Should everyone, from assistant to full professor, be given the title of ‘professor’? Is today's university too hierarchical? Five researchers shine their light on power relations on the Nijmegen campus. Part 4: Mathijs van de Sande, Assistant Professor of Political Philosophy

‘As far as I’m concerned, professorship should be abolished. Assistant (UD), associate (UHD) and full professors all have a PhD, so they all have a PhD title. Either make everyone a professor, or no one.

At universities abroad, hierarchy sometimes seems to play a larger role: in Belgium, where I completed my PhD, for example, scholars are more likely to boast about their titles. At the same time, Dutch universities also still have a strict hierarchy. There are PhD candidates, employees with or without permanent contracts, assistant professors, associate professors, and full professors.

In my experience, there is little difference between the work of professors, associate professors, and assistant professors. Clearly, full professors have additional roles and responsibilities, such as leading or sitting on certain committees, but in practice, so do many assistant and associate professors. They often do work that they do not strictly speaking have to do, but which is expected of them if they want to move up in the organisation.

‘You could rotate the chairmanship among staff members with adequate experience’

Many professors also become department chairs at some point, but not necessarily based on their suitability as managers. They have often had no training for it at all. Strictly speaking, you could rotate department chairmanship among the staff with sufficient experience, regardless of their academic rank. This is also good for social safety: employees are less likely to feel dependent on the support and goodwill of people above them in an organisation. Moreover, younger department heads are more likely to have taken leadership courses, making them better prepared for a leadership role.

The pay gap between the various levels is huge, which makes you wonder: is this still appropriate in this day and age? For my field, I really wonder why you would want to make that distinction between different academic layers. I do not depend on a professor above me for my substantive authority as assistant professor (UD).

You have to dare to ask what purpose hierarchy serves. It makes sense that colleagues with a long track record should be recognised and rewarded for their contribution to science. But in an organisation where we are all supposed to have a certain degree of expertise, autonomy and authority, I really can’t think why professors should be allowed to do things that I cannot.

‘Less hierarchy at universities naturally aligns with greater democracy’

Of course, some people will say that a promotion model stimulates people to try to do their best. That it encourages people to engage in some degree of competition with each other. But as far as I’m concerned, that is precisely why we should not want it. It would probably improve social safety, job satisfaction and the quality of our work if cooperation and equality were the norm, rather than competition. The current promotion policy does not fit in with this at all.

As far as I’m concerned, less hierarchy at universities goes hand in hand with more democracy. Until the 1990s, the university council, the participational body of the time, was the most powerful institution at the university. If they felt it was necessary, they could, for example, dismiss the Executive Board. That task now lies with the Supervisory Board, which is not democratically elected. The current Works Council does not have such strong powers. One of the points made by the WOinAction national action group of staff and students is that we want to go back to that old system. That would improve the hierarchy.’