The rectors' 28 February nostalgia

The Inter-University Council (ÜAK) and the Doğan Media have joined hands, attempting to prove what kind of chaos would erupt if the headscarf were to be freed. Yet all the images they can put forward as evidence of chaos reflect nothing other than their own intolerance and sourness.

Not the slightest sign that could be interpreted as chaos was observed over the past week in universities that freed the headscarf by complying with the constitutional amendment and the circular issued accordingly by YÖK (Council of Higher Education). However, there was indeed an appearance of chaos in universities that stubbornly insisted on applying the ban, refusing to consider even the constitutional amendment sufficient. Because the chaos is created directly by the university rectors, administrators, and the aggressive attitudes of the students they incite.

It is certain that the declaration read by the ÜAK members after their meeting at METU—having commemorated the 11th anniversary of February 28 almost like a nostalgic memorial gathering—as well as their manner of reading it, has already entered the scientific and university history of this country as an exemplary page.

Throughout their history, and nowhere else in the world, have universities ever spearheaded a rhetoric demanding the restriction of freedoms and the closure of universities to a certain segment of society. On the contrary, universities everywhere in the world have always distinguished themselves through demands for freedom. Unfortunately, this picture emerging on the 11th anniversary of February 28 does not possess merely an 11-year history in Turkey. Universities stepped onto the stage with the exact same role prior to May 27, 1960, 1969, March 12, and September 12. Every time, without fail, universities have been the authors of immoral invitations and proposals summoning military tutelage regimes against democratic political power. During these proposals and invitations, the rhetoric of scientific freedom was also ruthlessly exploited.

We have stated it many times before, and let us state it once more today. All the rectors organizing this meeting today and defending prohibitionism with an utterly fanatic anger are the products of an extremely meticulous staffing process implemented by the previous Presidency and YÖK administration. Their approach to secularism or the headscarf is not based on any philosophical or human evaluation; on the contrary, it stems simply from feelings of hatred and hostility toward the headscarf and all the values it represents.

If you searched across any cross-section of society, you would truly find it very difficult to bring together so many people possessing these traits. Yet it is a sad but blatant reality that so many people with these "hard to find" traits have come together within university administrations.

Where were these people raised? How could a cadre so in conflict with its own people's values, a faculty body so selective, discriminatory, and full of hatred toward its own students, come together without a single different type infiltrating among them?

This is truly a very grave situation. Because, let us speak plainly, this demonstrates that Turkey's higher education has been systematically handed over to a cadre that views the values of its own people with hatred.

The fact that some rectors consider the current constitutional amendment insufficient and stipulate that Article 17 must also be amended for it to be applicable demonstrates something beyond their stubborn and futile resistance. It shows that they have read neither the constitutional amendment nor Article 17, and are unaware of their contents.

In the current situation, the content of Article 17 already stipulates that "All kinds of dress and attire are free in higher education institutions unless contrary to laws." That is to say, in its current state, Article 17 actually does not permit banning even the chador in universities; it allows treating the obstruction of someone coming to school in a chador as a "crime restricting the freedom of education."

In other words, Article 17 is still in effect and valid in this state. There is no legal loophole at present. As long as Article 17 is not rewritten to introduce restrictive principles, as of right now, there is no legal basis whatsoever for maintaining a prohibitionist attitude in universities.

However, even if the supports relied upon by these highly provoked ÜAK members—who recognize neither the people, nor the President, nor their supervisory authorities, nor the Constitution, nor reason—were to rush to their aid after this hour, how will those supports keep them standing against all these foundations they have knocked down? I am genuinely curious.