At the dialogue with the cabinet members involved in the working team for the Pact on the University, students, rectors, deans and lecturers, Prime Minister Edi Rama commented on several issues raised during the meeting:
Gentiana Kera, Vice Rector for Scientific Research at University of Tirana, commenting on the plagiarism verification: I think there is a problem, also because of the numerous Council of Ministers’ decisions approved by the cabinet. I see a problem regarding the universities’ involvement in drafting these decisions and I think that some of them will not only solve problems, but rather exacerbate them. I would provide an example regarding the Council of Ministers’ decision on verifying the doctoral dissertations. It is completely unclear to which period will be reviewed. The government decision fails to take into consideration the fact that the academic writing and research criteria have changed. A doctoral degree in the’80s has been awarded under other standards and criteria compared to more recent doctorates. I consider problematic the fact that the plagiarism verifying software will be in the hands of the Ministry of Education and I would like to ask whether the Ministry of Education really possesses the required capacities to verify this wave of doctorates awarded by both public and private universities. I would also like to ask whether the software programme operates in Albanian language and how we can address this problem. I know that a software program on Albanian texts is found on the Internet, yet we lack the information whether the program really works. I think the solution is that the verification, which is a mechanical control, the verification of plagiarism is carried out by the Council of Ethics at the universities, but the mechanical verification is something that can be easily done by the universities themselves should they be given access to such a program.
PM Edi Rama: I want to intervene briefly. The government has employed its entire capacities to listen carefully to the student demands. My question is: What about you, do you listen them? I am not asking you personally, but many of you who should clearly state what do you intend to do with the plagiarism. You can’t leave it like a ball in the students’ and government’s court and you can’t refuse to attend classes as a way to pressure students and the government to withdraw from making transparency over academic degrees.
In addition to the academic degree transparency, as the Minister of Education stated, the government is absolutely open to any contribution. However, the government is listening today what you should have had listened over all these years as the Higher Education Law charges you with all that the government is taking over today.
We are assuming responsibility first and foremost because these are our children and we can’t consider them as ping-pong balls, turning their issue into a public battle over competences. But the Higher Education Law stipulates that it is you the ones who should have made the academic degrees transparent. You have failed to do so.
You should say what do you want and tell students the truth. Do you want the transparency to be done or not?
It is not important how the verification of the academic degrees will be done. You can do it, if you want. We don’t want students to become like ping-pong balls and it is not our task what we are doing right now. It is your duty as stipulated by the Higher Education Law, which you contest unfairly. Why?
Because you want the law to grant you freedom, but not to assume responsibility. The Higher Education Law grants you freedom, but also makes you responsible. You just need to assume your responsibilities.
We know what students are asking for and we will meet each of their demands. But we don’t understand what do you want. Indeed, I understand what do you want, but I don’t intend to reveal it yet. Don’t wait for the day I join students and gather in front of you and tell students what you don’t really want. If I am wrong about this, it would be much better. Will this history of PhD holders, who have nothing to do with the science, will ever end or not? It is you and not us the ones who should tell students whether the verification process of the doctorates should include the degrees awarded in 1955, or in 1965-së, in 1985 or in 1995, in 2005 or in 2015. This is not our problem.
You know quite well what I am talking about and you know very well what is going on today. The problem is not that small group of students who continue their class’ boycott, but the university professors who fail to deliver their lectures. Even a single student has the right to be taught.
I want to emphasize today that I absolutely welcome every request and critics. However, we should clearly determine “who does what” once and for all. Students did their job and they raised their voice. We heard it. I don’t know whether the universities have heard it yet. I don’t want to speak up. I will do so should this multifaceted show doesn’t end. It should end as soon as possible and we sit to address all issues. We are ready to do as much as we can and even go beyond our capacities, but we can’t assume duties that should be carried out by the universities according to the Higher Education Law. This should be clear to all.
Our initiative to task every ministry with patronizing every faculty was a result of our readiness to listen carefully to students’ plight. My question is: “Who has prevented universities over the years to address the government and ministries, asking them to join a process to generate revenues?” We didn’t discover it today. Since the very first day, we have clearly stated that we want the university to enter the market. It is easy to talk about fees and budgets, but we need to talk about universities that generate revenues too. Universities all over the world develop sources of additional revenue. While the university revenues here are generated by parents who pay for their children and the state budget. Universities here generate no other revenue.
We want to develop such opportunities and we won’t stop from doing so. But it is you who should say what should happen with plagiarism. Neither government, nor students can be hostage at this point. You won’t never succeed to take the government hostage by exerting pressure, or by doing as if you understand.
We only know this; we want this process to happen. But how it will happen, it does not matter. It doesn’t matter neither what the Council of Ministers’ stipulates, nor what the document says. Basically, do we want to or do not want to happen? If yes, I like you all to forward your proposals and we absolutely agree that you conduct the whole process. The government should not carry out an academic vetting. You should do that. You should have already done it according to the Higher Education Law. But you haven’t. So we do not want controversy and we do not want any problems. We just want to look each other in the eye and talk directly. Not to look in the eye and think about other things and do other things. We should do what we say, and what we do let’s say it. Otherwise, this story won’t last.
We are totally committed and I have already told all those I have communicated with that I won’t give up this protest even I remain alone. You should understand this. I am ready to assume any responsibility, even for the snowfall, but no one can fool me.
Student: Nothing is certain, because we are in the third year, and we still don’t know what to expect for. We can keep on protesting, but what then? How we will end up?
PM Edi Rama: When students your own age took the streets to overthrow the communist regime together with professors and citizens, they made a clear choice; nothing is certain, but we will be fighting all together to make sure that the future is more certain. Nothing is certain in the system we have chosen as there is fierce competition, there is merit and thousands of battles we should fight every day.
We have chosen to live in democracy. We have opted for a free-choice system with everyone being free to make their own choices and they clash as they have to compete with each other on this path. This is a question we have answered back in the 1990s. The time when everything was taken for granted and the future was certain as the party planned and decided where you will be appointed to work upon university graduation is now over.
Second, we have chosen a system with the government presumably not knowing everything. We chose this system back in the’90s. Until the ’90s we lived in a system with the government in office knowing everything and answering about everything. Which means that people had no questions at all since they were meat with ready-made answers.
The system we have picked is that of questions and not ready-made answers. That’s why you are equally an important individual just like I am in this system. This is the system we have chosen. The theory “what would happen should these things didn’t happen in first place?” will go on. The battle will go on. Your individual battle, the community battle and the entire society battle will go on. And we will certainly not agree on everything.
I am very surprised at the many questions I am asked as they are the result of the lack of many aspects of education, not in the university, but from the very first grade. What comes around today is what has gone around for 27 years. What we are doing today is to make sure that a better product is borne in the future. The same goes for the Higher Education Law. It is designed for the future and not to restore that “certainty” of the past.
We will come to every university. The Minister of Education will also meet those who are currently boycotting their classes, because she has a CV as protester. We will be visiting every faculty and the Pact for the University is a document that is open to any contribution. I want to invite every student, university professor, rectors and deans to completely alter this document. Feel free to add or omit whatever they want from the document to eventually produce a pact of commitments and not an electoral programme. A pact of commitments to university as a whole and each faculty in particular.
We want to strengthen the university autonomy. We don’t want to take over the university. We want to strengthen the university according to the Higher Education Law. This is the truth.
This time it was us to take the full brunt, but it won’t happen again. I believe we want allow for same situation happen again. But we should cooperate and work together. Therefore, dialogue is the most important thing.
A student told us about her family living on a modest income in retirement and she is right. How this family will be included in this group should this girl is not provided the opportunity to listen and raise her voice. If this whole social category is not given the opportunity to speak up, it won’t be possible for them to make their voice be heard. But what are you waiting for if you chose to confine yourself?
All these demands will be met one by one. We will meet them because they are just demands, and not because you are pressing us through forms of protest. All these demands are right and we are obliged to meet them. Therefore, further discussions are needed.
The very important thing is that the Pact will be made available to everyone and everyone will consider it an open document. We haven’t said the last word, because we do not think we know everything, we do not think that we are the party in power.
We think that everybody should make a contribution and the sum of all these contributions will lead us to a pact of commitments, which will also define what the students will do, because you should not only ask what the professors, deans and rectors and what the government will do. We will assume our share of responsibility. Each of us will assume our share.
This Pact should be seen as a breaking down of the Higher Education Law. The Pact will address every aspect that is not included on the law.
Mr. Prime Minister said that based on the Higher Education Law, the verification of the academic degrees should have had finished by now. I don’t know who is to blame or held accountable for this, the professors or the government? Let’s take an example. If a criminal commits a crime, who should arrest him? The police, certainly. The police should not wait for the criminal to give himself in. Neither the professors will appear in front of us and admit that his doctoral thesis is plagiarism.
PM Edi Rama: Ignorance is not an excuse, the Latins say. It should be better for you to inform first on such issues and then talk about them. The government is not the university’s police. Never ever! The Higher Education Law sanctions this. Even the police can’t enter the university premises unless their presence is called for major reasons. The government is not the police to guard and detect plagiarism in the academic degrees of university professors and can never do it. If government is involved in this process, then a government can do it fairly, another can do it politically and start a witch hunt that never ends. This is a university issue all over the world. This is something that will take place for the first time and has its own difficulty, but that should be done by the university. We need to discuss the way how this will be implemented by the university so that the mechanism is safe and transparent.
The student demands include two main issues; cost in relation to quality of education and the professional capacity of the university professors.
We can’t allow for the real university professors to become the intended target. On the other hand, the unreal university professors should change their profession.
It is not us who should do this, but the university must, based on an agreed mechanism. Let’s not waste time by arguing who is to be blamed. I believe this debate is now over as we have taken whole responsibility.
I said at the very beginning of this meeting. We wouldn’t have taken the responsibility for something we are not tasked with. But we did so because students are our children.
The government will take over all responsibilities. If you think that what the Pact contains is not sufficient, you may reject it, calling on the government to assume more responsibilities. But what is the responsibility the university will take over? What is the responsibility the students will assume? This should be defined clearly. This is the greatest value the protest has yielded.
