/csruva/