University discipline and its judiciary

You may have read in the news. Regarding 4 students of Selçuk University who were detained in the KCK operations and released to be tried without arrest, the university administration, without waiting for the outcome of the trial, completed its own disciplinary investigation and decided to expel them from the school.

We are following the incident; the oddity of the matter is obvious. Even if it had occurred at another university, it would not be something to remain indifferent to. However, in a comment made on a website about this incident, I came across a question (perhaps a demand for condemnation) addressed directly to me because of the university of which I am still a member.

Although I sensed in the tone of the question a kind of accusation (the accusation of remaining silent in the face of an injustice committed in one's own institution or, worse, of approving what was done), I was on the contrary pleased with this reference, as it conveyed the bar that democratic demands have reached in Turkey. It means we have come from the days when, apart from the rector and his deputies, no university teacher had any involvement, criticism or opposition regarding what went on at universities, to today.

A university where a university teacher can contribute to the university administration with opposition and ideas, where it is at least hoped that he can call a wrong a wrong and correct it.

Or have we not yet arrived there?

The expectation is very nice, but that we have arrived there is still undoubtedly debatable. Just look, even our new YÖK president, Prof. Gökhan Çetinsaya, complains about YÖK's present institutionalized form. The presidents and members of YÖK and the administrators of universities have changed. Undoubtedly this has changed a lot; for example, when such incidents occur at universities, they have become so rare that everyone is astonished, but still, it is certain that a systemic change not dependent only on the change of presidents and members is needed. Otherwise, with the changing of administrators again, we would start over, and such incidents, regarded as rarities today, would again turn into the routine of the university. Indeed, what led to the oddity in the incident in question is nothing other than the application as is of the student disciplinary regulation that is still actually in force.

That regulation, in Prof. Çetinsaya's very apt words, is entirely a remnant of fascistic periods and mentality. It redefines, in its own way, the mission of universities, entirely within a disciplinary logic, as raising students who are only obedient to the laws, glorious, honorable, dignified, secular, nationalist and Kemalist. Yesterday Beril Dedeoğlu shed light on different dimensions of this regulation in the Star Newspaper. This regulation has another essential dimension that is a total outrage in terms of legal logic. It is this: disciplinary action is carried out separately from judicial criminal proceedings. The resulting customary practice is this: being acquitted of a judicial penalty does not mean being acquitted of a disciplinary penalty as well.

A judicial criminal proceeding that happens to be started against you on any accusation immediately causes a disciplinary investigation to be started against you, because having been brought to court is a situation that can "never" be reconciled with student dignity. Especially when the investigation in question concerns "crimes committed against the state," the university disciplinary mentality, from the past on, without regard to any evidence or circumstance that could be assessed "in favor of the defendant," "just in case," immediately goes the way of giving the student the penalty at the highest level.

Judicial cases generally take a long time; gathering and evaluating the evidence, hearing the parties to the case and taking defenses can take years. But in this matter, school administrations are required to decide more urgently. From the moment the investigation begins, depending on the penalty requested, a decision must be made within two or six months, which can produce situations in which an incident that might end in acquittal in court ends, in the disciplinary investigation, with expulsion from school as the heaviest penalty.

Indeed, in the KCK case being conducted by the Adana specially authorized court, in the final opinion regarding one of the 4 students on trial, the prosecutor even asked for acquittal, but this student was expelled from school and needs a court decision in order to return. As a result of trials conducted by teachers without any legal training, without properly following any legal procedure, irreparable victimizations can occur.

In these days when the National Security courses are being abolished and the 19 May ceremonies are being rearranged, stepping back from fascistic practices, we hope this incident too can become an occasion for good. On this occasion this regulation, which represents the fascistic spirit of the 12 September period, can be abolished entirely.

Evidently, by joining the call of our valuable friend Asst. Prof. Dr. Vahap Coşkun of the Dicle University Faculty of Law, I now want to say "give back our students" for the students arrested in the KCK case through forced interpretations and connections. But do I need to remind you that in the face of this YÖK disciplinary regulation it is not only the students but also the teachers who are not very safe?