Paris 1 University: Reorganization and Multidisciplinary Education in 1971

Paris 1 University, or Panthéon-Sorbonne University, emerged from the reorganization of French universities after 1968. It brought together parts of the old University of Paris's Faculty of Law and Economics and Sorbonne disciplines including history, geography, philosophy, art and archaeology. In February 1971, Le Monde reported the election as president of public-law scholar François Luchaire, who had chaired the preparatory assembly, as the new institution began forming its own leadership.

Legal formation occurred on several levels. The Higher Education Orientation Act of 12 November 1968 established a new system requiring universities to have legal personality and financial autonomy and to consist of teaching and research units. The decree of 23 December 1970 explicitly listed Paris 1 among the public institutions of a scientific and cultural character from 1 January 1971. The year 1971 thus marks the beginning of the new university's corporate operation, not the first appearance of these disciplines in Paris.

References: [1] [2] [3]

A March 1971 interview typescript described Luchaire's new university as a union of economics, law and humanities, with about 27,000 registered students including its specialized institutes. Preparation had grown from continuing discussions among teachers and students; even after establishment, administration and courses across different units still needed coordination.

Article 6 of the Higher Education Orientation Act required a multidisciplinary structure while allowing universities to retain their principal orientations. Article 5 permitted cooperation agreements with other public and private institutions, and Article 2 included international university cooperation among their tasks. These provisions created institutional room to cross former faculty boundaries, but did not guarantee that different subjects would automatically develop a shared educational life. Paris 1's early experience involved seeking practical methods within these legal possibilities.

References: [1] [4]

The new system provided for management by an elected council that elected the university president. Teachers, researchers, students, non-teaching staff and external members could participate under specified rules. Different categories of university members thereby gained statutory positions, while representation ratios, eligibility conditions and state oversight remained defined. Selection of the president, internal management of teaching and research units, and ministerial approval of statutes formed interconnected procedures.

Financial autonomy also had clear limits. The state supplied equipment, personnel and grants, while universities could receive donations, subsidies and service income. Annual budgets nevertheless had to be balanced and public; presidents executed expenditure within approved amounts, and accounts remained subject to public audit. In his contemporary interview, Luchaire said that insufficient administrative staff and unclear allocation criteria were hampering operations. He therefore linked the practical realization of autonomy to the distribution of resources.

References: [1] [4]

The new law did more than reorganize institutions. It required continuing academic and career guidance for students and allowed courses, teaching methods and schedules adapted to learners already in employment. Article 20 retained common requirements for national degrees while providing for regular, continuous assessment of learning. Reform thus involved not merely adding electives but connecting admission, study, examinations and destinations after graduation.

At Paris 1, small-scale interdisciplinary choices were already being tried. Luchaire's interview typescript stated that first-year students could combine law and history before making a final choice in the second year, and he hoped to extend this arrangement. Required national-degree courses, discipline-based units and dispersed premises constrained flexible combinations. This records early experiments and unresolved problems, not an already established university-wide integrated curriculum across subjects.

References: [1] [4]

History offers a specific teaching example. Medievalist Jean-Philippe Genet studied political writings from late-medieval England and sought to connect textual analysis with the social backgrounds of authors. After the new university's establishment, he promoted interdisciplinary units for history students, including mathematics, linguistics, anthropology, and history and computing. Students could choose one as the fifth unit of their undergraduate degree, rather than first leaving history to study another discipline.

The aim was to apply new methods to historical sources. History-and-computing teaching included computing fundamentals, reading historical research that used quantitative methods, and requiring students to complete research on a machine. Meanwhile, lower-year statistics instruction trained students to construct series, calculate frequencies, variances and correlations, and draw charts. Antoine Prost, who joined the university in 1979, spread such approaches through historical-methods courses. Many statistical exercises still used paper and calculators; computers had not been available to every student from the courses' inception.

References: [5]

Adoption of computing also exposed limits in the university's resources. Paris 1 initially used an IBM 1130 and later a Philips P880, the latter running the BDP4 database software. Archaeologists and geographers used the machines alongside historians. Participants also developed the ALINE lexical-analysis programme to address inconsistent spellings in medieval languages. Interdisciplinary cooperation thus took practical form in sharing machines, processing material and building tools.

Batch processing and limited computing power, however, made teaching increasingly difficult, and the history-and-computing course was interrupted in 1982. Some researchers also had to use French National Centre for Scientific Research computing facilities at Orsay, processing punched cards on weekends. This early experience shows that multidisciplinary education depended on legal and organizational restructuring, but also on teachers' questions, collaboration with technical staff and sustained equipment investment. An innovative direction did not remove resource constraints.

References: [5]