Page 146 - 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. 146
šolsko polje, letnik xxxi, številka 3–4
research and educational titles.11 And the public universities show no real
resistance (Močnik, 2011). They have uncritically adopted the system of
unbearably formalised, intellectually uncritical and over-bureaucratic cri-
teria, which are also not balanced among different scientific disciplines
and have almost nothing to do with the actual substantive criteria for as-
sessing the qualification of persons for research work and teaching. Public
universities have easily accepted the aggressive neo-capitalist market log-
ic whereby an individual should be entitled to recognition of benefit to
the university or to a chair in a faculty or department of the faculty – not
whether they are a sovereign expert in a certain scientific field and a good
lecturer, but only – if “academic work can raise money – as a market prod-
uct that can be easily sold to customers”.12
The obvious reality seems striking: public universities do not want to
be autonomous in any of these areas.13 It almost seems as if they do not feel
responsible for autonomy. Or, even worse, as if they do not wish to take re-
sponsibility (Breznik, 2011).
The lack of responsibility may also be observed from an ethical and
legal point of view: uncontrolled and unsanctioned cases of bullying and
victimisation, plagiarism and other copyright violations, payment of re-
muneration for mentoring and commission memberships, spending pub-
lic money on legal defence in cases of personal misconduct, cases of the
obvious and serious loss of earnings, toleration of professors, those who
do not consistently meet their educational obligations, the recruitment of
students by allowing abbreviations in examinations and degrees, the es-
tablishment of programmes or even new faculties with the main aim of
employing certain persons or closely related groups of persons, and not for
the sake of compelling educational needs and purposes. The most diligent,
11 Former constitutional judge and judge of the ECtHR Prof. Dr. Boštjan M. Zupančič in
his dissenting opinions in Slovenian Constitutional Court decisions no. U-I-22/94 and
U-I-34/94 similarly points to a reasonable understanding of the autonomy of universities.
Also see Svetlik (1996, p. 120, fn. 1). Like Zupančič, Svetlik stresses that the university can-
not be ‘absolutely’ autonomous. He adds: “Too much autonomy can lead to the universi-
ty’s unresponsiveness to society, and too much responsibility can jeopardize its academic
ethos and thus the essence of its existence”. Such ‘absoluteness’ is not possible even with
the fact that the state is constitutionally obliged to finance the university as a constitu-
tional category. Of course, there is much room for manoeuvre between one extreme and
the other, possible and unrealistic aspirations for absolute autonomy and the problem of
insufficient autonomy. And this space is crucial. An ethical understanding of this space
and its legal framework are vital. See Teršek and Žgur (2010) and Lesjak (2011).
12 “We face enormous pressures of ‘instrumentalization’, turning the university into a
means for someone else’s end. These pressures come in two forms – commodification
and regulation” (Burawoy, n.d.), comp. Teixeira et al. (2004).
13 For a detailed analysis of the concept of “university autonomy”, see the full commentary
on Article 58 of the Slovenian Constitution in Avbelj (2019, pp. 492–500).
144
research and educational titles.11 And the public universities show no real
resistance (Močnik, 2011). They have uncritically adopted the system of
unbearably formalised, intellectually uncritical and over-bureaucratic cri-
teria, which are also not balanced among different scientific disciplines
and have almost nothing to do with the actual substantive criteria for as-
sessing the qualification of persons for research work and teaching. Public
universities have easily accepted the aggressive neo-capitalist market log-
ic whereby an individual should be entitled to recognition of benefit to
the university or to a chair in a faculty or department of the faculty – not
whether they are a sovereign expert in a certain scientific field and a good
lecturer, but only – if “academic work can raise money – as a market prod-
uct that can be easily sold to customers”.12
The obvious reality seems striking: public universities do not want to
be autonomous in any of these areas.13 It almost seems as if they do not feel
responsible for autonomy. Or, even worse, as if they do not wish to take re-
sponsibility (Breznik, 2011).
The lack of responsibility may also be observed from an ethical and
legal point of view: uncontrolled and unsanctioned cases of bullying and
victimisation, plagiarism and other copyright violations, payment of re-
muneration for mentoring and commission memberships, spending pub-
lic money on legal defence in cases of personal misconduct, cases of the
obvious and serious loss of earnings, toleration of professors, those who
do not consistently meet their educational obligations, the recruitment of
students by allowing abbreviations in examinations and degrees, the es-
tablishment of programmes or even new faculties with the main aim of
employing certain persons or closely related groups of persons, and not for
the sake of compelling educational needs and purposes. The most diligent,
11 Former constitutional judge and judge of the ECtHR Prof. Dr. Boštjan M. Zupančič in
his dissenting opinions in Slovenian Constitutional Court decisions no. U-I-22/94 and
U-I-34/94 similarly points to a reasonable understanding of the autonomy of universities.
Also see Svetlik (1996, p. 120, fn. 1). Like Zupančič, Svetlik stresses that the university can-
not be ‘absolutely’ autonomous. He adds: “Too much autonomy can lead to the universi-
ty’s unresponsiveness to society, and too much responsibility can jeopardize its academic
ethos and thus the essence of its existence”. Such ‘absoluteness’ is not possible even with
the fact that the state is constitutionally obliged to finance the university as a constitu-
tional category. Of course, there is much room for manoeuvre between one extreme and
the other, possible and unrealistic aspirations for absolute autonomy and the problem of
insufficient autonomy. And this space is crucial. An ethical understanding of this space
and its legal framework are vital. See Teršek and Žgur (2010) and Lesjak (2011).
12 “We face enormous pressures of ‘instrumentalization’, turning the university into a
means for someone else’s end. These pressures come in two forms – commodification
and regulation” (Burawoy, n.d.), comp. Teixeira et al. (2004).
13 For a detailed analysis of the concept of “university autonomy”, see the full commentary
on Article 58 of the Slovenian Constitution in Avbelj (2019, pp. 492–500).
144
