Discipline and order: how the university acted as its own judge

The university is society in small scale. That sometimes means trouble: ranging from “saecken van cleijne importantie” ('matters of minor importance'), as it was called in the seventeenth century, to outright criminal activities such as embezzlement of university property. How were these cases resolved? Who dealt with them?

Preventing reputational damage through a vierschaar ('tribunal of court')

In 2018, it became known that the songbook of the Earth Sciences study association contained a number of highly sexist songs. The dean and the rector intervened: the board grants were withdrawn. Their moral indignation was justified and sincere, but at the margins of such interventions is always the concern about reputational damage.

Universities in the early modern period had a solution to this problem: the academic vierschaar, or in the Latin of the time the forum academicum. A kind of university court. In 1643, seven years after its founding, Utrecht University was finally to be granted statutes.

At the margins of such interventions is always the concern about reputational damage.

Less severe punishments than the civil courts

To that end, the senate put forward a proposal that also included a vierschaar: a forum immunitatisque studiosis. The term captured its purpose precisely: students were immune from municipal jurisdiction, and the university could deal with such matters itself.

Such a vierschaar served several purposes. First, it could be used to attract students, since an academic court on average imposed less severe punishments than an ordinary court. Second, it allowed the institution to keep its dirty laundry inside: ‘we’ll sort this out ourselves’.

The abolition of special treatment for students

At this point it became clear how disadvantageous it was that Utrecht was a municipal university rather than a provincial one. Part of the provincial government had for some time felt that the city was acting far too autonomously and wanted to teach it a lesson: the statutes were approved, but the privileges for students had to be removed.

In practice, this meant that the senate now intervened in disputes between students. The senate also had a duty to signal at an early stage when there was genuinely something amiss. We do not know exactly how often students were tried by the city courts for more serious offences. It does, however, appear that they behaved more cautiously than they would have done had the university possessed an academic vierschaar capable of handling such matters internally.

Insults and fights

Students could, however, be removed from the enrolment register by the rector, which meant they were expelled from the university. This happened in 1643 to a number of students who had had been guilty of organised fights among their peers.

In 1669, a Scottish student, Mattheus Craffordius (also known as Matthew Craffort), was even denied access from the university by the city authorities. He was accused of having insulted several professors, both verbally and in writing, and of having accused them of “Godloosheyt” (‘godlessness’). Before he could be heard, however, he had already made his way back to Scotland.

Utrecht case from 1883 in the national news

A case from 1883 that also caused a national stir shows that different legal rules applied to some students. One night, a few students on their way to the students’ club were making a lot of noise on Dom Square. 

A neighbour went to see what was going on, with the result that the students forced their way into her house. Her husband, who had been woken up, tried to get the students out of the house in his underwear. A fight broke out and the woman “viel in zwijm” (‘fainted’). 

She passed away a week later. The students were blamed for this and the newspapers were filled with stories about it. It was even claimed that the widower had been promised 15,000 guilders if he agreed to remain silent about the incident.

These remarks triggered a wave of outrage and accusations of class justice.

Justice or class bias

Medical examinations subsequently showed that the woman’s death had not been caused by the students’ actions, yet the case still came before the court as one of assault. Sentences of up to six months were demanded, but in the end the penalties amounted to no more than six days and some financial compensation.

The judge, who was of noble birth, spoke immediately after delivering the verdict, addressing the young men by saying that it had been a case of youthful recklessness. He criticised the press and pointed out that the matter would soon be forgotten and that the convicted men had a bright future ahead of them. These remarks triggered a wave of outrage and accusations of class justice, all the more so because the judge joined the students at their club after the verdict to continue the conversation.

Legal proceedings after the Second World War

The special system of justice established after the Second World War was of an entirely different order. As elsewhere, university staff were also required to be held accountable for their actions. Before the Commissie van Herstel en Zuivering (‘Commission for Restoration and Purification’), which also included a student member, a striking number of students came forward with lists of names of lecturers who should be reprimanded or removed from the university.

Academic staff were sent a questionnaire that they were required to complete, and in many cases interviews with the commission followed. Ultimately, fourteen lecturers were dishonourably dismissed. A further eight were honourably dismissed without having requested this, among them Van Vuuren, rector during the war.

Twenty-six individuals, including Kruyt, the other rector during the war, received a letter in which – without further consequences – objections were raised to their conduct during the war. Among the students, 258 signatories of the declaration of loyalty to the German authorities were excluded from university education for shorter or longer periods.

Justice in cases of embezzlement and destruction

The university is sometimes accused of being a closed fortress. Fortunately, this is less true today than it once was. In any case, it faces the same issues as the rest of society.

However, as the university has grown more complex and increasing amounts of money are involved, the risk of misconduct and self-enrichment has also increased. When this happens, the university is simply part of society. The same applies to the destruction of university property during student political actions: reports are filed and suspects are tried before an ordinary court.