The document summarizes the closing remarks from the president of the International Association of Universities (IAU) at their 11th General Conference in Durban, South Africa. The new IAU president thanked the past president for his leadership and secretary-general for his service. He noted the valuable contributions of honorary past presidents from different backgrounds and experiences. He expressed his passion for universities as ideals that take responsibility for shaping the future and engaging society. However, universities must also show their social responsibility and contributions to stakeholders to maintain support. The IAU can help orient universities to their broader roles and share good practices from around the world, while being cautious not to overextend. The IAU was founded to strengthen academic freedom worldwide

1. IAU Durban Conference, August 20-25, 2000
11th General Conference: Universities as Gateway to the Future
Closing Session
Closing Session
Professor Hans Van Ginkel, New President of IAU
Ladies and Gentlemen,
In the first place, I would like to thank you all for the confidence given to me in the election and the
optimism with which you look forward to the next four years. I sincerely hope that I will meet your
expectations.
I would also like to thank Professor Mori, who soon will be the past President, for the guidance he has
given in the last five years. I would like to propose you to appoint him unanimously to be Honorary
President, as has been the custom over the years.
I would also like to thank the Secretary-General for his long years of service. As we have heard
yesterday, he will leave the Organization in the next period. I would just like to mention that he was
for fifteen years the Secretary-General of IAU with all commitment and effort made to make the
Organization grow and flourish.
As for myself, in the beginning when I came to this Organization I always looked with curiosity to the
different Honorary Presidents that were around every time when the Organization met. Over time, I
have changed my opinion about this. When I was in my own University, I was very much the product
of the cultural revolution as it took place at the end of the 60s in the universities in Europe. I would
never have become the Rector of Utrecht University so early if there had not been that cultural
revolution. So, to have so many Honorary Presidents around made me a little bit suspicious. I
changed my opinion as I said. I just will make a few remarks. Each of them made their own valuable
contributions. I am therefore very glad to have them around now that I have seen how they
contribute. As Professor Sendov explained yesterday the difference between information and wisdom,
I think it is a very important remark to be made at this stage when there is so much information, no
time to digest it, and so little wisdom.
Martin Meyerson, as the President-emeritus of Pennsylvania contributes his experience as a planner of
urban and regional developments. He, indeed, is future oriented and shares his visions with us.
Former President Thorens brings something else a legal approach. How can you be cautious? and
enterprising at the same time? How can you operate so as not to hurt people's feelings and move the
Organization forward? Professor Kamba also contributes something characteristic. He contributes to
us the wisdom that Dr. Sendov was talking about. Generally, he thinks, reflects, waits. Then all at
once you get a remark. And you realize: “This will move the whole thing forward, if we do this.”
Coming often to Africa, I have been working with Walter very frequently. Probably, I know him best
of all. We have worked together and set up the Utrecht UNESCO/ UNITWIN network for Southern
Africa to see how one can close the gap between North and South by university cooperation.
Together, we have a lot of common experience in this area. Ladies and gentlemen, I will not comment
in more detail on each and every person, but just wanted to give you an idea of their personalities and
contributions.
An Ideal and a Passion.
When I look at universities, for me universities are very much an ideal. They are a dream. They are
almost a passion. I always feel somewhat uneasy when people make negative comments on
universities. Often these negative comments can come even from inside universities. My direct
reaction then is, "What are you doing yourself to improve the situation?" It is very easy in university
surroundings to sideline a position or also to take a position yourself along the sideline, just watching
from the outside what happens on the playing field. I like to do this myself very, much because it does
not commit too much and asks not for initiative or much effort. From the sideline you can comment in
all different ways what others are doing, but you do not have to take on responsibility. However, the
university I have passion for, which I dream of, is the university where university people take
responsibility for the university - not just for the discipline or their own small group, but for that great

2. institution which has to open up the gateways for the future for new generations and to give them
guidance. It is people in the universities taking their own responsibility to shape their own future, to
write, to create, not only taking responsibility for themselves, but taking responsibility for new
generations to come, to create these new generations, to give them the essential preparation by which
they can engage the future. That task is very different in the different parts of the world. But, for all
those young talented people, we are responsible. They have to learn to cooperate and to contribute. If
we do not cooperate, how can we expect them to cooperate?
So, we have to live internationalization, not talk internationalization, but do it; to cooperate in honest
ways not just on the national level, but also regionally and globally. At the same time, it is the people
in the universities who have to take on the responsibility for the societies that support them. You can
call it Stakeholders, or whatever. In fact, Society is the major Stakeholder from the beginning in
higher education. That is why parliaments are so interested in higher education laws and financing.
Perhaps too much, because Parliamentarians are all the time changing higher education laws on the
basis of their own experience and frustrations. Nevertheless, we have to try to adapt and to counter, to
resolve the impacts of all these influences. It is quite clear, however, that the more we reach out, the
more we can be sure that we will not receive the answer: "But, … what did you do for us? Why should
we support you?" We must be sure to have done our share, to have given our contribution, shown to
take our social responsibility seriously.
Limitations.
What did we do for them, our stakeholders in society, really? Sometimes you see very good examples
of countries where universities make a difference or are to a certain extent acknowledged also outside
the campus. When I see how in Thailand the whole system of a Senate was introduced and the role
that universities played into that political process. How the country over time developed its
parliamentary system. That was impressive. There is where IAU can help, play a role to orient
universities towards their broader social responsibilities, to learn from good practice in different parts
of the world.
We have to be cautious, here. In the beginning for example, when I was a young Rector, we were
invited by IAU to go to Cancun. I thought that cannot be serious. Cancun, that's for summer
holidays. Then I came to Helsinki where IAU had a good Conference. During that Conference, it
became very clear what direction this Organization wanted to go, to take on social responsibility, to
serve humankind worldwide, to close the gap between the rich and the poor. In all parts of the globe
there are important lessons to be learned, good practices to be demonstrated. You cannot just lock
yourself in into a Regional Organization as I was in the European Association of Universities (CRE).
Of course, CRE is a great organization for Europe and even beyond. It contributes a lot. But, it is not
enough to work together to internationalize on the European level. The world is much bigger. How
do we interact with universities in other parts of the world, with our colleagues who together
contribute to this ideal, this dream of the universities and their contribution to the world?
Fundamental Mission.
There in Helsinki, I learned that in 1948 in fact the first Conference was held, leading to the
establishment of IAU in Nice, 1950. No one told me, before, this first conference had been in
Utrecht. It was almost forgotten. Still, the first Conference which prepared the Conference of 1950 in
Nice, and which established IAU, was held in Utrecht. So in 1948 a very young UNESCO together
with the Dutch Government and my predecessor as the Rector of Utrecht did organize this first
Conference with support of ACE and the major American universities. This explains – at least for a
part -- the commitment, I feel towards the IAU. The initiators, the founding fathers and mothers of
IAU, were all very much concerned in those days, like at present, about the roles of universities in
countries where the government does not support universities very much or does want to use the
universities for their specific purposes only as was the case in Nazi Germany. And so, IAU was
established as an Organization to strengthen universities from very different countries to cope with
problems under that type of adverse conditions, which had existed in the 1930’s in Europe.
IAU was meant to strengthen academic freedom and university autonomy, worldwide. I think we tend
sometimes to forget that. As long as I have been on the Board, I have tried to stimulate the work on
Academic Freedom and University Autonomy. For that reason Justin Thorens organized with Guy

3. Neave this thematic debate for UNESCO’s World Conference on Higher Education on Academic
Freedom and University Autonomy. We cannot compromise here, because this is the basis of all; to
have free research and development of thinking, freedom of opinions, an environment where it is
normal to have difference of opinions and a tradition to argument in sound ways where expert
knowledge is excepted and accepted. This you can find in the statutes of IAU. There is no reason to
change that. It is still relevant nowadays in many countries.
But, when you defend University Autonomy and Academic Freedom you have to realize that you are
the most autonomous when you receive no money. You have no one to be thankful to. Here, you see
the limits of autonomy. You never get money without strings attached to it. There is always
something. But, it should be something that is compatible with your thinking and, sure, when you can
distribute the risks and have different sources of financing, of course, you can be more autonomous.
Whether a government or a company or whoever finances you, it is better to diversify financial
resources to become more autonomous. At the same time, however, even if you are successful, you
should never expand autonomy so far as to become irrelevant. That is another aspect of autonomy.
You can become so autonomous that no one cares anymore. What then is the contribution to society?
People, society, should care about their universities, but not meddle too much; accept expertise and
experience. That is the situation we should strive for. And we, we should really take responsibility for
ourselves and our societies.
From this perspective, we have developed, over the last few days, a new draft Mission Statement. We
would like you, when you go back home, to have a look at it, as the Statement of the Policy of the IAU
in the coming years. We invite you to respond. Now. Not after two years when you find it on one of
those piles you have not looked at for ages. No. Respond in the next few weeks or months, before
December preferably. The new Administrative Board starts its work immediately after this Meeting.
It will meet again in the autumn when, in fact, this Statement and policy should be finalized. You
could have an input, if you react.
Concrete Activities.
Of course, there will be many concrete activities we should do. There is no reason to change too much
in the publications' policy for the time being. Higher Education Policy is a Journal highly respected,
bringing in a lot of information in support of the idea that we have to analyze the position of
universities, their workings, their interaction with society. We should, in fact, improve. There should
be more articles from our Members. Too many articles come from different kinds of specialists in
higher education. Not that I do not like them. They, indeed, have a lot to contribute. But I have
always the feeling that what they write and think has not too much to do sometimes with the reality
you are confronted with when you are in the position. We should try to close that gap. For that, we
need active participation of practitioners in the field of higher education. Issues in Higher Education
is, I think, also an excellent Series which we should continue. The information is very useful. We can
think in the future whether we still need print or go completely into e-mail, modern information
communication technology, faster updates and, at the same time, to get something where people pay
according to the number of times that they really use that information. We should explore this in a
larger project. We should also think of projects, which focus on the regional roles of universities and
democracy.
Freedom to Act Together.
Mme. Brito said: "How can you ask for freedom if you do not allow freedom?" You have to live
democracy. In Poland, democracy survived because of the universities. Former Rector Severynsky of
Lodz University, used to describe universities as “institutions that teach democracy” in the way they
operate. Inside, we really have also to give roles to students, to maximize the positive impact of
internal democracy. That is not a Stakeholder approach. It is a normal approach for a higher
education institution. Of course, the Stakeholder approach is not against it. But, you do not do it
because of that. We just do it because it is sensible. Because universities have to live democracy, and
they have to play a role in local communities. However they do also have to bring the communities in
the university, as Brenda Gourley said. And, this too will be a strong stimulus for innovation and
change. Next to a project on universities in their regional settings, one could set up a project on
innovation and change in universities owned by the people in the universities and not parachuted onto

4. them by some regulations of a Ministry. The Ministry should not be the initiator of change. The
people in the universities should be the initiators of change, in good interaction, within the
universities, and with the societies and ministries that support the universities. That is what we can do
together.
Closing the Gap.
I would like to mention one other topic. That is the complex notion of Sustainable Human
Development. We have, of course, had our contributions already. We have also to think about some
strange, lopsided, mono-dimensional things that are happening in the world. The G8 comes together.
The Secretary-General writes a Millennium Report. All at once all development is focussed on IT.
Certainly, important. But? Of course, we are not against IT. Yet, when the big countries are going to
finance IT, they do not increase their official development aid. What is going to happen to traditional
development cooperation ? How are we going to support sustainable human development? How are
we going to guarantee that the basis of society is strengthened? We are not just fighting against some
symptoms or improving some tools without strengthening the basis of society. There is, to my mind,
a role for all universities to cooperate and to close the North-South gap – as their own responsibility, at
their own initiative. This is an individual responsibility for universities. Of course, we can go into
new topics, like property rights and so on, strategies of governments and major agencies. Very
important, when it comes to looking at different financial resources. This, however, may not prevent
us from contributing ourselves to sustainable human development. I hope to inform you more after the
next Administrative Board Meeting.
IAU A Common Voice.
All in all, I think in the coming period, we should really make the work of IAU universal throughout
the world by stimulating members, universities and associations, to work together. We should really
make it abundantly clear that we have the ambition to be an open, inclusive and transparent
Organization, the common voice of the universities of the world. We can only do this in cooperation
with the other international organizations in the field - in particular IAUP. I am, therefore, very glad
that its President Elect and the present Secretary-General are here and we certainly will work closely
together. I have mentioned to you already that these documents will come to you and ask you for your
support and reaction.
Conclusion.
I would like to conclude, just by announcing the next General Assembly according to the latest
information. It appears certain to be in São Paolo in 2004. Of this we are 99% sure. Meanwhile, we
have three other years in which to do responsible work. Work that is really related to the position and
purpose of IAU. There are many opportunities. We are considering working together with IAUP.
The Sydney Conference is a possibility. We can think about the Bibliotheca Alexandrina, mentioned
by Ismail Serageldin. I understand there is an invitation from Iran and, also, from Mexico. Here
indeed are different indications that this is a living Organization, widely supported by the Members.
Let us tell this around because nothing is worse for an organization then when people say, " Well, you
can go there or you cannot go there, it is not so relevant." It is relevant. And, your contribution is
highly appreciated.
Thank you very much.