Good science is neither ‘left’ nor ‘right’.

Interviewed by NRC journalist Sjoerd de Jong, two of the Netherlands’ most prominent public intellectuals – migration historian Leo Lucassen and sociologist Jan Willem Duyvendak – reflect on science, populism, polarization, and the future of democracy as they step down from leading roles within the Dutch academic establishment.

Duyvendak, former director of the Netherlands Institute for Advanced Study (NIAS), and Lucassen, retiring director of the International Institute of Social History (IISG), both led institutes that are part of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNAW). In a political climate increasingly shaped by radical-right rhetoric, they warn against the dangerous politicization of universities under the banner of “academic freedom.”

Jan Willem Duyvendak: “It is very worrying that, here too, radical right-wing parties in the House of Representatives keep coming up with the insinuation that the university is too left-wing or too elitist. In doing so, they themselves are politicising science. That is truly threatening. They are now doing it under the banner of ‘academic freedom’, but they fail to make a proper distinction between that and freedom of expression. Should a university provide a platform for all opinions, even if they run counter to the outcomes of empirical research?”

Leo Lucassen: “You never hear politicians talking about ‘right-wing science’. I would think that just as bad an idea; good science neither ‘left’ nor ‘right’. But take a look at economics or law, at the ties with law firms or the business world. Is the boundary between science and other interests there really all that clear?”

Far from defending a supposedly “left-wing university,” both scholars argue that serious scholarship must remain grounded in empirical rigor rather than ideological loyalty. The interview moves beyond culture-war clichés to confront the deeper anxieties driving contemporary politics: fear of decline, the normalization of xenophobia, the erosion of factual debate, and the growing dominance of emotion over evidence in public life.

At its heart, the conversation is a passionate defense of intellectual integrity – and a warning that democracies risk losing their grip on reality when expertise itself becomes suspect.

Read the full interview on NRC.