Author: MASS

Mreža akademske solidarnosti i angažovanosti (MASA) ukazuje na ozbiljan problem u kome se, usvajanjem Zakona o nauci i istraživanjima našao izvestan broj istraživača -pripravnika.

Na osnovu člana 76, stav 3, Zakona o nauci i istraživanjima, u zvanja istraživač – pripravnik i istraživač – saradnik mogu biti birani samo kandidati koji su i osnovne i master studije završili s minimalnom prosečnom ocenom 8,00. Na osnovu člana 70 prethodno važećeg Zakona o naučnoistraživačkoj delatnosti, u ova dva istraživačka zvanja su mogli da budu birani kandidati čija je ukupna prosečna ocena na osnovnim i master studijama bila najmanje 8,00.

Promenom zakona, nekoliko desetina regularno zaposlenih istraživača – pripravnika je izgubilo zakonsku mogućnost da napreduje u zvanje istraživač – saradnik bez obzira na položene ispite s doktorskih studija, prijavljenu temu disertacije i objavljene radove. MASA apeluje na Ministarstvo prosvete, nauke i tehnološkog razvoja da promenom prelaznih odredbi novog Zakona omogući nesmetano napredovanje ovoj ugroženoj grupi mladih istraživača.

Mreža akademske solidarnosti i angažovanosti (MASA) smatra da sledeće odredbe Pravilnika o sticanju istraživačkih zvanja („Službeni glasnik RS“, broj 159 od 30. decembra 2020.)

Član 16, stav 3:
Prilikom odlučivanja za izbor u istraživačka zvanja članovi naučnog odnosno nastavno-naučnog veća naučnoistraživačke organizacije dužni su da se o predlogu odnosno zahtevu za izbor u zvanje izjasne glasanjem „ZA” ili „PROTIV”. U slučaju da se član naučnog odnosno nastavno-naučnog veća izjasni „PROTIV” dužan je da dostavi potpisano pismeno obrazloženje neprihvatanja predloga odnosno zahteva, koje je sastavni deo zapisnika sednice.

Član 22, stav 4:
Prilikom odlučivanja za izbor odnosno reizbor u naučna zvanja članovi naučnog odnosno nastavno-naučnog veća naučnoistraživačke organizacije dužni su da se o predlogu za izbor u zvanje izjasne glasanjem „ZA” ili „PROTIV”. U slučaju da se član naučnog odnosno nastavno-naučnog veća izjasni „PROTIV”, dužan je da dostavi potpisano pismeno obrazloženje neprihvatanja predloga, koje je sastavni deo zapisnika sednice.

nisu u skladu sa Ustavom garantovanim pravom na slobodu misli i savesti (član 43, stav 2 Ustava) i slobodu mišljenja (član 46, stav 1 Ustava).

Obrazloženje:

Da bi procedura prilikom izbora u istraživačka zvanja i izbora tj. reizbora u naučna zvanja bila u potpunosti u skladu sa Ustavom, dobrom praksom i uobičajenim načinima glasanja neophodno je uvesti i mogućnost da neko bude uzdržan od glasanja. Ovo je potrebno ne samo zbog ostvarivanja prava na zadržavanje stava za sebe već i zbog mogućeg konflikta interesa članova naučnog veća koji odlučuju o izboru nekog kandidata kao i u slučajevima kada se ne može zauzeti izričito stav „za“ ili „protiv“.
Uvedena obaveza pojedinačnog pismenog obrazloženja negativnog glasanja je apsolutno suprotna pravu i slobodi izražavanja mišljenja i stava. Član koji se ne slaže s odlukom naučnog veća ima pravo da izdvoji svoje mišljenje u zapisniku sa sednice na kojoj je odluka doneta. Razumevajući potrebu da se neprihvatanje predloga o izboru u zvanje obrazloži i tako spreči orkestrirano glasanje, MASA predlaže da u slučaju većinskog glasanja protiv, zapisnik sa sednice mora da sadrži razloge odbacivanja predloga odluke.

Stoga predlažemo:

Član 16, stav 3:
Prilikom odlučivanja za izbor u istraživačka zvanja članovi naučnog odnosno nastavno-naučnog veća naučnoistraživačke organizacije dužni su da se o predlogu odnosno zahtevu za izbor u zvanje izjasne glasanjem „ZA”, „UZDRŽAN“ ili „PROTIV”. U slučaju da se većina članova naučnog odnosno nastavno-naučnog veća izjasni „PROTIV”, predsedavajući sednice je dužan da obezbedi da se u zapisniku sednice nađe obrazloženje neprihvatanja predloga.

Član 22, stav 4:

Prilikom odlučivanja za izbor odnosno reizbor u naučna zvanja članovi naučnog odnosno nastavno-naučnog veća naučnoistraživačke organizacije dužni su da se o predlogu za izbor u zvanje izjasne glasanjem „ZA”, „UZDRŽAN“ ili „PROTIV”. U slučaju da se većinom glasova članova naučnog odnosno nastavno-naučnog veća odbije predlog koji je sačinila Komisija, predsedavajući sednice je dužan da obezbedi da se u zapisniku sednice nađe obrazloženje neprihvatanja predloga.

MASA smatra da bi primena ovakvog Pravilnika, za koji postoji opravdana bojazan da bi u praksi vrlo brzo doveo do toga da se za sve predloge za izbore u istraživačka zvanja glasa isključivo „za“, mogla da dovede do urušavanja kvaliteta procedure za izbor u istraživačka zvanja i posledično na pad kvaliteta naučnoistraživačkog rada u R. Srbiji. Stoga molimo Ministarstvo prosvete, nauke i tehnološkog razvoja da se, izmenom ovog Pravilnika, po hitnom postupku omogući istraživačima ustavom garantovano pravo da budu i uzdržani prilikom glasanja za izbor u istraživačka zvanja.

Mreža akademske solidarnosti i angažovanosti daje punu podršku Prirodnjačkom muzeju kao instituciji od nacionalnog značaja i njenim zaposlenima u borbi za očuvanje svoje samostalnosti. Takođe, pozivamo sve akademske institucije i građane Srbije da podrže koleginice i kolege iz Prirodnjačkog muzeja. Danas su oni na redu, ko je sledeći? Posle 125 godina postojanja kao institucija od nacionalnog značaja, Prirodnjački muzej se nalazi pred pretnjom da izgubi status pravnog lica i postane filijala Zavoda za zaštitu prirode Srbije, osnovanog 1948. godine od strane Prirodnjačkog muzeja.
Po odluci nadležnih iz resora Ministarstva kulture Prirodnjački muzej treba, bez zakonske osnove, da pređe u resor Ministarstva zaštite životne sredine. Predstavnici Prirodnjačkog muzeja su zatečeni naprečac donetom nemuštom i neobrazloženom odlukom iz Ministarstva kulture, kojoj se protive uprkos dugogodišnjoj saradnji sa Zavodom za zaštitu prirode Srbije. Prirodna baština Srbije više nije kultura za nadležno ministarstvo. Prirodnjački muzej se bavi naukom, prosvetom i zaštitom prirode, poseduje izložbeni prostor na Kalemegdanu i prepune depoe u dve zgrade u Njegoševoj ulici, ima ugovorene projekte sa Zavodom za zaštitu prirode Srbije i figuriše u svim zakonskim propisima o kulturi, uključujući i Strategiju razvoja kulture u periodu 2020-2029.
Beograd postaje grad spomenika i fontana, a parkovi i muzeji se povlače pred neobuzdanom gradnjom koja se najčešće vodi isključivo materijalnim interesima moćnika. Srbija se guši u nekontrolisanom zagađenju, ugrožavaju se izvori pijaće vode, rečice i potoci presušuju pred kapitalom uz blagoslov države, ali u ovoj zemlji je izgleda najveći problem Prirodnjački muzej s ogromnom izložbenom kolekcijom koji će novom nepromišljenošću Ministarstva kulture izgubiti status samostalnog muzeja.

MASA apeluje na sve nadležne institucije, kao i na stručnu i zainteresovanu javnost, ali i na studentsku zajednicu, da se usprotive najavljenom zatvaranju Studentske poliklinike u Beogradu. Nacrtom plana optimizacije zdravstvenih ustanova predviđeno je zatvaranje Zavoda za zdravstvenu zaštitu studenata Beograd (poznatog kao Studentska poliklinika) koji obuhvata centralnu ustanovu u Krunskoj 57, stacionar u Prote Mateje 29. i ambulante u studentskim domovima Studentski grad i na Karaburmi. Ova ustanova čiji je rad prilagođen specifičnim potrebama studenata, svojim kapacitetima uspeva da pruži optimalnu i sveobuhvatnu zdravstvenu zaštitu za univerzitetske studente u Beogradu. Radi se o velikom broju korisnika  ̶  oko 130.000 studenata,  što je praktično ceo jedan grad! Spajanjem Zavoda sa domovima zdravlja, preko 70% studenata ostalo bi delimično bez zdravstvene zaštite. 

Predloženim projektom Plana Optimizacije u zdravstvu Srbije ugasio bi se i  Stacionar Zavoda za zdravstvenu zaštitu studenata. Ukoliko bi se to desilo, pitanje je gde bi se smeštali bolesni studenti koji u Beogradu ne žive sa svojim roditeljima, posebno studenti iz studentskih domova. Njima je potrebna medicinska nega najčešće na nivou kućne nege, kakva je trenutno odlično organizovana u Studentskom stacionaru.

Zavod za zdravstvenu zaštitu studenata Beograd imao je posebnu važnost tokom epidemije COVID 19 jer je savesno i odgovorno vodio brigu o studentima sa ovom infekcijom i sprečavao još gori tok epidemije. Upravo ova ustanova organizovala je smeštaj bolesnih studenata i praćenje  kontakata zaraženih tokom cele epidemije.  

Rezultati rada Studentske poliklinike često se prepoznaju kao primer dobre prakse zdravstvene zaštite (SZO, IPPF, UN, UNFPA, UNAIDS, UNICEF). Njegov osmišljen i kvalitetan rad na prevenciji bolesti mladih umanjuje pritisak na ostale zdravstvene ustanove i umanjuje ukupne troškove zdravstvene zaštite.

Uprkos tome, Nacrt Plana Optimizacije podnet je 6. februara 2021., a Vlada Srbije o njemu treba da odluči već 22. februara 2021. godine. Zbog ovog kratkog roka potrebno je da se hitno reaguje i očuva ustanova koja tradicionalno brine o zdravlju studentske populacije i koja bi trebalo, kao i do pre 20 godina, da omogućava zdravstvenu zaštitu i svih zaposlenih na univerzitetima.

Sličnu sudbinu dele i zavodi za zdravstvenu zaštitu studenata u Novom Sadu i Nišu. Reforma zdravstvenog sistema Stbije, normalan je i očekivan korak u racionalizaciji javne potrošnje. Međutim, u vremenu kada Kovid-pandemija još traje, a društvena kriza se po tom osnovu produbljuje, sve poruke iz sveta i zemlje govore da je Srbiji neophodan robustan javni zdravstveni sistem i u postkriznom periodu. 

Zato smatramo da je očuvanje tradicije posebne studentske zdravstvene zaštite, prioritetno sa stanovišta brige o omladima. Uz to, napominjemo da je očuvanje Zavoda za zdravstvenu zaštitu studenata u skladu sa zakonom o zdravstvenoj zaštiti već godinama, a poslednji je Vlada usvojila 2019. godine („Сл. гласник РС“, бр. 25/2019). 

The case initiated before the Ethics Commission against our colleague Danica Popović, a professor at the Faculty of Economics at the University of Belgrade, will be recorded as an example of the regime's tabloids' dishonorable spin against freedom and the critical attitude of intellectuals. On this occasion, MASA expresses its concern for the reputation of the entire academic community, considering it inadmissible that by constructing a case and presenting misinformation in the media, individuals ready to express a critical opinion on public policies are slandered. Therefore, MASA, taking into account the documents and opinions of the bodies that were involved in this case from the beginning, presents the following facts:

1. In the report of the Ethics Commission of the Faculty of Economics, the position was expressed that Based on the report of the Expert Commission, the Ethics Commission could not come to a conclusion about plagiarism in the translation of the International Economy textbook..
2. The Ethics Commission of the Faculty of Economics proposed a measure of public reprimand, because in the opinion of the Ethics Commission, prof. Popović did not adequately and timely highlight the role of the previous translator, prof. Dr. Stojan Babić. 
3. The measure of public reprimand was pronounced by the Dean of the Faculty of Economics in Belgrade, according to the decision of the NNV made after considering the report of the Ethics Commission.
4. The Ethics Committee of the University of Belgrade rejected the appeal of Prof. Danice Popović for procedural reasons and without consideration.

On the basis of the above, MASA believes that it is shameful and scandalous the spin in the tabloid media, which by twisting the mentioned facts impose on the public the conclusion about the alleged "plagiarism of the textbook translation" as well as "that the UB Ethics Committee confirmed the decision of the NNV of the Faculty of Economics in Beograd that it was plagiarism ". MASA reiterates its position that in this case, from the beginning, it was an imposed and constructed process, which should not have been the subject of consideration by the Ethics Commission in the way it was done. The argument for this is the fact that the translation of textbooks in the field of economics is not an academic work, nor a scientific work in the field of economic sciences. It is precisely from this fact that the result of the work of the Expert Commission emerges, which, as stated in the opinion of the Ethics Commission, she did not give a clear assessment as to whether it is originality or plagiarism.

MASA believes that the greatest danger that can arise from this "case" in the future is the intimidation of university teachers, scientists and other academic workers, as well as that the said "case" serves as a preventive action of any government, against its critics, as well as to limit free action of intellectuals in public. That is why we publicly support our member prof. Dr. Danica Popović, and we invite all colleagues, teachers and scientists, to similarly sharpen their critical views towards events in society and reality in general, and to act, in solidarity, and even more sharply and consistently in the fight for truth and democratization, because without such an attitude there is no nor the progress of science and profession in Serbia. MASA will provide them with professional help and support in every way in defending their autonomous engaged and critical attitude. 

Mišljenje Mreže Akademske Solidarnosti i Angažovanosti (MASA) o predlogu Strategije naučnog i tehnološkog razvoja Republike Srbije za period od 2021. do 2025. godine

Ministarstvo prosvete, nauke i tehnološkog razvoja pozvalo je institute, fakultete i stručnu javnost da se izjasne o Predlogu Strategije naučnog i tehnološkog razvoja Republike Srbije za period od 2021. do 2025. godine – Moć znanja u kratkom roku oko Nove godine i Božića. Već tradicionalno, nacrti zakona i pravilnika koji regulišu naučno-istraživački rad se stavljaju na javnu raspravu ili tokom letnjeg ili zimskog kolektivnog odmora. Iako ovakva praksa ukazuje na izbegavanje stvarne javne rasprave od strane Ministarstva, Mreža akademske solidarnosti i angažovanosti (MASA) je uputila širi tekst primedbi na ovaj tekst, ali želi da informiše javnost o pogledu domaćih istraživača na manjkavosti ovog dokumenta kao i na neadekvatnu podršku države naučnom radu.
MASA smatra da je izuzetno zabrinjavajuće da se u strategiji u vreme Kovid-19 pandemije, i sa zdravstvenim sistemom u kolapsu, više priča o „veštačkoj inteligenciji“ nego o vakcinama i dugoročnim zdravstvenim, socijalnim i ekonomskim posledicama pandemije. Smatramo da strategija naučnog razvoja mora biti u koraku sa aktuelnom naučnom problematikom i uslovima u kojima rade domaći istraživači. U strategiji se favorizuju STEM discipline, koje se ni na koji način ne mogu smatrati motorom društvenog razvoja ako se odvoje od celokupnog opusa ljudskog znanja i ne uzmu u obzir naučne tradicije koje se bave čovekom i društvom.
Jedan od ciljeva strategije je fokusiranje istraživanja na društvene izazove i prioritete. Ipak, u samoj strategiji se za izazove najčešće uzimaju globalni izazovi, ali ne i od domaće nauke identifikovani lokalni problemi, od zagađenja vazduha, vode i hrane, preko krhkog demokratskog ustrojstva, siromaštva, nejednakosti, pravne nesigurnosti, koji su izostavljeni u samoj strategiji. Međutim, iako se insistira na tome da je predlog Strategije Mapa puta Republike Srbije za integraciju u evropski istraživački prostor, nigde se u predlogu Strategije ne pominje pojam demokratije koji, s druge strane, ima primarno mesto u programu Evropske unije Horizont Evrope (2021-2027) i koji podrazumeva osavremenjivanje demokratskog upravljanja kroz razvoj inovacija, javnih politika i institucija koje proširuju i produbljuju političku participaciju građana, društveni dijalog, građansku angažovanost i rodnu jednakost. Ništa od ovoga nije spomenuto u predlogu Strategije, gotovo nigde se ne pojavljuju građani i demokratsko donošenje odluka, već isključivo donošenje državnih odluka.
U strategiji se uvodi mehanizam za kandidovanje društvenih izazova kao naučnoistraživačkih tema u vidu uspostavljanja Saveta za društvene izazove za koji nije objašnjeno ni šta su mu nadležnosti niti koji je sastav tog tela.
MASA podseća da je poslednji nacionalni projekat koji je pokrio skoro celu naučnu zajednicu u Srbiji važio od 2011-2015. godine, tokom kojeg većina kapitalne opreme nije isporučena. Nakon toga se do 2019. nastavilo sa produžavanjem istog projekta sa osnovnim sredstvima. U 2020. prešlo se na institucionalno finansiranje oko 12.000 istraživača u Srbiji, a sredstva su ostala simbolično ista. U međuvremenu je Univerzitet u Beogradu doživeo pad za bar sto mesta na Šangajskoj listi najboljih svetskih univerziteta pa se od 2019. godine nalazi između 401. i 500. mesta. Formiran je Fond za nauku koji će tokom naredne dve godine finansirati oko 230 projekata ukupne vrednosti preko 37 miliona evra kroz četiri programa istraživanja (PROMIS, PRVI, KOVID-19 i IDEJE), ali će na ovim projektima biti angažovano tek oko 2.100 (18%) od ukupno 12.000 istraživača u Srbiji, što otvara pitanje šta će biti sa ostalim istraživačima. I dok je u Strategiji predstavljena piramida efekata, glavni problem naučne zajednice Srbije ostaje obrnuta piramida: umesto da široku bazu piramide čine istraživači i asistenti, a vrh piramide naučna i nastavna zvanja, imamo obrnutu masovnost zbog nedostatka finansiranja doktoranata i sredstava za doktorske studije. U nazivu Predloga Strategije naznačen je i moto Moć znanja kao pouzdan temelj za budući ekonomski napredak, razvoj, obrazovanje i očuvanje zdravlja, bezbednosti i nacionalnog identiteta u Republici Srbiji, ali na osnovu teksta koji je usledio, čini se da je demonstrirana moć nad znanjem.

Datum: 11.1.2021.

Mesto: Beograd

PREDLAGAČ:

The Network of Academic Solidarity and Engagement (MASA) unreservedly stands by the appeal of nine university professors, members of the Environmental Chemistry Section, addressed to the councilors of the Belgrade Assembly on the occasion of the announced adoption of the Plan for the Detailed Regulation of the Makiško Field. 

This Plan would enable the construction of 4.5 million square meters of residential and commercial space on 700 hectares of a protected hygienic and sanitary zone, which represents the most important source of groundwater for Belgrade's water supply. The Maki area along the Sava is a zone of protected reni wells, thanks to which Belgrade is one of the few European capitals with quality drinking water. A project that poses a risk to the water supply system should not be approved without a detailed analysis of all relevant scientific and research institutions in Serbia and without a broad and transparent public discussion. 

We invite the city councilors, as well as all competent institutions, to respect the views of the profession and the arguments presented in the appeal of the nine professors. We invite the entire academic and civil public to stand behind the integrity of scientific opinion, and to defend Article 74 of the Constitution of the Republic of Serbia, which mandates the preservation of a healthy environment (Everyone has the right to a healthy environment and to timely and complete information about its condition; Everyone, especially the Republic of Serbia and the autonomous province, is responsible for environmental protection; Everyone is obliged to preserve and improve the environment). 

Everyone has the right to a healthy environment and to timely and complete information about its condition.

Everyone, especially the Republic of Serbia and the autonomous province, is responsible for environmental protection.

Everyone is obliged to preserve and improve the environment.

Everyone has the right to a healthy environment and to timely and complete information about its condition.

Everyone, especially the Republic of Serbia and the autonomous province, is responsible for environmental protection.

Everyone is obliged to preserve and improve the environment.

The Network of Academic Solidarity and Engagement has, on several occasions, received complaints about non-transparency and uneven criteria for evaluating researchers in the same field in the structures of the Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development. Also, despite multiple calls to edit the database of researchers and their results, no progress has been made in the past years, and this segment has been completely neglected. 

When it comes to the bodies of the ministry, first of all the parent scientific committees, there is a uniform assessment that all parent scientific committees and the commission for appointments should make their work more transparent and that it is necessary to make the procedures for the appeal of researchers who feel that they are damaged in the evaluation process. There are differences in efficiency and accessibility to the academic community among the parent boards, but the assessment is unanimous that there is significant room for improvement. Particular dissatisfaction is caused by the actions of the selection committee for scientific titles, which often does not respect the reports submitted by the competent matriculation board, but conducts the evaluation at its own discretion without explanation. 

In this sense, we request the Ministry to take measures that would enable the transparency of the process of collecting and evaluating data on scientific research results in MPNTR:

Issue	Recommendation
Locking of the RIS database, impossibility of checking references and points	Transparency of the results base, their visibility and availability
Out-of-date verification of results entered in RIS	Prompt update of all entered results for 2018, 2019, and soon 2020
The commission for professional elections often, during the professional elections, changes the scoring on the reports submitted to it by the MNO	It is necessary to submit an explanation for all changes in the reports during the selection process in order to make the process transparent and to make it clear where the errors in the categorization are.
Vocational elections are taking too long (the legal deadline of 6 months is not respected) because the MNO is late in reviewing the reports	The period prescribed by law for the duration of the selection process must be observed; all instances in that process must work more efficiently and comply with laws and regulations
In most MNOs, the professors of the faculty dominate numerically, although the associates of the institute are much more dependent on the decisions of the MNO	To ensure that in the future convocations of all MNOs, members from the institute and the faculty are equally represented
Ignorance of interdisciplinary degrees and programs in the structure of parent boards, which is why researchers with interdisciplinary results are inadequately evaluated	Enable the recognition of interdisciplinary results through the establishment of a different way of evaluation that would not force researchers to choose only one discipline, because this is in complete contradiction to the spirit of interdisciplinarity
The evaluation of monographs, collections and other results is not transparent at individual MNOs	Make publicly visible the categorization of all MNOs for publications submitted to them for inspection, with explanations
Different practices among different MNOs regarding the assignment of categories to publications - some MNOs decide upon request, and some only within the framework of the election for the title or the annual reports of the NIO	Define a uniform practice of evaluation of publications, which would be independent of the election of individual researchers and annual reports
Technical solutions do not have a defined evaluation process outside of previous project reports or job selection	It is necessary to define a procedure for the evaluation of technical solutions on demand, instead of related to the selection of positions, because this categorization is important for cooperation with the economy.
Requests for submission of printed copies with requests for appointment and sealed invitations	In addition to responsibility towards the environment, the process would be further facilitated if all documentation were sent in electronic form and without the requirement for stamped invitations, which have long since gone out of world practice, and with respect to email invitations.
Researchers are not instructed in the procedure for appeals against decisions on elections to positions	Make the complaint procedure available on the Ministry's website so that researchers who feel they have been harmed in the process can refer
There are no reports from the sessions of parent scientific boards or commissions for elections to titles	Publish regularly the minutes from the meetings of the parent scientific committees and the commission for the selection of titles with clearly indicated changes in relation to the reports of the selection commissions for the title from the parent institutions

Also, we hereby appeal to the Ministry to make transparent the procedure for amending the Rulebook on the procedure, method of evaluation and quantitative presentation of scientific research results of researchers and the selection of members of the Working Group for drafting the new rulebook. It is inadmissible that the members of the working groups of the Ministry are unknown to the academic community, as well as that the remarks coming from researchers are ignored. Also, we ask that the suggestions coming from individual scientific fields be taken into account for a fairer evaluation of the results. 

Belgrade, 16.12.2020.

This is a notice addressed to the international academic community about the violation of university autonomy and academic freedom at the Faculty of Theology of the University of Belgrade by the Holy Synod of the Serbian Orthodox Church 

For more than a year now, we have been witnessing deeply discouraging events at the Faculty of Orthodox Theology (FOT), one of the 31 faculties – members of the academic community of the University of Belgrade. Professor Maksim Vasiljević and assistant professor Marko Vilotić were unlawfully deprived of teaching positions at their Faculty in 2019. In the fall of 2020, professors Rodoljub Kubat and Maksim Vasiljević were fired from FOT in violation of the law and the Constitution of the Republic of Serbia. 

Professor Kubat was illegally fired as a result of obvious retaliation and persecution due to criticism of illegitimate decisions made at the FOT and criticism of some members of the Holy Synod, while prof. Vasiljević was fired even without that. The decision regarding the loss of the teaching position at FOT included the order of the Synod to the dean of FOT to immediately issue a directive on the termination of employment of Kubat and Vasiljević. The FOT statute contains a provision, contrary to the University statute, which authorizes the Synod to withdraw its blessing for any particular teaching position at this faculty. However, by the end of 2019, the Statutory Council of the University of Belgrade (the most relevant University body in charge of the statutory issues) concluded that the Synod's influence was contrary to the Law on Higher Education and the Statute of the University of Belgrade . And this influence was crucial for the termination of employment that was enacted in the case of Prof. Kubat and Prof. Vasiljevic. According to the same decision issued by the FOT dean, prof. Kubat and prof. Vasiljević could not even "perform other duties" at FOT. The essence of this document is a statement claiming that the dean's directive has been based on "a legally binding and executive decision of the Holy Synod of the Serbian Orthodox Church". According to this decision, prof. Kubat and prof. Vasiljević are not allowed to defend themselves legally! This decision is not only contrary to the Law on Higher Education and the Labor Law, but also violates human rights of both professors: their freedom of scientific and intellectual creativity guaranteed by article 73 of the Constitution of the Republic of Serbia, as well as their right to a legal defense determined by article 36 of the Serbian Constitution. 

The Republic of Serbia is a secular state based on its constitution and only court decisions can be binding. Decisions of state executive bodies also cannot be binding, they can only be final. Moreover, only court decisions and state administrative acts have executive power. According to the Labor Law, the decision of the Synod cannot be a reason for termination of employment. The Holy Synod is not a state institution that governs public authorities. Prohibition of lectures at the University by any external authority, outside the University itself, is an open violation of its autonomy. The university autonomy is guaranteed by article 72 of the Serbian Constitution. 

Until recently, the Serbian Orthodox Church has not been much involved in the academic affairs of the FOT, so a kind of modus vivendi sustained this fragile institutional cohabitation. The interference of the Holy Synod in the autonomy of FOT and the violation of legal norms of the University of Belgrade should be placed in the context of an illegitimate and uncontrolled demonstration of church power – this time directed against professors of theology who expressed freedom of thought , conscience and public opinion. There is no doubt that Prof. Kubat and prof. Vasiljević themselves are victims of illegitimate interference of clerical power structures in the work of the University of Belgrade. Deprived of their academic position, they were exposed to open formal and informal persecution contrary to legal and civilizational norms. The University of Belgrade and the Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development of Serbia must not remain passive on this issue in order to prevent further systematic harassment of members of the university community. They should enforce state and university laws and regulations to protect colleagues by taking into account the existential aspect that directly affects the well-being of their families. In the recent past, under the same autocratic government, a number of professors were expelled from the University of Belgrade in 1998, following the ratification of a poor university law. 

Therefore, we appeal to international academic institutions to condemn the open persecution of university professors in Serbia. As stated in the UN special report (2020) on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression: "Without academic freedom, societies lose one of the essential elements of democratic self-governance: the capacity for self-reflection, for knowledge generation and for a constant search for improvements of people's lives and social conditions". The Bonn Declaration on Freedom of Scientific Research (2020) further emphasizes that the "freedom of thought and intellectual creativity also requires freedom and security of individuals". Needless to say, the level of democratic development of a society is measured by respect for academic freedom. The academic freedom in Serbia, university autonomy and freedom of thought in general should be vigorously defended by law, as well as by the solidarity of our colleagues and other intellectuals from the international academic community.