A farewell to the professorial rule

In the very hours when the Rectorate’s newsletter is sent out, this year’s elections at SDU end. Over four days, around 28,000 students and members of technical-administrative and academic staff have had the opportunity to participate in elections promoted by SDU Communications’ campaign ‘Stem for satan!’ (Vote, damn it!/Vote for Satan!). SDU’s employees have been able to cast their electronic votes for one Board, one University Council, five academic councils and 28 boards of studies. On behalf of the Election Committee, I can unfortunately inform you that the voter turnout in 2023 was 11.72 percent. The voter turnout is our biggest challenge, and it is also a challenge to find enough people who will run for the many positions on behalf of fellow students and colleagues. Many elections are not actually held at all but are uncontested. Finally, every year the Election Committee is forced to draw lots to fill all vacant seats for administrative staff in a number of boards. The Election Committee and SDU Communications hope for a better voter turnout in 2024, but are working with realistic goals. Personally, I would consider it a success if the University, through a joint effort, which includes student organisations and employee groups, can get just one in five eligible voters to cast their vote within the foreseeable future. For employees, the aim must be to limit the appointment of administrative representatives by drawing lots to a minimum. 

The revolution and the professorial rule 

The challenge with voter turnout illustrates how the SDU elections can be seen as a microcosm revealing some of the challenges of democracy. For we are a democratic institution. The transition to democracy is well described in the university literature. It is well known that the 1960s saw a colossal increase in the number of admitted students with the entry of the large cohorts into the universities. In the article ‘Styrelsesloven, den glemte alliance’ (The Administration Act, the forgotten alliance), Senior Researcher Else Hansen writes that there were 9,000 students in 1960 and almost 36,000 students in 1970. Demographic developments changed the university culture in Denmark forever and were an important reason for the desire for a new organisation. 

The revolution came in 1970, four years after the first students were admitted to the University of Odense and two years after the student protests. The Danish Parliament passed an Administrative Act for Denmark’s then three existing universities. The Act dismantled the so-called professorial rule – the Danish term ‘professorvælde’ brings to mind the term ‘enevælde’ (absolute monarchy), which is hardly unintentional. Up until 1970, the professors formally and effectively had almost unlimited power at the universities. The Administration Act turned this picture upside down and gave the professors ordinary conditions of employment, in line with the other academic staff, in a management structure in which the students were given the front seat. In the years leading up to the passing of the Administration Act, advisory boards of studies had been established on various education programmes, including law and medicine, so there was some previous experience to build on when preparing the Administration Act. The comments on the bill are based on a recommendation from the University Administration Committee of 1962 with a number of minority opinions and, not least, the demands for co-determination that were voiced during the 1968 protests. The Government’s comments on the bill express a direct break with the professorial rule and a transfer of power to the new democratic bodies. In its comments, the Government states that the 1970 Administration Act should lead to a ‘change in the content of the concept of professor’. Prior to this, the individual professor had formally been the sole decision-maker in matters of research and teaching, and the professors had also been solely responsible for the affairs of their institutions through their membership of the boards of the education programmes, the faculties and the Consistory. All this was now going to change through the integration of the permanently employed academic staff, the introduction of boards of studies and the formation of departments where several professors would be affiliated with the same department. 

The comments to the bill also stated that the Administration Act in many respects meant a break with very old traditions within the administration of the universities. It was deemed appropriate to review the Act two years later, and in 1974 the co-determination was extended to the technical and administrative staff as well. Thus, the foundations were laid for the modern Danish university. The biggest subsequent change in the overall power structures of the universities was made with the University Act in 2003, which, out of a desire to ensure greater independence, made the universities self-governing institutions with professional boards. The boards were to consist of members with relevant experience from the university and of external representatives. The bill emphasised that this would create greater transparency about the decision-making processes of the universities and allow for increased representation of students and staff in their top management.

The fact that decisions are made with significant involvement of student and staff representatives strengthens the general confidence in the University’s administrative decisions. Despite low voter turnout, uncontested elections and drawing lots, the SDU elections thus ensure a unique element of openness and transparency at all levels of the University. The annual elections legitimise the decisions made at the University and which affect us all.