Tag: stands

On Tuesday, June 22, 2021, the forum "Sexual harassment at colleges - analysis of regulations and practices" was held in the organization of the Network of Academic Solidarity and Engagement (MASA) in the "Polet" club. The occasion for this gathering was the promotion of the Study on practices for reporting sexual harassment at colleges, the preparation of which was initiated by MASA.

Researcher from the Institute for Sociological Research and author of the study, Milica Resanović, explained the methodology of the study and presented some of the most important recommendations for faculties in Serbia. The basic recommendation is that all faculties and other scientific-research institutions introduce regulations on sexual harassment, because for now there are very few of them. One such internal institutional document should contain precise instructions for preventing and effective mechanisms for sanctioning such acts. The key difference is that the normative acts in other countries of the region and Europe regulate the relations and permissible behaviors between employees and students much better. Another aspect that is emphasized is the education of employees, as well as male and female students.

Sanja Pavlović from the Autonomous Women's Center stated that sexual harassment is the most widespread form of sexual violence and violence against women in general, because it happens all around us - at home, on the street, in transport, at the workplace, in educational institutions. Sexual harassment is often conditionally defined as the mildest form of sexual violence, but it can produce equally shocking and severe consequences for the victim as other, more severe forms.

Andrea Pjević, student vice-dean at the Faculty of Dramatic Arts, reflected on the situation at her faculty, since recently the attention of the public in the context of sexual harassment has been focused on FDU: "The sanctions and warnings issued according to the existing regulations are extremely small. I'm not sure how much these warnings are enough to encourage someone to report the violence. The procedure itself is complex, takes a long time and is extremely tiring for someone who is dealing with it. That's why victims give up. The regulations need to be changed, because the existing code defines what you can wear much more precisely than what someone can say or do to you."

This was followed up by a professor at the same faculty, Irena Ristić, who said that the only punishment that has been used so far is a public condemnation, which is symbolic and does not bring any consequences in the academic career of the perpetrator. Amendments to the rulebook are needed because the current sanctions are almost supportive in nature.

University ombudsman and associate professor of the Faculty of Security, Mladen Milošević, reminded that the faculties cannot be the primary link for sanctioning this type of violence, because sexual harassment is defined as a criminal offense according to the Criminal Code, but also as a violation of the right to work according to the current Labor Law. State authorities are the ones who impose the most important sanctions. However, college and university bodies must be part of the chain in combating this widespread socially dangerous behavior.

This forum was moderated by Bojana Bodroža, an assistant professor at the Faculty of Philosophy in Novi Sad and a member of the MASE Coordination Board.

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

The Network of Academic Solidarity and Engagement (MASA) organized a panel discussion on the report of the European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (ENQA) and the exclusion of the National Body for Accreditation and Quality Control from full membership. The ENQA report drew attention to the problems in the process of accreditation of higher education institutions in Serbia, which the professional public drew attention to before, but they did not receive more attention until the publication of this report. The Serbian public has been discussing a lot about the possible consequences of this suspension for students, faculties and higher education as a whole. MASA draws attention to the aspects of this report that burden the current process of accreditation of higher education programs, represent a risk for the impartiality of the accreditation process and threaten the achieved international status of universities in Serbia and their students in the long term.
The panel discussion was held on November 18, 2020. at 12:00, and the participants were:
Prof. Jelena Kočović, full professor at the Faculty of Economics, University of Belgrade, director of the National Body for Accreditation and Quality Control in Higher Education.
Prof. Nebojša Janićijević, full professor at the Faculty of Economics, University of Belgrade, member of the Commission for Accreditation and Quality Control in the period from 2006 to 2013.
Prof. Marko Simendić, associate professor at the Faculty of Political Sciences, University of Belgrade.
While the moderator was assistant professor Oliver Tošković, assistant professor at the Faculty of Philosophy, University of Belgrade.
In accordance with the mentioned problems, the panel discussion covered the following topics:

1. Legal solutions that enable the direct interference of the RS Government and the relevant minister in the work of the highest bodies that regulate higher education in Serbia: the National Body for Accreditation and Quality Control and the National Council for Higher Education.
2. The role of the National Council for Higher Education in the accreditation process, which in the appeal process can provide accreditation to institutions that do not meet the requirements or, by delaying the process, enable the implementation of programs rejected by NAT. This topic is particularly important since the ENQA report points out that the independence of accreditation decision-making by NAT is threatened in this way.
3. Deficiencies in the quality control process, which the ENQA report insists on, allow accreditation to be granted to institutions that fictitiously meet the requirements of the same, or run programs that are not in accordance with the accreditation obtained. Within this topic, special attention was given to the relationship between the loss of membership in ENQA and the recognition of Serbian diplomas in EU countries, as well as the length of visits of review commissions to higher education institutions. Also, within this topic, we questioned the (lack of) transparency of the accreditation process, the status of the NAT director, that is, we touched on the question of whether it should be a full-time person or, as before, a person already engaged in a higher education institution.
4. The cost of the accreditation process.
   During the forum, the participants pointed out that at the time of the formation of NAT, the higher education system in Serbia already had the status under the supervision of ENQA, and the status of full membership had previously been lost by KAPK. The newly formed NAT started its work in September 2018, while the external inspection of ENQA was carried out in October 2019, and that there was not enough time to correct all the deficiencies. Nevertheless, NAT has introduced several changes in the accreditation process, which include a five-member review committee composed of three professors, one expert from practice and a student, the inclusion of a student in the Board of Directors, and three thematic analyses, the preparation of which continues.
   Since ENQA pointed out that the independence of NAT is threatened, this body on 18.11.2020. submitted to the Ministry a proposal for the Law on Accreditation. The key problem is Article 12 of the Law on Higher Education, according to which the National Council for Higher Education determines the list of reviewers. The new draft law states that it is necessary for NAT to announce a competition for reviewers, determine the criteria and create a list of reviewers. The ENQA report states that there is influence of the government through the National Council for Higher Education (NEC) because seven members of this body are government representatives, and that the NEC further influences NAT through the Board of Directors and the selection of members of the Accreditation Commission. The forum participants agree with ENQA's remark and state that 130 persons applied for participation in the Accreditation Commission, and that NSVO chose 25. The position is that NAT's expert body chooses someone else. In the new proposal to amend the law, it is stated that NAT should announce a competition for the Commission.
   The appeals procedure is cited as a special problem. The secondary authority during accreditation is NSVO, which in the last instance can change the decision of the Accreditation Commission as an expert body of NAT. That appeal procedure according to the ENQA rules must be within NAT. Thus, the proposal to amend the Law on Accreditation is the formation of an expert body in the form of an appeal commission, which would be composed of independent, moral and experienced experts, including experts from abroad. It is emphasized that NAT should adopt standards for accreditation. The participants in the discussion pointed out that the members of the Board of Directors should be appointed by the assembly, as well as the structure of the Board of Directors should be changed, so that two members are proposed by the conference of universities and the conference of high schools, one member each comes from the chamber of commerce and the ministry, as well as from the ranks students.
   However, it is stated that so far NAT has only had two disagreements with NSVO, and that the review commissions are responsible for accreditation, not the Board of Directors or the director of NAT. Certainly, the fact that NSVO accepted 85% appeals, which contradicts the decision of the Accreditation Commission, is worrying. Some of those decisions explicitly state that, despite the fact that they do not meet all standards, the NSVO gave another chance to certain institutions. Therefore, even though the Commission determined that the institutions did not meet the standards, and the NSVO fully agreed with that, the institution would, despite the unfulfilled standards, still receive a work permit in the end. This is exactly the problem that ENQA pointed out in its report.
   As far as the review process is concerned, the participants agree that there should be a permanent open competition for foreign reviewers. They see as one of the big problems the fact that there are currently five clerks working in the NAT itself who are in charge of around 800 cases.

The panel addressing the issue of the profession's relationship to its professional and broader social role was held in Novi Sad on October 22, 2020. In contemporary Serbian society, it is evident that important social and political decisions are made with insufficient consultation with experts. It often seems that the purpose of consulting the professional public is to obtain coverage for pre-made decisions, rather than the goal of making a quality decision that is in the best interest of the general public. At this forum, we wanted to see from the perspective of different fields (medicine, architecture, ecology, law, culture) what are the reasons for insufficient engagement of academic workers and experts in social events that encroach on their competences.

They participated in the forum Dr. Sci. Predrag Đurić, an epidemiologist currently employed as the head of the European Union aid project in Ukraine, Dr. Alexander Bede, urban planner, architect and member of the Board of Directors of the Society of Architects of Novi Sad, prof. Dr. Bojan Pajtić, full professor at the Faculty of Law, Dimitrije Radisic, assistant at the Department of Biology and Ecology of the Faculty of Science and Mathematics in Novi Sad and activist of the Society for the Protection and Study of Birds of Serbia, Bora Babic, director of the publishing house Akademska knjiga i prof. Dr. Đorđe Pavićević, full professor at the Faculty of Political Sciences in Belgrade and member of the coordination board of MASE.

Analyzing examples from the domain of academic, professional and activist activities of speakers, we tried to see what are the key reasons for the relatively weak public engagement of academic and professional workers. It was pointed out that academic workers often do not perceive public engagement as a part of their professional role and that the system of advancement and incentives in the academic system, which is often reduced to "chasing for points", does not value this type of engagement. Experts often find a more adequate space for wider social action in professional associations or non-governmental organizations from their field of activity. Acting on behalf of such organizations is sometimes motivated by their greater efficiency and possibility of influence, and sometimes by the fact that public engagement is not carried out in the name of an "academic function" in order to avoid potential role conflicts. When it comes to the academic community, the speakers pointed out that there is a certain kind of lulling in one's own scientific and research world, as well as a feeling of protection in a position that brings a good existence. Public discourse in which any engagement is labeled as "political action," which has a negative connotation, further discourages experts from engaging in issues that are important to the wider community. Finally, the public itself sometimes has a dampening effect, because it demands quick, easy and populist answers to problems from experts, while, on the contrary, the real situation is complex and cannot be overcome with quick solutions, and often realistic solutions seem "unpopular".

Network of academic solidarity and engagement in Monday, July 6, 2020 organizes a forum called "Scientific expertise and public policies: between authority and abuse„.

The forum will start at 18 hours, and the venue is Dorcol Platz, address Dobracina 59.

The following will take part in the conversation:

Zoran Radovanović (epidemiologist, retired full professor, Faculty of Medicine in Belgrade)

Rade Panić (anesthesiologist, president of the Union of Doctors and Pharmacists of Serbia)

Miroslav Demajo (retired scientific advisor, Institute of Nuclear Sciences "Vinca")

Marija Babović (full professor, Faculty of Philosophy in Belgrade; program director of SeConS)

Alexey Tarasyev (scientific advisor, Institute for Biological Research "Siniša Stanković")

Zoran Gavrilović (program director at the Bureau of Social Research - BIRODI)

The state of emergency and the prescribed measures to protect against the Kovid-19 virus set the concept profession in the center of media and public interest. While on the one hand praises could be heard because the implemented measures were taken in consultation with science and experts, on the other hand criticisms could be heard on account of political abuse and manipulation of trust in scientific authority. The time behind us was certainly marked by controversies surrounding the "funniest virus in the world", threats that our cemeteries will not be large enough if we do not follow the advice of experts (but also politicians), as well as the pseudo-medical statements of the media magnate who promoted the so-called ozonation as a healing method, on a television program with a national frequency.

Even outside of our country, the global pandemic has triggered an avalanche of questions about the trust we have or don't have in science. A particularly complex issue, which we want to address at this forum, is how the views and recommendations of science are translated into political measures and decisions. In complex situations, such as the global spread of a dangerous virus, how to open space for different opinions, conflicting attitudes, and even serious disagreements that can exist not only among decision makers, but also among scientists themselves, i.e. those whose expert opinions are used to legitimize political measures? Apart from the inevitable review of the crisis, the pandemic and the state of emergency behind us, this panel wants to start thinking about other extremely important areas of life in which politicians are expected to consult with science and the profession, such as issues of the environment, economic development, but also overall quality of life of all citizens.

Due to the necessity of maintaining a physical distance between visitors, and so that we can make an estimate of their number, we kindly ask you to confirm your arrival until 4.07. to the address: akademska.masa@gmail.com. Wearing masks will be mandatory.

In accordance with the development of the situation, it is possible to transfer the forum to the onlinezoom platform, which we will inform you about in due time. Thank you for your understanding!

In anticipation of the forum on the process of accreditation of higher education institutions in Serbia, the holding of which has been postponed due to the seriousness of the epidemiological situation in Serbia, the Network of Academic Solidarity and Engagement publicly expresses its concern over the fact that the National Accreditation Body (NAT) by decision of the European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education ( ENQA) lost full membership in this organization on February 20, 2020.

Masa emphasizes the fact that one of the key reasons for the loss of the status of a full member of this organization is that, in ENQA's opinion, the full independence of NAT in relation to institutions of higher education, and especially in relation to the National Council for Higher Education of the Republic of Serbia, is not ensured. ENQA points out that it is unacceptable that NAT's decisions on the accreditation of higher education and scientific institutions can be contested by the National Council for Higher Education, which is enabled by the current Law on Higher Education (Article 22).

Advocating for the autonomy of universities and scientific institutions in Serbia, Massa underlines that it is necessary to stop attempts to influence the executive power on independent bodies and institutions of importance for the academic community, through the adoption of bad legal solutions, such as, in the part concerning the accreditation process, clearly demonstrated by the aforementioned Law on Higher Education.

Taking into account the fact that by losing the status of a full member in ENQA, the quality of the accreditation process of higher education and scientific institutions in Serbia has been challenged, Masa calls on members of the University as well as scientific institutions to express their disagreement with the current situation, among other things, and to question the expediency of paying an already excessive fee for accreditation procedure of study programs prescribed by NAT.