The University is, by definition, an institution dedicated to knowledge, critical reflection, and social progress. However, few organizations show as much difficulty in changing as the University itself. The contrast is evident and, at times, disconcerting: the institution that researches, innovates, and educates new generations is often, paradoxically, reluctant to transform the institutional framework in which it operates.
The weight of the historical trajectory of the University throughout Europe conditions the adoption of transformations. Traditions, rituals, organizational structures, and forms of governance are not mere vestiges of the past; for many, they constitute the very essence of the institution. Changing them awakens fears: losing identity, diluting academic autonomy, subjecting knowledge to foreign or mercantilist logics. Fear of change, in this context, often presents itself as a defense of knowledge against uncertainty.
But it is worth stopping to reflect, honestly, on two questions: is it possible to keep university structures immobile in a liquid world in constant change? Is the defense of maintaining the structures due to the conviction of their good functioning, or due to fear of change and leaving certain comfort zones?
when the focus points to how our institution should adapt to these changes, the discourse changes”
Much of the resistance to change arises from a deeply human feeling: fear of the unknown. Added to this is a current scenario in which emotions dominate public debate and fear is entrenched as a mobilization tool. On the contrary, reforming structures, introducing new forms of organization, or modifying established inertias implies accepting that tomorrow will not be exactly like yesterday. It means reviewing competencies, redistributing responsibilities, altering internal balances, and, in some cases, giving up perceived privileges (although rarely recognized as such). Fear is not always expressed as outright opposition; it often disguises itself as excessive caution, requests for indefinite postponement, arguments appealing to the “complexity” or “singularity” of the university to simply leave everything as it is.
All this leads us to a paradoxical situation: we demand our students to adapt to a changing world, to develop skills for uncertainty, to be flexible, innovative, and critical. But when the focus points to how our institution should adapt to these changes, the discourse changes. Then the warning appears that “it is not the time,” that “it has always been done this way,” or that “the risk is too high.” And faced with this situation, we must remember that inaction is also a decision, and almost always, a costly one.
The greatest risk the University faces today is to give up its adaptation to society or to make lampedusian changes that are mere cosmetics so that nothing really changes. The society to which we owe ourselves advances rapidly: technological transformations, global social challenges, new educational demands, changes in the labor market, in communications, and also in students’ expectations. A University that clings to structures designed for realities that no longer exist runs the risk of becoming irrelevant, not for lack of talent (which there is, and plenty), but for institutional incapacity to take advantage of it.
Read more Fear of scarcity cracks the global addiction to oil
It is also necessary to recognize that change requires effort
Accepting the need to make changes does not mean giving up the university values that have allowed this institution to remain for centuries at the elite of knowledge and academic and civic training. On the contrary: it means taking them seriously. Autonomy, academic freedom, scientific rigor, or commitment to the common good are not preserved through immobility, but through their constant reinterpretation. Structures are means, not ends. And confusing this institution with its values is one of the most frequent mistakes in university debates.
It is also necessary to recognize that change requires effort. It demands training, adaptation, and sometimes accepting that some certainties are no longer so certain. Of course, not every change is good just because it is change. Criticism is necessary, debate is healthy, and the participation of the university community is essential. But there is a clear difference between constructive criticism and resistance as a system.
The University has survived for centuries precisely because it has known how to transform itself. It has changed language, curriculum, method, audience, and mission, without ceasing to be a University. Today, once again, it faces a crossroads. We can turn fear into an excuse for paralysis, or into a stimulus for an honest and brave debate about how we want the University of the future to be.
Leading university transformation processes means listening to those fears and understanding them. But also, assuming the responsibility not to give in to the temptation of institutional comfort against the general interest and proposing changes that benefit the University as an institution.
Let us have the courage to look to the future without fear, to change without giving up what we are, and to commit ourselves, together, to building a living, bold University capable of continuing to transform lives and societies. To achieve this, it is necessary to start a serious and calm debate about the need to reimagine our future. And, without losing sight of its historical legacy, to be able to build an institution that continues to be the engine of thought and training of our citizenship.
Read more The Vox union has not managed to penetrate companies more than five years after its founding