Durban 2000 Contrepoint IAU New Members IAU Activities 1995-2000 Administrative Board Revision of IAU Constitution Member Organisations IAU Policy 2000 General Conference Report Calendar of Events IAU Newsletter October 2000, Vol. 6  No. 4 The bimonthly newsletter of the International Association of Universities Published by the  International Universities Bureau

IAU New Members

In its jubilee year, IAU welcomes 70 new universities, from 34 countries. Belarusian State University Belarus University of Campinas Brazil University Sao Marcos Brazil Thracian University Bulgaria Université polytechnique de Bobo-Dioulasso Burkina Faso Université de N’djamena Chad Beijing Normal University China Harbin Institute of Technology China Ocean University of Qingdao China Shanxi University China Taiyuan University of Technology China Yangzhou University China The Hong Kong University of Science & Technology China - Hong Kong National Taiwan University of Science & Technology China - Taiwan Free University of Colombia Colombia University of Boyaca Colombia Université Marien Ngouabi Congo Tbilisi "Ilia Cavcavadzis" State University of Western Georgia Central European University Hungary University of Pécs Hungary Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar University India Central Institute of Higher Tibetan Studies India University of Kerala India Alalmeh Tabatabai University Iran Shiraz University Iran Technion-Israel Institute of Technology Israel University of Haifa Israel Al al-Bayt University Jordan Philadelphia University Jordan Kainar University Kazakhstan Vilnius University Lithuania Université de Fianarantsoa Madagascar Université de Toamasina Madagascar Université de Nouakchott Mauritania University of Guadalajara Mexico University of Veracruz Mexico Cooperative - Commercial University of Moldova Moldova University of Waikato New Zealand Enugu State University of Science & Technology Nigeria University of Ilorin Nigeria University of Lagos Nigeria Sir Syed University of Engineering & Technology Pakistan Autonomous University of Asunción Paraguay University of Santo Tomas Philippines Higher School of Trade University Poland University of Mining and Metallurgy in Cracow Poland Warsaw Agricultural University Poland Warsaw University of Technology Poland Bratsk State Technical University Russia Moscow State University of Medicine and Dentistry Russia Sakhalin State University Russia St. Petersburg State University of Architecture & Civil Russia State University of Management, Moscow Russia Malaga University Spain University of Kelaniya Sri Lanka Ahfad University for Women Sudan Al-Neelain University Sudan Alzaiem Al Azhari University Sudan International University of Africa Sudan Sudan University of Science and Technology Sudan Université du Bénin Togo Université des Sciences et des Techniques Tunisia University of Suleyman Demirel Turkey Kean University U.S.A. University of Massachusetts at Amherst U.S.A. Makerere University Uganda Kiev ‘Taras Scevchenko’ University Ukraine National Mining University of Ukraine Ukraine Odessa State Maritime University Ukraine University of Kragujevac Yugoslavia

 

Member Organisations

Following the revision of the IAU Constitution, university organisations may now become full members of IAU. The following organisations are at present members of the Association: International Member Organisations Agence universitaire pour la Francophonie Associação das Universidades de Língua Portuguesa (AULP) Association of African Universities Association of Arab Universities Association of Commonwealth Universities Association des Universités européennes Association of Southeast Asian Institutions of Higher Learning Association of Universities of Asia and the Pacific Federation of Universities of the Islamic World Organisation universitaire inter-américaine Fédération internationale des Universités catholiques Union de Universidades de América Latina National Member Organisations Australian Vice-Chancellors’ Committee Standing Conference of Austrian Rectors Inter University Council of the French Speaking Community of Belgium Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada Colombian Universities Association Danish Rectors’ Conference National Council for Universities and Technical Universities, (Ecuador) Association of Indian Universities Italian Rectors’ Conference National Association of Universities and Institutions of Higher Education, (Mexico) Mongolian Universities Consortium Norwegian Council of Universities Association of Non-State Higher Education Establishments, (Russian Federation) Association of the Carpathian Region Universities, (Slovak Republic) South African Universities’ Vice- Chancellors’ Association Conference of Rectors of Spanish Universities Rectors’ Conference of the Swiss Universities American Council on Education, (U.S.A.) Rectors’ Conference of Yugoslavia

11th  IAU General Conference Report

Universities- Gateway to the future Ingrid Moses, General Rapporteur* (Summary) Introduction. This conference was organized with much thought and conceptual clarity. You will remember that we worked with a matrix approach: "The Conference has been designed to give the maximum opportunity for dialogue and exchange. For this reason, it may be seen in terms of three modules. Each of these three modules focuses on the theme presented by the Keynote speakers. And in their turn, the outcomes of the debate in the Working Groups will be fed into the Plenary Panel session. The themes are: Changing Priorities- Constant Values. Universities and the Knowledge Society. University Governance and the Stakeholder Society. The Working Groups provide the central link between the Keynote presentations and the Plenary Panel Discussion. Thus each "module", built around these three themes, has three modes of debate: - The Keynote presentation. - The Working Group discussion. - The Plenary Panel debate. The purpose of all Working Groups is to allow participants to take up, develop and/or add to the substantive points made in the Key note presentations. … " Working Group themes were: - The concept of the ‘social responsibility’ of the universities, - The implications for academic freedom and autonomy, - The impact of the information technologies, - The contribution of universities to sustainable development, - The requirement of internationalization of higher education, My job is, to report on this, alas – not all speakers addressed the topic given to them; not all Working Groups discussed the questions or referred to the Themes. The Working Groups took on a dynamic of their own and thereby – possibly – fulfilled the learning needs and needs for sharing of its members. And this is a legitimate agenda for participants in a conference. Changing Priorities-Constant Values We heard passionate endorsements of constant values, in particular with reference to the IAU’s mission statement, namely, "the right to pursue knowledge for its own sake, to follow wherever the search for truth may lead, the tolerance of divergent opinion and freedom from political interference." As Professor Elmandjra urged, the ‘pursuit of knowledge’ should be a constant value and also a constant priority, not a changing one. The IAU statement has direct relevance to Academic Freedom, the freedom from political or ideological interference in research, teaching and learning. The Working Group on ‘The implications for academic freedom and autonomy" urged in all of its three meetings that this Conference set up a working party jointly with UNESCO to draft a declaration on Academic Freedom in Universities to be sent to the General Assembly for adoption as a resolution. This, unexpectedly, related to the theme of ‘Changing Priorities-Constant Values’: There was discussion in the Group whether Academic Freedom is only justified/required/appropriate for research institutions. So whose priorities are we discussing? Society’s? Traditional universities’? Faculties’? Students’? It was also argued that Academic Freedom should apply for academic activities in all higher education institutions, indeed, that Academic Freedom should be seen as benefiting society and not primarily institutions or individuals. Academic Freedom as a right carries with it the obligation of being critical and accepting social responsibility. As such it is fundamentally different from freedom of speech. In our Briefing Documents for the Conference we find various IAU policies statements, including one on ‘Academic Freedom, University Autonomy and Social Responsibility’. Academic Freedom as well as university autonomy are linked to democracy, the Working Group maintained. If we already have a statement, why do we need yet another statement? This issue was not addressed – participants might not even have been aware of the existence of the IAU statement – but I thought a certain feeling of helplessness was evident: Governments hold the purse strings; they set priorities; they, in some countries, openly interfere in university affairs. It needs an international organization like UNESCO to adopt a resolution which can be used within the countries to effect change and legitimise requests – unlike statements by IAU which have no such power. I was mentioning ‘social responsibility’ earlier. This is both a constant value and constant priority, though the concept is dynamic and changes over time and in different contexts. Social responsibility is clearly a key theme and issue when discussing Information and Communication Technologies Is ICT going to increase the disparities between the developed and less developed world and within any country, regardless of the level of development? Will ICT increase the disparities between the have and have-nots, the know and the know-nots, the information rich and information poor? Minister Asmal, Professor Elmandjra, Professor Gourley, and Professor Macdonald speaking for the Commonwealth of Learning, all stressed the huge and growing gap between the developed and developing worlds and Dr Serageldin from the World Bank illustrated this most graphically. ICT provides opportunities for change, for growth, for collaboration and networking. It was suggested that IAU might facilitate exchange of good practice by publishing a book on Virtual Universities and a book on ‘real’ universities using IT. IAU should also facilitate small collaborative networks of universities with different experience and knowledge about information technology. It was also noted that IAU might provide input to the global discussion concerning information technology and the North-South dominance. A South-South connection should be made. ICT and its impact on teaching, research and learning and interpersonal communication threatens many of the core values of faculty and traditional universities. But it can be accommodated creatively and innovatively without ill effect on community, on quality or excellence. Changes in academic practice are needed as well as changes in attitudes – faculty and administrators need to be won over; infrastructure and support needs have to be met. Nationally, and internationally, accreditation agencies need to acknowledge the changed teaching and learning environment, ie student and faculty access to virtual/electronic libraries as is now possible through a number of consortia, might be far superior for members of such consortia, than student and faculty access to traditional brick and mortar facilities with a limited number of books and journals. The value of universality of knowledge, of internationalisation is constant though changing. Globalisation and internationalisation are very separate processes and concepts. They deserve, therefore, careful distinction. The former seems to involve increasing homogenisation, imposed by outside forces, organizations and interests on individual countries. Internationalisation, in contrast, cultivates a different perspective and involves an interaction based on the value of co-operation between countries and institutions. It supports the study of other cultures. It upholds the value of cultural diversity and hence the notion of partnership between equals. It should not be confused with the selling of higher education for income. But changing national priorities in funding, ie decline in funding, have led or may lead universities to profit oriented action despite the inherent value they attach to internationalisation. A new value, spiritual development or development of spiritual capital, was proposed by Professor David Scott and fully endorsed by the Working Group on Sustainable Development. The Working Group proposes that IAU be a platform to discuss and solve the problems of sustainable development and promote co-operation and technology transfer between members. In this group, too, the issues of brain drain and massification developed in the Keynote addresses were seen as issues affecting sustainable development – a relatively new priority for universities. As a new priority it is important that government policy be integrated with university philosophy and society to support sustainable development through higher education, building on work in primary schools and other education sectors. The Working Group endorsed the definition by Dr Serageldin from the World Bank, "Sustainability is giving future generations as many opportunities as, if not more than, we have had ourselves." IAU won’t be alone in this task. The new President of IAU, Hans van Ginkel, is not only the former Rector of Utrecht University in the Netherlands, but presently the Rector of the United Nations University. And as a member of the UNU Council and its former Chair I can only say that UNU is well equipped to co-operate with other organizations, as sustainable development is one of its major research and development programs. Universities and the ‘Knowledge Society’ Discussions in the Working Groups and indeed the Plenary presentations did not differentiate between this theme and the first one on values and priorities. And, indeed, they are related as the Knowledge Society demands changed priorities. Again, we were reminded of the huge discrepancies between the developed and the less developed world in their access to knowledge. Mahdi Elmandjra in his electrifying speech – which clearly energised some and gave shocks to others – asked: "Can knowledge save the world?" The answer in many of the Working Groups was implicitly ‘yes – but we need to find other ways’. "Can the university save knowledge?" The answer, implicitly again, is – the university is only one of many institutions now creating and transmitting knowledge. "Can knowledge save values?" Knowledge used wisely can, so it was affirmed in the ICT, in the Internationalisation, in the Social Responsibility, the Academic Freedom, the Sustainable Development Groups. "Can values save the value of knowledge?" We have all affirmed this again and again during the conference. But we should not forget the challenge of responsible use of knowledge. Several of our colleagues urged us to use our research capacity to solve the problems which bedevil many societies and actively impede progression towards a society where all have access to knowledge, an opportunity to learn, re-learn and continue to learn. University Governance and the ‘Stakeholder Society’ Again, very little direct reference was made to this theme in some Working Groups. Dr Serageldin noted in his Keynote presentation, "University governance is about a sense of community, participation and collective responsibility (…) This means, administrators and faculty must co-operate. Students have an important voice. External actors should be invited as partners, but not at the risk of the values of the university." During the last morning, this theme was expanded. And while it was acknowledged that governments have a responsibility to fund higher education, the legitimate expectations of stakeholders and those who contribute to the funding were also acknowledged – as long as this does not interfere with academic freedom. This theme of necessary co-operation and involvement of the internal stakeholders, the University community, was also developed in the Working Group on ICT and is pertinent for all other areas discussed. Ministers Kader Asmal and Lidia Brito both spoke of the Vice-Chancellor’s responsibility for their university to address urgent national issues. The leadership cannot be provided by the Vice-Chancellor alone. As Madeleine Green said in her Panel presentation, leadership needs to be shared. Leadership, then, needs to be distributed to motivate faculty staff to create, pursue and implement shared goals. The moral and ethical dimension of the university’s mission can only be fulfilled if academic freedom is actively encouraged and practised within the university. If we do not practise or allow it within the institution, we cannot demand that the government respect it. Universities need to be open to the needs of its stakeholders without compromising academic freedom or values. Let me summarise differently, from the Working Groups, the Panel discussions and the Plenary speeches a few themes emerged: 1. Change We heard about and discussed the changes in the student population, in funding of higher education and the emergence of new higher education institutions or ‘providers’; we heard of dramatic changes in the ICT area; we heard of globalisation trends and increasing gaps between the developed and less developed world. And we acknowledged that universities must be part of the change process, influence the direction of change, indeed not only ride the waves but make waves! [Madeleine Green used the analogy of surfing for our dealing with change, saying we should not be crushed by the waves but ride the waves.] We need to prepare students to take an active, responsible role in that change. 2. And throughout the presentations and discussions there was acknowledgement of vastly different concerns in the developed and less developed world affecting all issues discussed. Academic freedom, critical pursuit of knowledge and ‘ruthless critical thought’ (Asmal) expressed publicly, need university autonomy and democracy. Both concepts, that of ‘Knowledge Society’ and of ‘Stakeholder Society’ were questioned – or their relevance was questioned for the developing countries in view of continuing high illiteracy rates in many countries. 3. Need for affirmation of values, ethics, a spiritual dimension. This alone unites us across the different countries – our belief that the university can, sometimes does, and most certainly will need to live the values it proclaims, acknowledge the importance of community, and take responsibility for changing the conditions of humankind to the better through research, teaching and advocacy. A conference always raises more questions than it provides answers. Between now and the next conference we need to progress the work agendas and implement and advocate the IAU policies in our own institutions and countries. As President-Elect of the International Association of University Presidents (IAUP), I invite you to report and continue discussions at our conference in Sydney, Australia, 24-27 June 2002. The theme is most pertinent: "Academic Values, National Dreams, Global Realities". We need to address all of these – together. Ingrid Moses * Ingrid Moses is Vice-Chancellor of the University of New England, Armidale, NSW, Australia and President-Elect of the International Association of University Presidents (IAUP).

Toujours gagner, ou comment se faire détester. La poursuite de la gloire, de l’honneur et des subsides pour l’érudition sont les mamelles de l’université moderne.  Qui a réussi et comment,  nourissent de potins inépuisables et font dans le monde universitaire passer de nombreuses soirées, cela fort agréablement.  Ainsi ce petit monde reste au courant des réussites de tout un chacun. Voici vingt ans, certains gouvernments ont jugé bon de formaliser cet échange de rumeurs en nouveau rituel ou ordalie combinant torture annuelle du succès triomphant avec humiliation par l’échec reconnu publiquement.  Les palmarès des universités, les uns conçus par des jeunes pigistes entreprenants, d’autres construits laborieusement par des statisticiens affubles d’une infinie sagesse, font dorénavant parti de la tarantelle annuelle des universités, à la grande satisfaction d’aucuns tout en faisant grincer des dents grand nombre des frustres , horrifiés par leur incapacité de réaliser des espérances imprudemment et publiquement vantées.  Les fruits de la formalisation de ce commérage – on hésite à le qualifer de système d’intelligence, mais passons -  sont étonnants.  Les “meilleurs” établissements  - parmi les plus antiques et souvent disposant d’une trésorerie bien garnie, se taillent la part du lion dans la course aux honneurs, à la gloire etc etc.  Comme par miracle, les palmarès relèvent que les établissements les plus actifs en commérages avaient aussi tendance à s’attirer le plus d’or , d’argent ou d’autres commodités qui s’échangent au profit mutuel. Le concours focalise l’attention sur le gagnant.  C’est son but.  Sauf dans le cas d’une baroud d’honneur – la compétition ne peut se jouer qu’à condition que les perdants – et par définition c’est la vaste majorité – vivent dans l’espoir de se voir un jour figurer parmi les gagnants.  Mais combien de temps faudra-t-il avant que les perdants perdent la foi, abandonnent tout espoir d’une récompense que leur performance médiocre ne peut jamais justifier?   Combien de temps encore les gagnants peuvent-ils continuer à gagner avant que leurs semblables n’arrivent à la conclusion que les cartes sont marquées et les dés pipés à leur grand daim et désavantage? Ainsi va le monde de l’université contemporaine.  N’empêche que la situation peut s’appliquer à d’autres milieux – économiques, et sociales a qui le principe compétitif n’est attenué par aucune notion de solidarité.  Guy Neave.

IAU Affairs

IAU Activities Report 1995-2000 The General Conference received the Association’s Activities’ Report 1995-2000. The Full document can be found on IAU's website at www.unesco.org/iau/11gc/11gc-final.html. The Policy Outline and Strategic Development Plan for 1995-2000, adopted by the Tenth General Conference in New Delhi in 1995, called on the international university community to join in a pro-active and creative effort in defining and assuming the decisive responsibility of universities in shaping a common future. It stressed that, in doing so, progress and increasing interdependence should be characterised by a true sense of partnership, mutual respect and solidarity. International Higher Education Policy Debate IAU provides a worldwide forum for university leaders to exchange experience and ideas, to state and defend the values that underlie and determine the proper functioning of universities, to develop a long-term vision of their role and responsibility in society and to voice their concerns with regard to national and international higher education policies. At the same time, the Association contributes to a better understanding of trends and developments in higher education worldwide by providing, through its scholarly publications, a regular outlet for a comparative study and international policy debate. • Meetings Between the Tenth General Conference in Delhi, 6-9 February 1995, and this Eleventh General Conference, IAU was involved in three other major meetings. In 1997, it organised the Association’s Mid-Term Conference at Chulalongkorn University in Bangkok from 12 to 14 November 1997. It was furthermore closely associated with the preparation and holding of the UNESCO World Conference on Higher Education in Paris, 1998, and actively participated in the World Conference on Science in Budapest, 1999. During the World Conference on Higher Education, the Association was specifically in charge of the organisation of a Thematic Debate on Academic Freedom, University Autonomy and Social Responsibility, and co-organised two other Thematic Debates, on The Role of Higher Education for Sustainable Development and on Information Technologies in Higher Education, as well as of the Commission on Internationalisation of Higher Education . In 1996, IAU organised a Seminar on Academic Freedom and Autonomy at Saint Petersburg University, Russia, and a Round Table in the U.S.A., in conjunction with the Board Meeting at UCLA, on The Role of International Organisations in Higher Education. (For more information about IAU’s conferences, please refer to Newsletter March 2000 vol 6. n°1). The IAU Meetings facilitate the interaction and exchange among higher education leaders and specialists and between them and the Association. Linking up with regional and national networks, as proposed for the IAU Policy 2000, may open the way towards more decentralised forms of preparing and organising such meetings. • Studies and Publications IAU has continued to contribute to the international higher education policy debate through the scholarly publication of its Monograph Series Issues in Higher Education and the Quarterly Journal Higher Education Policy.They also now appear under a joint UNESCO imprint, thus clearly designating them as a direct and regular contribution of the Association to the work of UNESCO related to higher education and, particularly, to the follow-up of the World Conference on Higher Education. (see list of publications in Newsletter August 2000 vol 6. n°3). Apart from the regular publication programme, an important task was undertaken in relation to IAU’s involvement in the Academic Freedom debate and the preparation of the Thematic Debate on this topic at the World Conference on Higher Education for which the lead responsibility was entrusted to the Association. In this context, IAU prepared for UNESCO a study on the feasibility, desirability and possible content of an internal instrument on Academic Freedom and issued a statement on ‘Academic Freedom, University Autonomy, and Social Responsibility’ (http://www.unesco.org/iau/tfaf_statment.html) Information Services • IAU/UNESCO Information Centre on Higher Education As a core function of the Association and a key service to its Members and the world of universities in general, IAU has continued to provide comprehensive, reliable and state of the art information on higher education worldwide, through the joint IAU /UNESCO Information Centre on Higher Education. The Centre also holds some 40,000 volumes and a large collection of unpublished materials. It regularly receives about 300 specialised periodical titles. The Centre, which is linked with other national and international information centres and data networks, particularly with UNESCO’s Intranet and Internet servers, is now in a position to provide worldwide access to reliable and up-to-date information. IAU’s Website, hosted on the UNESCO server, has become an increasingly important instrument for this purpose ; through the Centre, the information clearing-house function of the Association has been strengthened and the reference source for informationhas been further consolidated over the past 5 years. In 1998, the 15th Edition of International Handbook of Universities was published containing over 6,000 institutions in 179 countries as compared with 4,000 institutions in 159 countries in the 13th Edition (1994). In 1999, the 22nd Editions of the World List was published providing a concise directory of some 15,000 higher education institutions, agencies worldwide. The new WHED 2000 (CD-Rom) combines the latest editions of the Handbook and the World List and provides, in addition, descriptions of the educational systems and qualifications awarded by 15,000 institutions in 179 countries. It is the most comprehensive reference tool available in the field of higher education worldwide. The year of 1999 also saw the publication of Guide to Higher Education in Africa, resulting from a cooperation with the Association of African Universities (AAU) ; it is the first of a series of regional guides, which IAU is planning to publish. • The Newsletter and the Website The IAU bilingual Newsletter, which is published 5 times a year has 3000 subscribers. The IAU website has become one of the main sources of distribution of information about the Association’s life and its activities. (We invite all our readers to visit the site and our new discussion forum and look forward to receiving your comments and suggestions to improve our services : www.unesco.org/iau/news.htm) Thematic Priorities During the Quinquennium under review, the Administrative Board has identified four thematic priorities for the work of the Association, and set up special Task Forces to steer the related activities. These priorities are: Academic Freedom, University Autonomy, Social Responsibility, Universities and Information Technologies; Internationalisation of Higher Education; and Higher Education and Sustainable Human Development. (For more information, please consult www.unesco.org/iau) 1. Academic Freedom, University Autonomy and Social Responsibility This Task Force was set up in November 1995 under the chairmanship of Justin Thorens, and produced a statement formally adopted by the General Conference as part of the IAU Policy 2000, Academic Freedom, and University Autonomy and Social Responsibility (www.unesco.org/iau/tfaf_first.html) 2. Universities and Information Technologies The Task Force was set up in November 1995 under the chairmanship of Henrik Toft Jensen, their work is described on the thematic section of IAU website (www.unesco.org/iau/tfit_first.html) 3. Internationalisation of Higher Education The Task Force was established in 1996 under the Chairmanship of Bill Allaway. As a result of its work, an IAU statement was drafted and formally adopted by the General Conference as part of the IAU Policy 2000 : Towards a century of cooperation : internationalisation of higher education (www.unesco.org/iau/internationalisation.html) 4. Higher Education and Sustainable Human Development As a follow-up to the Kyoto Declaration for Sustainable Development, adopted as early as 1993 as a part of the IAU Policy 2000 in Durban by the General Conference, the Task Force was created in 1996, under the Chairmanship of Boleslaw Mazurkiewicz (www.unesco.org/iau/tfsd_first.html) Conclusion At this Jubilee Conference we had a unique opportunity – and therefore a profound obligation – to move forward from past achievements to new challenges with determination and vigour, loyal to the conviction expressed in the theme of the Conference: Universities – Gateway to the Future, and loyal to the commitment expressed in the slogan of our Association: IAU – Universities of the World Working Together. The full documents can be found on IAU’s website, at www.unesco.org/iau/11gc/11gc-final.html.

Revision of the IAU Constitution

The proposal prepared by the Administrative Board to amend the IAU Constitution, was adopted by the General Conference in Durban. Its major thrust lies in favouring a broad, inclusive approach and to strengthen IAU’s capacity to provide a world-wide platform for individual universities and university organisations, with networking facilities for different communities to link up across the regions of the world and to pursue together joint objectives and strategies. Now, also university organisations may join IAU as full members, alongside the traditional institutional members. This will give all these organisations, international and national, a full share in IAU’s policy and decision-making by granting them the right to take part in votes and elections and to be represented on the Administrative Board. Furthermore, in order to strengthen cooperation with other partners not eligible for membership, a special "affiliate" status is foreseen. Further changes basically aim at strengthening the action of IAU’s governing bodies, essentially by reducing the interval between the ordinary General Conferences from five to four years, and by increasing the flexibility and efficiency of the action of the Administrative Board. The full text of the revised IAU’ s Constitution can be found on our website www.unesco.org/iau/constitution.html

IAU Policy 2000

The General Conference adopted the policy outline for the year 2000-2005 proposed by the  Adlministrative Board. The basic vision of the University underlying the creation of IAU has remained a corner stone in the development of higher education over this past half century. It recalls that the universities, while benefiting from academic freedom and institutional autonomy with regard to their central missions in research and teaching, have to assume, in carrying out these tasks, their responsibility to society and to promote the principles of freedom, justice, human dignity and solidarity. The stipulated purpose of the creation of an International Association of Universities also underlines the essentially international dimension of higher education and its enhancement through cooperation. These principles have remained the intellectual and moral underpinning of IAU’s work, even if the Association’s concrete role and task have evolved over the years. IAU’s Internal and External Mission The policy adopted at the last General Conference in New Delhi, 1995 identifies two complementary lines of action for IAU: an internal mission (direct services of the Association, linking up its Members and the university community) and an external mission (speaking on behalf of, and representing universities to outside partners and interests). Cutting across these roles, IAU shoulders, on behalf of its Members, and with an explicit mandate received from UNESCO at its foundation, a public service mission, benefiting higher education and the community at large. The constitutional revision adopted in Durban aims at enlarging IAU’s base and scope of action through a broad inclusive networking approach. In order to achieve these different goals and respond to the diverse expectations, a structured cooperative approach is needed which determines priorities, distribution of responsibilities and tasks among different actors, and required resources. Major elements, where IAU can help catalysing and federating efforts involving our major partner organisations, are: § to identify the key issues of a future-oriented higher education policy debate, as well as concrete needs for support in academic exchange, knowledge transfer, and capacity building through international cooperation; § to assess our respective capacities to respond to such needs, the complementarity and uniqueness of our respective possibilities and responsibilities, as compared with what can be better done by others, bi-laterally or multi-laterally, on the institutional, national, regional or international level; § to establish appropriate networking structures and facilities that will allow to serve better, through shared efforts, the needs and interests of our common higher education constituency; § to translate IAU’s existing services more clearly in terms of support to concrete cooperation needs, both of individual universities and of partner organisations, and to identify new services as best corresponding to the Association’s vocation and possibilities; and to give expression to its internal and external missions through a strengthened associative life, including a broader interaction with other university organisations. Associative Life and Public Service A meaningful scope of action for a global organisation like IAU will have to meet three basic requirements: (1) to serve truly international/trans-regional objectives which, at the same time (2) can best be reached through a multi-lateral approach, and (3) on which the diverse constituencies involved can also agree. In a broad and cooperative networking perspective, IAU and its partner organisations need not see their, partly overlapping, membership as a field of competition but, on the contrary, as a common asset in order to attain more effectively converging objectives. They can set in place adequate mechanisms and delivery structures and join efforts in promoting effective services to our constituencies, which might, for example, include: §disseminating relevant information on the world of higher education in an international perspective, on missions, policies and strategies, in the form of concise briefs and overviews, easily accessible and usable for higher education policy and decision-makers. A similar approach could be taken in relation to issues of research and debate, comparison of experiences, publications or conjointly organised special meetings and seminars for university leaders and administrators; §providing a link to consultancy, second opinions and referee networks for universities, particularly in developing countries, who wish to have access to independent advice, for example on directives from Governments and different agencies or on institutional development plans; §a pool of independent advisors could also be made available for special tasks, third party assessments, legal advice, management advice, helping with analysis, formulation of strategic plans, governance strategies, codes related to academic freedom, etc; §consultancy to agencies related to university cooperation; §evaluation of institutional impact of university links and collaborative programmes, independent from the usual evaluation by sponsors. Such analysis may point to practical and ethical guidelines for collaboration and codes of good practice, which could serve universities in their interaction. In this networking approach, IAU’s role is essentially to serve as a catalyst, facilitator and mobiliser for the international university community, individuals, institutions, organisations, to join in a pro-active and creative effort in defining and assuming the decisive responsibility of universities worldwide and in shaping a common future, where progress and increasing interdependence should be characterised by a true sense of partnership, mutual respect and solidarity. Lines of Action A priori, IAU’s specificity is two-fold: The Association brings together institutions as such, and not certain sectors, segments, or groups of individuals taking part in academic life; and it has, from its origin, a global vocation, expressed in its slogan: "IAU – Universities of the World Working Together". It sees itself as the "Common Voice of the Universities". Taking into account IAU’s original role and mission, as well as the challenges and evolutions outlined above, the following priorities have been identified for the future work of IAU: §to contribute, on a global level, to the production and dissemination of information and knowledge concerning facts, trends and developments in higher education; §to help contribute, on a global level, to the production and dissemination of reflection, research and debate concerning the universities; §to help clarify, disseminate and refine a vision of the university and of its value base, shared by the Members of the Association; §to pay particular attention to strengthening solidarity and reducing inequalities between universities of different backgrounds, resources and capacities; §to express a common voice of the universities, on a global level, vis-à-vis partners like UNESCO, the World Bank, and other international agencies, as well as the public opinion; §to catalyse the cooperation of universities and university organisations amongst themselves and with other partners, with regard to major questions of society, which are global in nature and to which universities must make an important contribution, such as: • universities and the construction of peace and democracy; • universities and sustainable development; • universities and the challenges and stakes of globalisation; • universities as actors of accelerated change in society; • universities and the commitment to ethical standards in the conduct of science and technology; • to offer to other national and international university and higher education organisations a preferential platform for information, contacts and networking, and to participate itself in such international networks. Statements of Principles In implementing and steering the policy of IAU, the Administrative Board has issued statements of principles on matters that are of key concern to the universities and their role in society. These concerns have therefore been taken up as thematic priorities by the Association. The 3 following Statements have been formally adopted by the General Conference as part of the IAU Policy 2000. • Academic Freedom, Autonomy and Social Responsibility • Towards a Century of Cooperation: Internationalisation of Higher Education • The Kyoto Declaration on Sustainable Development (The full texts can be found at the following address http://www.unesco.org/iau/thematic.html).

Calendar of events

2000
October	24-26	Tokyo, Japan, UNU to host International Conference on Global Ethos, live broadcasting : (vulab.ias.unu.edu/GlobalEthos)
	26-29	Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA, AAC&U’s Third Bi-Annual Diversity and Learning Conference: Diversity & Learning: Identity, Community and Intellectual Development (www.diversityweb.org)
	31-Nov. 2	Montréal, Canada,Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada (AUCC) Conference: Beyond Borders: Universities in an Era of Global Knowledge
November	03-05	Bethlehem University, International Conference on Palestinian Higher Education: Preparing Citizens for a New State and a New Century, Organized by the PEACE (Palestinian/European Academic Programme in Education) Programme; Sponsored by UNESCO and the European Union (email:d.chitoran@unesco.org, k.shomali@unesco.org or unesco.org/Programmes/PEACE)
	08-11	Montréal, Canada,Council on International Educational Exchange (CIEE) Conference, Bienvenue: An Exploration of Cross-Cultural Understanding through International Educational Exchange (www.ciee.org/conf)
	13-15	Bologna, Italy, US-EU Conference on regional Learning Networks and Labour Market policies : "Examples from the USA and the EU " (www.scienter.org)
	27-29	Paris, France 7th UNESCO/NGO Collective Consultation on Higher Education.
	30-Dec. 2	Montréal, Canada,NAFSA Region X and XI Conferences (www.ciee.org/conf)
	30-Dec. 2	Leipzig, Germany,12th Annual EAIE Conference on Re-forming higher education: the international way (www.eaie.nl or email: eaie@eaie.nl)
2001
February	1-4	Tampa, Florida, USA, The American Association for Higher Education, "The 2001 Conference on Roles & rewards : the changing professoriate : new technologies, new generation"  (www.aahe.org)
	5-9	Abidjan, Côte d'Ivore, 10th General conference of AUU “African Universities and the challenge of knowledge creation and application in the new century”(www.aau.org/gc/)
	26-28	La Jolla, California, USA, International Congress on Higher-Technology-Communication (HTC) Based Higher Education (www.stefan-university.edu/)
March	11-16	Glasgow, UK, The British Council: International Networking Events: Managing Universities in Critical Times (www.britishcouncil.org/networkevents)
	17-19	Muscat, Oman, follow-up of UNESCO-WCHE “The University of the 21st Century” (www.oite.com/university21)
	24-27	Washington, DC, USA, AAHE organise : 2001 National Conference on Higher Education. (www.aahe.org/2001conf/)
	27-29	Cape Town, South Africa, University of Western Cape, an International Conference on “Globalisation and Higher Education: Views from the South” mail contact: ( toppel@uwc.ac.za)
April	01-05	Düsseldorf, Germany,20th ICDE World Conference on Open Learning and Distance Education: The Future of Learning - Learning for the Future - Shaping the Transition (www.icde.org or perona@icde.no)
	21-24	Saint-Petersburg, Russian Federation, Smolny University and the Russian Academy of Education, “World of Education: Expo 2001” (www.smolny-un.spb.ru)
May	11-14	Zielona Góra, Poland, “Emergence of Universities: New Higher Education Institutions and Their Role in Regional Development” (www.cepes.ro/hed/meetings/)
	25-26	Birmingham,UK, The Sixth QHE Seminar in Association with EAIR and SRHE: “The End of Quality?” (www.uce.ac.uk/crq/endofquality)
June	11-12	Bergen, Norway, ACA Conference, early warning "The impact of Virtual Mobility on International Education"
	27-29	Samos island, Greece, International Conference on Technology in teaching and learning in Higher Education, "2nd International Conference on technology in Teaching/Learning in higher Education" (www2.nl.edu/conferences)