Professor EKPA Vana Nikolaidou-Kyrianidou, in an interview with Liberal, thoroughly analyses the situation that, she argues, has been entrenched for years in Greek AEI.
On the occasion of the recent violent incidents at the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki and the University of West Attica, he speaks of “extremist left” that is “negating university space”, taking advantage of the lack of effective security and tolerance of bullying.
At the same time, Ms Nicolaidou refers to the recent attack on the vice-rector of the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Iakovos Michaelides, and her own targeting by members of Rubicon, stressing that the target of such actions is not only persons, but the imposition of silence on those who express a different opinion.
She even warns that in universities it is not just public order that is at stake, but the possibility of free research, teaching and the circulation of ideas without fear.
The interview with Vana Nikolaidou-Kyrianidou, Professor Emeritus of Political Philosophy, former Chair of the Department of Philosophy, NKRPA, to Christos Th. Panagopoulos is as follows:
I would like to begin our discussion, Mrs. Nicolaidou, with the sad incidents that occurred on Monday at both the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki and the University of West Attica. What is behind the violence in the universities, in your opinion?
Look, behind what is happening in the universities is the ability of the extremist Left to negate the university space, because it is completely unguarded and unprotected. That is, I hear people say, “The dean should call the police“. It happened today, but by the time it happened, seven people went to the hospital. And that’s not all.
The point is that the university cannot be turned into a battlefield because some extremist elements, with purely fascist thinking – because if they didn’t have fascist thinking, they would verbally disagree with their opponents, they would counter their arguments – can, whenever they feel like it, storm in and turn a place meant for study into a battlefield.
How do you comment on the decision of the Single Judge’s Court of Appeal to find the three defendants not guilty of the brutal attack and shaming of the former rector of the ASOEE on 29 October 2020?
I am ashamed of this decision. And I think this tolerance of such phenomena is a warning bell against our democratic way of life. It is unthinkable. Because democratic tolerance does not mean tolerating everything in the name of a freedom like the one the innocent savage has in nature.
Democratic freedom, as political freedom, is based on rules. So if we adapt these rules to a leniency that strikes us as more democratic, as more sensible, from there you understand that the transformation of the conditions of cohabitation into anthropophagy is very close.
And indeed, if we have these kinds of decisions, which means that the institutions, in any case, are pro-victim and not pro-victim, you understand that this fatal lack of trust in the institutions, the contempt for them or the perception that they can’t do much, is a direct danger to what kind of democracy we want to have. Because democracy is its citizens, first and foremost.
A democratic constitution is not defined for us by any god, nor does it have saviors; it has citizens. And citizens save it, insofar as democratic institutions work decisively against impunity for those who try to break the rules of democratic coexistence. And citizens are responsible for their protection.
But the people who are called upon to represent the institutions every time, such as the judiciary, must also help in this.
A few days ago, the rectorial authorities of the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki had also denounced an attack against the vice-rector, Iakovos Michaelides, who had to be taken to AHEPA after the incident. What does it signify that senior university officials are now at the centre of such clashes?
This, I must tell you, has been happening for years. For me, this attack on my house was the fourth one that happened. The attack on the vice-chancellor at the university, which was on the vice-chancellor, was not the first time. This is a situation that is perpetuated because there is a perception that the university is a “but you dogs grind”you can intimidate whoever you want, you can bully, you can bully, you can bully, you can humiliate whoever you want. No big deal; that’s what democracy is all about.
So what can I tell you? Should I tell you that I’m ashamed again? Should I express my anger at these phenomena? Shall I tell you my despair about these phenomena, in the sense that this situation in the public university degrades it to the extent that it turns higher education into class education? Because anyone who can study in self-respecting universities, in foreign universities, will not prefer the public university. Children who cannot afford it must study under conditions that do not apply to universities in even the most underdeveloped countries. What else can I say and feel as an academic, other than deep sadness and deep concern for the future of higher education?
You also mentioned your own incident, which was the fourth in a row, when members of “Rouvikon” vandalized the entrance of your building. How does an academic experience the transition from confronting ideas to targeting his or her personal safety?
Look, there are two ways. The first way I chose was not to be afraid, not to hide, not to change my mind, to be liked by these groups. The other way is: “don’t talk, don’t you pull the snake out of the hole, don’t you bore, it’s something stupid. Let’s be likeable, because that way we gain points in the robust student movement, we have our peace of mind. We won’t get our car burned, we won’t get sent to the hospital, our office or our house vandalized.”
Unfortunately, the second attitude, which I just mentioned, is the basic and usual attitude of the academics, to whom I attribute enormous responsibility for this situation. I blame them for reacting to the issue of the university police and, to my great regret, the government got scared and backed down. They reacted to the issue of the Turnique, they reacted to the issue of controlling access to the universities as well, and they let this truly tragic situation be perpetuated. It is shameful to say that we are a European country and that we want to have competitive universities in the international arena, and here we are being killed, threatened, and the ambulance is coming because some people can ransack this place unhindered.
I am intrigued by your last response, because in your case, and in other similar cases, it seems that bullying is not only aimed at the person, but also at what you yourself mentioned, namely the message “don’t express yourself and don’t talk”. How dangerous is this logic for freedom of speech, and for democracy itself?
I will tell you, thus, from my expertise: it is the common tactic of fascism when it wants to impose itself. That is, when it wants to become the dominant mode of perception in a society. Fascism always works by intimidation, until it seizes power. I’m not saying it will happen. But the attitude and tactics have exactly that goal. I scare you, I silence you, and I don’t care to silence only you. Nor do I care, in fact, if you alone are not silenced. I care about silencing the others who will witness these events. They’ll see impunity on top of that, so they’ll shut up. And that way I’ll have no impediment to forcibly imposing what I deem to be a party line or a revolutionary understanding of the slate.
And I say “revolutionary understanding of the slate” because all these “revolutionaries”, here in quotes, are of fresh water. They’re playing it safe. They do all this in the Rule of Law and they don’t go to do it in countries where they know their future will be uncertain from that moment on.
The government, in the wake of yesterday’s incidents at the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, said that it dwould not allow universities to return to the dark ages of violence and impunity. What measures could actually, in your view, prevent such incidents from recurring without damaging the open nature of the university?
Look, first and foremost safety. Let’s not call it police if our prejudices bother us. But people within the university who can prevent these things. Officers at the entrance and exit. And especially strict disciplinary boards for students, which have yet to be activated. In other words, you lose student status. It’s over when you engage in such actions. As well as, when you damage public property, when you destroy public property on campus, you’re done. These are the measures. The other stuff, the wishful thinking, convincing them, explaining to them, doesn’t work. They don’t work, because these creatures are now outraged. They live with some revolutionary visions that flatter their narcissism as antisystemic beings. Therefore, when we talk about these kinds of confrontations, we are talking wishful thinking. We bless our beards at the same time.
What is at stake in Greek science today? Public order within institutions or something deeper, such as the possibility of free research, free teaching and free expression without fear? What’s your view?
The latter is clearly at stake, since you can’t invite just anyone you want to lecture. Let me tell you something: my research group and I published a book, “The Jews at the time of the Revolution”. There was a fear that there would be no book presentation in the university. Is this a space for the free circulation of ideas? So, even with threatening postings or activism in the offices where research is done, the latter is at stake. And with that, science within the public university is also at stake.
That’s why I spoke to you about the danger of total decline of the public university, which neither international partnerships nor the parchments of members of the academic community will save it. It will be saved, first and foremost, by turning them into places of truly higher learning, without fear and without passion.
