Dear Leiden University Executive Board,
Dear Sarah de Rijcke, Luc Sels, and Timo Kos,
As staff of the Institute of Psychology, we would like to draw your attention to a decision that we believe should be reconsidered in light of recent developments. Specifically, we refer to the proposed discontinuation of the successful International Bachelor in Psychology (IBP), put forward by UNL as a means to regulate the internationalisation of higher education. As you have communicated, this decision was made under duress and not even considered desirable by UNL itself. As there is now a clear path towards undoing this decision, which is harmful to our institute, our staff, and society more broadly, we want to support recent initiatives calling for its adjustment. Specifically at Leiden University, the outcomes of scrapping the IBP will also not contribute meaningfully to the intended goals. We therefore see this moment as an opportunity to propose a transparent, self-driven regulation model instead. We outline below why embracing this alternative approach is both more effective and more appropriate than the previous proposal.
Recent initiatives include a proposed alternative self-regulation plan, Zelfregie 3.0 [1], which was supported by an open letter that has been undersigned by various parties, including our Institute Board [2]. Furthermore, calls for reconsidering the original UNL proposal have been made by politicians [3], adding to the voices from economists to invest in internationalisation [4], and outcomes of recent independent research conducted by SEO Economisch onderzoek, estimating the WiB to cost more than €4B per year [4]. Moreover, this trend is also seen in other countries that are now reversing caps on international intake [5].
In Leiden, self-regulation has already been happening using exactly the mechanisms described in Zelfregie 3.0, using the numeri fixi for the separate language tracks, considerably reducing the relative size of the IBP compared to the Dutch-language Bachelor. Crucially, as there are also native Dutch students who want to study in English, the actual number of international students is even lower, with 132/554 (28%) internationals in 2025/26. Given the generally declining numbers of international applications [6], UNL’s goal of reducing international student intake is thus already taking place through existing mechanisms, partly driven by actual self-regulation that was already initiated before this proposal.
Importantly, the current form of the UNL proposal [7] includes a mechanism to adjust the measures to the current situation, with explicit moments defined to reassess whether the measures are effective enough, or, alternatively, still needed. Initially, this decision was based on stay-rate and labor market numbers, driven by the general political and financial context at the time, and specifically by the pressure created by the threatened imposition of the ‘Toets Anderstalig Onderwijs’ (TAO) on all English-language programmes [8], a measure that was neither desirable nor feasible. The problems with the TAO were recognised by parliament to the extent that it is to be removed from the WiB for existing programs. ‘Motie Krul’, submitting to remove it [9], accepted by a large range of political parties, explicitly states its support for self-regulation of universities over government regulation, but not the specific measures proposed by UNL.
Based on this, we believe that there is an opportunity to repair part of the damage within the confines of the UNL proposal, and in line with the values we uphold at Leiden University. This is a moment to counter the larger tendency where academic decisions are shaped by political pressure rather than academic judgement, and made through processes that bypass those with relevant expertise [10]. Leiden University has consistently voiced a strong stance not only on academic freedom, but also international orientation, diversity, and inclusivity, and has high standards of research on a global scale. We believe our international orientation and representation are a strength, especially in the field of understanding behavior, and an asset to the university. While the damage to Psychology as a field has already been done, there is an opportunity now to demonstrate, to international ánd internationally oriented Dutch Psychology staff, that you share these values, by including us in the next steps.
In sum, there is a need and now also an opportunity to change a decision that will have minimal effects in the desired direction, while having several highly adverse outcomes, as well as conflicting with our core values. Therefore, (1) we urge you to reconsider these measures, which will not only deprive students of a program that is in high demand but also damage the international orientation of our institute, especially at this point in time, when the academy is particularly vulnerable. (2) We ask you to consider actual self-regulation that includes stakeholders in the process, such as our institute and faculty councils, also representing students. (3) We want to form a dedicated working group that can be involved in the design of the alternative, to provide specialized input and improved representation in our self-regulation. As the employees actually affected by these decisions, we think there are better, more transparent alternatives than cutting this program. We believe the promises from UNL can be achieved across university programs in ways that do not harm the thriving international research community in Leiden or its academic standing.
We look forward to discussing further steps with you,
With thanks for your consideration.
Sources:
[1] https://www.scienceguide.nl/2026/01/zelfregie-3-0/
[2] scienceguide.nl/2026/01/open-brief-aan-informateur... / folia.nl/nl/opinie/170818/open-brief-aan-informate...
[3] scienceguide.nl/2026/01/kabinet-benadrukt-extreem-... ; scienceguide.nl/2026/01/cda-wil-dat-unl-zelfregie-... ; universonline.nl/nieuws/2026/01/22/cda-breekt-lans...
[4] seo.nl/publicaties/zonder-internationalisering-uit...
[5] monitor.icef.com/2024/03/lessons-from-denmark-the-... ; universitiesuk.ac.uk/what-we-do/creating-voice-our... ; edulandimmigration.com/news-and-updates/australias...
[6] nuffic.nl/nieuws/groei-internationale-studentenpop...
[7] universiteitenvannederland.nl/files/publications/B...
[8] universiteitenvannederland.nl/actueel/nieuws/unive...
[9] tweedekamer.nl/kamerstukken/moties/detail?id=2025Z...;did=2025D23319
Since writing this letter, political developments have made clear that even though the recent cabinet proposal is not final yet, there is no political pressure anymore to close the IBP. However, there are several reasons to still voice our concern.
First, we want to ensure that future decisions about self-regulation will be handled differently, by including the relevant departments and their participation councils, as a standard practice for all departments and programs. Moreover, as regulation of international student intake will likely continue, we also urge you to commit to equal treatment of all departments and programs, carrying the burden together rather than singling out or sacrificing one program. Finally, as the damage to Psychology as an international field of research has already been done through UNL's proposal, we ask for your continued efforts to rectify this, both in words and in deeds, by not only articulating recognition of this damage but also actively contribute to rebuilding our position.