On 8 July 2026, the Teylers Museum in Haarlem organised a seminar (link in Dutch) on academic freedom as part of its exhibition ‘Dangerous Books: 500 Years of Science Under Fire’.
The exhibition and seminar were prompted by current developments in the United States. There, not only certain words but also books and (research) topics have now been declared taboo or unacceptable, with far-reaching consequences. During the seminar, experts from various perspectives shed light on the banning of words – and thereby of knowledge – as well as the consequences of this, both in the Netherlands and abroad.
Censorship by church and state
Eulàlia Gassó Miracle, the museum’s science curator, explained that censorship is not a new phenomenon in the Western world. Over the past 500 years, churches and states have repeatedly banned books or knowledge. This applies in particular to works that reinterpret the world in which we live, such as those by Galileo or Darwin. But books on sexuality and reproduction also prompted intervention and, consequently, censorship, particularly in the case of books dealing with female sexuality. Nevertheless, she concluded her talk on a slightly positive note, noting that scholars have always found ways to circumvent the bans and to disseminate their books – and thus their knowledge. The books on display bear witness to this.
Prohibiting, prescribing, restricting and controlling
Historian Paul Ziche, professor of the History of Modern Philosophy, took us back to the university around 1800. He demonstrated how those in power had, up to that point, exerted their influence over academia and thereby practised a form of censorship. They did this not only by banning certain books or texts or prescribing them as compulsory reading, but also by restricting access to knowledge and thereby making it more difficult to obtain, for example by exercising control over the content of lectures at universities. They also exercised control over the printing process and the subsequent dissemination of that printed knowledge.
Towards the end of the eighteenth century, scholars managed to circumvent these attempts at censorship by introducing a different method of publication. Thanks to the speed of the new printing presses, the content of a lecture series appeared in print within a few weeks of the lectures being delivered. By the end of the academic year, the students and scholars who had purchased the individual chapters had a new book. As a new series of lectures was delivered every academic year, each year’s edition was a unique book. This made it difficult for secular and ecclesiastical authorities to ban, prescribe, restrict or control the material.
Teetering on the brink
Marijk van der Wende, professor emeritus of Higher Education, struck a cautionary note in her contribution. Academic freedom may seem to be a given in the Netherlands, but it is not. For instance, this freedom is not protected by the Dutch Constitution, unlike in Germany, for example. Furthermore, there has been political interference in the Netherlands in the recent past. She even went so far as to suggest that we were teetering on the brink of the abyss during the two previous cabinets, when the respective ministers, Arie Slob and Eppo Bruins, actively interfered with universities and academic practice.
Another threat comes from within, according to Van der Wende. Not only is there increasing managerial pressure within academia, but more and more academics are also practising a form of self-censorship. Furthermore, the pressure on peer review is visibly increasing, and a ‘cancel culture’ is being experienced at some universities or departments. In short, these are worrying developments which, in one way or another, are having a negative impact on the freedom academics experience to carry out their work unhindered.
Freedom of (dis)information
The final speaker of this fascinating afternoon was Sybe de Vries, professor of Public Economic Law. He shifted the focus from the printed book to the digital world, with its algorithms and the rapid spread of (dis)information and the consequences thereof. De Vries argued that, nowadays, tech companies and their revenue models pose the greatest threat to academic freedom.
Remarkably, opposition to this development does not come from the Dutch government. True to its neoliberal nature, the government adopts a laissez-faire attitude and shows reluctance when it comes to combating disinformation or curbing the power and influence of Big Tech. The real counterforce comes from Europe and stems from the balance the European Union (EU) strikes between market interests and the protection of citizens. The fines, running into millions and billions, imposed on major tech companies – such as Google, very recently, for example – must therefore be seen as a way in which the EU seeks to protect the fundamental rights of its citizens, according to De Vries.
Discomfort and strength
In her introductory talk, curator Gassó Miracle described the exhibition as a success when visitors were to leave feeling, on the one hand, a sense of discomfort and, on the other, a strengthened backbone. As far as I’m concerned, she could have said the same about this seminar. Discomfort because the things we take for granted are more fragile than I thought, and a strengthened backbone because, as a citizen and a scholar, I can draw courage from the creative European approach to protecting our values and freedoms. However, this in no way relieves us of our obligation, as concerned citizens and committed academics, to defend our taken-for-granted academic freedom tooth and nail.
Antia Wiersma is the director of the Royal Netherlands Historical Society.
Further reading:
The exhibition ‘Dangerous Books: 500 Years of Science Under Fire’ at Teylers Museum runs until 30 August 2026.
A podcast (in Dutch) about dangerous books has been released to accompany the exhibition.
In February 2025, the European Parliament published the 2025 Academic Freedom Monitor. This revealed a substantial, though not statistically significant, decline in academic freedom (-0.12) in the Netherlands over the past ten years. Of the individual indicators, ‘institutional autonomy’ (-0.59) and ‘campus integrity’ (-1.09) show a substantial and statistically significant decline between 2014 and 2024 (p.27).
Image: Johann Jacob Scheuchzer, Geestelyke Natuurkunde, Amsterdam: Petrus Schenk, 1735-1738. Teylers Museum Collection.
Scheuchzer explains biblical stories with the help of the laws of nature. He explains the rainbow after the Flood using theories of light and calculates the dimensions of Noah’s Ark. For many, this is a heretical approach.
This article was originally published on Historici.nl (in Dutch).