One can only welcome, in principle, the Law entitled “organization of the new University” recently presented by Minister Valérie Pécresse. Long awaited since the Edgar Faure Law of 1968, which announced autonomy without truly implementing it, this text, the result of a final consultation that was more than mere formality, should finally allow higher education to enter the era of “modernized governance,” a key concept of Title II now incorporated into the Education Code.
However, fundamentally, it remains a matter of people. This inevitably raises a question: should the desirable autonomy of the university have ultimately led to the concentration of power in the hands of its President? There is a risk, for example— and Freud said the example is the very thing—of altering, or even challenging, an independence already legally acquired by the University Institutes of Technology. Article 33 of the Law of January 26, 1984 on higher education indeed grants these Institutes and Schools within the universities a “financial autonomy” for credits and positions “directly allocated” by the competent ministers, in order to consider the “requirements of their development.” What will become of this tomorrow? Could university autonomy also serve as a pretext to challenge the August 2005 Order that offers students graduating from the IUT the opportunity, for the most motivated among them, to pursue further studies in a Faculty? Certainly, not all university presidents, as revealed at their last Assembly in La Rochelle, unfortunately consider IUTs as “intellectually negligible.” Yet, it might be tempting for some of them, inclined to condescend towards these “short courses,” to retrieve all or part of a budget often exceeding those of several other fields and disciplines combined! This jealousy is fueled by the “tangible and significant” enthusiasm of large corporations, banks, and insurance companies who show a marked preference for these programs offered within these institutes and consisting, according to their statutes, of a wise balance between general education and professional preparation. This balance has recently been strengthened by the establishment of a “Personalized Professional Project” requested by the Ministry of National Education, which combines concerns for performance and human development.
If these diversions from the principle of autonomy were to prove true, they would also constitute, furthermore, a humorous affront to the Minister who made sure to officially inscribe in Title I dedicated to the Missions of Universities, the role of “orientation and professional integration.” What would then be the recourse for IUTs threatened, some by a redistribution of their budget, others, more covertly, by a “relocation” of establishments to less attractive urban peripheral areas for students? Reaffirming the inviolability of Article 33 might thus protect Presidents from potential pressures exerted by the Deans of Faculties. These are some of “problematics” that the implementation of the new Law will need to resolve. Meanwhile, one can at least hope that the spread of this “corporate managerial spirit” supposed to permeate the corridors of universities, will prevent professors, both permanent and adjunct, due to “computer breakdowns” or simply a lack of funds, from being paid after more than 90 days!
