Higher Education in the Post-Communist World

Case Studies of Eight Universities

Paula Sabloff

• Éditeur: Routledge
• Année: 2018
• ISBN:
  9780429801983
• Édition: 1
• Sujet: Éducation
• Sous-sujet: Éducation générale

Originally published in 1999, Higher Education in the Post-Communist World focuses on specific public universities during their, and their nations' early transition years (1989-1995) from communism to democracy and the changes from centrally planned, to free-market economies. The book offers a detailed view of universities in transition rather than case studies of entire systems of higher education, providing an opportunity for readers to understand the national politico-economic transition on higher education– individual faculty, students, and administrator; departments; and university – in a more immediate way than a system-wide approach would. The book presents information on specific universities and how the demise of the Soviet Union affected the governance, finance, faculty, students, and curriculum in several post-communist countries.

PART 1

Models for University Structure

CHAPTER 1

Humboldt University in Berlin: Its Transformation in the Process of German Unification

Helmut de Rudder

University of Lueneburg

Founded on the principle of unity of research and teaching, Humboldt University has become the archetype of research universities in Germany, Europe, and the USA. But the former University of Berlin (renamed in 1949 to honor Wilhelm and Alexander von Humboldt) is not only important historically; it is also a reflection of the radical changes that have occurred in East German society¹ following the “peaceful revolution” of 1989.² In this chapter, Humboldt University is analyzed as one example of how East German universities have reacted to the social, political, and economic changes after the collapse of the East German state and the subsequent German unification. Following some remarks on Humboldt University’s earlier history and an account of its fate under communist rule, the main part of the chapter is, then, devoted to the present transformation of Humboldt University since 1989. The chapter distinguishes between three phases of renewal, which are treated as processes of adaptation, integration, and innovation as explained in previous work (de Rudder, 1996).

By viewing the transformation of Humboldt University from a communist-controlled institution to one operating in a market economy democracy as the process of interaction between the micro and macrolevels of German society, the seemingly chaotic changes experienced by Humboldt University appear if not unavoidable, then at least understandable. Humboldt University must be studied within its societal context, both before and during its transformation after 1989. Only when we realize to what an extent the university had become dominated by the Socialist Unity Party (SED)³ in divided Berlin and Germany during the four decades of communist rule can we appreciate the dimensions of change and renewal after the breakdown of the East German state. But if our analysis stops at the macrolevel, we will gain little appreciation for the form of Humboldt University’s eventual metamorphosis. Societal forces cannot be treated as the independent variable directly causing change in the dependent variable, the university. Rather, we must study the responses and interactions of various members of Humboldt University to outside stimulation in order to comprehend the unique form of its transformation over the last few years. In other words, Humboldt University’s idiosyncratic transformation can only be understood by analyzing the way people within the university act and interact.

In this perspective on institutional change, we have to consider both the micro and macrotrends, especially the links between the micro and macrolevels, if we want to achieve a comprehensive view of an institution (Luhmann, 1984; Alexander, Giesen, Munch, & Smelser, 1987). In any case, the consequences of basic political and economic changes for higher education are by no means automatic but are rather results of processes of interpretation by the people involved and political decision making inside and outside the higher education system (see Berger & Luckmann, 1967, on the social construction of reality). These processes are invariably determined by different and often conflicting interests. The result of political power struggles determines which viewpoint prevails (see Archer, 1984). Inasmuch as that is the case, a study like this one has to be conceived as an analysis of policy decisions (Premfors, 1992; Goedegebuure and Van Vught, 1994).

These few remarks already indicate how useful it is to apply social science methodology to the analysis of higher education. Recent developments in social theory may add to our understanding of this subsystem of society. Looking at developments in post-communist societies in general and higher education in particular, we are struck by the apparent unpredictability of events and developments, the phenomena of unintended consequences of social action, and obviously nonlinear developments where many simultaneous processes mingle. Evidently, this is the norm of changes and transformations, not the exception. That should cause us to look at a strand of theoretical thinking which has gained in importance in the natural as well as the social sciences in the last 20 or so years, but which has much older origins: theories of chaos and catastrophes offer models and lines of thought that may be applied to the truly chaotic processes we are analyzing, especially when we try to understand the complex web of unique combinations of factors in each case that led to unpredictable, unexpected and often unintended results in the policies of renewing higher education after the breakdown of communist regimes. Although the applicability and usefulness of chaos theory—especially as far as its mathematical models and statistical methods are concerned—in the social sciences is a controversial matter, particularly for the study of social change, its basic assumption on the importance of and the role of chance and on the problem of unpredictability in complex nonlinear and dynamic processes are undoubtedly useful (see Mueller-Benedict, 1996).

In spite of considerable differences between higher education systems in the different Soviet Bloc countries, it is not going too far to say that in all of those countries higher education was controlled by the Communist Party or its equivalent, and had to serve the purposes of the regime. That meant that there was neither academic freedom nor institutional autonomy. Rather, higher education was integrated into a system of central planning that permeated society. That, at least, was the intention. Of course, detailed analysis will show that the Eastern Bloc was not as monolithic as it appeared to be. With more accessibility to documents after the demise of the old regimes, research and investigative journalism will be able to paint more differentiated and realistic pictures of those regimes and how they handled higher education, but there is little reason to assume that our knowledge about their general characteristics will have to be drastically revised.

HISTORICAL TRANSFORMATION: EAST GERMANY AND HUMBOLDT UNIVERSITY

The University of Berlin

The case of East Germany in general and its higher education system in particular differs from the other former Eastern Bloc countries in one important respect: The German Democratic Republic (GDR) was one part of a divided country, and within less than a year after the peaceful revolution (see Endnote 2), the breakdown of the East German regime resulted in the dissolution of the GDR and reunification of Germany. Because the GDR joined the Federal Republic, the question of the future structure and construction of the political, legal, economic, and social system of the former GDR was more or less solved, for it adopted the formal structure of the Federal Republic of Germany. At the time, that was what the large majority of East Germans (but not those who had started the peaceful revolution) had wanted. This situation of unification was even more pointed and radical in the city of Berlin. Whereas all other regions of East Germany formed new federal states within the Federal Republic (the “Five New States,” as they came to be known), East Berlin, the former capital of the GDR, joined the West German city-state of (West) Berlin and—in terms of population, representation, and administrative participation—remained a minority in that state. It is the only case of a part (and not just any part!) of the former GDR becoming part of a West German state by the act of unification. That was the case for higher education: Humboldt University and the other higher education institutions of East Berlin were added to and integrated into the system of universities and colleges of West Berlin and its existing state administration for higher education. As in Berlin in general, the East Berlin higher education establishment was much smaller in size than that of West Berlin.

Humboldt University was founded as the University of Berlin in 1810 by Friedrich Wilhelm III, King of Prussia. It was conceived, planned, and organized by Wilhelm von Humboldt, who at the time served as head of the education department in the Prussian ministry. The founding was preceded and accompanied by an extensive and intensive—and controversial—debate between 1802 and 1816 on the idea and uses of a new national university for Prussia in which prominent German philosophers, theologians, historians, and statesmen participated (Mueller, 1990). In light of the university’s present transformation, it should be noted that the founding took place at a turning point in Prussian history when Prussia had been defeated by Napoleon’s armies and was on the verge of collapse militarily, politically, and economically. That was the starting point for the “Prussian Reforms,” one of which was the creation of a new type of university in Berlin. Even though the original ideas have never been fully implemented and realities were always a matter of compromise, the university’s concept became a model that sparked university reforms and against which research universities have been measured ever since. The University of Berlin was founded on the principles of:

1. Freedom of research, teaching, and studying
2. Unity of research and teaching
3. Institutional autonomy and academic self-government

During the nineteenth century, the University of Berlin became one of the world’s leading research universities. Its structure and organization served as a model for university reform in many countries. Its medical school—the famous Charité, which is much older than the university itself—became one of the major centers of medical research in Europe. Twenty-seven Nobel prizes were awarded to faculty members of the university—though none after 1945.

At its founding, academic disciplines were to be bound together by philosophy (not as a specialized single discipline but as a way of self-determined thinking, reflection and search for truth) as a common basis of scholarship and science. The basic concept of university education was that of self-education as a process of self-perfection of the inner-directed individual by participating in the search for truth and knowledge (Bildung through Wissenschaft). According to Humboldt, the university should not be the place for specialized and applied practical (technical) knowledge and skills; and it should be largely independent of the government (Schelsky, 1963). To that end, the state was to give an endowment to the university from which it could derive an income.

From the founding of Humboldt University until today, the relationship between the university and the state was often a problem, largely because the university lacked the degree of independence that Humboldt had in mind. The very first rector threatened to resign in order to fend off government intrusions. The first honorary doctorates were given to heroic generals of the “Freedom Wars” against Napoleon (Bluecher, Schamhorst, Gneisenau) and the minister of the crown of that time (Hardenberg). Appointments were always sources of conflicts, for ministers appointed top-rate academics against the self-interest of the faculty, or the faculty lost to the state when faculty proposals for appointments were contrary to the political interests of the government. Both political and economic developments of Prussia and Germany after 1871 were reflected in the development of Humboldt University. However, until 1933, the principle of academic freedom of scholarship, research, and teaching was—with rare exceptions—always maintained, as was institutional autonomy in academic matters. These were liberal elements in academia in a state which for long periods of its history certainly could not be called liberal (see Shils, 1989).

The Historical Location

The university’s main buildings were situated in the center of Berlin at the famous boulevard Unter den Linden. The opera was across the street, and within a few minutes’ walk was the Royal Palace (which was blown up by the East German government after World War II and later replaced by the “Palace of the Republic”). The Brandenburg Gate (and, until 1989, the Berlin Wall) and the German parliament, the Reichstag (just west of the former border), were only a few hundred yards away. Until 1945, most of the government buildings were almost around the comer, and so were the new ones of East Germany. When the Berlin Wall was built in 1961, Unterden Linden became a dead-end street, and every visitor to the university was controlled and registered.

Under National Socialisni

After the Nazis came to power in 1933, they ousted more than 300 faculty members—Jews, Liberals, and Social Democrats, as well as conservatives who would not go along with the new rulers. These measures met with very little resistance or open opposition on the part of the university. In May 1933, less than 4 months after the Nazis had come to power, the infamous book-burning by Nazi students and young academics took place across the street from the university’s main building. The Nazi Party had been gaining increasing support among students and junior faculty long before 1933. The Nazis changed the system of self-government by academic bodies to one of leadership by appointed loyal academics. By way of its appointment and promotion policy, the party saw to it that its ideas on race, leadership, and power, and its interpretations of history and the world at large, permeated or were at least represented in academia. This, of course, was not limited to Humboldt University but pertained to all of German higher education. If these efforts were not always as successful as they might have been, it was because only 6 years after the Nazis came to power, Germany initiated World War II, and from then on there were more important issues at stake than conquering and controlling higher education (although the German scientific community, especially in the sciences and engineering, necessarily played a major role in the war effort).

IN DIVIDED GERMANY

The Great Transformation

After the war ended in 1945, the old center of Berlin, including the university, became part of the Soviet sector when the city and the nation were divided. Humboldt University was now right at the borderline between East and West, both geographically and ideologically. Again, the external political developments determined and shaped the university and all of East German higher education (de Rudder, 1995). Though Humboldt University was geographically close to the government and the ruling party of the GDR, its transformation and function under the GDR regime resembled that of all of higher education in that highly centralized “first German state of workers and peasants,” as it used to call itself. Early in 1946, the Soviet Military Administration (SMAD) placed the university under the control of the central administration for education in the Soviet zone, thereby eliminating its institutional autonomy and removing it from the jurisdiction of the four-power administration for the city of Berlin. (From what we know, the Western allies did not really seem to care.) Hopes of reestablishing freedom of thought and scientific inquiry after the end of Nazi dictatorship were soon disappointed. Almost from the beginning, the Socialist Unity Party together with its affiliated youth organization, Free German Youth (FDJ) brought the university under its control by interfering with admissions, relegating students, dismissing academic staff, and instituting censorship. It soon became obvious that one dictatorship was being replaced by another, and that Marxist-Leninist theory and ideology were to be the basis and frame of reference for teaching and researc...

Table des matières

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Original Title Page
• Original Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• Introduction
• Part 1: Models for University Structure
• Part 2: Changing Politico-economic National Structures
• Part 3: Changing Economic National Structures
• Contributors
• Index