2026 New Year’s Greeting from the University President
Happy New Year to you all.
In April 2027, the University of Tokyo will celebrate the 150th anniversary of its founding, and this year our preparations for that milestone will begin in earnest. The transformation from an imperial university to a national university during the postwar period of societal change—roughly at the midpoint since our establishment in 1877—marked one major turning point in our history. A second one came with our transition to a national university corporation in April 2004.
Looking back now, it feels as though we set sail in 2004 with many unresolved challenges still on board, before the various preparations required for true autonomy had been fully put in place. In the twenty-two years since then, we have pursued numerous reforms under the guiding principle of being “an institution that serves the global public,” rooted in academic freedom. Our efforts to leverage the systematic nature of the university’s knowledge and to strengthen our engagement with society on a global scale have grown increasingly important today.
One such endeavor is the vision we have developed over the past two years through intensive discussions with all of you for UTokyo’s Universities for International Research Excellence initiative.
As you know, on December 19 of last year, the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) and the Advisory Board announced their decision regarding UTokyo’s application in the second selection round: that “the review process will continue.”
To speak candidly, I find this outcome deeply regrettable.
In particular, when I think of the discussions we held over the past year with the deans and directors of our faculties and divisions—who are already occupied with the day-to-day management of their organizations—toward enriching this vision, the efforts of faculty and staff who contributed their diverse expertise, and the dedication of those who worked to compile our proposal, I feel keenly my responsibility as President for not having achieved the outcome we had hoped for.
Nevertheless, our application remains under consideration for further review rather than having been rejected outright. We must therefore prepare ourselves to respond to the points that MEXT and related bodies will ask us to clarify and verify as the confirmation process proceeds.
At the start of this new year, I would like to reflect on the fundamental origins of our engagement with the Universities for International Research Excellence program. First, I wish to emphasize that we did not begin contemplating and advocating for transformation of our university because of this call for applications.
The University of Tokyo has always been conscious of our role as Japan’s leading university. It is precisely for this reason that we have continuously engaged in self-examination regarding our role as a comprehensive university—one that broadly encompasses a wide range of specialized academic disciplines.
Since incorporation in particular, both the substance of this fundamental question and the approaches to addressing it have grown more complex. In contemporary society, where various global challenges have emerged and responses to them are needed, what institutional vision and actions are necessary for us as a corporation to enable research and education that are autonomous, creative, and open to society? We at UTokyo have persistently questioned what we ought to be and have worked toward improvements and transformations to that end.
UTokyo Compass, which I announced in September 2021—six months after assuming the presidency—is one such initiative.
As the university proceeded with various efforts guided by UTokyo Compass as our basic policy, the Act on Strengthening Systems for Leveraging Research and Research Results of Universities for International Research Excellence was passed in May 2022, and the government launched the current program. Around the time discussions of the University Fund that underpins this program began to surface, we established a task force to survey and investigate this fund and related systems. We then built upon our discussions from the standpoint of how we might proactively utilize that government framework in developing “an autonomous and creative university model” as stated in UTokyo Compass.
Indeed, the opinions appended to the Advisory Board’s latest decision stated that our proposed basic framework deserved recognition as “an extremely ambitious reform concept.” At the same time, however, they stated that its feasibility must be confirmed. Since this is also a challenge we ourselves must address in realizing our reforms, I would like to take this opportunity to summarize our thinking on this matter.
The creation of the Global Research Integration (GRI) platform, which forms the core of our proposal, was conceived as an idea for a university model capable of autonomous growth. It represents an ambitious attempt to build an open and integrated foundation for research through the development, enhancement, and sharing of university-wide common infrastructure that generates the accumulation of knowledge. In the natural sciences, one might first envision the efficient and flexible shared use of experimental equipment—facilities whose installation and maintenance costs are enormous. In the humanities and social sciences as well, initiatives involving the application of cutting-edge technology are expanding in multiple directions: the advancement of library archival functions, the development of infrastructure to integrate expanding volumes of materials and data, and responses to the internationalization of scholarship. Of course, concretely envisioning possibilities for the advanced utilization of libraries and other facilities, and determining how to implement new technologies, are challenges that require pooling wisdom from many different fields.
Furthermore, through our discussions, it has become clear that the introduction of the research engineer as a new category of professional—specialists who will enable more advanced operation and utilization—is also essential for research innovation, beyond mere enhancement of facilities.
The Advisory Board has pointed out that “it is necessary to confirm whether these initiatives can actually operate based on a shared understanding across the entire university, and to verify the feasibility of the plan.” Here too, it will be important to respond while reaffirming our fundamental starting point. The GRI concept is not merely the introduction of a system to resolve financial challenges related to physical infrastructure. Rather, as was noted in last year’s roundtable meetings with department heads and in proposals from graduate school deans, it is rooted in the recognition that breaking away from outdated structures is necessary to enhance UTokyo’s international competitiveness in an era of rapid change.
Of course, the introduction of new systems and the establishment of organizations are not ends in themselves. What is at stake is how well new scholarship can be generated by creating an open environment of knowledge, technology, and people—thereby forming spaces where diverse disciplines interact.
The fundamental principle that must guide the establishment and development of GRI is not to unify the UTokyo community under a single perspective. Rather, it is to develop a mechanism that enables each individual to enjoy encounters with new knowledge and people and to engage proactively. Some might argue that rapidly evolving AI can be easily used to overcome traditional barriers, such as the conventional assumptions of the kōza (professor-centered) system and the obstacles created by organizational silos, including the administrative structures of divisions and departments, but I do not believe things will improve simply by continuing as before.
Moreover, we must avoid conflating the errors and biased judgments of AI that have frequently been noted with the genuine innovation we seek through reforms. We must remember that to overcome those limitations and employ AI effectively, human users must themselves possess agency and creativity. That is precisely why, quite apart from AI’s progress and convenience, the issue we will face is whether humanity can pursue scholarly exchange with vigor and generate entirely new forms of knowledge.
The mechanism to support such knowledge production constitutes the very core of GRI.
Regarding the establishment of the Academic Management Headquarters, resource allocation designed to promote university-wide renewal, and the construction of a new governance structure centered on the Provost (Chief Academic Officer) and CFO (Chief Financial Officer), what is truly important is that we move ahead while sharing a common understanding of why we are undertaking these reforms, what problems will be solved, and what new possibilities will emerge.
In particular, as I mentioned at the outset, UTokyo is a comprehensive university that encompasses an exceptionally diverse range of specialized fields and scholarly traditions. It is therefore clear that we cannot be governed by a single set of simple rules. We must properly incorporate what should be valued about each field’s characteristics and traditions, and share a carefully developed framework of common rules and procedures across the institution.
I would like us to recognize once again the importance of engaging in careful yet timely dialogue, on the premise that universities are not truly understood by society. In some respects, universities are evaluated on the basis of inaccuracies and unfounded assumptions. For example, the outdated image of academics as secluding themselves in the world of scholarship and refusing to engage with difficult real-world challenges has not yet been dispelled. If this is a misunderstanding, we must remove it; if it is a distortion, we must present what is correct—and thereby consciously change how the world perceives us.
Last October, the High-Level Event of the Science Summit Japan 2025 was held at UTokyo. It was hosted by the Human Frontier Science Program, which supports international and interdisciplinary research. Ten Nobel laureates gathered in Yasuda Auditorium together with other world-renowned researchers. What struck me was that many of the scientists voiced concern that they may not have been explaining the significance and necessity of science in accessible language to the general public.
We have not sufficiently conveyed to society the importance and appeal of the scholarship that universities produce. I suspect this may, in a roundabout way, be linked to the recent turmoil surrounding universities in the United States and to the current situation in which the academic community has not necessarily been able to contribute to solving global challenges.
There is one more point I must address: our response as a corporation to the compliance issues mentioned in the Advisory Board’s comments. This is a critical matter. The Universities for International Research Excellence program designates an “autonomous and responsible governance structure” as one of the three requirements for certification and authorization. We must take with utmost seriousness the fact that, in this round of feedback, the establishment of a governance system is being demanded, and a warning was issued that “if it is determined that a new incident of misconduct related to corporate governance has occurred, the review will be terminated.”
This is related to the series of misconduct incidents involving faculty members at UTokyo last year. I take very seriously my responsibility as President for the fact that our executive leadership was unable to respond promptly even as media reports emerged regarding alleged improper conduct by faculty members. As a result, we prompted serious doubts in society and undermined the public trust in our university—something for which I feel profound shame and regret. I take this opportunity to offer my most sincere apologies once again.
With that understanding, we now find ourselves in a situation in which no part of our institution can afford the slightest lapse in vigilance. It is crucial that the faculties, divisions, and executive leadership share the same sense of crisis and act in unison to gain public understanding.
We must not forget that, as university activities diversify and we engage with society in various ways, new risks that we previously could not have imagined will arise. We are now at a juncture where we must rigorously re-examine whether our processes are functioning adequately, by detecting early signs of compliance violations as an organization, verifying facts, investigating appropriateness and fairness, explaining circumstances, and preventing recurrence. From this perspective, we are working to build a risk governance framework structured around the three-lines-of-defense model. This is a system of checks and responses that is commonly adopted in private companies and international organizations. In our case, the three lines refer to a structured mechanism operating at three levels: first, the frontline of education, research, and administration within divisions; second, the headquarters-level departments and committees; and third, the President, Executive Vice Presidents, and other officers. Each level maintains independence while ensuring smooth information flow, enabling swift and flexible responses to incidents.
The stronger governance we aim for is not about tightening control or stifling creativity. Rather, it provides the foundation for fulfilling our accountability in a manner that earns society’s trust and for making our academic endeavors sustainable. This aligns with the recognition that, in an era of rapid change, we must break away from outdated structures. It is essential that each faculty and staff member engage with this challenge with a sense of personal commitment, and that we enhance our soundness as an institution while respecting the autonomy and expertise of each division.
I am determined this year to accelerate our reforms, to move beyond ideals into concrete action—like building a robust vessel capable of safely navigating the world through whatever rough seas may yet lie ahead.
Let us recognize this as a critical juncture and unite our efforts to move forward together. I ask for your continued support and cooperation in the year ahead.
January 6, 2026
Teruo FUJII, President
The University of Tokyo
