Alexandra van Huffelen views the trend of discrediting science with significant concern from both a Dutch and an international perspective, drawing on her experiences as both the president of Radboud University and a former politician.

From an international perspective, Van Huffelen highlights the visible trend in the United States where research is being censored, and budgets for researchers are being drastically cut. She notes that this is part of a "slight attacker" where the idea that "science is just an opinion" gains traction. She finds the situation in the US, such as the potential abolishment of the Department of Education by Trump and the cutting of funding for schools allowing "illegal protests," to be "terrible" and a step further in breaking down the foundations of society. She emphasizes the fundamental importance of education and scientific research for a functioning society and sees these actions as undermining that basis.

From a Dutch perspective, Van Huffelen sees a similar "sentiment" seeping into the Netherlands, where critical thinkers might be "muzzled". She stresses that critical inquiry is essential to science, and if scientists cannot investigate, collaborate internationally, or do their work freely, it undermines society. She also points to an article about the judiciary, indicating a broader trend of institutions being questioned, which includes science. Van Huffelen argues that this trend in the Netherlands, along with budget cuts in higher education, should be resisted with all means.

As the president of Radboud University, Van Huffelen sees firsthand the importance of fundamental research for societal progress in areas like medicine and AI. She worries that the questioning of science and underinvestment will hinder the ability of universities to fulfill their crucial tasks of innovation and educating highly skilled personnel. She emphasizes that discrediting science undermines the ability to understand and address critical issues facing society and the economy. She believes universities have a role in showing the concrete benefits of science to society to counter this trend.

As a former politician, Van Huffelen expresses her disappointment and calls the current Dutch government's planned budget cuts for higher education a "very stupid decision" that reverses previous investments. She urges members of the Dutch Senate to oppose these cuts, emphasizing the importance of supporting the growth and flourishing of educational institutions for the benefit of society and the economy, especially given the geopolitical situation and the need for innovation. She connects the trend of discrediting science and underfunding research to a broader undermining of societal foundations.

Alexandra van Huffelen and Michael C. Bender, while addressing different contexts, share a common underlying concern regarding the potential undermining of crucial elements necessary for a well-functioning and progressive society through actions related to education and knowledge.

Alexandra van Huffelen's primary concern is the growing trend of discrediting science, which she sees as a dangerous development that could harm the quality of education and scientific research. She fears that this trend, coupled with proposed budget cuts to higher education in the Netherlands, will stifle innovation, weaken the country's competitive edge, and hinder the ability of universities to produce critical thinkers and address societal challenges. Her worry is that devaluing science and underinvesting in education and research will erode the foundations of a knowledge-based society.

Michael C. Bender's article details the long-standing Republican objective to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education, rooted in beliefs about limited government, fiscal responsibility, and local control. More recently, this effort has become intertwined with opposition to "woke" agendas like diversity, equity, and inclusion programs. While not directly focused on discrediting science in the same way as Van Huffelen, the potential dismantling of a key federal institution responsible for funding public schools, administering financial aid, and enforcing civil rights in education raises concerns about the future quality and accessibility of education. The perspective highlighted in the article criticizes the department for allegedly injecting "racist, anti-American, ahistorical propaganda", which, while different from the idea that "science is but an opinion," reflects a concern about the content and direction of education at a national level.

Therefore, their common concern, although framed differently, centers on the potential for actions in the realm of education and its governance to negatively impact the quality of learning, the support for knowledge creation, and ultimately the progress and well-being of society. Van Huffelen worries about the direct devaluation and underfunding of scientific pursuits, while Bender's piece highlights a political movement that could reshape the educational landscape in a way that may also have detrimental effects on the foundations that support a well-informed populace and future scientific endeavors.

Based on the information provided in the sources, Alexandra van Huffelen appears to possess significant qualifications in leadership and has seemingly garnered the trust necessary to be appointed as voorzitter (chair) of the college van bestuur, which functions as the president, of the Radboud University.

Here's why:

Extensive Leadership Experience: Van Huffelen has held numerous leadership positions across various sectors. These include being partijvoorzitter of D66, staatssecretaris in multiple ministries (Financiën, Koninkrijksrelaties en Digitalisering), wethouder of Rotterdam, algemeen directeur of GVB Amsterdam, and various director roles at Essent. This diverse leadership experience demonstrates her ability to lead and make decisions in different organizational contexts.
Appointment to High-Level Positions: Her progression through various leadership roles and her appointment as voorzitter of the college van bestuur of the Radboud University suggests that different organizations and political entities have placed trust in her capabilities and judgment. The university's decision to appoint her to its highest leadership position is a strong indicator of their confidence in her.
Political Leadership: Serving as partijvoorzitter of a national political party like D66 requires significant leadership skills, including the ability to strategize, represent the party, and navigate complex political landscapes.
Governmental Leadership: Her roles as staatssecretaris involved significant responsibility for policy implementation and management within the Dutch government. Specifically, her handling of the toeslagenaffaire, where she and the cabinet decided to provide a minimum of €30,000 to victims, demonstrates her capacity to address complex and sensitive issues, even if the approach was subject to criticism.
Administrative Leadership: Her experience as algemeen directeur of GVB Amsterdam and in director roles at Essent showcases her ability to lead large organizations and manage complex operations.
Trust Implied by Appointments: The fact that she has been appointed to numerous significant leadership roles over her career, culminating in the presidency of a major university, suggests a consistent level of trust placed in her by those making these appointments.
While the sources do not provide explicit details about her leadership style or specific instances that demonstrate her trustworthiness, her career trajectory and the nature of the positions she has held strongly imply that she possesses the necessary leadership qualities and has earned a level of trust that qualifies her for the role of president of the Radboud University. The university's selection process would likely have involved a thorough evaluation of her leadership skills, experience, and character.

Yes I think I can. Innovation and leadership has been part of me for a long time <time line experience> But can only do so be standing on the shoulders of others. 

(not AI)