Does the state kill children?

The 8th Chamber of the Council of State unanimously stayed the execution of YÖK's decision of 17 December 2009 on applying different coefficients at university entrance. However, the fact that the Council of State took this decision unanimously unfortunately does not lead to a perception in society that lends the decision a sense of certainty or strength. On the contrary, its being able to take such a controversial decision, one so inconsistent with its own earlier decisions, only gives the feeling that the relevant chamber of the Council of State has been "closed off" by people of a certain mentality in a way that allows no "infiltration."

Only four years ago, in response to an objection against the coefficient practice, the Council of State gave a decision to the effect of "YÖK is the authority on this matter, don't ask me." Today, it first accepted the Istanbul Bar Association, which is entirely unrelated to the matter, as a party, then accepted the application of this meddlesome party, and ruled that it could limit YÖK's authority to regulate the coefficient at university entrance. That so inconsistent a decision, one that wounds the public conscience so deeply, could be taken unanimously clearly gives away the existence of a closed-circuit structure that allows cadre-building in the selection of the members of this high judiciary. It is thought-provoking that a judicial organ which gives its decisions in the name of the "Turkish nation" can remain so far from the feelings and values of the Turkish nation.

Chief of General Staff Gen. İlker Başbuğ has voiced his reaction to Fatih Altaylı and Murat Bardakçı against the phrase "an army that sees its own nation as the enemy" being usable in Turkey. Of course it is impossible to be aware of this outlook and not be disturbed; Başbuğ's discomfort is a reaction that can be recorded positively in his ledger. But there is no need to go all the way to a statement in a book published at Johns Hopkins as the source of this phrase or perception. If you look at it from the people's side even a little, you clearly see that all the policies applied in Turkey since 28 February are the product of an outlook that sees the people as its enemy.

To see this, there is no need to take inspiration from a sentence hidden in a book published in America. Is it possible not to see that the threat you named "irtica" gradually turned into a target of blanket assault that leaves out no devout person? Even if you close your eyes, you cannot ignore that there is an outlook in the MGSB that codes its own citizens as the enemy; there is not even a need for comment.

If you like, let us not go that far; it is enough to return to our subject. The coefficient practice of YÖK, a product of the 28 February period, was a practice that buried hundreds of thousands of this people's children, its young people, alive. Hundreds of thousands of young people were deprived, in a way that cannot be made good, of their right to education overnight by a decision that blackened their whole lives. Everyone knows that this decision had nothing to do with concern for raising the quality of education. The aim was in the end nothing other than creating a field of exclusion and deprivation covering millions of people who belong to this people.

Today's YÖK claims that the coefficient practice can only be regulated "for the purpose of guidance," in a way that may include elements of encouragement rather than deprivation, and that is indeed right. Yet the old coefficient practice had not the slightest relation with guidance or with a line providing continuity and support between the secondary and higher education stages. The aim was to ensure that graduates of vocational high schools and of certain high schools could in no way study at university, and for 11 years it succeeded in this. This success led to the complete atrophy of vocational high schools and the complete squandering of the country's resources. Frankly, it was a path that could only be resorted to in a war, with the idea of destroying forces or positions known as the enemy.

"Would the state kill children?" they ask, taking us for fools.

Let us skip what is being planned in submarines; that is a matter for the judiciary. But the coefficient decision that has been applied for 11 years is a practice that buried this country's children alive, blackened their lives, limited their dreams, blunted their hopes. A practice that makes one say: what enmity, what spite, what hatred is this...

Take the Council of State's decision and put it in front of you; will you be able to see the faintest trace of the slightest mercy, the slightest love, the slightest compassion, the slightest concern for a future on behalf of the children?

In the face of this sour-faced approach that decrees "it should be aimed at ensuring that the rights the state grants to individuals and lets them benefit from are used fully and as required," an approach that is not even aware of the understanding that individuals already possess these basic rights by birth, and that thinks it is the state that gives rights to individuals, can our children be considered safe?

Death and Condolences: Yesterday we began the day with the news of the death of Hamit Can, the valued man of letters and one of the editors of our newspaper. I pray that God have mercy on Can, and I offer my condolences to his family and all who loved him.