Speech - UCPH Professors' Dinner
It was a great honour to address a bunch of bright people at last night's UCPH Professors' dinner.
Dear colleagues!
There is an eagle flying above the entrance to the university main building at Frue Plads. Under the eagle, there is a Latin inscription – “Coelestem adspicit lucem”,which means “It sees the heavenly light”.
But you may not know that there is something missing. At least it was new to a newcomer like me, coming to Wonderful Copenhagen from the DTU “ghetto” in Lundtofte.
Here is the story: In the original proposal to the inscription, it also had a prefix -“Sublimia petens ingenium,”, which means “the thought which seeks the sublime [and then] sees the heavenly light.”
It was a Professor of Theology, Hagen Hohlenberg, who – 2 centuries ago – proposed this longer text. According to my best historical sources, we do not know whether Hohlenberg’s full text was ever placed under the eagle, or whether the first part of the text was removed at some point.
In his writings, Hohlenberg also pondered if the eagle was the right symbol for a university. Perhaps, the sinister symbolism of the eagle is even stronger today. To some it has the flavour of empire – Roman, Habsburg or worse.
Still, the eagle makes sense. Not only because it is the symbol of the Gospel of John. But also because we know that the empires of the future will be the empires of the mind. And I think Hohlenberg’s full text makes a perfect headline for this dinner in which we celebrate the people who are capable of seeking the sublime: You – the professors.
In my first 331 days in office, I have toured the university as much as I could. And I have encountered nothing but the sublime across the full range of the university from eagle to book – or rather - from nature to culture.
In its Latin root, “sublimis” means “high” – or “going up”. And I am proud to serve a university which – thanks to your great efforts - has been climbing the league tables consistently.
Our most confident colleagues even state that we will be the number one university in the EU – post-BREXIT. They may be right – although it would not be prudent to parrot those rankings without due hesitation.
At the moment, we have a minister of science and education who also seeks the sublime. But the political aspiration to earn more Danish Nobel prizes should be accompanied by two things: long-term funding and patience. Indeed those two things that rarely comes with the trade of a politician.
But nonetheless, the aspiration itself is good. And we should do our best to remind those in public office that investments in top-notch research will benefit the public – whether you get the prize or not.
In the meantime, our economic forecast is – I dare say - promising. Public research funding is pegged to a floor of 1 percent of GDP. And the floor is rising with the pace of a growing Danish economy.
I know that there have been cut-backs not so long ago. And I know that the diversity of the university is not only scientific, but also monetary. A professor of medical science may feel that the university has never been so well-resourced. A professor of literature may feel that the humanities have never been so little appreciated. I am afraid it is a work-in-progress to convince our sponsors in Parliament and in the public that small language and culture studies have a big societal impact beyond conventional monetary valuation.
In some places, you do have money to spend, but still you hold back. The ghost of austerity whispers in your ear: “Better safe than sorry”. Today, I urge those of you with money in the bank: Please, spend them – and spend them wisely. Otherwise, I know a few people in Government who will be happy to spend it for us – on those building projects that are already over-priced.
You may ask yourselves “What is the division of labour between a professorship and the rectorship?” Well, your task is very simple - and very hard: You must seek the sublime. My task is to provide the framework you need in order to be sublime.
But the task of the Rectorship is also to look after “the common good”. “How can you govern a country which has 246 kinds of cheese?”, French President de Gaulle asked. And coming from a mono-cheese university - DTU - I have asked myself the same question here at UCPH.
Well, the board has mandated me to draft a new strategy, which ensures that the 246 different kinds of cheeseall reach sublime taste and maturity. It is a strategy, which ensures “unity in diversity” and therefore also guarantees “La grandeur de la Republique”.
The strategy has a title, which covers its intentions, “Talent and Collaboration”. We need to collaborate on talent. In order to do so, we need to enhance our talent for collaboration.
As it happens, one question came up - repeatedly – during my department visits: How can we improve our ability to work together across departments and faculties? I intend to make efforts to serve that end. It can be done in a number of ways. But I think we can get pretty far by improving the budgetary model.
Currently, many think that they lose money by sharing tasks, or they pay for everybody else. We need to find a more transparent system because I think it can remove some of the misconceptions that stand in the way for collaboration.
When it comes to talent, I expect you to draw on your experience to find the best ways to recruit and promote research talents. But I also think that the tenure track system will play an important role – and I hope you will find it worthwhile to employ it.
In terms of talent, it is a key message in the strategy that we should maintain the magic formula of the university - the interplay between research and education.The responsibility of even the most seasoned professor is not only the conduct of excellent research. But also to carry that special “buzz” of research into the auditorium, and the most talented students into the labs. The atmosphere where you do not only transmit information from A to B – but where the students learn how to challenge and question it. Where they learn to learn - and understand how information is generated, and eventually translated into knowledge.
I know it is easier said than done. More often than not, your work is distracted by trivial stuff. And it can be frustrating if you depend on other institutions to take action on even the most basic things – like getting a lab ready on time. Or like getting all the paperwork done when you recruit a colleague who is not a Jensen or a Hansen. But I think we are making progress.
It is important that we protect the interests of the university in dialogue with the authorities. The trick is to strike the balance between pitbull and poodle. A good watchdog only barks when strictly necessary, and after a careful risk-benefit analysis. I think this “constructive barking” – preferably in concert with other universities and big business - has helped change the public discourse on two important issues.
First, it is so counterproductive for a small country like Denmark if the intention of the law is not to welcome international researchers with open arms – but to annoy them with silly rules and tough sanctions.
I would like to thank those of you who helped us by sharing cases in the media that have helped change the narrative. Even the Her Majesty the Queen stressed the value of international highly skilled people in her New Year’s speech. Now the Government must translate this new – friendly - narrative into law.
Second, despite hard working conditions, we managed to open the M?rsk Tower and the Plant Science Centre. And perhaps more importantly, a tsunami of press stories about the Niels Bohr Building-mess attracted political attention, and may help to change the political agenda. We are still fighting behind the scenes:
- trying to reduce our share of the extra costs of a chaotic construction process.
- And trying to reform the current system where the university has no command over the construction process, but nonetheless must pay all the extra costs.
Apart from buildings, there have been other stories in the media, which fall within the category “bumpy ride”.When I assumed my duties as Rector last spring, I found a very difficult case on my desk. A case about a professor who had been discharged from his position. To the best of my knowledge, my predecessors have assessed this complex case with the caution and carefulness it deserved. And they have taken all aspects into consideration before they decided to take the step of dismissing a professor.
In my opinion, a university must be characterised by the widest possible definition of tolerance. In Danish you would say “h?jt til loftet og langt til d?ren”. We have an obligation to try to stay in the same room and settle our disputes – just like academic disputes. You can rest assured that this single – and unfortunate – case will not compromise the fundamental traditions upon which the professorship - and the university - depends.
Our destinies are connected. What is good for the university is good for you – and what is good for you – your academic freedom and your ability to seek the sublime - is good for the university.