ľ�ϸ���Ӱ��

On the university’s 389th anniversary on 26 March, the dies natalis, the Dom Church will once again echo with the words: “Salve Rector Magnifice, iterumque salve” – “Welcome rector magnificus, once again welcome.” With these words, the new rector is ushered in. It is reminiscent of the phrase “The king is dead, long live the king,” with which new French monarchs were proclaimed immediately after the death of their predecessor. The idea behind this was to ensure that the kingdom was never without a monarch – just as the repeated welcome of the rector signifies the continuity of the university.

A different rector every year

But isn’t comparing the rector to a king a little far-fetched? Historically, the rectorship has been a rather peculiar institution. Until the ľ�ϸ���Ӱ�� Governance Reform Act of 1970, the rector was merely the representative of the senate – the assembly of professors. He had no real power: that lay with the city council and, after 1815, with the ministry.

It was largely an administrative role: students had to register with the rector every year. He (to this day, always a he) was appointed based on seniority: the professor who had served the longest became rector. Each year, a different faculty took its turn, and the rector changed annually. Under the title of assessor, his successor had already been shadowing him for a year.

Academic police

The rector’s role was partly ceremonial, always accompanied by a beadle when appearing outside the university. But as the enforcer of disciplinary rules, he also acted as a supervisor. In the first half of the nineteenth century, this was legally defined as the “supreme oversight of academic policing.”He could place students under house arrest or even have them detained.

The rectorship was not just an honorary position; it was also financially rewarding. Every student who registered paid the rector a guilder annually, two guilders for an exam, and seven guilders for a PhD defence. That would add up quite a bit today.

The rector could place students under house arrest or even have them detained.

Administrative skills required

The annual change of rector may seem democratic, but it also had its downsides. Not everyone was equally suited for the role. At the very least, a rector needed some administrative talent. However, in times when the rector had little influence over the university’s direction, this was not a major concern.

Those deemed unfit due to illness were excused, but at least one person outright refused the role: the astronomer Martinus Hoek, appointed professor in 1859, declined the position, considering it an outdated institution with no real purpose. There was also one occasion when colleagues rejected an incoming rector: Marcel Minnaert (after whom a building at the Utrecht Science Park is named, and another astronomer), who was due to become rector in 1957. At the height of the Cold War, his communist sympathies proved his undoing.

Much debate, little change

From the late nineteenth century onwards, dissatisfaction with university governance grew. The system, known as the duplex ordo, consisted of a board of curators as the executive body implementing ministerial policy, while the senate and rector had little influence. In 1898, Dutch rectors began meeting regularly to discuss shared interests, hoping to gain better access to the minister without relying on the curators.

In the 1920s, Dutch professors travelled to the United States, where they encountered ideas for a new governance structure. In Utrecht, Frits Went, Ernst Cohen, and Hugo Kruyt explored ways to strengthen the university’s ties with society in books and articles. However, despite much debate, little changed.

A crucial role for the rector during wartime

The Second World War sparked new discussions. During the war, rectors became more significant, seen as moral guardians of academic freedom and values. In practice, they felt trapped between their responsibility to preserve the university as an institution and resisting German attempts to nazify academia. Their willingness to navigate this precarious balance was later criticised after the war.

Tensions between deans and the rector

Change was needed, but it was not until 1970 that the system was reformed. A new executive board was established, including the rector, now with a longer term, and had to engage with a university council. This council included not only professors and academic staff but also students and support staff. At the same time, deans gained more authority over their faculties and the university’s direction.

For more traditionally minded rectors, this felt like a threat to their position. Where did they now stand? On one side, they had deans breathing down their necks; on the other, a chair of the executive board who, by law, held ultimate responsibility for the university. One Dutch rector feared “the total disintegration of the university.” Abroad, people struggled to understand the Dutch system: who was actually in charge?

Balancing values and the business side of university

That question remains relevant today. The rector represents academia within university governance, while the chair and vice-chair manage the institution’s operations. There is always tension between the business side of our highly complex institution and the values, ambitions, and norms of academia. So when we say Salve Rector Magnifice, iterumque salve, we are not only offering a warm welcome but also wishing him the best of luck.

Last year saw the publication of a collection of essays on the rectorship in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries: Leen Dorsman et al. (eds.), (Hilversum, 2024).