Campus The Hague heavily secured out of fear for terror, espionage and corruption
Campus The Hague is one of the university’s most secure locations. (DHC/Storm Groenendijk)
According to Leiden University, there are major security risks at The Hague Campus, but students and staff actually feel uncomfortable and intimidated by the strict measures. Internal documents requested by this newspaper offer an insight into the supposed threat.
By Monica Lam & Jelle van der Meulen
Klik hier om de Nederlandse versie van dit artikel te lezen.
On October 13, 2023, six days after Hamas’ large-scale attack on Israel, Leiden University suddenly closes the doors of The Hague Campus on the Turfmarkt because of an “increased security risk”. Nothing is released about the exact reason. Students and staff are in the dark, speculations are circulating. Two sources who wish to remain anonymous suspect that the closure had to do with two Arabic-speaking men who entered the campus videotaping the building.
As the campus reopens, security measures have been scaled up. First, with the checking of LU Cards, the access cards to the buildings. The university states that this should help create an atmosphere where “everyone feels safe to exchange ideas openly” and to “get a good idea of who is in the building and when”. External security personnel are being hired to carry out the extra checks. Undercover so-called “proactive security guards” are also deployed and visitors must register via a QR code.
‘Tensions’
Leiden University has tightened safety policies at all faculties over the past year and a half, but especially on Campus The Hague. In interviews with Den Haag Centraal (DHC), students and staff say they feel uncomfortable or even unsafe as a result. What the measures are based on was so far shrouded in mystery – even answers to questions from the University Council did not bring clarity. In public communications, the university is cautious, referring in general terms to “tensions in the world”. In addition, the university states that the presence of “various ministries and security organizations” is taken into consideration, but what concrete risks this poses to the campus it does not report.
Some of the university staff are “naive or unsuspecting”.
An appeal by this newspaper and others to the Freedom of Information Act (Woo) does yield new information about security policies on Campus The Hague. DHC was given access to email exchanges, internal memos and a risk analysis by research firm Dyami Security Intelligence. In the obtained documents terrorism, espionage and corruption are marked as major security risks. They also provide insight into the thinking behind the strict policies.
The Department of Security Affairs has identified a “specific threat” on Campus The Hague that touches on “possible terrorism and (militant) activism,” Dyami’s analysis shows. The report, delivered to the university on Jan. 11, 2024, concludes that there are “serious” security concerns on campus. The subject matter of courses on campus – such as crisis management, terrorism and conflict studies – would attract “malicious parties,” such as foreign intelligence agencies that could potentially influence students. In addition, the “multitude of international students” and the “combination of students from China and Iran” would create additional security risks.
‘Naive staff’
Also, “the presence of a student population of Jewish origin that is in itself in a negative sense attention-grabbing to activist groups and students of Islamic religion” and “the activist nature of part of the student population with demonstrated loyalties to terrorist groups in the Middle East (from the river to the sea Palestine will be free)” pose risks to campus security, according to the researchers. Moreover, they say, security awareness is lacking: some of the university staff are said to be “naive or unsuspecting”.
Security is supposed to protect us, right?
In total, the research firm formulates 17 scenarios that could pose security risks. Seven of these are labeled “high risk” and should be urgently contained because “human lives are at stake”. The content of these scenarios is completely blacked out in the documents obtained. However, the overarching categories are visible. Therein, three scenarios in the terrorism and activism category and one in the category ‘other’ call for immediate action.
The specific threats are completely blacked out. (DHC)
The report also discusses the context of the threat. For example, the report warns that the situation in the Middle East may “lead to activities of polarizing groups with members who include those associated with the university as students”. Furthermore, the researchers state that values around diversity, inclusiveness and climate “are not always shared by all students and some staff members, particularly those of Muslim persuasion”.
Potential target
It concludes that the scientific community is exposed to threats “from without and within”. Not only international tensions, but also national developments make the campus a potential target. For example, the researchers point to activism “ranging from peaceful demonstrations to violent militant activism” inspired by issues such as climate, migration, asylum and “a cancel culture”. How these national and global issues specifically lead to threats on The Hague’s campus is stated in a blacked-out section of the analysis. It reads only that The Hague, as a center of government, offers “additional appeal to […] terrorist and activist groups” and that the campus often hosts events and lectures “of a sensitive nature”.
As a result of the report, the university decides to hold a special meeting to discuss the findings. Although the report does not recommend specific actions, an internal memo from the university states the desire to “prioritize (sic) the report’s findings and recommendations”. The memo also reports that “the urgency of the moment calls for urgent decisions on additional measures or not”.
Incidents
Several incidents have occurred since heightened measures have been in place at Campus The Hague. For example, student Nina* attends a meeting of student organization Students for Palestine on campus in May 2024. Afterwards, a man takes a picture of her. “After taking the picture, he ran away and hid behind a pole.” When Nina asked him about it, he denied taking a picture. “A security guard, who was behind me, saw it happen but did nothing. We asked the front desk to explain what happened, but they couldn’t answer. Security is supposed to protect us, right?”
When I think back on how hostile the students were treated, I still get emotional
PhD student Leila* wants to work for a few hours on The Hague campus one Saturday morning in 2024 when she is asked to show her LU Card upon entering. Standard procedure, but Leila (who is Arab) sees that two white students are allowed to walk through without checking. She angrily walks away and goes to work at a coffee shop just down the road.
Naomi*, involved with the Afro Student Association (ASA), forgot her LU-Card in February 2024, but is allowed access to the faculty by showing the app. When she returns from her lunch break and the system is down, she is denied access while her belongings are still inside. “I was allowed to get my bag, but then I had to leave,” she said. Not much later, the student again forgets her pass. “Then they (security, ed.) said I was not allowed on campus the next day.”
Emotional
But one of the most striking incidents is already taking place shortly after the sudden closure of the Hague campus. On November 9, 2023, Students for Palestine holds an unannounced teach-in there, a meeting with speeches. In solidarity with the Palestinians, the student organization is demanding that Leiden University cuts its ties with Israeli institutions. The university, caught off guard by the unannounced demonstration, calls in the police. Own security guards, including undercover security guards, try to take away a megaphone and take pictures of protesters, according to a reconstruction by university magazine Mare.
Looking back on that day, associate professor of International Studies Judith Naeff calls the situation “intimidating”. “As the participants were leaving the building, security guards tried to stop the students and push them toward the police officers,” she says. Once outside, Naeff and three others fled into clothing store Primark, whereupon one of the security guards continued to follow them there as well. She still finds it difficult to talk about the incident. “When I think back on how hostile the students were treated, I still get emotional,” she said.
The fact that students are afraid to talk openly is a problem
Nina from Students for Palestine was one of the students who was shoved by an undercover security guard because she wanted to protect the student with the megaphone. “He wanted to see my ID, but I only gave my LU Card. An officer then asked for my ID. When I handed it over, the officer brought in the undercover security guard. The latter took a picture of it. What they do with those photos, I don’t know. The university communicates with the police and perhaps with other security agencies. Am I on a list now?”
‘Hostile environment’
Research firm Berenschot, commissioned by the university to investigate the incident, concluded in November that security lacked structure and needs to operate more transparently. It also found that students and staff experienced little space to talk openly about politically sensitive topics such as the war in Gaza.
University lecturer Sai Englert has spoken to many concerned colleagues and students. “Students are worried that there are undercover security guards walking around. That creates distrust. The fact that students are afraid to talk openly is a problem.” Student Esma had several conversations with the university on behalf of the student movement OpenLeiden, which was formed in response to the security measures. “Students indicated in conversations that they felt unsafe and felt ethnically profiled by the controls. In response, the university said, ‘We are not perfect.’”
It seems as if the university doesn’t trust it’s own students
Pass checks, plainclothes security, the difficulty of hosting an event (see sidebar) and the incidents have left deep marks on students and staff. For Naomi, the campus now feels like a “hostile environment”. “Some students avoid certain places, like the cafeteria, because the ‘undercovers’ sit there by default. By necessity, we hang out at Beehive, the student center across campus.”
According to Hilde van Meegdenburg, International Relations lecturer, the impact is “enormous”. “It seems like the university doesn’t trust its own students, so students also lose trust in the university. And even in each other: what if the person across the table is a plainclothes security guard? That’s very damaging.” She believes a process of “securitization” is taking place on campus. “With what is seen as a threat and what is threatened you justify security measures. But at the university it has never been clear who is being protected from what. So we also don’t know if the measures are proportionate.”
Open space
What is striking in this regard is that the Dyami report assumes that “reducing the probability of a risk can be done by taking additional measures in the preventive sphere or by tightening existing measures. Only the vulnerabilities can be influenced, as the threat is a given”. In other words: the threat is fixed, the risk can only be limited by additional or intensified measures. In theory, there is always a way back, says lecturer Van Meegdenburg. “But in practice it turns out to be very difficult to scale back once security measures have been taken.”
To me and others who have raised this, the university has said that we are paranoid
Checks, registrations, extra security: is it a bad thing if that is the way to ensure safety? “Those measures create an extra barrier, for example to sign up for an activity at the university,” Van Meegdenburg believes. “We are encouraged to be in conversation with society, then it doesn’t help if the university quite literally closes the gates.” Her colleague Judith Naeff adds: “Especially now, in times of the extreme right, the university should be an open place. The university should become transparent about the reason for the measures, so that the campus becomes a safe environment for everyone again.”
Leila has since grown tired of feeling “always watched” on campus and being mindful of what clothes to wear. She has had several conversations with the university, but did not feel taken seriously and found the outcome disappointing. “To me and others who have raised this, the university has said that we are paranoid, that this is not structural and that it is up to us.” The PhD student left and is now employed elsewhere. “I didn’t feel safe there anymore.”
Executive Board response
The Executive Board of Leiden University states in a response that the tightening of the safety policy is indeed partly based on the risk analysis, but also on “advice from internal safety experts, current signals from the university community, consultation with external partners and the university’s legal duty of care for a safe learning and working environment. Regarding the blacked-out components, the university writes that it should be “cautious” about sharing information “because it may give insight into the safety approach and practices and thereby undermine their effectiveness”.
About the undercover – “proactive” – security guards, the BoE writes that they have been roaming the campus since Oct. 12, 2023, following “broader security considerations”. The BoE further reports that campus security measures are “continuously” evaluated “based on current information, signals and risk assessments. ‘Where necessary, measures are adjusted, scaled up or down”.
*This person’s name is known to the editors, but is fictitious or incomplete for privacy reasons.
Accountability
Den Haag Centraal spoke with a total of fourteen students and employees of Leiden University about their experience with the security measures. In addition, this newspaper requested documents from the university via an appeal to the Open Government Act (Woo) and with the help of Woo specialist Tim Staal of expertise center SPOON and support from the Stimuleringsfonds voor de Journalistiek. Several Executive Board meetings with the University Council were also attended. Research firm Dyami Security Intelligence opposed publication of the risk analysis in response to the Woo appeal, but failed to file a timely request for injunctive relief with the court.
Events and flyer policy
In November 2023, Leiden University “relaxed” the policy for organizing events and putting up flyers. Anyone wishing to organize an event submits the same form through the service desk. Internal email exchanges, obtained through the Woo, show the underlying administration: if the topic is “politically sensitive,” such as a lecture on Palestine, then faculty and the Security Department are asked for additional review. Hamza* says he is not allowed to hang MENASA (Middle East & North Africa Student Association) flyers in the Turfmarkt building. “You have to get special permission for that. All posters are taken down from the wall, even on the toilet.” Muslim student Elanur Erul was not allowed to organize a “book club for ladies” because, according to the university, it would not be inclusive. “Our book club does not attract men anyway, but the university required us to change the invitation.” Putting up flyers is also a challenge. “The flyers to join our student organization SABR (Students Active to Promote Religion, ed.) were removed because they would be too religious,” she says. “In the quiet room, we are not allowed to hang anything anyway. Not even to indicate where Mecca is.” Naomi no longer organizes events for the Afro Student Association on campus. “All our events are labeled as security threats. The service desk wants to know a hundred details when we organize something.” The space where ASA holds offices in student center Beehive is also subject to inspections. “We had a poster hanging of a Palestinian pop-up cafe showing, among other things, a watermelon. Then security walked into our space and threw the poster away.” Lecturer Judith Naeff wanted to put up a poster about a lecture on migration, at which Leiden University lecturer Nadia Bouras was to speak. “The desk clerk refused, saying the poster was too political. While there, nota bene, is the anthropology department! This results in the feeling that there is a policy of discouragement.”
