THEY CONTROL STUDENTS, DON'T THEY?

AIM ZAGREB, July 6, 1999

"There is no escalation of violence or prohibition of speech at the University. Everyone at the Faculty of Philosophy enjoys full freedom of expression", stated Mirko Gojmerac, Dean of the Faculty of Philosophy, explaining in an interesting way his reasons for prohibiting the panel on the escalation of violence in public and freedom of the media which the Sociology Students Club "Discrepancy" organized under the title "Who is Next"?

The panel was scheduled for June 17, in the premises of the Faculty of Philosophy and the invited speakers were Jagoda Vuksic - President of the Croatian Journalistic Association, Ivo Pukanic - editor-in-chief of the "Nacional", Vesna Terselic - winner of the alternative Nobel Prize for Peace and Damir Matkovic and Drago Pilsel - members of the Forum for the Freedom of Public Speech "Article 38". In his short notice informing the Faculty on the prohibition of the panel, the Dean Gojmerac stated that "the guests of the panel are not members of the academic community and the subject has no direct connection with the studies and academic subject-matter of the Faculty so that such a panel cannot be held". Students organizers of the panel reacted instantly assessing the prohibition as the Dean's insulting, undemocratic, authoritarian and arbitrary act and asked: what is academic subject-matter at a faculty at which social sciences and humanities are taught?

Kruno Kardov, Vice-President of the "Discrepancy" stated: "Sociology is not a science dealing with only the past, but with current social problems also so that students have to be interested in the Croatian reality of the moment". Nevertheless, in his statements to the media the Dean Gojmerac commented on the guests of this panel which was not meant to be held, as "people who pollute the information and general cultural environment more than the Bakar coke plant". Kardov thinks that such statements are below the standards of the Faculty and its students, let alone its Dean. He is appalled by the Dean's claim that the freedom of the press and freedom expression do not apply to his students since not one has been tapped or arrested, while the proof that the freedom of expression exists are the papers which are allowed to publish practically anything.

Reacting to Dean's ban and false accusations the "Discrepancy" and the Philosophical Faculty Students Club using an ad hoc printing press on the Faculty's staircase, organized a petition demanding the Dean's resignation and announcing a law suit against him. The petition organized under a slogan "If you were denied the freedom of speech yesterday, today you will be prohibited to think and already tomorrow they will place you out of law" is open for signature in the Faculty halls. Until now more than eight hundred students have signed it, which the organizers consider a success as the number of students at the Faculty is lower than usual since the academic year is over.

In addition, Ivica Petrinic, President of the Students' Club, says that it should be borne in mind that some students will not sign the petition in fear of the consequences such as problems they might have with the exams or police interrogations. It should also be added that the petition demanding Dean's resignation was also signed by a number of professors, assistants and faculty staff. However, it is a question what can be expected as a result of this request. Naturally, the Dean has no intention of meeting it. And students who have no formal power over the election and consequently removal of the Dean can only hope that the professors who are supporting them will not disregard the opinion of over 800 students at the next session of the Faculty Board.

For the time being, of all the professors at the Faculty of Philosophy only those from the Department of Sociology reacted to the Dean's prohibition by rejecting his explanation. Namely, the list of official subject matters of the studies of sociology includes Censorship and the Freedom of Speech, while guest at other panels organized at the Faculty were not from "the academic community" either. However, it is hardly likely that the students will secure support outside the Sociology Department as, in their opinion, "professors are no longer idealists, look only after themselves and agree to compromise with stupidity for the sake of conformism".

The Sociology Students' Club will not press the announced charges as it has no money to pay for the attorney. Also, a possibility of instituting constitutional proceeding was considered as in students' opinion the Dean has violated Article 38 of the Constitution of the Republic of Croatia which guarantees the freedom of thought and expression, speech and public address. While the most numerous association of the Philosophical Faculty students - the Students' Club - as well as Dalibor Prevendar - a member of the Presidency of the National Students Forum support the "Discrepancy", other students' associations have distanced themselves from the latest activities. Faculty branch-offices of the Croatian Academic Community, Croatian International Youth Association and the Croatian Students' Catholic Society "WE" have explained the distancing from their colleagues by the fact that "this disgraceful situation at the Faculty has persisted for years and has been exacerbated in the last few days".

However, the "rebels" do not care about such opinions since none of these organisations enjoy students' support nor have ever held any assembly nor admitted members at the Faculty of Philosophy and there is no written trace of their activities. "As far as I know, the Croatian Academic Community is actually the HDZ Youth Organisation. Probably someone in the HDZ told them 'colleague you will be our branch-office at the Faculty of Philosophy' comments Kruno Kardov, Vice-President of the "Discrepancy". On the other hand, the Dean Gojmerac received support from his colleagues at other Faculties. Namely, at the last session of the Senate of the Zagreb University held in this academic year, Gojmerac presented the case of "Discrepancy" pointing out that in banning the panel he was guided by his impression that it was all a provocation. He also added that from his discussion with students he realized that the "Discrepancy" and its journalists "wanted to intentionally politicize the panel in this pre-election period". As a proof of his democratic character the Dean of the largest institution of higher learning in Croatia said that the "petition is open for signature in the Faculty premises without any interference and that no one has suffered any consequences for that".

Uros Dujsin, Dean of the Faculty of Law, inquired whether this was a rebellion at the same Department at which Stipe Suvar was employed referring to the Dean's right to bring decisions in defence of the institution's authority (the question remains whether of University or the Dean himself?). The University President Branko Jeren, former Minister of Science and Technology, suggested the adoption of a document which would allow the holding of only those panels at the University which are in line with the "University's academic standards and activity". Still, one Dean disagreed: Hildegard Auf-Franic, Dean of the Faculty of Architecture, raised her voice against prohibitions asking who is competent to decide what is a political panel.

Finally, the panel "Who is Next?" organized by the "Discrepancy" was held on June 28, in one of the lecture-halls of the Faculty of Philosophy, but clandestinely and without much publicity or the press.

Only Jagoda Vuksic and Drago Pilsel delivered their speeches at the panel as other guests who had been invited to the first "undermined" panel were not available. Was the objective achieved in this way? Kruno Kardov thinks that the panel returned to its original idea - discussion with the sociology students who were informed of the panel verbally, by phone and by E-mail. What were the reasons for such conspiracy?

"We were not sure what the Dean would do. He could have called the police or told the janitors not to let anyone into the building", says Kardov. "The right wing sympathizers could have also come to the panel and provoke incidents. That would be to the detriment of both students and the Faculty. It is not good for the Philosophical Faculty to be famous only for its protests and therefore be called a "red Faculty". Same as students of other faculties we want to do something productive. Unfortunately, the situation is not conducive to that".

IVA KARABAIC