Harvard University
Cambridge, Massachusetts, 8 February 2006

Ladies and Gentlemen,
Dear Students,

It is a privilege and a great pleasure to be standing before you today. First of all, I wish to thank for giving me the opportunity to meet you.

I had a curious conversation a couple of weeks ago. I was telling a friend of my upcoming trip to Cambridge.

He told me that you are not only America’s top–ranked centre of learning—which I already knew. He also told me you are among the wealthiest. In fact, he pointed out that your endowment is a bit larger than the total GDP of Bulgaria—which is slated to join the EU soon.

Please don’t take me for a crass Philistine. I am perfectly aware that money alone will never be enough to explain a university’s standards of excellence and success. It takes a lot of hard work, commitment to scholarly values, and the selfless pursuit of knowledge.

It takes a conducive environment, clever organisation, and the company of the right sort of people.

It takes light but firm regulation, sound management, and unwavering determination over a long period of time.

In the case of Harvard, all of this has come together spectacularly, if one is to judge by your 43 present and past professors that have been awarded Nobel Prizes or by the fact that Harvard comes out on top on virtually every ranking of world universities.

I would really like to find out more about how you do it; that’s why I’m here.

We in Europe have a lot to learn from America’s higher–education system and many of your solutions represent a model for development for us.

At the same time, we are also moving ahead with our own reforms.

Ladies and Gentlemen:

Last November I was invited to open the academic year at the university of Bologna which many believe to be Europe’s oldest universities.

Today I have the privilege of speaking at America’s oldest centre of higher education.

It may not be a total coincidence that Bologna gave its name to a movement which—since its start in 1999—is reshaping Europe’s higher education.

The Bologna process has one ambitious aim: the gradual convergence of Europe’s higher education systems into one area.

The different national systems should therefore become more transparent and use a common course structure based on three cycles.

The process now involves 45 countries—that is, many more than the members of the Union.

These already include countries from the Balkans and Russia, and we are working to deepen the cooperation with our neighbourhouring countries.

One of the main advantages of this reform is that it should be much easier for students and teachers to move from one centre of learning to another in the course of their carreers.

I like this immensely, because it brings modern academia back to its roots and because of its obvious link to Europe’s process of integration.

Nine centuries after their foundation, European universities are among the longest–living institutions in the world.

Since their birth they showed a marked indifference to political and national divisions.

The Medieval scholars travelled around Europe to meet the great teachers of the time.

I think of men like Michael Scotus, who studied at Oxford, Paris and Bologna before going on to Palermo and Toledo.

The boundaries these men recognised were most of all the boundaries of knowledge.

Men like these laid the foundations of modern thought.

They forged our intellectual and moral values.

Their intellectual curiosity made them overstepping the divisions of culture and religion.

They were men of peace.

Many centuries have gone by, but the wandering scholars of the Middle Ages are still with us in spirit and the Bologna process holds the promise to bring them back in reality.

Ladies and Gentlemen:

For the past nine centuries—and for the past four centuries in the New World—universities and centres of learning have always been crucial for social and economic development; all the more so now that the ‘wealth of nations’ is human capital: the knowledge, skills, wisdom and competences possessed by the people.

The European Commission recognises this state of affairs and carries out a vibrant education policy.

Let me give you a few figures.

• In 2005, about 80,000 pupils and schoolteachers have travelled from one EU country to another thanks to 3,400 partnership projects involving 12,000 schools;

• As many as 160,000 university students have received a grant to study abroad under the Erasmus programme, perhaps the flagship EU programme;

• Our efforts are not limited to lower and higher education but include training too. About 68,000 people have received training thanks to the beautifully named Leonardo da Vinci programme.

• As to our international relations, we have a new programme named Erasmus Mundus which gave out scholarships to about 1,000 students from non–EU countries. These students use their funds to attend European Master Courses in at least two university centres in different EU countries. The number should rise to 8000 by 2008.

The EU education policies gained centre stage in the present decade with the overarching strategy commonly dubbed ‘Lisbon agenda’.

As you know, Europe’s leaders—riding the wave of the new millennium and, one should add, a long economic boom—decided to steer Europe towards the knowledge economy when they met in Lisbon in 2000.

This, they stated, would be Europe’s goal for the decade and it would include four pillars: sustainable growth, jobs, the environment, and social protection.

If these are—in Aristotelian terms—the final causes for the Lisbon agenda, the winds of change sometimes known as globalisation are its formal cause.

As the world becomes smaller economically and politically, there really is no alternative: developed regions of the globe need to leave traditional modes of production behind and reinvent themselves.

The broad picture is really as simple as this, but—as always—the details are much more complex.

First, we need to understand what we really mean by ‘globalisation’.

There is one thing we should all realise about globalisation: it is a development of historical proportion.

In this sense, globalisation is like a big river: there is very little we can do to stop it.

However, there is a lot we can do to protect ourselves against the potential damage it may cause and to use its power for our own ends.

I often say that this is precisely what Europe’s process of integration has become today.

Let me explain.

For thousands of years, our continent has been a meeting point for different cultures and civilisations, a market place, but also a battlefield for competing powers.

Today’s Europe still shows the scars of the bloodiest conflicts ever waged on our planet.

At the end of the second World War, a group of visionary and enlightened political leaders saw that they could put an end to this historical pattern.

In the words of Robert Schuman: “war between France and Germany [should become] not merely unthinkable, but materially impossible”.

Securing peace on the continent was the original intent of our process of integration.

And this is precisely what happened: peace and security have been the conditions for Europe’s prosperity and development.

Fifty years on, the challenges are very different.

As I said, today we have to grapple with a smaller, globalised world.

Now, I maintain that the Union is the only workable attempt on the world scene to harness the forces of globalisation, albeit on a regional scale.

Rather than regarding these forces as a threat, we are trying to put them to work for the interests, values and goals democratically decided by our citizens and leaders.

The second difficult detail is what exactly is meant by ‘knowledge economy and society’.

My working definition is the ability to create, disseminate and apply knowledge which determines the performance of a community.

This is already an analytical definition, because it specifies the three corners of what we call the ‘knowledge triangle’.

Creating knowledge means that we need to extend the knowledge horizon into the unknown by doing research on our most urgent problems—whether they be a new vaccine, a technology that simplifies a manufacturing process, or fresh insight into the human spirit.

Disseminating knowledge means that we need to encourage the development of an educated population, because an educated person is more likely to find a job and to be a responsible and critical citizen.

In this respect, it is essential that the education system nurtures talent and potential wherever it is found, regardless of ethnic, income, or other divisions.

An inclusive educational system is not only a moral obligation; it is also a smart move.

Finally, applying knowledge means that the fruit of this work should find a way out of schools and universities and into the world out there.

Educational systems should have strong and fair links with the other sectors of society: business, government, etc.

There is a lot Europe needs to learn from the rest of the world on this last point, and there is also something we would rather avoid, which I will illustrate with a cautionary tale in a short while.

I am convinced that the potential of Europe’s higher education is enormous, but this potential is not put to work as it should.

Here are some of the things we need to fix.

First, we intend to break down barriers across the continent—between universities, between national systems, and between academia and business.

We also intend to reduce the funding gap, especially as regards private sources.

Here, a recent story can speak volumes.

Last December Prince Al–Waleed of Saudi donated $20 million each to both Harvard University and Georgetown University—where I was speaking only yestarday—to finance Islamic studies.

These are large sums and I congratulate both the donor and the beneficiaries because I am sure that both universities have the capacity to put the money to good use.

I would like to read more stories like these involving European centres of learning.

Thirdly, we need to combine real autonomy with accountability for universities.

National governments in Europe are so fond of their universities that—as Commission President Barroso said recently—they sometimes embrace them a little too tightly.

Fourthly, we aim to boost research and innovation in universities to strengthen their science base.

As I said earlier, the knowledge triangle includes teaching and application, but it also involves throwing light into the unknown.

Finally, higher–education institutions should feel responsible for the integration of their graduates in the labour market.

Clearly, modernising Europe’s higher–education and research sectors is clearly a priority for us.

This last challenge points to the relations between academia and business.

And this is precisely the topic of the cautionary tale I mentioned earlier.

I will reprise an on–going debate here in the States revolving around the Bayh–Dole act and its unintended consequences.

Let me summarise its terms.

The Bayh–Dole act allows the results of research funded with federal money to be patented and licensed to private businesses.

In the 25 years since it was passed, the act has pushed countless new technologies into the hands of industry and has led to the creation of thousands of start–ups—notably, including Google.

However—and this is the other horn of the dilemma—many fear that universities are no longer encouraged to pursue basic knowledge because they focus instead on research that may have practical and profitable applications.

Moreover, once a piece of research crosses the line towards business, researchers are reluctant to share their knowledge.

For example, business partners may—and often do—use the terms of these licences to withhold bits of information from research papers or demand that they are published after a time.

This debate highlights some of the risks implied in our attempt to reform Europe’s higher–education sector.

I believe that higher education is about educating people and citizens as much as it is about teaching knowledge and skills or starting a new business.

Please don’t misunderstand me.

This is not to be taken as an excuse to hamper reform.

Universities should be made more accountable for the prosperity of a community.

However, I am convinced that they can unleash their potential in full only if they foster critical thinking, a sense of justice, creativity, and keep true to scholarly values.

Ladies and Gentlemen:

I believe visits like my own these days are important because they keep the channels of communication open across the Atlantic and allow us to learn from each other and improve.

This is the spirit of the EU–US academic cooperation agreement, which started as a pilot project in 1993 and in earnest since 1995.

I would like to stress three things about the agreement:

• Its very existence has invaluable diplomatic and political implications because it reaffirms the traditional bond of friendship and partnership between Europe and the States;

• More specifically, it creates links between our universities which in setting up joint projects draw together their best resources, learn from each other and improve their offer of high quality education and training for the current and future generation of learners, and

• Finally, because people–to–people contacts are its final upshot. Exchange students acquire knowledge, international exposure and cross cultural abilities which are invaluable to be prepared for the global market place. Above all, their experience abroad gives them a very personal sense that the relationship between Europe and the US is a meaningful part of their lives.

The latest EU–US Summit in June last year for the first time made explicit reference to the academic–cooperation agreement and called for its reinforcement in its new cycle starting this year.

I believe that the renewal of the current agreement gives us the chance to strengthen our cooperation and exchanges.

To do so, we have prepared a proposal for the renewal with a substantially larger budget and a longer life–span of 8 years.

I would like to take this opportunity to invite the US authorities to translate our leaders’ political agreement into facts and quickly bring the negotiations to a successful end.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Dear students,

I would like to conclude by recalling a man who helped define higher–education as we know it today.

Many of the defining features of our modern universities and centres of learning were first spelled out by Wilhelm von Humboldt when he served as Prussian minister of education in 1809–1810.

Humboldt’s ideal university was an institution solely devoted to the advancement of science: a self–centred pursuit that required—in his terms—freedom and solitude.

In his view, the essential function of universities was to allow scholars to live for themselves and for science together with like–minded scholars.

But that’s not the whole story, in fact education is also instrumental for economic growth and social development.

Indeed, Humboldt’s visionary reforms did a lot to turn Prussia into a continental power and the scientific and intellectual leader of the world.

Over a century and a half later, we can see that three of his big ideas have stood the test of time.

First, Humboldt thought that all parts of the learning systems should be interlocked with each other.

And today—especially in Europe—we try to integrate our educational systems at all levels.

Second, he believed that education should allow people to become citizens.

This is crucial.

Skilled and productive workers are not enough for a healthy and creative society, let alone for the economy.

Individuals should also be capable of thinking for themselves and of standing up for their rights and responsibilities.

Finally, his Allgemeine Bildung was based on lifelong learning, and this is perhaps Humboldt’s principle that is most relevant to us.

Today we are more acutely aware than ever that society and the economy are in constant flux.

As a consequence, initial education should effectively teach us two things:

• the knowledge, skills, and attitudes required to become responsible and productive members of our communities; and

• the ability and willingness to never stop learning for as long as we live.

This is the crucial mission entrusted to higher–education institutions: a drive for self–improvement, a curiosity about the world and others, the endless quest for knowledge which is perhaps the most spectacular result of the genetic and cultural evolution of mankind.

Dear friends,

We are all deeply grateful to you for keeping this flame alive.

Thank you.