The U is seen from the standpoint of an open system, which is decisively influenced by the environment & internal power structures. In regard to production, the U makes wide use of the mechanism of exchange to reach its goals, whereas integration is a means whereby the U seeks to extend its influence & increase its potential. The facts about student participation in decision making in the U are taken from a study of a Belgian U from 1969 to 1973, which consisted largely of research of official documentation & interviews. In 1968, it was determined to give students the right to greater participation in U affairs. The implementation of this, however, was left up to the respective departments. Participation took on various forms: (1) co-option, where students were given not only more say, but also more administrative duties, (2) conditional participation, where students were represented on decision-making bodies, but not proportionally, & (3) formal integration, which generally involved representation in name only. It was found that there was a positive r between the importance of the exchange function & student participation in specific departments. It is not true that student participation can always be equated with democracy. Formal integration may, in fact, involve the opposite, in that it is a device that ultimately is designed to discourage participation. Even in the case of co-option, the delegation of some power to the students may have the function of giving new legitimacy to the powers that be. Whether student participation will lead to democratization is something that must be determined individually in each case. P. Tiersma.
