Yesterday at 8:00 p.m., the “public consultations” organized by the Ministry of Education regarding two laws on education ended. In general, this “consultation” lasted 6 weeks, from July 13 to August 24, that is, during the legal vacation period of most teaching staff. Thus, their opportunity to meet and actually discuss (i.e. discuss in groups) the provisions of the new laws was reduced to a complete absence. It remains for people to write individually to the official email address. This is a neutral way of saying that teachers’ opinions do not matter, because each individual is only expressing a point of view, and this is easily labeled as his bias. To prevent objections, the Minister organized several meetings either in person (but at the political level or at the administrative level: with inspectors or rectors) or online (but where the sound system did not work or the platform was too demanding and the intervention time of those who had something to say was reduced to a few minutes). Under such circumstances, it is difficult to imagine that there could be any real debate about the precise provisions of some of the documents, which together total 285 pages. Three days ago, 70 and then 100 representatives of the public intelligentsia – most of them teachers of various forms of education – appealed to the Minister with a request to extend the consultation period, motivating it, on the one hand, by the actual situation of pedagogical workers (many of them on the other hand, the importance of these laws and the need to carefully analyze the provisions that will affect the fate of hundreds of thousands of students.

The minister’s response, which also came yesterday, bordered on rudeness: he referred to his own “debates” during this period (although they were not truly public, i.e. announced ahead of time, open to anyone, or even recorded, as such ). in such a way that they could be followed by all concerned teaching staff), reduced the signatories to irrelevance (making them a tenth of the total number of teachers and thus encouraging – falsely – the idea that the majority was on his side) and finally categorizing- and as an “interest group”. Since I signed this letter myself, let me say that many of its signatories I do not even know by name. But I have faith in their honesty, given that asking for a thorough trial of a law that carries consequences on a large scale and over time seems to me to be evidence of civic importance. And to tax, sir, people who politely and in an institutional context make a justified request as an “interest group” is, from a civic point of view, impudence. Even Ion Iliescu did not call Gabriel Liicana, Nicolae Manolescu, Andrey Kornea, Lazar Vlaschana, Andrey Oishtiana and many others that way! Such an insulting qualification of the whole of civil society gives a measure of the thoughts of the little man temporarily occupying a high office: for him there are everywhere only “interest groups” to whom he must swear vassalage and who must either buy them or get rid of them. This is what the Minister of Education of Romania thinks in 2022! Something similar to the logic of Stalin, who saw only “counter-revolutionary centers” and their “conspiracies” everywhere.

Minister Kimpeanu must know – from his own experience – what “interest groups” are and how they become instruments of power, because the laws he proposes to us for “discussion” really seem to be the work of such “groups”. At the end of the “consultation”, the minister announced the only proposal that he seems to be (so far, no more) considering: that “those who unilaterally renounce the title of doctor” must return within 30 days” the corresponding cost of training for doctoral services, in full, for the financing period and in the amount financed from the state budget”. And it is as clear as all the others publicly formulated by Sorin Kimpeanu. What should we understand from this? That a fee-paying Ph.D. graduate returns something that—typically—covers the fees he paid during his Ph.D. Or that the plagiarists (and who else would think of giving up their doctorate?) were the beneficiaries of a government subsidy while they had to write their dissertation (apparently in parallel with a salary)? Perhaps it would be a good idea to see if the “geniuses” of the nation, such as the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary or the Minister of Education, received scholarships or tax exemptions (paid from public money) to compose their “works”, the past then to “secret”. And then it would be appropriate for the Minister of Education, together with his colleague from the Interior, to explain to us how the work presented in public support. From doctoral studies – from the Middle Ages – and in all laws (including ours), the defense of a candidate’s thesis for the title of doctor is public and anyone can participate in it. How can a work, which was officially presented to the public for the first time, be kept secret?! Let the minister explain!

This “great idea” came to the heads of education leaders after “a discussion in Brasov together with representatives of the National Liberal Party from all organizations of the country of two draft laws on education, which transpose the “Educated Romania” project.” In other words, on the penultimate day of consultation, the only remark a minister announces that he is appropriating comes from a political party: coincidentally, to which (in this mandate!) he also belongs. “Public consultation” has become an internal party discussion? And, excuse me, isn’t a political party that declares its goal to gain power in the state also an “interest group”?! Of the thousands of messages that we suspect came to the Ministry during the “consultation” weeks, none caught the attention of the Minister? If the party is considered to be a representative sample on a national scale of all professions – including the teacher – then why the game of “people’s consultations”? And what did we get out of the discussions in the party? That those who wish to avoid prosecution for plagiarism must pay a civil tax representing the cost of research. That is, if they were in the system of doctoral studies with payment without frequency, several hundred lei. Or who knows? – in other forms up to one thousand lei. In short, the value of the taxi stamp exempts them from any further prosecution.

But the problem of those who want to give up – for obvious reasons – the title of doctor is not in this, but in that this title has legal implications. On its basis, a person advances in a career (including – or especially – in the military), gets access to certain positions and receives a reward with each salary. What should we do with all this? Because – according to the logic of the PNL proposals – the accused (the one who wants to renounce the doctorate) must return them too. For example, if he is a military man, he must be humiliated and inevitably court-martialed for insulting the honor of the officer corps. And even before that, he forced to return all the allowances received from the moment he received his doctorate allowance. Because these are real revenues that are losses for the state. Or will we find ourselves in a situation where a person who refuses the title of doctor will return a few hundred/thousand lei to the university where he defended his thesis, but will continue to collect – even after the refusal – doctoral allowances (based on the “acquired benefit principle”)?!

Finally, it would be appropriate for Minister Kimpeanu to explain to us what it means to renounce the title of doctor. Where in the world is there such a thing?! How can a young student explain such a legal event to foreigners? Doctorate as such is not Doctor Honoris Causa. The latter is an honorary title conferred by the university senate on those deemed deserving by the institution, and carries no legal or economic implications. It’s just a prestigious title. If the person who received it believes that the university that issued it is one with which they do not want to associate their name, they can refuse it. A doctorate, on the other hand, is the completion of a researcher’s training course and is the means by which recognized names in his field accept him among them. This is the result of painstaking work and verification of this work by a community of craftsmen. To refuse it is to declare that the work of the one refusing it was not real labor and that those who gave it were not true craftsmen. Doctoral schools as a whole might have been expected to protest against such a measure which mocked their dignity. Read the whole article and comment on Contributors.ro