ľ�ϸ���Ӱ��

Past the main entrance of the Utrecht ľ�ϸ���Ӱ�� Hall on the left, the wall of room 1636 is covered with portraits of 100 female professors of Utrecht ľ�ϸ���Ӱ��. In the second column, third row, is Berteke Waaldijk, a scholar of history and gender studies. She doesn’t regret taking part, but believes there are other ways to make gender visible at the university than to single out the ‘lone wolves’ who have made it. “Show the people who are working behind the scenes. After all, a university is not just professors and students, but also cleaners, technicians, facility managers and administrative staff.”

We meet Berteke Waaldijk at the Utrecht ľ�ϸ���Ӱ�� Hall’s room 1636, a reference to the year Utrecht ľ�ϸ���Ӱ�� was founded. She’s been here many times before, attending receptions of graduation ceremonies, promotions or farewell lectures. Her own farewell will take place in September 2024, providing a perfect opportunity to reflect on the history of gender studies in Utrecht, her experiences with gender inequality and her thoughts on what makes a university inclusive.

First historian teaching women’s history

After graduating in history at the ľ�ϸ���Ӱ�� of Groningen, Berteke took a part-time replacement teaching job in the history department. At her students’ request, she taught about women’s history until Utrecht ľ�ϸ���Ӱ�� launched the first Liberal Arts programme in the Netherlands, and offered her a position to develop it. “I became the only historian in the Netherlands to ever teach at the university on women’s history/women studies [later renamed as gender studies],” she recalls. “This new field made me feel intellectually at home.”

The programme’s success led the university to nominate Berteke as its Director. During the paperwork, she inquired about daycare facilities for her two-year-old son. “A staff member from human resources said: ‘Oh, you have a child? You didn’t tell us. Shouldn’t you reconsider applying for this job?’,” Berteke recounts. “‘No, that’s not necessary,’ I said. ‘I take the job.’ End of the phone call. I threw a party. My partner and I started looking for a place to rent in Utrecht. I couldn’t be happier.”

A week later, the Chair of the Committee called, asking her to make up her mind. “We are waiting for your decision.” To her surprise, Human Resources had told the committee the candidate needed time to reconsider. “Terrible, isn’t it?,” she says, with half a smile.

Agents of change

It was 1985, and much has changed since then. But this memory brings Berteke to an important realization. “Staff at Human Resources are just as crucial for enabling scientific and scholarly innovation,” she says. “It was the personnel from Human Resources at Utrecht ľ�ϸ���Ӱ�� who later championed women starting their careers in academia. We received wonderful training opportunities. I got a management course training that really helped me with the business lingo,” she recounts. 

“The innovation of gender studies, for example, came from the rising number of scientists who identified as women, or as feminists. But it also came from people running the institution, who might not have screamed from the roofs, ‘I’m a feminist’, but who created the structures for these radical outsiders to voice their demands for innovation and pioneer what we now know as Gender Studies.”  

In many ways, Berteke adds, respecting people with diverse perspectives is the core business of academic work. “I tell my undergraduate students all the time: you build knowledge by relating to what has been done or said before. Realise that you’re standing on the shoulders of giants, and that means: referencing, referencing, and referencing. And that is a sign of respect.”

But if scholarly respect for what came before is crucial, how does she deal with research that erased or made the experiences of women invisible? “Even if I have to cite somebody who researched the history of the Netherlands in the 19th century and did not pay any attention to women’s fight for the vote, I can get personally very irritated, but I still have to show respect to that research and interact with it,” Berteke explains. “I would point out that it excluded those stories or argue how it should be expanded. I think scholarship gets richer that way.”

Making the invisible visible

The university’s past, much like research, is full of unheard voices. For Berteke, in order to engage critically with the past, it is essential to bring invisible contributions into the spotlight. “Give visibility to the people who make the university possible,” she claims. “It not only takes brain work. A university is not just professors and students, but also cleaners, facility managers and administrative staff.”

According to Berteke, highlighting the often-overlooked contributions of those who maintain the day-to-day operations of the university is a matter of respect, just as citing others. “The effects of excluding people are not only negative for those who are locked out but also for the ones inside. Everyone has a responsibility. The university is not a company or a country, but a community of people, where everyone plays a role.”

Further reading:

• 

  The Power of Support Networks for Minority Students: The story of ACHN
• 

  Moving through UU buildings is not a given for everyone
• 

  Being queer is not the same safe bubble for everyone
• 

  A letter to her future self
• 

  Utrecht ľ�ϸ���Ӱ�� and Colonial Knowledge
• 

  The sum of qualities leads to success