Speeches Dies Natalis

Speeches Dies Natalis 29 maart I March 2016

Openingsrede door rector magnificus Bert van der Zwaan Dames en heren, Van harte welkom bij deze Dies viering, in het bijzonder de commissaris van de koning, de burgemeesters van Utrecht en omringende gemeenten, ambassadeurs van verschillende landen, collega’s van kennisinstellingen, partners op de campus, alumni en vele anderen. Welkom aan de leden van de Raad van Bestuur van het UMCU, en evenzeer aan de leden van het College van Bestuur van de Technische Universiteit Eindhoven, onze partner-instelling. And of course: a very special welcome to our guests from abroad, in particular our honory doctors. Translation of the parts in Dutch of this ceremony are provided – we hope that in this way you can follow everything that is going on this afternoon in the Dom Church. Tot slot en misschien wel het meest belangrijke: welkom aan alle onderzoekers, docenten, studenten, en de medewerkers van de ondersteunende diensten! Ook vandaag zijn de studenten weer aanwezig met een apart studentencortège om hun centrale rol binnen deze universiteit te symboliseren. En natuurlijk niet te vergeten: welkom aan alle kijkers en luisteraars die deze Diesviering meemaken via internet - deze bijeenkomst wordt “live gestreamed”. Nu bijna precies 546 jaar geleden, op Sint Geertruidendag 1470, een zaterdag overigens, vond een eerste overleg plaats over het stichten van een Utrechtse universiteit. Op die 17e maart werd kennelijk vruchtbaar gesproken, in de zin dat partijen het gezamenlijk eens werden over nut en noodzaak van het oprichten van een universiteit. Toch hadden de stad en staten van Utrecht na dit veelbelovende begin nog 164 jaar nodig voordat ze zover waren dat de illustere school officieel kon worden geopend, en twee jaar daarna, nu precies 380 jaar geleden, werd de Utrechtse universiteit officieel geïnaugureerd. Daar was veel aan voorafgegaan: intensieve gesprekken over regelgeving en salariëring - ook

2 | Utrecht University

toen al. Het scouten van nieuw talent - ook toen al. Hoogleraren van naam verbonden aan andere universiteiten wilden graag naar Utrecht komen ook toen al. Maar ze wilden wel een toelage die paste bij hun status - ook toen al. Opmerkelijk is dat de eerste periode van de Utrechtse universiteit zich kenmerkte door de redding van de Leidse: vanaf 1635 trachtte het Leidse curatorium de Utrechtse magistraat te “vertederen” met de “ongevallen, de Leidse academie overcommen”. Pest had de studentenpopulatie en het hooglerarenkorps dusdanig uitgedund dat Utrechtse versterking nodig was. Het Leidse curatorium benadrukte dat hun academie was “commen te declineren en deze stadacademie (= de Utrechtse) te floreren en toe te nemen, soo men gemeenlick sach dat des eens ondergangh des anders opgangh was”. Gelukkig is het met die ondergang van Leiden nooit zover gekomen, want het is een zeer gewaardeerde zusterinstelling - en we hebben ze graag op de been gehouden. Op de dag van de feestelijke opening in maart, nu 380 jaar geleden, werd de stoet hoogleraren naar de Domkerk voorafgegaan door de schout en burgemeesters, en in de kerk zaten vele vorsten en hoogwaardigheidsbekleders. Volgens de verslagen uit die tijd beierden de klokken in de hele stad. Hier in de Domkerk, precies op de plaats waar ik nu sta, volgens het verslag van de feestelijk opening rechts van de preekstoel, stond de eerste rector Bernardus Schotanus toen hij staf en de beide zegels van de universiteit ontving uit handen van de secretaris van de stad, Johan van der Nijpoort. Niets lijkt veranderd sinds die dag, en toch is alles anders. Hoewel het beeld in de Domkerk vandaag in veel opzichten een aardige kopie is van 1636, is de wereld onherkenbaar veranderd. Hoewel de universiteit toen en nu bedoeld was om kennis te vergaren en door te geven, is de context van wetenschap ingrijpend gewijzigd. Het is goed ons juist op deze dag af te vragen wat ook weer de bedoeling was van de universiteit. Temeer omdat daar vorig jaar in Nederland een fors debat over heeft gewoed, een debat dat tot mijn spijt alweer

Dies Natalis 2016

bijna van de agenda is. Ik heb toen weliswaar vanaf deze plek scherp uitgehaald naar de vage romantische noties van “bildung” - omdat velen dat woord leken te gebruiken zonder enig benul maar ik heb aan de andere kant groeperingen als bijvoorbeeld de Nieuwe Universiteit en RethinkUU begroet als nuttige bewegingen om beter te doordenken waartoe wij als universiteit op aarde zijn, overigens een veel belangrijker vraag dan de vraag die vorig jaar actueel was, namelijk “van wie is de universiteit”. Het is duidelijk dat sinds onze eerste academie er veel veranderd is, en dat daarmee de rol van de universiteit ingrijpend gewijzigd lijkt. Wij zijn al lang niet meer die ivoren toren van waaruit wetenschappelijke dagdromerij over zwarte gaten, het binnenste van de aarde, of het brein van de mens in vrijheid kon vloeien, overigens tegen vaak armoedige betaling en onder vaak barre omstandigheden. Wij zijn al lang niet meer de professionele academie waar vooral juristen, theologen en artsen werden opgeleid. Wij staan inmiddels midden in de maatschappij, worden overstroomd met studenten, en zijn geconfronteerd met een overheid die zich - ook financieel - terugtrekt.

en beslissende rol te spelen. De samenleving zal de nadrukkelijke vraag stellen om een bijdrage aan de grote maatschappelijke problemen die op ons afkomen. De wereld trekt, dames en heren, in grote vaart aan ons voorbij. Ik kan daar een zorgelijke verhandeling over houden, of de spannende uitdagingen identificeren die we met vertrouwen tegemoet zien. Ik kan ook vertellen waar we eventueel tekort schieten, of uitleggen waar we al excelleren en het uitstekend doen. Daar hebben we het altijd over, ook in het debat met de minister en met maatschappelijke partners: waar excelleren we, waar profileren we ons, waarin zijn we onderscheidend? Maar ik wil vandaag vooral aandacht besteden aan iets waar we in de waan van de dag te weinig bij stilstaan: waar komt de kracht vandaan om ons steeds weer aan te passen, nieuwe vormen te vinden - waar precies zit de veerkracht van de universitas magistrorum et scholarium, de gemeenschap van docenten en studenten? Wat is het belang van deze gemeenschap, en hoe onderhouden we die? Kortom: wat is de essentie van de universiteit die ons al eeuwen doet overleven?

Sinds 1636 is de wereld ingrijpend veranderd en zal dat ook de komende jaren in een verbluffend hoog tempo blijven doen. Ik noem een paar van de belangrijkste veranderingen die de positie van de universiteit onvermijdelijk en diepgaand zullen beïnvloeden. Wereldwijde verschuivingen in de economische machtsbalans en technologische ontwikkelingen zorgen voor een steeds competitiever speelveld voor wetenschappers en kennisinstellingen. De snelle ontwikkelingen op het gebied van digitalisering veranderen het mondiale onderwijslandschap voortdurend. De groei van onze wereldbevolking en welvaart leidt tot toenemende schaarste van voedsel, water, energie en grondstoffen.

Want het is duidelijk: in de periode van de afgelopen eeuwen zijn onderwijs en onderzoek voortdurend veranderd, zijn ook de studenten en de docenten veranderd, maar heeft de organisatie kennelijk als een buffer al die schokken opvangen, en de studenten en medewerkers op een natuurlijke manier in de veranderingen meegenomen. Vanuit dat perspectief beschouwd is de mate waarin, en het tempo waarmee, de organisatie zich weet aan te passen en toch de band met medewerkers en studenten hecht weet te houden, de essentie van het succesvolle overleven van de universiteit tot nu toe, en dus bepalend voor onze toekomst.

De maatschappelijke uitdagingen zijn van een zodanige mondiale en complexe omvang, dat dit een steeds grotere druk zet op de kennisinstellingen om hier een onderscheidende

Maar de vraag is dan: wat bindt ons en wat vormt onze gemeenschap? Terugkijkend op de vele debatten die we de afgelopen maanden voerden over onze strategie voor de komende 5-10 jaar,


Dies Natalis 2016

stond juist die vraag vaak centraal, overigens zonder dat die expliciet benoemd werd. Dat doe ik nu wel en grijp daarbij vooruit naar antwoorden die we in ons strategieplan formuleren om de organisatie te versterken. Centraal staat dat de Universiteit Utrecht een universiteit wil zijn waar medewerkers en studenten verbonden worden in hun ambitie om via onderwijs en onderzoek te bouwen aan een betere wereld. We willen een naar buiten gerichte organisatie zijn - of worden waar we dat nog niet zijn, weten wat er in de wereld speelt en wat de maatschappij van ons vraagt. We moeten een gemeenschap zijn of worden met een cultuur gericht op vertrouwen, in een wereld van “low trust”. Dat betekent: recht doen aan professionele autonomie van medewerkers en focus op resultaten in combinatie met heldere verantwoordelijkheden. Minder regels en minder controle, maar ook meer zelf verantwoordelijkheid nemen. Leiderschap is cruciaal om deze visie uit te dragen en vorm te geven. Daarom zullen we nog meer dan de afgelopen jaren aandacht besteden aan de versterking van leiderschap waar dat nodig is. Maar boven alles verdient werkplezier en ontplooiing aandacht. Binnen de Universiteit Utrecht spelen communities nu al een cruciale rol: de gemeenschap van docenten en studenten, van interdisciplinaire samenwerkings-verbanden in onderzoek, van docenten binnen de Teaching Academy, van de vele kunst-gezelschappen en sportverenigingen die we hebben, van Studium Generale. Onze ambitie moet zijn dat al onze medewerkers zich via die vele gemeenschappen diep verbonden voelen met elkaar en met de Universiteit Utrecht. We maken dat komende jaren nog verder zichtbaar en voelbaar in ons onderwijs dan nu al het geval is: kleinschalig onderwijs waar we de afgelopen jaren al grote stappen hebben gezet, zal nog kleinschaliger worden. De grote investeringen van de afgelopen tijd hebben geleid tot sterk toegenomen contact tussen studenten en docenten. Dat leverde niet alleen een ongekende


stijging op van het studiesucces, maar leidt ook tot steeds meer mogelijkheden om onderzoek vroeg in de studie, soms al het eerste jaar, in te bouwen. We hebben de afgelopen jaren – waar de onderwijsfabriek dreigde – de community meer kans gegeven. En niet alleen studiesucces nam toe, maar ook werkplezier van docenten kon zich herstellen. Ook de komende jaren komt met de voortzetting van dit beleid steeds meer ruimte voor initiatieven van studenten, waar bijvoorbeeld zelfsturende teams van studenten prachtig onderzoek kunnen doen zoals nu al in de honours colleges. Ook de afgelopen jaren is gebleken dat zulk onderzoek kan leiden tot toppublicaties. Hier willen we op voortbouwen en nog meer ruimte bieden aan onderzoek in de bachelorfase. De versterking van de samenhang tussen onderwijs en onderzoek betekent dat er stapsgewijs ook meer ruimte komt voor interdisciplinair onderwijs, in lijn met wat er in het onderzoek gaande is. De investeringen van de afgelopen jaren in interdisciplinair onderzoek hebben geleid tot hele nieuwe communities waar baanbrekend werk wordt gedaan. Bijvoorbeeld op het gebied van Food, waar gedragswetenschappers samen met biologen en biomedici werken aan “Future Food”. Kijk naar de samenwerkingen tussen gamma- en alfa-wetenschappers, samen met bètawetenschappers, op het gebied van Instituties en Duurzaamheid. Dwars door onze universiteit heen zijn de silo’s doorbroken en is naast de traditioneel sterk disciplinaire gemeenschappen, een hele reeks nieuwe gemeenschappen ontstaan. Deze interdisciplinaire verbanden worden ook de komende jaren gestimuleerd en voorzien van flexibele “hubs” waarin wetenschappers samenwerken met andere partijen om grote wetenschappelijke en maatschappelijke vragen op te lossen. Het traditionele verband van de discipline blijft bestaan, maar de flexibiliteit van de onderzoeker neemt toe. De brandstof voor een hechte gemeenschap is vertrouwen. Ik zei eerder al dat we een organisatie willen zijn van high trust, te midden van een maatschappij waarin low trust domineert.

Dies Natalis 2016

Daarom wil de universiteit uitstralen dat ze ook werkelijk vertrouwen geeft. We gaan verder met de vorig jaar gestarte initiatieven op het gebied van deregulering, gericht op vermindering van regels en onnodige administratieve lasten, en versimpeling van procedures en versnelling van besluitvorming. Ontzorgen van wetenschappers en studenten staat hierbij centraal, zonder daarbij het gemeenschappelijk belang en efficiëntie uit het oog te verliezen. Alle medewerkers krijgen meer ruimte voor ontwikkeling. In het bijzonder wordt de komende jaren verder aandacht besteed aan de onderwijscarrière. Naast de mogelijkheid van hoogleraren met specifieke onderwijssignatuur, waarvan we er al 32 hebben, openen we binnen een nieuw te vormen centrum voor Academic Teaching een tenure-pad voor jonge toptalenten om na een track van 3-5 jaar onderwijshoogleraar te worden, terwijl we de normale bevorderingen op basis van onderwijsprestaties ingrijpend gaan verbeteren. De geschetste ontwikkelingen in onderwijs en onderzoek zijn allemaal een logisch uitvloeisel van de enorme stappen die we de afgelopen jaren hebben gemaakt. Maar al die stappen waren en zijn alleen maar mogelijk als de universitas magistrorum et scholarium op orde is. Als er sprake is van een werkelijke cultuur van samenwerken. Alleen door die gemeenschappen, waarin onderwijs en onderzoek gezien worden als een proces van co-creatie, is het mogelijk al die veranderingen in de wereld om ons heen te blijven volgen. Dat is de kern van onze universiteit, en alleen zo behoudt onze universiteit zijn vooraanstaande positie. Alleen zo kan onze universiteit als eeuwenoude institutie een baken van vertrouwen blijven in een wereld waarin al te vaak de “wisdom of the crowd” regeert. Bedenk: het gaat niet om rankings, het gaat niet alleen om topprestaties. We hebben als universiteit een belangrijke taak in het maatschappelijke debat om vertrouwen uit te stralen en gezaghebbend koers te bepalen in de vele vragen en veranderingen die op ons afkomen. Door de veerkracht van de universitas, blijft de universiteit verbonden met


alle veranderingen, en blijft tegelijk gezaghebbend en relevant voor de maatschappij van morgen. Niets lijkt veranderd, toch is alles anders. Onze universiteit, dames en heren, is nu 380 jaar oud en staat in een veel langere traditie die teruggaat tot diep in de middeleeuwen. Onze universiteit heeft veel gezien en veel meegemaakt. Maar ik heb al aangegeven dat de essentie van onze universiteit onveranderd is, gevormd als die wordt door steeds dezelfde gemeenschap: de gemeenschap van gelijkgezinden die nieuwsgierig is, die vragen stelt, onvermoeibaar kennis overdraagt aan jonge mensen die daarmee nog verdere verten gaan ontsluiten dan hun voorgangers. Een gemeenschap waar high trust heerst, waar de maat der dingen niet het aantal is, maar de kwaliteit. Waar naast veel aandacht voor hele fundamentele vragen, ook veel aandacht is voor maatschappelijke vragen. Waar de tijd wegvalt in de vragen over verleden, heden en toekomst. Een gemeenschap waarin verbinden en scheppen centraal staan. Zonder verbinding met elkaar geen inspiratie, zonder inspiratie geen schepping of ontdekking. Daarom ligt dáár de nadruk van ons nieuwe strategieplan. Het motto van ons lustrum is goed gekozen: “Create and Connect” - dat is de kern van onze universiteit. Dáártoe zijn we op aarde, al 380 jaar lang.

Dies Natalis 2016

Honorary doctorates


Dies Natalis 2016

Honorary doctorate for Francine Houben Laudation by Maarten Hajer Distinguished Professor in Urban Futures of the Faculty of Geosciences

Architecture and urban design are ways to shape society. Once complete, buildings provide structure to our social interaction, restricting some possibilities, enabling others. As such, urban development is an act of cultural intervention. Architect Francine Houben is very much aware of this cultural endeavour. Over the thirty years of her career Francine Houben has won international acclaim. Her humane architecture and her talent for creating public domains within society stand out. Invariably, her architecture is rooted in observation: in watching and listening, in feeling and in smelling. Houben starts any project by walking around an area for weeks, talking to people, taking photographs. The knowledge she gathers is reflected in the architectural and urban design choices that she makes. An anecdote may illustrate this. In the mid-1980s, her office Mecanoo was engaged for an urban renewal project in a district of Rotterdam called Afrikaanderwijk. Houben contacted the future residents and discovered that they included many retired or active dockworkers’ families. And while the urban renewal department produced mainstream low-rise designs of up to four or five floors at most, Mecanoo came up with a plan for high-rise construction affording splendid views of the harbour, their harbour. Indeed, high-rise. Highrise on demand. High-rise for a social cause. Francine Houben was educated in the modern paradigm of architecture at Delft University of Technology. However, inspired in part by her collaboration with the Portuguese architect Alvaro Siza, she soon embarked on a quest to find new forms in which to express her social ideals. The university library she designed for Delft reflects her


liberation from the modern paradigm. The library is located right behind the imposing university auditorium, built by Van der Broek en Bakema architects. It is regarded one of the greatest achievements in the Netherlands of a movement in architecture known as ‘Brutalism’. Houben’s much-praised library (1997) is impervious however to the brutalism of its neighbour. With its grassy slope and diagonals the library, Houben says, is ‘a building that really wants to be a landscape’. The library has been a favourite meeting place for students from the day it was opened. Since then, Houben’s work has developed into an oeuvre that is more than impressive, encompassing museums, complex music and cultural venues, libraries and urban redevelopment projects, as well as residential buildings and offices, on four continents. Overseeing that oeuvre Mecanoo does not represent a single aesthetic style. Rather, Houben’s fame derives from her capacity to bring out the best in people. Houben constructs a mentality. Opened in 2013, Houben’s new library for Birmingham is a case in point. It gave the centre of Birmingham a new, non-commercial heart – a new public domain that was used by local residents, in all their diversity, as soon as it was completed. In the segment of environments for learning, the building of Amsterdam University College (2012) is another marvel of ingenious design. Houben’s recent engagements are the envy of all architects: the renovation and modernisation of the Martin Luther King Jr library in Washington, originally designed by Mies van der Rohe, and, topping even that, the renovation of the worldfamous New York Public Library on Fifth Avenue. The building, generally recognized as a hallmark of public domain in Manhattan, is now entrusted to the care of an architect who knows how to use stones to build an open society.

Dies Natalis 2016

Word of thanks Francine Houben Rector Magnificus, dear audience It is a great honour for me to be here today, in this wonderful building, to receive an Honorary Doctorate from Utrecht University. I thank the Rector and the Board for the Conferral of Doctoral Degrees for this prestigious and certainly unexpected recognition. And I would especially like to thank Professor Maarten Hajer for his very kind words about my work, which centres on people and social interaction. People Place Purpose is the title of my most recently published book. I am aware that most of you would expect the work of an architect to be form-based.That one might develop a certain style in the early years of one’s career, find one’s own identity in a certain style and then continue in that style. For me, that does not make sense. Looking back over a career spanning more than 30 years, I liken my work to the year rings of a tree. The core is the Delft University of Technology, where I started my studies in 1974. The competition we won as students in 1980 became the start of Mecanoo architecten. In architecture school, we are constantly taught to focus on the building’s purpose. But many things we once took for granted are no longer the same, including the brief. My experience over 30 years is that the programme will always change. As architects, we need to design for predictable and unpredictable change. What was education like 20 years ago, when we were designing the Faculty of Economics and Management that opened at De Uithof in 1995?

That is why I say: first the People, then the Place and then the Purpose. Utrecht University is interested in collaborations both within the institution itself and with external disciplines. As a member of the Society of Arts, part of the Royal Netherlands Academy for Arts and Sciences, I can tell you how interesting and inspiring it is to meet with people from other fields. I am convinced that if you want to be innovative, you need to work with researchers from a wide range of specialities, with passion, creativity and curiosity. Interesting developments in architecture are produced by those who create the freedom to experiment and work together between the fragmented practices of design and construction. I look forward to stay in touch with the faculties of Utrecht University as part of my lifelong learning. I am deeply honoured to receive an honorary degree in Utrecht, the city where I met my husband Hans Andersson. I would like to thank the University for this Honorary Doctorate. As an engineer trained at Delft University of Technology, it is a great honour to be the first architect to receive this recognition.

How has education continued to develop over the past ten years? And how are we now preparing for the education of the future? Learning environments keep evolving, however, people and their senses do not change that much. Nor the places where we design buildings, with their local climate and culture.


Dies Natalis 2016

Professor Robert J. Sampson, Henry Ford II Professor of the Social Sciences at Harvard University Honorary supervisor Tanja van der Lippe, Professor of Sociology

Robert Sampson is one of the most influential sociologists worldwide. He is Henry Ford II Professor of the Social Sciences at Harvard University. His research centers on crime, the life course, inequality, and the social organization of cities. The unique perspective that Robert Sampson brings to sociology takes individuals seriously and reveals how the social and cultural context profoundly shapes mechanisms of social causality. He underpins his challenging and inspiring ideas by a rigorous analysis of data, including the use of big data for informing public policy. Based on one of the most ambitious studies in the history of social science, Sampson’s globallyacclaimed book Great American City demonstrates that neighborhoods influence their residents’ lives along a wide variety of dimensions, including crime, disorder, civic engagement, collective efficacy, and altruism, and that differences between neighborhoods are surprisingly enduring. Sampson is innovative in that he takes a systematic approach to measuring dimensions of city life. His pioneering work has given rise to the new field of ecometrics, which seeks to rigorously quantify the impact of neighborhoods. Sampson has thus laid out a comprehensive roadmap for the study of context.

such as marriage, military service, or employment. These findings have had a broad influence on criminology worldwide. Robert Sampson is the most cited author in criminology and one of the four most cited sociologists alive. He has published in the flagship journals of sociology, criminology, and demography. He has received many honors, such as the Stockholm Prize in Criminology and Distinguished Book Awards from the American Sociological Association. He is a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and a member of the National Academy of Sciences. Robert Sampson is a truly exceptional scientist. His ability to see and analyze the importance of the social context for human behavior has allowed him to achieve a brilliant synthesis of the factors that determine social inequality and wellbeing. Sampson’s work is a source of inspiration for students and researchers. It is an outstanding example of how fundamental social research can help us address urgent societal issues. I am delighted that Utrecht University has decided to award an honorary doctorate to Professor Sampson. Congratulations!

Moreover, Sampson and his co-author John Laub are renowned for the longest life-course study of criminal behavior ever conducted, resulting in the books Crime in the Making and Shared Beginnings, Divergent Lives. They discovered that even very active criminals renounce crime for good after key “turning points” in their lives,


Dies Natalis 2016

Word of thanks Professor Robert J. Sampson It is a genuine honor to be awarded an honorary doctorate from Utrecht University on the occasion of its 380th anniversary. I deeply appreciate the recognition and I thank the Rector, the Board, Professor Tanja van der Lippe, and the university at large for this wonderful occasion. It is one I will long remember. I am particularly honored because social science research at Utrecht is recognized around the world for its quality and scientific rigor. Moreover, the faculty here has produced important work on issues that I have cared about and grappled with my entire career—such as social inequality, immigration, community networks, and crime. This makes the recognition doubly meaningful. Allow me to briefly highlight my research in two of these areas. The first is the question of why individuals commit crime—a puzzle that has motivated me since graduate student days. Early on, I became dissatisfied with the then dominant explanation that adult criminality resulted from either poverty or childhood traits. Most poor adults do not commit crime, and while childhood traits are important, the origins of crime in childhood are overstated by methodological approaches that start with adult offenders and look backwards in time. In fact, if we begin with children in trouble and follow them to adulthood, we find remarkable divergence in life outcomes—notably, although so-called antisocial children do become disproportionately involved in delinquency as adolescents, most stop offending by adulthood. It was only by examining prospective longitudinal data over the long term—studying lives forward in time—that I discovered this fact with my colleague, John Laub, when we embarked on a long-term study of crime starting in the 1980s that integrated historical archival records with our own data collection on the lives of 500 Boston men. Eventually the data we constructed spanned from adolescence to age 70 – more than 60 years.

1 0 | Utrecht University

In a series of articles and books analyzing these data, we showed the importance of pathways and turning points across the life course for understanding crime. We developed a theory of age-graded informal social control that views criminal behavior as constantly shaped and mediated by social institutions and interactions. We also discovered the importance of adult turning points such as employment and marriage that have the capacity to redirect criminal trajectories. This is a liberating and ultimately optimistic finding—yesterday’s offender is not inevitably tomorrow’s criminal—in turn yielding constructive policy options. The second puzzle that I have long been motivated to explain is spatial inequality. Despite claims that technology has erased physical distance and created a placeless world, a surprising number of human behaviors are sharply concentrated by place. Indeed, a small number of neighborhoods account for the majority of any city’s social problems. To advance our understanding of this pattern I helped design the “Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods” in the mid-1990s. In addition to a longitudinal study of individuals that is still ongoing, our research team constructed new ways to measure the neighborhood environments in which human development unfolds. Based on surveys of citizens, videotaping of streets, social networks among leaders and systematic observations, we created a set of metrics for assessing ecology of the city— what we termed “eco-metrics.” We used the tools of ecometrics to test theoretical hypotheses about why and how neighborhoods matter, focusing on previously underappreciated social mechanisms. For example, we showed the independent role of a community’s level of social trust and shared expectations for control— its “collective efficacy”—in explaining rates of violence. We also discovered that inequality is more enduring than commonly thought and

Dies Natalis 2016

that neighborhoods influence a wide variety of other social phenomena, including health, civic engagement, cognitive development, leadership networks, and migration flows. In closing, I am once again deeply honored to join the intellectual community of scholars at Utrecht. In an era of increasing inequalities across the life course and in cities around the world, I believe that social science has a critical role to play in making a difference and improving the human condition. Thank you.


Dies Natalis 2016

Jordi Savall, Musician and conductor of Medieval, Renaissance and Baroque Music, and EU and UNESCO Cultural Ambassador for Peace Honorary Supervisor Rosi Braidotti, Distinguished University Professor of the Humanities Jordi Savall is internationally recognized as a leading figure in the field of Western early music, largely responsible for reviving the use of early viol family instruments , notably the viola da gamba. His repertoire features medieval, Renaissance and Baroque music, although he has occasionally ventured into the Classical and even the Romantic periods.

composers. His artistic practice thus became to a large extent research-driven. This has also resulted in a sustained pedagogical practice through intensive courses, master classes and seminars. The other remarkable aspects of Savall’s work is his civic commitment to the social relevance of musical practice. Not only does Jordi Savall make a point of employing musicians from many different cultural and religious backgrounds, but also, in his choice of repertoire, he emphasizes the Jewish, Islamic and Christian roots of a musical tradition that is too often assimilated to only some dominant ethnic and cultural group.

Jordi Savall has also made an original contribution to the field as a director. In 1974 he formed the ensemble Hespèrion XX (known since 2000 as Hesperiòn XX1; In 1987 he founded La Capella Reial de Catalunya, a vocal ensemble devoted to pre-eighteenth-century music. In 1989 he founded Le Concert des Nations, an orchestra generally emphasizing Baroque music, but sometimes also Classical and even Romantic repertoire.

By performing the great wealth of traditions and sources that mark Europe as a multicultural and cosmopolitan society, Jordi Savall re-appraises diversity as a great resource and as a building block of cultural dialogues for tolerance and social cohesion.

Savall’s discography includes more than 100 recordings, with EMI Classics and then on Michel Bernstein, Astrée label and, since 1998 on his own label, Alia Vox. Savall has to his credit an impressive list of international musical awards.

In recognition of his contribution, Jordi Savall was appointed European Union Ambassador for intercultural dialogue and UNESCO “Artist for Peace”.

There are two other prominent features to Jordi Savall’s remarkable career that are relevant for the award of an Honorary degree by our university, which is jointly sponsored by the Centre for the Humanities and the Musicology section of the Humanities Faculty, notably Professor Karl Kuegle.

This is a message the contemporary world needs to hear and understand.

He was also awarded the Gold Medal of the Region of Catalonia and the Légion d’Honneur from the French Government. It is only fitting therefore that today Jordi Savall should be made an honorary doctor of our distinguished university.

The first is Savall’s patient archival research work on musical scores, for instance on the scores by Marin Marais, who became one of his favourite


Dies Natalis 2016

Sybil Seitzinger, Professor in the School of Environmental Sciences University of Victoria and Executive director of the Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions. Honorary Supervisor Jack Middelburg, Professor of Earth Sciences, Geochemistry The Earth is a special planet because there is life, water and a reactive atmosphere with oxygen. The rocks, water and the atmosphere have provided the conditions for life to develop and evolve, and the organisms have shaped the surface of the earth and the composition of rock, water and air. The living world (biosphere) and dead world (geosphere) are connected in multiple ways and have to be studied together, in particular since one single species on this earth is causing unprecedented changes at the global scale, including climate change. Prof. Sybil Seitzinger has shown worldwide scientific leadership to integrate physical, chemical and biological approaches to elucidate environmental processes and how humans have changed these. In her early career she has pioneered studies on denitrification and the production of nitrous oxide, a climate-active gas, in aquatic systems: from small streams to large rivers and estuaries. Denitrification is now widely recognized as a natural ecosystems function that humans should value and preserve. Eutrophication, the perturbation of aquatic systems due to human-derived nutrients, was already recognized as an important environmental problem in the middle of the last century, but was primarily considered a local problem. Prof. Seitzinger showed that nutrient release from sewage, land-use change and changing agricultural practices is a global problem. She was instrumental in the establishment and development of Global News, a UNESCO


supported initiative to quantify the nutrient release to and transport by river to the sea at the global scale. This made us aware that human activities and policy measures upstream have major consequences for ecosystem functioning downstream, for example excess nitrogen release in Iowa has consequences for low-oxygen conditions in the Gulf of Mexico. Professor Seitzinger combines scientific excellence with outstanding scientific leadership skills and commitment to serve the scientific community and society at large. She has served 4 years as president of ASLO, the American Society for Limnology & Oceanography, and has been executive director of IGBP, the international geosphere-biosphere research program, from 2008-2015. In this function she has played a pivotal role to involve the global community in addressing global environmental processes such as climate change. She continues serving the community in her new role as director of the Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions in British Colombia. With this honorary degree Utrecht University recognizes her landmark contributions to nutrient cycling in a changing world and her unselfish world-wide leadership in connecting fundamental science to pressing environmental issues. Thank you.

Dies Natalis 2016

Word of thanks dr. Sybil Seitzinger It is a great honour to receive this Honorary Doctorate from Utrecht University, particularly during this special year – the university’s 380th anniversary. Three concepts characterize my career: global environmental change, collaboration, solutions. Early in my career I researched local scale issues along the US East Coast, issues that quickly showed themselves to have global ramifications. I focused on nutrients entering coastal waters from human activities including from agriculture, sewage, and energy production in upstream watersheds. Nutrient enrichment of coastal waters might sound like something good, but too much leads to loss of oxygen and algal blooms harmful to ecosystems and humans, threatening economic activities upon which coastal communities depend. My research was the first to show that coastal systems behave as a major filter removing often half of the nitrogen from pollution sources, thus helping to decrease the negative impacts. This understanding is now incorporated into many countries’ nitrogen management. When I was a student there were 4 billion people; now there are almost 7.5 billion. That’s billions of wonderful people on our planet. It’s also a very large number altering the face of our planet - changing land use, degrading air, freshwater and coastal ecosystems, and emitting greenhouse gases leading to a warming climate, sea level rise, ocean acidification.

The scale kept growing. I became the director of the International Geosphere Biosphere Program which brings together over 5000 incredibly talented and committed scientists from all continents, working to better understand the causes and consequences of environmental change, including the most urgent issue today, climate change. This past year I started a new chapter, as director of the Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions, with my focus shifting from human impacts on the environment, to now seeking solutions to those problems. We engage researchers, policy makers, entrepreneurs, and communities to develop pathways to a low-carbon energy system and to adapt to changing climate. The environmental issues facing us are indeed large. But this is also a time with new opportunities, and an unprecedented level of global collaboration as indicated by the commitment last year in Paris by 196 countries to reduce climate change. I would like to think that my receiving this honour reflects recognition of the interconnections of our impacts from a local to a global scale and the urgency to find solutions at all levels. I am honoured to be receiving a degree from this great university.

As my career advanced it transitioned from the local and regional to the global. A big part of that transition was collaboration with Dutch scientists starting in the early 1990’s. With scientists around the world we used knowledge at smaller scales to develop detailed global models exploring patterns of human impacts in watersheds around the world.


Dies Natalis 2016

Anniversary speech Beatrice de Graaf, Professor of the History of International Relations & Global Governance

afternoon, on that same Sunday, these exotic forces entered the city through the Wittevrouwen Gate. Pieter Gerardus van Os, a Utrecht painter, was present, and captured the momentous occasion on canvas (still to be admired at the Centraal Museum). Van Os depicted the moment when the Cossacks were being cheered by a joyful crowd before going on to make their quarters in the city center.2 Their arrival was not a minute too late. French gardes, in the meantime, were leaving horror and destruction in their wake, killing and maiming dozens of citizens that crossed their path while withdrawing to the south.3

A University in Times of Crisis On the occasion of this anniversary,1 I would like to take you back to another important moment in the history of our university. Not to its inception in March 1636, but to its resurrection 200 years ago, when, against the backdrop of turmoil and a great European crisis, the new UU was prompted to reflect on its sense of self, mission, and purpose. We will see how the university’s board, professors, and students took advantage of the crisis and re-established the university as an autonomous site for the production of knowledge and public service.

The city liberated On Sunday 28th November 1813, a historic moment unfolded before the eyes of Utrecht’s inhabitants. Very early that morning, around 3 o’clock, French occupation troops had left the city through the Tolsteeg Gate under the cloak of darkness. French scouts had sighted Russian soldiers, “Cossacks,” approaching the city from the east and had warned their comrades with flares. And indeed, at half past two in the

1 The author would like to thank Christoph Baumgartner, Bas van Bavel, Renger de Bruin, Leen Dorsman and Maarten Prak for their comments on the text. 2 In addition to this painting he also wrote a report of what transpired. The painting by P. G. Van Os was given to Tsar Alexander I as a gift. On 18 December 1824, the painter received in turn an expensive diamond ring as a token of thanks, along with a letter from the Russian minister of foreign affairs Count Nesselrode, explaining that the tsar was very pleased with the painting. See: Van Eijnden and Van der Willigen 1816–1840, vol. 3 (1820): 205; and the appendix (1840); 73–74. The painting’s inscription 1 5 | Utrecht University

Utrecht was free again – finally liberated from the oppressive politics and economic starvation it endured during the final years of the Napoleonic Wars, between 1809 and 1813. This was indeed a joyful moment for most of Utrecht’s inhabitants. Most of them had suffered during the previous years of hardship. Utrecht’s population had decreased. The short-lived pride of being a capital and of showcasing an imperial palace (at the site of today’s university library and halls along the Drift) between October 1807 and April 1808 had long since given way to doom and gloom. Sharp tax increases, cuts in social welfare spending, and a severe commercial depression had created significant impoverishment among the people of Utrecht. The French authorities had exacted a strict policy of austerity, and channeled all remaining funds to the grande armée for its campaign in Russia. From 1810 onwards, soup was distributed at a food bank near the Holy Cross Chapel on the Domplein. Protesters found themselves incarcerated in the City Hall’s

was painted over another text, of which only the letters Euro[…] are legible. According to De Meyere (1993: 92) the new inscription was added in connection with the giving of the gift to the tsar. See: https://nl.wikipedia.org/ wiki/Wittevrouwenpoort#/media/File:Wittevrouwenpoort_ te_Utrecht_in_1813_door_Pieter_Gerardus_van_Os.jp 3 For a vivid picture of these moments see the Dutch children’s story (historically researched) by W.G. van de Hulst, Van Hollandse jongens in de Franse tijd (Nijkerk 1913), 154–155.

Dies Natalis 2016

dungeons.4 Utrecht’s function as regional trading center had almost come to a standstill.

The University unchained Almost inevitably, with such problems depressing the city and the country as a whole, the University was also plunged into an existential crisis. Today’s 380th anniversary is a proper occasion to reflect on the fact that between 1811 and 1815 this university had been downgraded to a mere undergraduate college. It had been stripped of its ius promovendi.5 Its professors had been dismissed or demoted to schoolmasters. Only Groningen and Leiden had remained as sites of higher learning in the Netherlands. Since the incorporation of the Kingdom of Holland into the French empire in 1810, the emperor thought that two universities would suffice for a country he saw as riotous and only good-for-plundering. Funds for maintaining the Academy Hall, the Hortus, the Sonnenborch Observatory, the medical facilities, and the salaries of the professors dried up. After 1811, the Hospital was taken over by the French army, other properties were simply confiscated, and the food bank had turned the Domplein and academy sites into one messy marketplace.6 Hence, Sunday 28 November 1813 was not only a day of new beginnings for the city and country, it also heralded a potential resurrection of academic life. And so it happened – the University was unchained again. The Prince of Orange, only nine days after arriving in the Netherlands on 30th November 1813, abolished the French language throughout the educational system. With his Organiek Besluit of 2nd August 1815, he converted the two ‘Imperial Universities’ of Leiden

4 Renger de Bruin, Burgers op het kussen: Volkssoevereiniteit en bestuurssamenstelling in de stad Utrecht 1795-1813 (1986) proefschrift; P.D. ’t Hart, De stadt Utrecht en zijn inwoners: Een onderzoek naar samenhangen tussen sociaal-economische ontwikkelingen en de demografische geschiedenis van de stad Utrecht 1771–1825, 1983; R.E. de Bruin, T.J. Hoekstra and A. Pietersma, The City of Utrecht through Twenty Centuries: A brief history (Utrecht 1999); Renger de Bruin, ‘Regenten en revolutionairen (1747–1851)’, in: Idem e.o. (eds.), ‘Een paradijs vol weelde’. Geschiedenis van de stad Utrecht (Utrecht 2000), 315–373, here: 350–353.

and Groningen into Dutch state universities. And soon after having been inaugurated as King of the United Kingdom of the Netherlands in Brussels, on 21st September 1815, he also restored Utrecht University to its former rights. On 12th October, Utrecht University was officially reinstated. Three Hooge Scholen were now to educate students to become governing elites in state and society. (Two other universities, in Harderwijk and Franeker, were not so fortunate and descended into obscurity.)

Europe, and the country, still in chaos Given these developments, we also need to consider the spirit of the times, and to honor the fact that this regeneration took place in a setting defined by widespread insecurity, by sentiments of a fundamental crisis, and by the chaos that still prevailed in this immediate post-liberation period. Europe was in turmoil.7 Napoleon’s troops were still on the loose. The Völkerschlacht of October 1813 had dealt a severe blow to his Imperial Reign and myth of invincibility. But Napoleon was raising new troops and his generals were still rampant across Europe. Even after his defeat and exile in 1814, while the Great Powers convened in Vienna, trying to negotiate a lasting peace agreement and a restoration of order and security on the continent and beyond, Napoleon returned with a vengeance in March 1815. For Utrecht, this was not some faraway rumble of distant battlefields and diplomatic saber-rattling. The ongoing international crisis had a direct

6 Martijn van der Burg, ‘“Une nation, naturellement si studieuse”. Het aanzien van de Nederlandse universiteiten in de napoleontische tijd’, in: L.J. Dorsman and P.J. Knegtmans, Universiteit, publiek en politiek. Het aanzien van de Nederlandse universiteiten, 1800–2010 (Hilversum 2012), 13–28. 7 Beatrice de Graaf, “Bringing Sense and Sensibility to the Continent: Vienna 1815 revisited,” Journal of Modern European History 13 (2015) 4: 447–457. I and my ERC project team are currently investigating this underresearched period of pan-European crisis, terror, and reconstruction.

5 By Imperial decree of 22 October 1811. Courier van Amsterdam, No. 299, 24 October 1811. 1 6 | Utrecht University

Dies Natalis 2016

impact on the general public and local academic life. Prince William of Orange’s first decree in December 1813 called for the capital punishment of any Dutchmen remaining under French arms. This was no small matter because many Dutch students still fought on Napoleon’s behalf. Napoleon had introduced compulsory military service in the Netherlands,8 and although university students mainly hailed from noble families, and could afford to pay for replacements, other, less fortunate students were indeed recruited as officers in the garde d’honneur. After 1813, they joined the troops of their new King William I, to be deployed at the Battle of Waterloo, which would cost the lives of numerous Dutch soldiers on 17–18 June 1815.9 It was not until October 1815 that the professors in Leiden, Groningen, and Utrecht could welcome the return of their students to the university, and they were finally able to disband the “Jager-korps,” army units composed of student recruits.10 But even after the Second Paris Peace Treaty was signed on 20th November 1815, rumors of the Emperor returning once again, kept resurfacing. Militiamen, national guards, and regular soldiers were still mobilized throughout the country.

traumatized, they were nonetheless prepared to spend all their remaining resources on the recreation of academic life. Perhaps we might even say that this backdrop of chaos and turmoil was exactly the right time and place for the resurrected University to reflect on its own sense of self, aims, and purpose. And this generation of war-weary veterans knew how to do this.

My point in taking us back to a highly volatile, uncertain period in time, both for the continent, this country and the academic community, is to be reminded that Utrecht University was re-born in a time of significant crisis and insecurity. Terror, war, and streams of refugees were still vivid images at the time. For both its founding fathers (18 professors) and the University’s students (around 200 in 1818),11 the distance between the battlefield and the lecture hall, between prison and pulpit, was remarkably thin. Shaken and

First of all, Willem Emmery de Perponcher Sedlnitzky, the newly appointed President Curator of this University, had a courageous role to play at this moment of academic resurrection. The times required practical, organizational, political, and moral leadership. Three days before the liberation of Utrecht, on 25 November 1813, French troops on the retreat arrested the 72-year old De Perponcher, and took him hostage. De Perponcher was incarcerated in the Sainte-Pélagie prison where he spent four horrific months without knowing what fate would await him. Finally, in March 1814 he was released. Upon his return, he resumed his responsibilities straightaway. After a brief stint in the municipal and provincial government of Utrecht, he was appointed President Curator of Utrecht University on 16 October 1815, where – until his death in 1819 at the age of 78 years – he oversaw the re-creation of the University. He immediately set to work to resurrect the faculties, reclaim the university sites, and hire new professors, the best ones there were, even scouting for talents abroad.12 He was assisted in all this by his Rector, Jodocus Heringa, who had been appointed to this position in 1798 and again in 1811 and had fought for what remained of the University throughout the French years. On November 6th 1815, Heringa, an influential theologian, celebrated the “new organization, expansion, and luster” of the University, now free from oppression, and encouraged his colleagues

8 The strict application of it from 1810 onwards caused large riots in Utrecht in March 1811.

10 For the President’s welcome speech to the Jagers see: Nederlandsche Staatscourant, 12 October 1815.

9 Johan Frederik van Oordt, who earned his doctorate in theology at Utrecht in 1821 and later founded the “Groningen School of Theology,” joined the StudentSpecial Forces (Jagerkorps) in 1815.

11 See J.P. Fockema Andreae e.o., De Utrechtse Universiteit 1815–1836 (Utrecht 1936), 102.

The University as an institution for the creation of an open society?


12 R. de Bruin, “Perponcher Sedlnitzky, Willem Emmery de.” In: Biografisch Woordenboek van Nederland 1780-1830 (November 2013).

Dies Natalis 2016

to “increase the usefulness and pleasure of your lives […] in the service of scholarship through the bond peace […] for the sake of civil society and the congregation of our Lord Jesus Christ.”13 Second, a new strategy was developed, for the university as a whole, to support the creation of a new generation of learned elites. When I recently dropped in on our own President of the Board, Marjan Oudeman, she explained to me how hard it is to keep a steady gaze on strategic purposes, on content and substance, instead of getting lost in the nitty gritty of day-to-day business. I can imagine that these first professors in 1815 had a hard time focusing on strategy as well, while everything around them had to be resurrected from scratch. Notwithstanding these concerns, Perponcher, Heringa, and their colleagues did not let the crisis go to waste. They took the Organiek Besluit from August 1815 to heart, and set about to prepare their students for a position amongst “the learned estate” in society.14 The overarching aim was to raise knowledgeable citizens, to improve scholarship, and to emancipate the people through Bildung. Students were to be imbued with the humanist ideal of encyclopedic knowledge by teaching them the classics and by encouraging them to reflect upon and participate in current affairs in science and society.15 To achieve these ambitions, it was felt that autonomy was essential. Professors were now appointed by the ministry of education. Salaries were paid by the central authorities, instead of the municipality as in the days of old. Moreover, to augment the academic freedom that most of the professors considered essential for their work – both vis-àvis the local authorities and the state – central standards and professional guidelines were adopted. Scholarly practices and the scientific

13 Redevoeringen en dichtstukken ter vieringe der plegtige inwijding van de Hoogeschool te Utrecht (Utrecht: Paddenburg & Schoonhoven, 1815), 52. See also J.P. Fockema Andreae e.o., De Utrechtse Universiteit 18151836 (Utrecht 1936), 3-5, 9-11. 14 “Koninklijk Besluit nopens de organisatie van het hoger onderwijs.” In: Bijvoegsel tot de Nederlandsche Staatscourant, 12 October 1815.


disciplines were enhanced. A new, fifth, faculty was created by splitting the old Artes Faculty into one for the Humanities and one for the Natural Sciences. Within these faculties, new (sub)disciplines were developed, in mathematics, statistics, and economics for example. And existing disciplines were modernized – students in Dutch (Nederduitse taal- en letterkunde) and economics could now follow classes in Dutch rather than in Latin, and the native language was also introduced for all other communications within the university, save for teaching. Thirdly, a transnational perspective (to call Utrecht a global university in 1815 would be stretching it a bit too far) was adopted to attract international talents and acquire international textbooks. The Royal Decree explicitly mentioned good practices in dealing with foreign students and professors. Rather than focusing on parochial interests and keeping a low profile, the university embraced the realities of the new era, reaching across borders and across disciplines. Fourthly, in terms of infrastructure, the medical sites were expanded, laboratories were built, and new instruments purchased. Finally, students’ wellbeing was to become part of the university’s remit. Those who had been traumatized or orphaned as a result of the years of military hostilities were given moral care as well. Every Sunday, students were to attend sermons, delivered by one of the professors within the university. Personal counselling was available as well – of course, still very much clad in Christian morality, but still.

15 See Peter Jan Knegtmans, “Liefde voor de wetenschap. Het negentiende-eeuwse universitaire onderwijs en de scheiding tussen wetenschappelijke vorming en wetenschappelijk beroepsonderwijs,” in: L.J. Dorsman and P.J. Knegtmans, Van Lectio tot PowerPoint. Over de geschiedenis van het onderwijs aan de Nederlandse universiteiten (Hilversum 2011), 11–24, here: 11. 16 Klaas van Berkel, Universiteit van het Noorden. Vier eeuwen academisch leven in Groningen, Deel 1 De oude universiteit, 1614-1876 (Hilversum: Verloren, 2014).

Dies Natalis 2016

This strategy was not altogether new.16 However, a new spirit and sense of urgency to create a culture of learning and research free from oppression permeated these activities – stimulated by the new administrative and royal decrees, but executed in relative autonomy by the University board and the very closely knit community of professors. A few caveats need mentioning. It has to be stressed here that “open” in 1815 was, from our perspective, still very conservative, elitist, and closed. No women, very little other diversity, and a very strong reliance on Christian norms and values characterized the academic community in these days.17 Democracy was a distant ideal. Too many social classes, economic groups, and minorities were excluded from academic life. Hierarchies were strong, elitist thinking even more so. However, if we take the moment of rebirth in 1815 in its historical context, instead of judging if from our present perspective, what they achieved is still quite remarkable. A generation of civil servants, engineers, and public intellectuals was educated – gebildet – to rise to the occasion of a new Kingdom and a new European order as it was being created at the very same time. All were educated in their specific discipline, as well as in general courses on philosophy, theology, history, and even diplomacy. Moreover, the university did not shun its public role, did not turn inwards, but immediately assumed a leading role in society. Professors contributed to evaluation boards and carried out investigations intended to improve the educational system. The Hortus Botanicus and medical facilities helped to combat cholera and other diseases.

17 J. Huizinga in het Leidsch Universiteitsblad, 7e jaargang, 110. 16, 20 mei 1938 in: Verzamelde Werken, vol. viii (Haarlem, 1951) 29–30. See also Joseph Wachelder, “Wetenschappelijke vorming – een omstreden kwestie,” in: Gewina 16 (1993) 123–140, here: 11.

Although autonomy was their aim, isolation was explicitly not what they were after. Those first 22 professors operated publicly, and in a transdisciplinary (perhaps one should say, predisciplinary) manner. They combined ethical, theological, and legal arguments, acted simultaneously as preacher, teacher, and public consultant. They used their scholarship to convey meaning and to nurture ethically aware students and citizens. They also openly communicated (and quarreled) about their preferred values, sentiments, and desires for academia. A case in point was historian and philosopher Philip Willem van Heusde (1778–1839), who started teaching in Utrecht at the age of 25 in 1804. Owing to his great didactic reputation this romantic child of the Enlightenment earned the nickname “praeceptor Hollandiae” (in analogy to the protestant reformer Melanchton). He taught his students, with his humanist approach, how best to achieve a mature, aesthetic, ethical, and emotional life.18 Others, such as the enlightened protestant theologian Heringa, whom we met as Utrecht’s first Rector after the 1815 resurrection, combined theological, administrative, and educational responsibilities. (In later years, the positivist theologian and philosopher Cornelis Opzoomer [1821-1892], advocated a combination of empirical and value-based research, accountable to debate and deliberation – instantiated in his for contemporaries endearing fusion of Darwin and theology.19) Their scholarship, however moralistically substantiated, was a liberal one (in the classical sense of the word), wedded off to neither profitmaking and innovation alone, nor to clerical isolation on the other. (If you wonder about all of these theological

Het nut van geschiedschrijving. Historici in het publieke domein (Amstelveen 2015), 24–30. 19 https://www.kb.nl/themas/filosofie/cornelis-willemopzoomer

18 Leen Dorsman, “Philip Willem van der Heusde (17781839). Verlicht romanticus,” in: Leen Dorsman e.a. (eds.),


Dies Natalis 2016

examples: two thirds of the student population were theologians, therefore, many professors belonged to this faculty.) If we do not restrict the definition of valorization to economic innovation and profit, but translate it instead as “public knowledge,” this ambition was a prominent feature of the university from 1815 onwards. Students’ programs were veritable curricula of the liberal arts and sciences, including lectures on rhetoric, debating techniques, philosophy, and theology for almost every student, including those studying economics – challenging them to teach themselves to lead the “good life.” Their’s was a very early avant la lettre ouverture to Martha Nussbaum’s study Not for Profit,on how the humanities have been central to education because they have rightly been seen as essential for creating broad, reflective minds, and competent democratic citizens.

In conclusion Utrecht’s rebirth happened at a time of great crisis and turmoil. The University’s resurrection was due to the return of a Prince and the liberation of a country by an international coalition. This European peace, which was established at such a great expense in 1815, was the outcome of a veritable European Security Project that procured peace and order for decades to come – albeit sometimes on rather reactionary terms.20 In the Netherlands and in Utrecht in particular, the restart of the University resulted from the tour de force of a war-weary generation of professors, a courageous Chancellor and engaged students. They felt – and responded to – a deep desire for the restoration and reconstruction of state, society, and public morale. Against Napoleon’s predatory educational policy – where university funds ultimately only served to subsidize his garrison state – the new founding fathers posited a University that aimed at educating a new learned estate

in freedom and autonomy. After 1813 this freedom from oppression was translated into a quest for institutionalized autonomy and the professionalization of the academy – which was at the same time driven by a motivation to contribute to the reconstruction of science, industry, and society. In times of crisis, wars, and terror, this second generation of founding fathers (after their forbears of 1636) took the crisis of their day as an occasion to reflect upon the university’s self-understanding and purpose. They created a professional, autonomous, secure intellectual environment from which we still benefit. They nurtured bright minds able to serve state, industry, and society. This new, all-round, learned estate set about to improve medical treatment, enhance economic welfare, innovate the Dutch infrastructure, and offer philosophical, ethical, historical, and theological enlightenment to the public. Even though our university at the time knew nothing of Science Parks or National Research Agenda, today’s anniversary celebration marks an appropriate moment to consider what we may glean from its resurrection 200 years ago. First and foremost, I suggest that we need to send all of our Board Presidents on a four-month sabbatical, to an austere retreat similar to that of De Perponcher in St. Pélagie, to reflect on their strategic plans. Second, the crises of our day, be they owing to political disorder or to governmental oppression as in the French era, calls for University professors, presidents, and chancellors who can rise to the occasion. Today’s crises, be they acute or lingering, in refugee streams, terrorist attacks, aging-related diseases or climate change, demand an immediate academic response from faculty and students alike. Fear, anxiety, and a crisis mentality can so easily narrow our horizons and more often than not prompt parochial reflexes. Instead, strategies and practices

20 SECURE.ERC-project. http://securing-europe.wp.hum.uu.nl/ about/


Dies Natalis 2016

of cosmopolitan openness are what is called for, the willingness to engage with other cultures, religions, and transcend our own horizon of understanding. This is not something we can leave to our President alone. Following from this, in the third place, we need an academic community that works and collaborates together, that maintains and celebrates professional standards, but one that takes care of the wellbeing of its students as well – not an easy task given the enormous expansion of our University since 1815. Do we still find time to work and dialogue with our students, and seek to educate them in the broad, reflective sense of the 1815 generation? In my classes, I notice how much students desire to transcend the mere exchange of scientific methods and findings and want to reflect on how they should respond to current pressure points, like terrorist attacks, the demands of some to close the borders, etc.; in other words, to openly consider where they and we should stand. In short, only when these kinds of priorities hold sway in this place and for the years to come will we be able to spread the insight that for the development of Professional and Public Knowledge on behalf of state, society, and industry, the University has to remain an autonomous place for the formation of a reflective, all-round Learned Estate.


Dies Natalis 2016

Colophon

Dies Natalis 2016 © Utrecht University, March 2016 Production Universiteit Utrecht Directie Communicatie & Marketing Heidelberglaan 8 3584 CS Utrecht


Dies Natalis 2016

Speeches Dies Natalis

Recommend Documents