The Council listed no fewer than ten points of attention in response to the draft version of the Institutional Plan 2026–2032.
Lack of concrete objectives
The main point of criticism was the absence of clear, concrete targets. Council member Aditya Pappu argued that this makes it difficult to assess whether the plan is actually being followed and to keep a finger on the pulse. Rector Veldkamp responded that the document is a vision statement rather than a project plan, a point he also made earlier in a conversation with U-Today. According to him, not everything can be expressed in measurable terms. At the same time, the Executive Board promised to formulate objectives more concretely.
'Fleshing out'
Pappu also called for clearer commitment and more ‘fleshing out’ of current issues, such as those driven by geopolitical tensions. In his view, parts of the document read like an idealised version of the UT’s core principles. ‘Make it less of a promotional brochure and more focused on the issues we are facing right now.’
The Council also felt that Lifelong Learning was insufficiently reflected in the plan, despite repeated statements from the Executive Board emphasising its growing importance as one of the UT’s educational pillars.
Hackneyed phrase: Team UT
Council member Eline Marsman argued that the plan should devote more attention to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, as well as social safety, especially since it aims to foster greater cohesion. She also asked for an alternative to the term Team UT, which she described as too hackneyed. While she supports the idea of strengthening unity within the UT, she expects the phrase Team UT to generate resistance. It suggests that a strong team spirit already exists, whereas many do not yet experience it that way. As an alternative, she proposed ‘UT Community’.
Veldkamp disagreed, arguing that this would be too non-committal, since everyone within the organisation is already part of the community, but not everyone actively contributes to a shared team spirit.
Hollow phrases
Another specific concern was the vague and woolly language throughout the plan. The term ‘together’ appears no fewer than 43 times in the 19-page document. According to the Council, such repetition weakens its impact and makes it sound like an empty phrase. Veldkamp agreed with this criticism and promised improvements.
Council member Laura Vargas expressed hope that a less diplomatically phrased summary of the plan will also be produced, one that can serve as a practical guide for future discussions.
The aim is to present a final version in April.
