First female president in the history of the University Assembly

For the first time in its almost 30-year history, the University Assembly (UA) will be chaired by a woman. Dagmar Iber, Professor of Computational Biology at the Department of Biosystems in Basel, who has been a member of the UA for three years, was elected as the new president at the plenary assembly on 2 December. In early 2022, she will take over the position from physics professor Werner Wegscheider, who has presided over the committee for five and a half years.

The vice-presidency is also undergoing a change: Stefan Karlen, a UA member from the Staff Commission, will hand over his duties to Pascal Bleuler and Tobias Neef from the scientific staff association AVETH.

To mark the change in leadership, Dagmar and Werner give some insights into the work of the UA.

Werner, you have been president of the UA for five years. What makes this committee special?

Werner Wegscheider: The UA is the ETH¡¯s participation committee, and in the course of my time I have learned that it is unique. If you look at other universities in German-speaking countries, they usually have a senate. This is typically a hierarchical committee comprising the university management, student representatives and other representatives; for example, for diversity. The UA, on the other hand, is a committee with equal representation, in which the students have the same number of seats as the lecturers, the scientific staff and the technical and administrative staff. And we are directly represented on the ETH Board, the university¡¯s governing body, which means that we can bypass the Executive Board, so to speak. We have every right to be proud of this unique committee and we really should take good care of it.

Dagmar, you have been a UA member for three years. Which aspects have impressed you the most?

Dagmar Iber: The good atmosphere; in other words, how calm and friendly the discussions are in the UA. The four represented groups come together and discuss every issue in a small team. And this exchange is always very constructive.

Is there always a consensus in these discussions, or do majority decisions also have to be made?

Iber: There is always a consensus. At least, I have never witnessed a vote. Of course, there are differing perspectives. But these are discussed in a respectful way, so that each group understands the particular concern of the other. We then always come to a formulation rather quickly that covers everything. I have never encountered a problem. But perhaps Werner has had a different experience, because I can only comment on the discussions that I took part in.

Wegscheider: I can only agree with that. We sometimes discuss phrasing that seems too harsh or too polarising to some. But we always come to a consensus. I would almost go so far as to say that we have a culture of debate that we would like to see throughout ETH. Perhaps something like that will emerge after rETHink.

Iber: I think it is to Werner¡¯s great credit that the dialogue in the UA has always been very pleasant and constructive, even on topics that were quite controversial in other committees.

Can you give an example of one of these topics?

Wegscheider: One controversial topic was certainly the misconduct of lecturers and conflict management. We played a very active role on this issue when it came to creating a new set of regulations. We had received an initial proposal from the HR department that we were not happy with at all. This led to the UA practically taking the lead in drafting the regulations concerning reports of inappropriate behaviour by members of ETH Zurich. In the process, we also managed to enforce that the UA may nominate the ombudspersons.

So this was a right you fought for?

Wegscheider: In a sense, yes, but it was less of a fight than a continuous process. The discussions began on the basis that the ombudspersons would be chosen by the Executive Board and that the UA may be allowed to nominate some. Eventually it was decided that we, the UA, would be allowed to nominate the ombudspersons exclusively.

Have there been other similar success stories?

Wegscheider: I think that as the UA we have been able to make a valuable contribution to many ETH business matters, albeit more in the background. We have regular contact with the Executive Board, where the voices of the four groups are heard. For a few years now, we have met each other with a lot of respect and on an equal footing. When I took over the presidency of the UA, this relationship was not quite as good as it is now.

And what about the less pleasant experiences? Have there also been disappointments in recent years?

Wegscheider: It is very disappointing for us when the UA is bypassed. There is a memorandum of understanding that stipulates when we should be heard. And sometimes that doesn¡¯t happen, not out of ill will, but mostly due to time pressure. Even if we receive an apology, we still have not been given the opportunity to participate in the issue at hand. In our work, we rely on the fact that those who make the decisions want to hear us.

The UA is one of the most important committees at ETH Zurich. Yet many ETH members know little about it. How do you feel about the appreciation of your work?

Wegscheider: That is the other thing that can be very disappointing: the low level of awareness of the UA within ETH. When people know what we do, then we are very much appreciated. But many people have no idea that we exist at all.

Iber: I think this is also due to the hierarchical structure that is unavoidable when there are so many students and staff. My impression is that our department members, for example, are well aware of their direct representitives. But from the department representation first passes to the ETH-wide level of VSETH, AVETH, the Staff Commission and KdL, and these then send  representatives to the UA. I think this is one step too far to be visible to individual ETH members.

Now we are facing a change in the presidency at the UA. Dagmar, you are following in Werner¡¯s footsteps. What was your motivation for becoming UA president?

Iber: Werner decided to hand over the presidency after a successful five and a half years. The Lecturers' Conference (KdL) has the right to propose a successor, and the KdL president approached me. Since I have been involved in the UA for a number of years and have been a member of the KdL for a very long time, I agreed. Now I am excited about the new role. In general, I would like to continue what Werner has done so excellently and keep up the very good atmosphere in the UA.

Are there also new things you would like to tackle?

Iber: In the last few years, we have been asked for our opinion on so many issues that we have been mainly reactive. Should we get into calmer waters, which we can only hope for, I would like us to explore new topics where the university groups can come together to collectively drive ETH forwards. First, I will talk to each individual group to understand what is important to them.