Integration policy is geared towards conforming to the white, middle-class and patriarchal norm. According to historian Suzan Abozyid, this stems from our colonial history. Raphaël Boon, project leader for diversity, inclusion and equality at Leiden City Council, is campaigning for a shift. ‘From “you must adapt” to “how are we going to do this together?”’ By Nynke van Spiegel
Has much changed in our integration policy over the past 75 years?
Suzan Abozyid: ‘No, we still want groups of people to adapt to “us”, to the norm. This began as early as the 19th century, but took shape at a policy level in the 1950s. Initially, it was aimed at the underclass, the so-called ‘anti-social’ elements: poor (white) families in the big cities, who were expected to adapt to the middle classes through re-education. Now it is non-white migrants who are expected to adapt. An expectation they can never meet.
‘The integration exam is a clear example of this. Newcomers must demonstrate that they fit within ‘Dutch culture’ through multiple-choice questions that assume their inferiority. For instance, ‘hitting’ was considered a valid answer to the question of what one would do upon seeing a homosexual couple on the street. Research also shows that a majority of Dutch people themselves would fail this exam.’
The Indonesian woman had to cook potatoes instead of rice’
You conclude in your research that integration policy cannot be separated from our colonial history.
Abozyid: ‘The idea that people must adapt or be “re-educated” actually stems from a colonial way of thinking. This was already evident in the 1950s, when people of colour from the former Dutch East Indies came to the Netherlands.
‘They were Dutch citizens, yet the government and civil society organisations forced them to adapt to “Dutch culture” by only allowing them independent housing once a family had sufficiently adapted. This adaptation was expected primarily of women: they had to cook potatoes instead of rice, swap an ‘Eastern timid’ demeanour for the self-assured mentality of a ‘Western’ woman, and bring up their children strictly. Poor families were also suspected of having an ‘Eastern lazy work ethic’. Thus, colonial thinking – in which a hierarchy exists based on, amongst other things, colour, gender and class – has had a major influence not only in the colonies themselves, but also in Dutch society.’
And does that still have an impact today?
Abozyid: You only need to look at politics to know the answer. In the 1970s, the political party the Dutch People’s Union (NVU) emerged. Its far-right and racist ideology has since even become normalised. That normalisation was possible because the political establishment of the time never took the dissenting voices seriously. The NVU’s racism was largely directed at the settlement of Surinamese migrants in the Netherlands.
Decency depends on how the majority treats minorities’
‘The organisation Landelijk Overleg Surinaamse Organisaties Nederland (LOSON) organised protests against the NVU and the racism experienced in society, such as discrimination in the labour market and police violence. At the same time, they fought for better working conditions and cooperation between (labour) migrants and white Dutch workers. Their message was clear: capitalism and racism go hand in hand. Although the resistance against overt racism gained support, genuine systemic change failed to materialise. Racialised groups are still more likely to live in poverty.’
Does this colonial way of thinking stem from ignorance, or is systemic change being actively thwarted?
Raphaël Boon: ‘We have a patriarchal, heteronormative and colonial legacy, and in our current political climate, this is not always viewed critically, nor are lessons drawn from it. The sentiment is sometimes rather: can we go back to the old days?
‘The resistance sometimes surprises me, because in a democratic constitutional state you would actually expect a great deal of diversity. However, a high degree of pluralism can create a sense of disconnection. When it comes to diversity, inclusion and equality, you can expect resistance, because opinions differ on these matters. This also gives rise to the risk of ‘us versus them’ thinking – a dividing line that some political parties skilfully exploit and which we, as DIG professionals and academics, must continually work to nuance.’
Abozyid: ‘For a long time, there was a belief that racism was not a major problem in the Netherlands and that adaptation would naturally lead to acceptance. At the same time, research shows that, on paper, integration is often successful, whilst the scope for racist politics is growing. For example, the integration of migrants from the former Dutch East Indies is often regarded in hindsight as a success. But many of their descendants experience it differently, because part of their cultural background has been lost in the process. That is why change begins with recognition: racism is not an exception, but a deep-rooted problem in Dutch society.’
Does tackling this problem involve a lot of difficult conversations?
Boon: ‘We don’t have enough of them: we could do with a few more. To combat exclusion, racism and discrimination, you need a critical mass. Within organisations, you need colleagues who dare to ask difficult questions about a norm that doesn’t suit colleagues with, for example, specific work-related abilities, neurodivergence, LGBTIQ+ people, or those from different ethnic and cultural backgrounds. If they do this from different perspectives, a realisation gradually emerges that something needs to be done about it, that an open and inclusive norm is needed. You also need allies at the top who are committed to this cause. Only then can you really bring about change.
‘As a diversity professional, you have to choose your words very carefully. If you place too much emphasis on diversity, inclusion and equality, attendance at events drops noticeably. It’s better to talk about more general themes such as: how do we stay connected, how do we feel safe?’
Inclusion is about being yourself and not excluding anyone. That makes it relevant to everyone.’
Why do the themes of diversity, inclusion and equality put people off?
Boon: ‘I think some colleagues link these themes to a national debate in which they are often discussed in overly simplistic or black-and-white terms, and so people don’t feel drawn to them. They feel it doesn’t concern them, because they aren’t personally affected by it. Unfairly so, because inclusion is ultimately about being yourself and not excluding anyone. That makes it relevant to everyone.’
Why is it so difficult to make inclusion and equality the norm?
Boon: ‘People with disabilities make up around 10 per cent of our population; they can all unite, but they will never become the largest political party. They will always remain dependent on the goodwill of others, even though there is a legally binding UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. And that applies to all minorities. Decency depends on how the majority treats minorities. If we want a just society, we really need to consider how everyone can be themselves. That more fundamental discussion is given too little prominence in our democracy, where the short term often takes centre stage.’
How can we ensure that inclusion and equality become the norm?
Boon: ‘The people in their forties and fifties who are now at the top of organisations grew up with the idea of integration, whilst I hope that the new generation is growing up with an idea of emancipation. So not ‘you have to adapt’, but ‘how are we going to do this together?’ From integration to emancipation.
‘We must ask ourselves: what sort of society do we want to be? And by extension: what sort of organisation? Ultimately, it’s about creating a fairer system, where power and privilege are distributed more equitably. During the launch of Diversity Month 2025 at Leiden City Council, themed ‘Connecting in turbulent times’, people from academia, government and local political parties came together. Academics heard about the challenges faced by policy officers and members of the public. Conversely, Suzan, one of our guest speakers, outlined the bigger picture based on thorough research and historical awareness. Her account was particularly powerful, given the City of Leiden’s forthcoming apology for its role in the colonial and slavery past.
Abozyid: ‘The knowledge that activists and organisations bring to the table is hugely important. After all, it wasn’t academics who were the first to draw attention to racism. We stand in a tradition of people who have done an immense amount of work.’
Ultimately, it’s about a system in which power and privilege are distributed more fairly’
Suzan Abozyid studied History and Arabic Language and Culture and is currently undertaking her PhD research at the Institute of History at Leiden University. She is researching the history of integration policy in the Netherlands since 1945, focusing in particular on the influence of colonial legacies on the socio-economic, racialised and gender-related dimensions of integration policy.
Raphaël Boon is project lead for diversity, inclusion and equality (DIG) at Leiden City Council, focusing on the internal organisation. Through the ‘Leiden Inclusive’ programme, efforts were made both internally and externally to promote greater inclusion. This year, Leiden was awarded the bronze prize in the European Capitals of Inclusion and Diversity Award.
The white paper Dilemmas of Diversity – Diversity Policy and Practice contains eight dialogues between sixteen experts from academia, government and civil society organisations on current is
sues. The publication is intended for policymakers, administrators, professionals and anyone working on inclusive public services and social participation.
The publication (written in Dutch) is available for download via this link. Would you like to receive a printed copy of the white paper? Send an email to Katja Hoiting from Leiden-Delft-Erasmus Universities alliance: k.hoiting@tudelft.nl.
