On 16 March 2026, the President of Tampere University, Keijo Hämäläinen, made a decision concerning the composition of and appointment authority over the councils that prepare matters for the Academic Board. Staff organisations and the Student Union express their concern that the decision does not comply with the spirit of the University Act, which emphasises representativeness and pluralism, nor does it strengthen university decision-making. On the contrary, the reform undermines the university community’s trust in the university leadership and narrows the opportunities of university members to participate in the development of the university.
As a result of the President’s decision, the university community can no longer nominate candidates from among its members to the Science Council; instead, the Science Council will henceforth consist of the Research Management Group, that is, in practice only the faculties’ Vice Deans for Research. The President’s decision also restricts the power of the university community with regard to the Societal Interaction Council. Previously, Faculty Councils were free to nominate to the Societal Interaction Council individuals interested in developing the thematic area, but the President’s new decision instructs that priority should be given to nominating a member of the faculty leadership team. At the same time, the number of student representatives appointed by TREY to the Council will be reduced from three to one.
In addition, with regard to the Education Council and the Societal Interaction Council, the appointment authority will change so that, going forward, the members belonging to staff will be appointed by the President, whereas previously this responsibility belonged to the Academic Board (consistory), which is elected by the university community in democratic elections. According to Section 11 of the Foundation’s rules of procedure, the composition of the councils is decided by an instruction issued by the President, and thus the President formally has the right to make the above-mentioned decision. However, transferring decision-making power over the composition of the councils to the President constitutes such a clear shift of power from the democratically elected body to the operational leadership that the grounds for the decision should have been communicated much more clearly to the university community.
It is also clear that the President’s decision deviates from national recommendations. In the University Autonomy Report (Hallberg et al. 2021), a working group appointed by the Ministry of Education and Culture to examine the state of university autonomy recommended that universities should develop internal democracy and the opportunities of the university community to influence their organisations by reforming universities’ regulations and practices. In the national development work currently being finalised, Vision 2040 for Higher Education and Research, the role of universities as promoters of democracy has likewise emerged as a central theme.
Taken together, these measures unfortunately send a clear message to members of the university that their views are not particularly sought when preparing policies related to the impact and quality of research and education. Broad participation organically embedded in administrative processes is in the university’s interest: in this way, the best expertise of a multidisciplinary community can be brought into decision-making. A Science Forum or other new administrative body that completely lacks decision-making and preparatory powers cannot replace representative preparatory work.
Based on the most recent staff wellbeing surveys, the personnel of Tampere University feel that they do not have sufficient opportunities for interaction with the university’s leadership. It is difficult to see how the decisions taken improve this situation. Instead of strengthening mutual trust, they narrow the opportunities of university members to participate in the development of the university. Rather than restricting internal democracy, universities should serve as examples of the realisation of democracy in the present global context.
We hope that the President will still reconsider amending this decision, which is problematic in many respects.
Signers:
Nelli Piattoeva, Chair of Tampere University Branch of the Finnish Union of University Professors
Derek Ruez, Chair of Tampere University Association of Researchers and Teachers (Tatte)
Mika Mattila, Chair the Association for University Teachers and Researchers at Tampere University (TaYLL)
Tami Nordström, Chair of the Student Union of Tampere University (TREY)