2024-05-04 03:49:48
Pashinyan’s “justifications” are ridiculous and chaotic. Armen Ashotyan, RPA vice-president, wrote in another article from “Nubarashen” KPK, referring to the project of removing universities from Yerevan and presented 7 reasons not to remove them from Yerevan.
“In the pile of noisy challenges of Armenia, another one intensified the other day. Pashinyan intends to completely demolish the university system of Armenia under the name of the “Academic City” project. In his characteristic handwriting, he mixes wet with dry, real problems with funny solutions, international practice with money-making obsession.
His “justifications” are so ludicrous and chaotic that even experts can’t quite figure it out. Let’s try to separate some fundamental questions.
1. It is no secret that there are many problems in the university system that need to be solved. These issues have accumulated over decades, but they are in need of a systemic and fundamental solution. Nicole’s proposed version is not a solution to the problems, but a project to turn the problems into a catastrophe. In case of headache, they do not cut off the head.
2. Mixing together the problems of private, public and interstate universities is the same as recording the average temperature of patients in a hospital. I strongly doubt that in the case of the same American, French or Slavic universities, Pashinyan will succeed in advancing his ambition with such vulnerable and empty justifications. The issues pointed out by him, which are related to the international press publications regarding the violations committed by a number of private Armenian universities, received their solutions particularly during my tenure as the Minister of Education. Sharply strengthen state control, make real information available to the public, ensure unified legal regulations for all universities. the state is obliged to apply these and a number of other tools in order to ensure educational standards in the field.
3. Separate student campuses are an accepted model for the development of universities, but this model does not imply the elimination of existing university infrastructures under the pretext of creating new ones. On the contrary, for the further development of universities, the existing structures are preserved, and new ones are already being built in other places: dormitories, laboratories, libraries, sports complexes, etc. All European countries followed this path.
Nikol’s argument that the current university building complexes will be used for other purposes is an iron proof that the basis of this “reform” is not educational motives, but exclusively narrow financial and economic interests of some circles. Universities are closed to make a lot of money, not for the quality of education. This is undeniably true.
4. Another serious problem arises in connection with the European higher education area, the Boulogne process. The most important direction of this process is the expansion of universities’ autonomy and academic freedoms, while Pashinyan’s proposal is an unprecedentedly harsh and rude intervention in the activities of universities, which is another blatant example of Armenia’s dictatorship.
By the way, not only the government has leased state buildings to universities free of charge and indefinitely, but universities also have many of their own buildings and infrastructures, which belong to the universities, not to the government. This blow to the activities of the universities should not be left out of the attention of the relevant international structures: the Secretariat of the Boulogne Process, the Council of Europe, the European Universities and Students Associations, etc.
5. The financial side of the matter also proves that Nicole’s proposal has absolutely nothing to do with educational motives. It is impossible to move all universities of Yerevan to one place for 1 billion dollars. The same YSU, Medical University, Polytech are not ordinary buildings, but “towns” with their own infrastructure, hospitals, laboratories, etc. The last regional attempt to build a new university was made by Georgia, which under Saakashvili created a modern technological university in Batumi with American money.
More than 100 million dollars were spent on the project 10 years ago, but the project was not successfully completed, and the building built in Batum now serves other purposes. This experience also proves that it will not be possible to implement the “Academy City” project with 1 billion.
6. Pashinyan’s proposal to leave no university in Yerevan is also catastrophic in terms of civilization. Traditional universities, their buildings, the history and culture associated with them are an integral part of the face of any self-respecting city. If Nikol’s delusion comes true, Armenia will become the first and only country without a single university in its capital.
Culturally, this dream is a great blow not only to the scientific and educational face of Armenia, but also to the history and urban culture of Yerevan. With the same Pashinyan logic, one day all museums, theaters, and concert halls will be removed from the capital, with the empty slogan of creating a “cultural city”. In any big city, universities are forges and centers of intellectuals, academic elite, without which there is no urban culture, no city. there is a residence. During Demirchyan’s time, Yerevan was made a city of millions, so that the city would have a metro, and during Nikol’s time, the capital Yerevan will turn into a big barracks.
7. These authorities have already set world records of failed governance, bringing down even established and previously smooth and normally functioning industries. Let alone the “velvet” brigade, under the leadership of their foreman, capable of carrying out any medium, let alone such a large-scale project. Our society will come out again with a broken spine from those who remain under the weight of 20 kg, but order 200 kg.
Arguments against the Pashinyan “Academy City” do not end with this. There are many other, including highly professional, contra-indications, which I’m sure the current minister is aware of, but clearly prefers to trample on his own professional self in the name of highly dubious interests.
Given the large number of beneficiaries of this ill-fated “reform,” one might expect a larger public outcry than just the displeasure of the Conservatory staff, who have taken on the mission of advocating for the entire university system. Years ago, when I visited the Islamic Republic of Iran as Minister of Internal Affairs, I also had a separate meeting with the then President of Iran, Ahmadinejad. Until now, I remember how the Iranian president thanked us for the existence of the Yerevan State Conservatory, which played a role in the development of music education in a friendly country.
To tell the truth, the Agrarian University received the same positive words. Who would have known that years later the leader of Armenia would want to close that university as well, to which the leader of Iran was grateful…”