Snellman’s dispute with the University administration lends itself perfectly to historical examination. On the one hand the reports of the proceedings from the consistorium and the court give us detailed information on how the events unfolded, and on the other Snellman’s own writings present with unusual perspicacity a balanced rationale of his radical actions.

Snellman was a Hegelian philosopher. Odd as it may seem, in his attempt to discover all the possible foundations on which human communities can be based, Hegel ignored the idea of community as it related to the universities. Snellman fills this void. For him the University is a community in which all its members—including students—are recognised as free and responsible agents. For the rector, Frederik Wilhelm Pipping, the university community was more akin to the contemporary family in which the father was the authority figure.

Based on Pipping’s view, as the head of the university family, he was to be obeyed without question. Snellman in turn felt that as a member of the university community he was duty bound to think for himself. Neither party recognised the other in the way that they viewed themselves. In this sense the dispute is in fact an example of a Hegelian historical event, which are made up of just these elements - a struggle for recognition.

Snellman’s actions might be seen as heroic: he sacrificed his career for what he believed to be the common good. Given the circumstances, however, his conduct might equally well be viewed as troublemaking. Because the de jure chancellor of the Imperial Alexander University in Finland was the Nicholas, crown prince of Russia, the political activity of the University was under close scrutiny from St. Petersburg. A couple of decades earlier the German university student Karl Ludwig Sand had murdered the Russian consul August von Kotzebuen, and students were still reckoned to be a potential source of dissent. Talk of freedom in Helsinki sounded in St. Petersburg like just a step away from insurrection, and the university question was particularly sensitive. Snellman’s actions could even have jeopardised Finland’s status as an autonomous part of Russia.

As it happens, Snellman’s dispute with the University administration is exactly the kind of historical event that is studied in a university based on Snellman’s ideas. A student reading the text is not presented with any simple solutions on how each person involved should have acted. What can be learned from the dispute is that if one wishes to avoid a quarrel while engaged in co-operation, it is vital to remember to recognise the place occupied by others in the community. Any one of us can find ourselves in a situation in which the common good demands us to jeopardise our own position.

Recently the discussion in Finland has returned to the school-like nature of university education. Snellman’s work Akateemisesta opiskelusta (‘On academic studies’) is considered required reading on Finnish civic universities. In it Snellman recognises that the sense of any tradition needs to be subjected to constant re-evaluation. Snellman’s work still repays close reading as its content has remained relevant in the ever-changing environment of modern universities.

Sources:

• Juha Himanka, ‘The University as a Community of Selves. Johan Wilhelm Snellman's "On University Study"’, Higher Education 2012, 517–528.
• Juha Himanka, ”Kuka yliopistoa ohjaa? Yliopistoko itse koulun penkillä?” (’Who governs the university? Is the University itself in need of a lesson?”), from Timo Aarrevaara & Jatta Herranen (eds.), Mikä meitä ohjaa? (’What governs us?’), 2005, 15–28.
• Matti Klinge, Ylioppilaskunnan historia I (’The History of the Student’s Union. Vol 1’), 1967, 59–63. (”Snellman rettelöijänä”, ’Snellman the troublemaker’).
• Ilkka Niiniluoto, ”Akateeminen vapaus” (’Academic freedom’),  rector’s speech, 2004 opening ceremony of the University of Helsinki, from Dynaaminen sivistysyliopisto (‘Dynamic Civic University’), 2011, 223–232.
• Thiodolf Rein, Juhana Vilhelm Snellmanin elämä: Edellinen osa, (’The Life of Juhana Vilhelm Snellman: Part one’), 1895, 113–126. (”Snellman sankarina”, ’Snellman the hero’).

Translated by Tomi Setälä

Revised by John Calton