The guaranteed deadline for the final decision on Finance Minister Sinisa Malog's doctorate was November 4. However, right before its expiration, it was postponed to November 22 due to, as stated, an oversight that there is also a 15-day deadline for appeals. The students who blocked the Rectorate building in September asked the professors who supported them during the blockade to declare whether it was a really necessary extension of the deadline or a deliberate delay.
In the response of the professors who signed up as initiators of the "105 out of 5 million" Initiative of the Faculty of Philosophy in Belgrade, among other things, it is written: administrative procedure, which is why we are obliged to wait for the expiration of the fifteen-day appeal period. The oversight occurred, we are sure, not through the rector's fault. The reasons for the oversight are difficult to identify at this time, but whatever they are, they are worrying."
Everything was preceded by a new report of the Ethics Commission of FON, in which it is written that the commission did not have enough facts on the basis of which it could come to an unequivocal opinion on Sinisa Malog's doctorate and suggested that he be given a public reprimand. Although the Educational and Scientific Council of the FON adopted such a report, it still made a decision to impose a higher degree of punishment - public condemnation.
Not knowing yet what November 4th will look like, in a conversation with Dr. Biljana Stojkoviฤ, professor of the Faculty of Biology, we try to unravel the tangle of incredible deviations from all the rules, evasion of responsibility and running away from the truth in which important academic institutions, but also individuals, have become wrapped up. . Professor Stojkoviฤ is also an activist in the field of human rights, so she recently participated in organizing a protest in front of the Central Prison for the release of whistleblower Aleksandar Obradoviฤ as part of the Serbian Women's Initiative. In September, she actively supported students during the blockade of the Rectorate, spending a lot of time with them then, as she is now in new circumstances โ a professor, but from the student ranks.
"WEATHER": Decision Continued scientific council of FON and to publicly condemn Siniลกa Mali is assessed in two ways. For some, it is a cowardly act, and for others a brave step forward. What was essentially achieved by that decision?
BILJANA STOJKOVIฤ: Actually, quite a bit. It would have been much better if the whole thing had ended in July after the first FON report, that is, if the Ethics Committee of the university had made a decision then and not returned everything to the faculty. The main problem is that the Ethics Committee of the university has not yet received an answer to the question it posed to FON, namely: is Sinisa Mali's doctorate plagiarized or is it not plagiarized? FON's hoax consists in giving Sinisa Malom the opportunity to say that FON did not say that it was plagiarism, because the faculty did not even make a statement on the matter. And the dean insisted on exactly that, so that FON does not take an unequivocal position that it is plagiarism. But that decision on public condemnation showed that the FON did move and that raised the mood a little at the entire university. However, the prank is now reduced to the fact that the rector will be forced to cancel her guarantee to the students after the blockade of the Rectorate. Don't forget that she assured the students that on November 4th, the University's Ethics Committee will make a final decision.
FON Council and it is now, as in the first instance, adopted the reports of the Faculty's Professional and Ethical Commission. And despite the proposal for the public condemnation of Sinisa Malog, the adoption of those reports seems most controversial.
The procedure dictates that when a subject such as Sinisa Malog's PhD comes up, it first goes to the Faculty's Ethics Committee, which then forms an Expert Committee, with the task of studying the work and saying whether it is plagiarism, self-plagiarism and what is actually being done. The FON has been working on this case for the past two years, where the first problem arose because the Ethics Commission was disintegrating and some members who did not want to participate in it were leaving, and then problems arose in the formation of the Expert Commission itself. In the end, the Expert Commission consisted of one professor from Slovenia, one from Croatia, one from BiH and one from a certain Belgrade Banking Academy. When you look up the members of that committee in internet databases to assess their scientific value, you see how insignificant they are. They missed the doctorate through the software and assessed that, apart from some minor omissions in citations, everything was excellent and that the work was good. The Ethics Commission accepted that report, and in July the FON Council accepted the report of both the Expert and Ethics Commissions. On that first occasion, there were only 20 members of the FON council, out of probably over 100, who were reluctant to accept such a wonderful report that Sinisa Malog's doctorate is excellent, scientifically well-founded, even scientifically innovative. With such a conclusion, according to the procedure, they submitted the case to the Ethics Committee of the university.
Then there were complaints from the professors behind the fact that the doctorate was plagiarized.
Professors Duลกan Teodoroviฤ and Vesna Rakiฤ-Vodineliฤ, based on all the findings of Professor Raลกa Karapandลพa, who devoted himself very seriously to the analysis of that doctorate, submit a complaint signed by several hundred of us professors. Then the Ethics Committee of the university meets, and not wanting to solve the problem that was under their authority, it cowardly returns it to the FON, that is, its Ethics Commission for re-decision, with certain questions. And the main question is for the Professional, Ethics Commission and the Teaching and Research Council to declare: whether it is plagiarism or not. The deadline for FON to declare again was 60 days, but at one point the Rectorate extended the deadline until October 26 with the explanation that they were on vacation.
In the meantime, students who were very annoyed by such moves, first by FON, and later by the Ethics Committee, which extended the deadline, blocked the Rectorate building. And that was not an accident, they went to meetings with the rector even before that, but they did not reach any agreement.
How are you today?, especially considering the new circumstances, It seems that the blockade of the Rectorate?
The entrance to the Rectorate and its "occupation" was a very important event. It was achieved, first, that the rector came out publicly with the condemnation of the SNS activists' intrusion on the first day of the blockade, and then with the guarantee that the final decision on plagiarism will be made on November 4.
The massive support of students was absent at that time. What an important factor it is?
It seems to me that the number itself has ceased to be important, but the way in which one performs is more important. The students were very united, they met every night and agreed on what to do next, they received threats, they received information that there would be an invasion, they were really scared, but I would say that the more scared they were, the more determined they were. . I spent a lot of time with them then and saw a healthy dynamic in all of that.
Other university professors thought the same?
Not all of them. It is true that many professors discouraged them a bit by demanding that they give in so that the whole thing could end "peacefully". However, they did not agree to it, and if they had agreed, the rector would not have publicly condemned the entry of SNS into the Rectorate, nor would she have given specific deadlines for the final resolution of the situation. She was the one who gave the students a deadline of November 4, and it seemed fine to them, they agreed. The biggest thing about that whole event was actually that the Rector's Office took the side of the University, the side of the students.
When Sinisa Malog's doctorate was previously awarded as "hot potato" thrown into the hands of FON again a, whether it was really thought that a fundamentally different opinion would be obtained on the second occasion?
In fact, everyone thought that FON would look to miss that deadline. And as the deadline approached, so it seemed. The dean of FON avoided putting it at all at the council meeting. According to some information I have, he avoided doing it, even though according to the procedure he had to, because he understood that the atmosphere at the FON itself had changed, which was certainly contributed to by the blockade of the Rectorate, but also by the fact that the whole story about plagiarism came up in public. Even, wanting to bypass the procedure, he wrote to the Rectorate and wanted to send only a new report of the Ethics Commission, but it was rightfully rejected.
Then information appeared that the dean, two or three days before convening the Council, invited the regular professors and heads of FON departments to a meeting so that they could decide on the matter, which was again outside the procedure. They met, but nothing happened even then. And only then did the dean schedule the council session for Monday, October 28. So, after the set deadline.
What did you mean when you said the dean was in charge "perfidious game"?
It seemed as if in a couple of days someone very skilled advised the dean that the Teaching and Research Council should still issue a warning and that it was, in fact, a small item. As long as it doesn't turn out to be anything at all, because there is obviously some transgression. It is even quite possible that they took into account the fact that the Chamber would increase the "punishment" for public condemnation. There were indeed brave people on the Council who were silent before and now spoke because, as far as I understand, the atmosphere at that faculty is like that. There is a rigid, centralized hierarchy headed by a dean, which is not in the spirit of the faculty or university, but that's how it seems there. But some have now strengthened themselves, the session lasted for four hours and what was a success from the perspective of those people, and at some point from the perspective of the public itself, is the fact that they managed to vote a public condemnation. But what the dean did not allow was to vote on whether or not that doctorate was plagiarized. The FON avoided voting on the basis of Article 22 of the Rulebook on determining non-academic behavior in the preparation of written works, which determines whether something is plagiarism. At the Council of FON, as I heard, there were people who asked to vote based on this article, but the dean simply did not allow them to do so.
Does the dean have the right to be above the Regulations?
As we can see, here it depends on the collective and on the dean.
When it comes to important institutions such as the faculty, we believe that bureaucratic rules play a crucial role, not hierarchical, human factor.
At some faculties, this is exactly what would happen. It really depends on what the collective is like and how the authority is structured at the faculty itself. Some faculties function exactly like this, and that, look at the miracles, are precisely the faculties that are very close to the authorities, whose management structures are close to the authorities, faculties that are full of money, and one of the ways of acquiring it is closeness to the authorities that approve various projects and privileges. In such situations, the management structures, most often the dean, behave exactly like this, authoritarian. They don't allow communication, they don't allow the expression of free opinion on teaching-scientific councils, which again has to do with the new Law on the University from 2017, which gives the dean great powers. And not only to the dean, but also to the minister, administrative boards, faculty councils, which now mostly consist of government representatives. In that wave of changing the governance structure at the university, the freedom of expression also changed a lot.
Also, as one of the basic problems, the fact that faculties are commercialized, that everything revolves around money, in which the basic ethical standards and ideas about the role of the university, what is the role of every university teacher, assistant, what is the role are lost students. All of that was lost in the context that the college and university should make money. That's why today small faculties, which don't have much money, have remained as some pockets of freedom, and I include my own, the Faculty of Biology. It is unimaginable to me that things like this can happen at our teaching-scientific council. Finally, we were the first at the university, as soon as the Rulebook was passed, to have a similar decision, because the university pretended to be dead on the matter, and it was about the self-plagiarism of a female professor who self-plagiarized 19 of her works. So, if there is even healthy communication in the collective, and in the end there are arguments, then what is principled and good still emerges.
The extension of the deadline for making the final decision on Malog's doctorate caused a new uproar. Who provoked her now?? Rectorate?
The first thing that was extremely unusual was why no one in the Rectorate's legal department understood that Siniลกa Mali would certainly have the right to appeal within 15 days. No one is saying that it was intentional, but it is simply an oversight that should not have happened. The establishment of trust between the students and the rector, which was eventually achieved, was shaken by this. The students said that if there is no decision on November 4, they will block the Rectorate again, and this is a situation in which their promise is also called into question. All this is quite problematic. At first glance, it seems irrelevant to many and they say that it doesn't matter what the date is, but these young people are still serious. Many university professors now think that students should be patient, and I might agree. With the fact that during their entire blockade I tried to understand their position and, finally, because I think that they are the ones who are brave and who started everything, not us "old people".
Are you familiar with how students will react now?
After the students' negotiations with the Rector's Office, which have been going on all this week, they will ask the Rector to publicly apologize for the mistake that was made and to publicly ask the students to take this mistake into account, in order to take a step towards preserving the unity of the university. They will request that the Ethics Committee of the University meet on November 4 and that it be a consultative meeting where they will consider what has arrived from the FON, although they are aware that no final decision can be made. They will also request that Professor Danijel Sinani, Professor Slobodan Prvanoviฤ, who resigned from the Ethics Committee after the first return of the case to FON, one student and myself attend that meeting as observers, so without participation. That meeting will probably be held, the only thing we don't know is whether it will be open to the public, that is, to us, because that is up to the decision of the Ethics Committee itself.
(The meeting on November 4, as decided by the Board, was not open to the public, so professors-observers could not attend it - ed.)
Do you know any of the professors who, opposite you, claims that Malog's doctorate is not plagiarism?
I don't know anyone who will say it's not plagiarism. It is a verifiable document.
The rest is, therefore, let's see if the Ethics Committee of the university will say it out loud, even though we are talking about the Minister of Finance, and recently the president of the Coordinating Body for the Prevention of Money Laundering.
What ironies... There has never been such a social collapse and destruction of everything that is valuable in a society. This moment in which the university is directly called out is actually phenomenal and it is our test, to see if we have drowned in this chaos that they have created for us, in the social madness, in the relativization of everything, knowledge, the university, whether we agree to it or we do not agree. It seems to me that everyone at the university is aware of this and that there is a minority, or I want to believe that it is a minority, who profit from all this, make money, who have joined various committees, state nurseries and some other forms that are not education and science. What I still cannot understand is the fear that exists. Maybe it's not even fear so much as apprehension about some small benefit they can expect. "I don't know if I will be recorded in the ministry, so when I apply for the project, will my name be automatically rejected." Which, of course, can happen. It can happen to me too, I'm very ready for it, but I don't know how else to act but exactly like this. And now we will see if someone will tighten the loop, whether the majority will tighten the loop.
Do you believe that the University's Ethics Committee will tighten the loop?
I want to believe it, but I'm not entirely sure.
Why?
Because of the first procedure when they returned everything to FON. In my opinion, it was really a very problematic procedure.
So, there is a certain amount of certainty despite the petition signed by 800 professors, despite all the evidence and complaints, that the Ethics Committee of the university makes a decision that it is not plagiarism?
I think it would have been much more certain if the Rectorate had not been blocked.
What would be the eventual consequences that the university would suffer if the board's decision was that Malog's doctorate was plagiarized?
Rather, I would say this: if it is not declared that Mali's doctorate is plagiarism, the consequences will be much more severe. Then we really admitted that education is not important and that the absence of a profession from any work that is done here is perfectly fine. Then we stepped on ourselves. We said it ourselves, we are useless, it doesn't even matter if there is a university or not. That would be a death sentence for ourselves.
And if it is declared to be plagiarism, it means that the university has made it clear that the political elite cannot just play with it. It is possible that there would be financial consequences, because we are, after all, a budgetary institution. With the fact that SNS thinks that if the money for the university comes from the budget, then they, as the ruling party, own us, that's their logic. I think that they do not understand at all what university autonomy means, that they do not fundamentally understand social organizations. They do not understand why the university in every democratic state is autonomous and why it must have autonomy. Even in Zimbabwe they managed to declare the doctorate of the president's wife as plagiarism, they were autonomous enough to do that. So, apart from the potential financial consequences, in the event of a declaration of plagiarism, everything else will be a benefit to the university.
If we go by that logic "penalties" i "rewards" what then can FON expect from the authorities?
We heard they are getting a new building. It is about millions of euros that will be invested there.
