Page 145 - Šolsko polje, XXXI, 2020, 3-4: Convention on the Rights of the Child: Educational Opportunities and Social Justice, eds. Zdenko Kodelja and Urška Štremfel
P. 145
teršek ■ public universities in post-socialist states could become ‘un-academic’ ...
rules and criteria adopted by state bodies and commissions which show
disregard for the social role and professional value of teachers and profes-
sors (e.g. in terms of policy on salaries, rewards, employment and promo-
tion), the financing of educational institutions, the systematic legal regu-
lation of the basic segments of higher education (e.g. admission criteria)
and the consistent implementation of the constitutionally correct legal
regulation of the financing and operation of universities:8 with statutes,
not by implementing provisions in implementing regulations. The state
continues to represent its higher education policy with the slogan of nec-
essary austerity measures, albeit extremely unconvincingly (Teršek and
Žgur, 2010).9
Political technocracy and academic passivity
Most characteristics of the Slovenian university environment are an obvi-
ous, direct and forced result of the state’s legal policy, or better, an inap-
propriate policy. State authorities obviously and strongly intervene in the
constitutionally guaranteed autonomy of universities (Komljenovič, 2011,
pp. 18–19; Komljenovič, 2011a); from teachers’ salaries through to the con-
ditions for the state recognition of the legal validity of university diplomas
and their funding. The constitutional unacceptability of this situation is
clear. Also from the point of view of certain state requirements regarding
the criteria to be met if universities wish to establish, modify and imple-
ment their study programmes. Even just the title of a particular study sub-
ject in a concrete study plan!10
University autonomy is also prevented by state bodies and commis-
sions with regard to the content of university programmes. At the same
time, these agencies and commissions (like the state administration gen-
erally) act in an excessively formalistic, technocratic, rigid and irritating-
ly bureaucratic way, including the criteria for selecting individuals for
things, that for the autonomy of the university it must first achieve a high level of inter-
nal integration (pp. 119, 122). For a brief overview of the legal acts that protect the autono-
my of the university, see Avbelj (2019, 493, para. 3). Also see University Autonomy in Europe.
8 Also explained in decision of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Slovenia No.
U-I-22/94.
9 For a detailed comparative analysis of the problem of the (non)autonomy of universities,
see Estermann, Nokkala and Steinel (2011); Bennetot Pruvot and Estermann (2017).
10 The last personal administrative experience is nicely illustrated by the fact that my
colleagues and I, working at one faculty at a public university, waited 6 years for formal
approval by the state bureaucracy of the change of the title of the study subject. However,
the problem of autonomy is not only a problem of European universities. See Polsky (2005),
“calling for change, from small structural fixes aimed at dispelling faculty discontent to
broad administrative alterations that will allow faculty to have more decision-making
power”.
143
rules and criteria adopted by state bodies and commissions which show
disregard for the social role and professional value of teachers and profes-
sors (e.g. in terms of policy on salaries, rewards, employment and promo-
tion), the financing of educational institutions, the systematic legal regu-
lation of the basic segments of higher education (e.g. admission criteria)
and the consistent implementation of the constitutionally correct legal
regulation of the financing and operation of universities:8 with statutes,
not by implementing provisions in implementing regulations. The state
continues to represent its higher education policy with the slogan of nec-
essary austerity measures, albeit extremely unconvincingly (Teršek and
Žgur, 2010).9
Political technocracy and academic passivity
Most characteristics of the Slovenian university environment are an obvi-
ous, direct and forced result of the state’s legal policy, or better, an inap-
propriate policy. State authorities obviously and strongly intervene in the
constitutionally guaranteed autonomy of universities (Komljenovič, 2011,
pp. 18–19; Komljenovič, 2011a); from teachers’ salaries through to the con-
ditions for the state recognition of the legal validity of university diplomas
and their funding. The constitutional unacceptability of this situation is
clear. Also from the point of view of certain state requirements regarding
the criteria to be met if universities wish to establish, modify and imple-
ment their study programmes. Even just the title of a particular study sub-
ject in a concrete study plan!10
University autonomy is also prevented by state bodies and commis-
sions with regard to the content of university programmes. At the same
time, these agencies and commissions (like the state administration gen-
erally) act in an excessively formalistic, technocratic, rigid and irritating-
ly bureaucratic way, including the criteria for selecting individuals for
things, that for the autonomy of the university it must first achieve a high level of inter-
nal integration (pp. 119, 122). For a brief overview of the legal acts that protect the autono-
my of the university, see Avbelj (2019, 493, para. 3). Also see University Autonomy in Europe.
8 Also explained in decision of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Slovenia No.
U-I-22/94.
9 For a detailed comparative analysis of the problem of the (non)autonomy of universities,
see Estermann, Nokkala and Steinel (2011); Bennetot Pruvot and Estermann (2017).
10 The last personal administrative experience is nicely illustrated by the fact that my
colleagues and I, working at one faculty at a public university, waited 6 years for formal
approval by the state bureaucracy of the change of the title of the study subject. However,
the problem of autonomy is not only a problem of European universities. See Polsky (2005),
“calling for change, from small structural fixes aimed at dispelling faculty discontent to
broad administrative alterations that will allow faculty to have more decision-making
power”.
143
