Seite - 52 - in Universities in Imperial Austria, 1848–1918 - A Social History of a Multilingual Space

52 ♦  Universities in Imperial Austria, 1848–1918 in all administrative bodies in the universities, in addition to control over teaching aids and seminars; they were also required to supervise students and Privatdozenten. The ministry retained, however, several means of re- pression, such as the Probetriennium and the right to relocate professors (Versetzung), force a retirement, or terminate a contract, measures that had been used for political reasons at various times. Decision-making about Privatdozenten was even more centralized. The ministry could reject a habilitation without cause; propose changes, for example, in the scholarly discipline for which the habilitation was approved; or award remuneration based on a petition by the university. The ministry was also in no way obliged to grant faculties’ requests, or even to react to them; this privilege was used later to prevent undesired habilitations, professorial promotions, and chair appointments. Thun-Hohenstein also requested the protocols from the proceedings of the university senates and faculties, at first under the pre- tense of supervising the reform’s progress, as the reform was to be revised after three years; however, ministerial review of the protocols continued until 1918, as indicated by notes in the archives.17 How much autonomy the universities would be permitted in practice thus remained the sole responsibility of the ministry, which could either de- cide to interfere in university matters or just confirm the academic senates’ decisions. The high officials in the ministry, in charge of making recom- mendations to the emperor, were not necessarily professional politicians, however, and were often scholars themselves; in many cases the ministry consulted other academics about the quality and moral behavior of the per- sons in question. Like autonomy, the meaning of freedom of teaching and learning (Lehrfreiheit and Lernfreiheit), a cornerstone of the reforms, also remained a matter of contention among political pressure groups.18 “Freedom” cer- tainly did not mean unconditional self-government in what would be taught and learned; it was constructed and presented more as the antithesis of the politicization of universities before 1848. Lernfreiheit implied partial free- dom in the choice of lectures in the curriculum, the free choice of lecturers, and a relaxation of the exam system, with general instead of semester and annual exams. “The freedom [to choose] the lectures, the time, and the instructor whom they want to hear”19 was, although eloquently formulated, hardly realizable in practice. In subsequent discussions, the universities, es- pecially the medical faculties, criticized it as impracticable because medical subjects had to be learned in the proper order; this was swiftly regulated by