Minerva 33: 149--169,1995. 9 1995KluwerAcademic Publishers. Printed in The Netherlands.
Changing Models of University Government in Turkey TOKAY GEDIKO~;LU THE GOVERNMENTof colleges and universities involves decisions about basic tasks, organisational arrangements, targets for enrolment, budget allocations, information and evaluation. The government of higher educational institutions is thus a complex structure and process. The hierarchical organisation of authority presents various problems at different levels, and this complicates the issues by requiring a complex network of communication among several administrative levels. The complexity is also inherent in the nature of the teaching, research and public service which are the main functions of colleges and universities, as well as in the changing nature of the faculty and students as interest groups. Since 1923, the beginning of the republican period, Turkish higher education has been experimenting with various models of government in search of the most appropriate system vis-d-vis its internal and external circumstances. Efforts to reform the system in the face of new developments have had major effects on their governmental processes, as well as on other aspects and constituents of Turkish colleges and universities. The first university to follow the model of a Western university was founded after Turkey became a republic in 1923. The oldest Turkish university, Istanbul University, was established in 1933. At present, higher education in Turkey is provided by public colleges and universities, all supported by the central government. There are now 57 universities in Turkey, ranging from well-established multifunctional ones in the major cities to less developed institutions in smaller towns. After the establishment of the Republic in 1923, Turkish leaders believed that higher educational institutions could play an important role in carrying out the reforms needed for the rapid development of the country. As a result, new universities were opened in various parts of the country in the decades which followed. From the beginning of the Republic, the establishment of institutions of higher education required legislation in the form of separate legislationmuniversity or higher education laws--which described the aims, organisational structure, government, and other characteristics of these institutions. As a result of social, economic, educational and political changes, five such laws have been passed so far, each of which has redefined and modified the existing government of Turkish colleges and universities or has introduced new patterns into them.
150
Tokay Gediko~lu
The Historical Background The history of Turkish higher education can be traced back to the eleventh century,1 when the Selchuk Turks developed medreses, or mosque colleges, for instruction in Islamic theology and Islamic canon law. The first Ottoman medrese was founded by Orhan Gazi, the second Ottoman sultan, in lznik in 1331.2 For many years, religion continued to play an important role in determining the basic functions of Turkish higher education. The Ottoman medreses, as institutions of higher education, continued these functions until they were completely abolished in 1924 after Turkey became a secular republic. Medrese was a well-organised institution, and it occupied a pivotal position in both Selchuk and Ottoman societies? A certificate or licence f r o m a medrese led directly to highly regarded posts in the palace. Each medrese was governed by a board of trustees, usually chosen by the grand vizier--the highest administrator below the sultan in the Selchuk and Ottoman administrative systems--in accordance with the conditions and principles laid down by the founding benefactor? Medreses were autonomous institutions and the salaries of teaching staff (mfiderris), and other expenses for the maintenance of medreses and their students were paid out of the revenues of the medrese's mortmain lands and, in some cases, from the imperial budget. 5 Fatih Sultan Mehmet, the conqueror of Istanbul, established the Ottoman palace school (Enderun) in the 1450s to train administrative and military personnel for the palace.6 Enderun functioned on the basis of the criterion of meritorious achievement and service. Incentives offered to encourage excellence in study included the personal approbation of the sultan, rapid promotion to office, and differential rates of scholarships or allowances. In order to ensure that teaching and training were of the highest quality, the Ottoman sultans usually exercised a strict personal oversight and control over Enderun. The school expanded under successive Ottoman sultans and functioned for about five centuries as a major institution of higher learning, ending its traditional role in the nineteenth century. 1 Reed, Howard A., "Hacettepe and Middle East Technical Universities: New Universities in Turkey", Minerva, XIII (Summer 1975), p. 200-235. 2 Ko~er, H.A., Tiirk&e'de Modern E~itimin Do~,u~u ve Geli~imi (1773-1923) [The beginning and development of modern education in Turkey] (Istanbul: MiUi E~itim Bakanli~i Yayinevi, 1991), p. 10. s Kazamias, A.M., Education and the QuestforModernity in Turkey (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1966), pp. 32-33. 4 Umunc, Himmet, "In Search of Improvement: The Reorganisation of Higher Education in Turkey", Minerva, XXIV (Winter 1986), p. 434. 5 On the administrative affairs of medreses, see Tekinda~, S., "Medrese DOnemi" (The medrese period), in Irmak, Sadi et al. (eds), Cumhuriyetin 50: Yilinda Istanbul Universitesi [Istanbul University at the 50th anniversary of the Republic] (Istanbul: Sermet Matbaasi, 1973). 6 On the establishment and functions of the Palace School, see Miller, B., The Palace School of Muhammad the Conqueror (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1941).
Changing Models of University Government in Turkey
151
The first Turkish university, the Dartilfunun (house of sciences), was established in 1863 in Istanbul. 7 The Dartilfunun was based on the rich Islamic tradition of higher education derived from the medieval rnedrese. The primary function of Dartilfunun was to provide a series of lectures open to the public, given by members of the influential Ottoman elites. It did not have definite aims, or an established organisational structure. In 1865, its main buildings and facilities were destroyed by fire, and reinstatement was postponed until 1870.8 Although this attempt to found a university was unsuccessful, it formed a basis for the establishment of modern higher educational institutions in the years which followed. In 1870, after the passing of the Law of General Education in 1869, Dartilfunun reopened under the name Dartilfunun-u Osmani. Dartilfununu Osmani consisted of three sections comparable to faculties in contemporary Western institutions: philosophy and letters, law, and natural sciences and mathematics. Each section was entitled to elect its own director. The organisational structure, government, curriculum and requirements for admission were set out in the law enacted in 1869. Administration was by a rector (nazir) appointed by the Ministry of Education. A "council" or "senate" served as a decision-making body in academic and administrative matters. Compared to its predecessor, Dartilfunun, and considering the social and political circumstances of the Ottoman Empire at that time, DariJlfunun-u Osmani had considerable structure, administrative autonomy and academic freedom. A system of selecting students and the provision of evening classes were the major innovations introduced to the Turkish higher educational system by Dartilfunun-u Osmani. But despite these developments, Dartilfunun-u Osmani failed to carry out its educational functions and responsibilities, and remained only a half-realised project. It was finally closed for reasons unknown in 1872.9 After the closure of Dartilfunun-u Osmani, another attempt was made to establish an institution of university level in Istanbul. Dartilfunun was reopened for the third time under the name Dartilfunun-u ~ahane in 1900 with faculties of theology, science and letters. 1~The institution was centrally administered: all academic and administrative personnel were appointed by the sultan himself upon recommendations by the Ministry of Education. Lacking academic freedom and administrative autonomy, Dar/ilfunun-u 7 Unat, F.R., Tarkiye E~itim Sisteminin Geli~msine Tarihi Bir Bald~ [An historical perspective on the development of the educational system in Turkey] (Ankara: Milli E/~itim Bakanli~i Yayinlari, 1964). 8 Korkut, H., Tiirk On&ersiteleri ve tYniversite Ara~tirmala~i [Turkish universities and research studies on Turkish higher education] (Ankara: Ankara University Press, 1984), p. 11. 9 Ba~gOz, I. and Wilson, H.E., Educational Problems in Turkey: 1920-1940 (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1968), p. 166. 10 Ayas, N., Tiirk~e Cumhuriyeti Milli E~itimi: Kurulu~lar ve Tatihceler [National education in the Republic of Turkey: Institutions and historical development] (Ankara: Ministry of Education Press, 1948).
152
Tokay Gediko~,lu
Sahane did not seriously engage in rigorous scholarly work, and it remained indifferent to scientific activities taking place elsewhere. Darialfunun was reorganised in 1908 when the Young Turks came to power, and its name reverted to Darfilfunun-u Osmani. Young Turks generally sought to establish institutions on the basis of their political ideas which incorporated features of Western liberal tradition, yet were grounded in basic Islamic beliefs and Ottoman nationalism. H Darialfunun-u Osmani consisted of the faculties of theology, science, letters, law and medicine. Graduate studies were also incorporated into the curriculum; those who completed the undergraduate programme successfully could pursue doctoral studies. However, Dariilfunun-u Osmani achieved more of the character of a university when German and other European scholars joined its faculty in 1914, together with young Turkish scholars such as Ziya G6kalp, Ismail Hakki Baltacio~lu and Fuat K6pr01ti. As well as teaching, which was its primary purpose, research began in the fields of national history, literature and language. The first attempts to provide higher educational opportunities for women were made by establishing a section for women in the Dariilfunun in 1914. Co-education in Turkish higher educational institutions was officially approved by the Dariilfunun senate in 1921. The Darialfunun students' association was also established in 1923, and shortly thereafter a national organisation was formed to include all students attending Turkish higher educational institutions. 1~ Although Dariilfunun-u Osmani was granted some autonomy, teachers were still appointed by the sultan upon the recommendation of the Ministry of Education. At the end of the First World War, Darfilfunun-u Osmani started to lose its European teachers, which resulted in a significant decrease in the quality of teaching and other scholarly activities.
Changing Models of Government in Turkish Higher Education (1924-1933): University Law 493 The first university law, Law 493, was passed in 1924. It described the academic and administrative processes of the only higher educational institution existing at the time, the Darialfunun in Istanbul. 13 The Istanbul Dariilfunun consisted of faculties of law, medicine, letters, science and theology. The faculty of medicine included schools of dentistry and 11 Young Turks, the nineteenth-century Ottoman reformers consisting of a group of young bureaucrats, officers and intellectuals exposed to European ideas and technology, attempted to modemise and revitalise the decaying Ottoman Empire. Although the Young Turks' movement was a progressive attempt, it failed to develop a workable strategy for political transformation in Turkish society. 12 Szyliowicz, J. S., A Political Anal,sis of Student Activism: The Turkish Case (Beverly Hills: Saga Publications, 1972). 13 I-Iirsch, E., Diinya ~lniversiteleri ve Ti~.rkiye'de Oniversitelerin Geliynesi [World universities and the development of universities in Turkey] (Istanbul: Ankara University Press, 1950).
Changing Models of University Government in Turkey
153
pharmacy. Each faculty was composed of several chairs, held by senior professors. The faculties of law, letters, science and theology also offered graduate studies. Course requirements at both undergraduate and graduate levels were determined by the respective faculties. Although the minister of education was the head of the DarOlfunun, he had limited authority over the functions of the institution. His main role was to appoint the rector and the deans of the faculties. The rector (emin), who was elected from among the professors of the Dariilfunun, was the chief administrative official; he had full authority and responsibility and was appointed for a three-year term. There was also a Darfilfunun senate whose members were the deans of the faculties and two professors, appointed for a three-year term, from each faculty. The senate met once a month, presided over by the rector, and took decisions on academic, administrative and disciplinary matters. The teachers of the Istanbul Dariilfunun included professors (rniiderris), assistant professors (miMerris muavini), and instructors (rnuallim). All were civil servants and their promotions were based on both seniority and merit. Publication and proficiency in a foreign language were the prerequisities for an assistant professor. Article 2 of Law 493 explicitly stated that the teachers of the Darfilfunun were to have academic freedom. The importance of autonomy for the Darfilfunun was recognised immediately by the leaders of the Turkish Republic. They believed that autonomy in academic, administrative and financial matters was essential to the Dariilfunun and that only an autonomous institution of higher education could exercise intellectual leadership, assume new responsibilities and thereby eliminate the traditional resistance to the vitalisation of Turkish society. During the first ten years of the Republic, there was very little interference with the DarOlfunun. The government did all it could to provide better facilities and greater financial resources. Substantially increased salaries ensured that its teachers had financial independence. Law 493 gave the Dariilfunun the authority to own and control its own endowments, and to accept gifts from private sources. Academic, administrative and financial control was vested in the senate for the institution as a whole, and in the faculty council for each faculty. These governing bodies took all decisions democratically, although there was no student participation in the government of the Darfilfunun. Academic and administrative positions were usually filled by election, and a simple majority vote was the only criterion in most decision-making processes. The senate was also responsible for preparing the institution's budget which derived from the following sources: funds from the central government budget; tuition and other fees; income from publications; rents; income from services to other institutions; contributions from foundations; and miscellaneous endowments and gifts. 14 Funds from fees, publications
14Ibid., p. 222.
154
Tokay Gedikoglu
and from services to other institutions belonged to the respective faculties. In the academic year 1931-32, the budget of the Dariilfunun amounted to about one million Turkish liras. Under the circumstances prevailing, this amount was considered sufficient to cover all its expenses. Although the Istanbul Dartilfunun was an autonomous institution, it faced a number of serious challenges from its own professors. The elites of the traditional religious institutions--the Ulerna--still maintained a strong position in educational, cultural and even political spheres during the early years of the Republic. In a society which had been characterised by conventional Islamic beliefs and values, the introduction of liberal ideas, institutions and modes of life created conflict and were questioned by members of the traditional elites. The adverse reaction to newly introduced Western ideas on the part of some professors was severely criticised by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk in a speech in Bursa, and indicated that further reforms and radical changes were needed in the government of Turkish higher education. In addition, the declared policy of governmental non-intervention in higher education was not quite consistent with the policy of statism in other sectors. Higher education could well have benefited from the guidance of central government in its early stages. The policy of non-intervention also isolated the Dariilfunun from the rest of society. It became a relatively selfcontained "ivory tower", rarely interested in current public concerns. However, the main criticism of the Istanbul Dartilfunun centred on three other issues: the attitude of the Dartilfunun towards reforms undertaken by the government under the leadership of Mustafa Kemal Atatflrk; the lack of significant research; and inappropriate appointments among its teachers. The Dariilfunun had failed to make a mark in realising the reforms needed for the rapid development of the country--in fact, these reforms were actively or passively opposed by some of its own professors. Its teachers carried out little research; most did not publish original works, but instead translated Western works. As a result of these criticisms, the government decided to act. The Grand National Assembly recommended that a European expert on higher education be invited to conduct a study of the Darfilfunun and to suggest the action necessatar for its improvement. The Ministry of Education invited Albert Malche, a Swiss professor, to carry out the investigation and prepare a report. 15 Malche stayed in Turkey for four months and examined the Dariilfunun closely. His report had much influence on subsequent developments in Turkish higher education. Albert Malche stated that he saw no reason why the Turkish government should not initiate reforms in higher education since it was already attempting to reform other institutions. He focused his criticism on the curriculum, the teaching methods, and the neglect of research in the 15For detailsof Malche'sreport see ibid.,pp. 229--295.
Changing Models of University Government in Turkey
155
Dartilfunun. Malche pointed out that the courses taught consisted of encyclopaedic summaries, repeated year after year. Such instruction was actually a barrier to the education of students; it prevented them from becoming curious and from engaging in independent study and research. Following Malche's report, the Ministry of Education abandoned its wellintentioned policy of non-intervention and, with the full approval of Atatfirk, proposed legislation abolishing the Darfilfunun. Speaking in favour of the proposal, Resit Galip, the minister of education, stated: There have been major political, social and economic developments and reforms in our country. The Dariilfunun has remained as an outsider; it only adapted itself to the new laws and regulations and assimilated them into its internal structure. The Latin alphabet has been adopted; a new language policy has been started. The Dariilfunun has remained indifferent to these developments too. A new understanding of national history has prevailed throughout the country. It has taken the Da~lfunun three years to realise the importance of all these developments. The Istanbul Dariilfunun has failed to carry out its functions; it has isolated itself from the rest of Turkish society by having only limited contact with the external world) 6 In summary, the Istanbul Darfilfunun had failed to take the lead in the execution of the newly introduced reforms, and therefore had failed to meet the expectations of the Turkish leaders. The politically motivated appointment of some teachers was opposed by state officials, as were several appointment of junior teachers within the institution itself. Most important of all, the DarOlfunun had failed to produce scholarly works. It was unable to contribute to the development of the Turkish nation. On 31 July, 1933, the Grand National Assembly enacted Law 2252 which abolished the Istanbul Darfilfunun, and it authorised the Ministry of Education to establish a new institution of higher education in Turkey. This law was regarded as the first reform act in the history of Turkish higher education.
The Establishment of lstanbul University (1933-1946): University Law 2252 With the authorisation of the Grand National Assembly, the Ministry of Education established a new institution, Istanbul University, on 1 August, 1933. The term "university" had deliberately not been used by the conservative administrators and professors of the Dariilfunun before 1933 to refer to institutions of higher education, for fear that it would denote progressivism and westernisation. One of the main objectives of the reforms of 1933 was to increase the control and supervision of the government over the university. In order to accomplish this objective, the minister of education was appointed as the chief executive official of Istanbul University. The rector--representing the authority of the minister of education--became the chief executive administrator within the institution. Although the minister was nominally the 16 See Korkut, H., Ti2rk(]niversiteleti,op. c/t., p. 13.
156
Tokay Gedikoglu
highest administrator of the university, he usually delegated his power to supervise and co-ordinate its activities to the rector. The rector was appointed by the Ministry of Education for an indefinite term. That the appointment was also subject to the approval of the president of Turkey indicates the degree of centralisation of the system. The rector had to submit a report on the activities of the university to the Ministry of Education at the end of each academic session. The university senate, presided over by the minister of education or the rector, was composed of all the members of the faculty councils. The senate made decisions on the general academic affairs of Istanbul University and on national higher educational matters at large. The organisation of Istanbul University also included a governing board, composed of the deans and secretaries of the faculties, and a university consultative committee, formed by all the faculty consultative committees. The governing board had the authority to investigate and decide on educational and scientific matters concerning both the university and the country as a whole. The university consultative committee was an advisory body, responsible for investigating and forming an opinion on matters concerning various administrative and academic tasks and their performance within the university. A general secretary, appointed by the Ministry of Education upon the recommendation of the rector, assisted the rector in administrative matters. Faculties were administered by deans, who were usually ordinary professors or professors, appointed by the Ministry of Education upon the recommendation of the rector. The ordinary professors, like their German counterparts, had tremendous power within their domains. The deans exercised the rector's authority and responsibility at the faculty level. Faculty councils, presided over by the deans, were composed of all the ordinary professors and other professors of the faculties, and were responsible for making academic, administrative and financial decisions related to their faculties. In addition to these major organisational bodies, there were faculty consultative committees, such as the administrative and finance committee, the curriculum committee, the publications committee, and the student affairs committee. Each was composed of two ordinary professors or professors appointed by the rector upon the recommendation of the dean. These faculty consultative committees, with their purely advisory functions, assisted deans in their respective areas. The faculty of Istanbul University was composed of ordinary professors, professors, docents and assistants (junior teachers). All teachers were civil servants on permanent tenure until retirement. With the regulations of 1934, the government of the university gained a highly centralised character; the institutional autonomy enjoyed by the Dariilfunun was considerably decreased, and administrative and financial control transferred to the Ministry of Education. Faculty elections were discarded and the appoint-
Changing Models of University Government in Turkey
157
ments system came under strict governmental control. Teachers at Istanbul University did not have academic freedom: The government was not prepared at this time to accept academic freedom in the educational institutions of the country, particularly because of the right to criticise inherent in such freedom. This is not an uncommon characteristic of societies which have recently emerged from a revolution, or which are still engaged in one. The university tended towards conservatism and relatively theoretical interests, largely because the government authorities were too often intolerant of the criticism requisite to free discussion on real and current issues.17 Although in 1924 the Darfilfunun was given the authority to own and control its own endowments and gifts by Law 493, gifts were not forthcoming and the institution continued to depend upon the central government for its finance. With the establishment of Istanbul University, financial control of higher education was also given to the government, and the university received the bulk of its funds from the national budget under Law 2467 of 1934, which amended Law 2252. The new law stipulated that the government rather than higher educational institutions should collect the funds from private sources and foundations. The internal government of Istanbul University was vested, under the supervision of the rector, in the governing board for the university as a whole, and, under the supervision of the dean in the respective faculty councils at the level of the faculty. However, these governing bodies were essentially advisory. Law 2252 described their functions in the following way: the governing board, presided over by the rector, meets once a week to make decisions on such matters as the supervision and co-ordination of the institutions's academic activities; the development and expansion of the faculties and affiliated institutes and schools; and the preparation of the annual budget of the university and allocation of resources. Faculty councils, on the other hand, are authorised to make decisions on the following: the nomination of candidates for openings in the academic staff and the administration of examinations of candidates for docentships; the selection of university graduates for further studies in Europe; the provision of various publications and teaching materials for teachers in the faculty; the organisation for participation of faculty members in conferences and symposiums; and the preparation of annual budgets and allocation of resources within the faculty. TM Faculty appointments at all levels, except in the case of assistants, were made by the Ministry of Education on the basis of recommendations by the rector and deans. Recommendations by the senate were necessary in the appointments of ordinary and other professors. All faculty members, under the reform of 1924, were civil servants with permanent tenure until retirement; as with past practice, promotions were based on both seniority 17 Basgoz,I. and Wilson, H.E., EducalionalProblemsin Turkey, op. cir., p. 168. is UniversityLaw 2252, articles 11, 34.
158
Tokay Gediko~lu
and merit. In order to be appointed to the position of docent, applicants had to take a proficiency examination in their respective fields, as well as to hold a PhD. Other requirements for docentships and professorships included proficiency in foreign languages and a record of publication. The authority of the government, represented by the top level of administrators of the institution and by the authority of senior professors, was paramount. Junior teachers and students did not participate in decision-making. The expansion of Turkish higher education had started with the establishment of institutions outside Istanbul. Turkish leaders recognised that new universities had to be founded in other parts of the country if the goal of the Turkish revolution--the goal of reaching the level of contemporary civilisation--was to be accomplished. They believed that this could only be done if the ideal of the revolution was based on scientific foundations established by institutions of higher education on a national scale. To this end, a faculty of languages, history and geography was established in Ankara in 1925. As decreed at the Izmir Economic Conference of 1923, a higher school of agricultural sciences was founded in 1930. Faculties of science, law and medicine were added to these institutions in 1940, 1941 and 1945 respectively. Finally, in 1946, another university, Ankara University, was established grouping these faculties together.
Changes Introduced Between 1946 and 1973: Law 4936 Despite the fact that, by 1946, the establishment of a few modern universities apparently indicated the successful development of Turkish higher education, these universities failed, in one way or another, to meet the needs of Turkish society amid the changes taking place under the government of the Republican People's Party. Consequently, university administrators and teachers, as well as government officials, felt the need for further reforms and innovations in higher education. After the beginning of the multi-party system, Turkish higher education was reorganised through the passage of University Law 4936 in 1946. The new law introduced minor changes in the organisation of Turkish universities. An inter-university council and a governing board at faculty level were the major innovations, and councils of professors replaced the consultative committees. The existing basic hierarchies in the organisational structure were preserved under the new law, although the structure of authority was rather diffuse. The government of Turkish higher education institutions, under Law 4936, was designed on the bureaucratic model, with slight collegial elements incorporated into it. Although colleges and universities were granted autonomy with the new law, the centralised character of the system did not change much. Compared with previous years, governmental authority over the institutions of higher education was reduced but not eliminated. All decisions made by administrators and decision-making bodies within the institutions needed the approval of the Ministry of Education.
Changing Models of University Government in Turkey
159
Turkish higher educational institutions were also granted academic freedom by Law 4936. The law did not, however, clearly state what "academic freedom" meant, and how it was to be exercised by teachers. The concept of academic freedom was left in an ambiguous state. The financial status of the institutions under Law 4936 was similar to that of the Istanbul Dariilfunun. The law authorised colleges and universities to own and control their own endowments and gifts. Funds from the following sources made up the budgets of individual institutions: the national budget, tuition and other fees, publications, rents, services to other institutions, foundation grants, endowments and gifts, income from university hospitals and from public service.19The annual budgets of each university and faculty were proposed by the university secretary and its council of professors. The proposals were examined and modified by the university governing board and finalised by the university senate. In addition to annual budgetary allocations, some colleges and universities were granted funds from the national budget to be used as "revolving budgets", which could be utilised to create public services which would produce additional income for the faculties directly involved in providing such services. Law 4936 vested the internal government of Turkish universities and colleges, under the supervision of the rector, in the university senate and governing board at the institutional level, and--under the supervision of the dean--in the governing board and council of professors of each faculty. The university senate gained more power in the government of the institutions and greater authority and responsibility as compared with the Reform Act of 1933. The function of the faculty council was reduced to taking decisions on programmes, evaluation procedures and similar academic affairs. The council was also authorised to prepare the rules and regulations of the faculty. Under the law of 1946, all teachers in Turkish higher educational institutions, who were civil servants with permanent tenure until retirement, were selected by the council of professors on the basis of fixed criteria employed by all institutions. Senior teaching appointments were again made by the Ministry of Education upon the recommendation of the rector and the university senate. Junior teaching appointments, on the other hand, were made by the rector upon the recommendation of the senate. The criteria employed for the promotions of teachers were the same as before: seniority and merit. Proficiency in foreign languages and publication were also required for appointments to docentships and professorships. Law 4936 granted substantial autonomy to universities and their constituent faculties. It preserved the basic academic hierarchy and raised the standards for teaching staff by requiring the docentship as the initial permanent teaching rank of the faculty. Most decisions on academic, 19 Timur, H., Oniversiteler Kanunu [Universities Law] (Istanbul: Istanbul University Press, 1946), pp. 114-115.
160
Tokay Gediko~lu
administrative and financial matters were taken directly by teachers and administrators at all levels. As a result of the electoral system employed in most decision-making and the more diffused structure of authority within the institutions, there was less governmental interference with the internal affairs of colleges and universities, and less authority was vested in senior professors within their departments. Junior teachers and students, however, were not included in the decision-making processes.
Decreased Central Control and Increased Democracy in Higher Education (1973-1981): Law 1750 A major factor affecting the development of Turkish higher education in the 1970s was student radicalism, which had started in the late 1960s in the form of occasional boycotts and sit-ins, but later gained a violent character which usually resulted in a suspension of academic activities and the temporary closure of some institutions. During the 1960s and 1970s, admissions to higher educational institutions remained static while the number of secondary school graduates grew rapidly. 2~ As a result, in 1964 admissions to all Turkish colleges and universities started to be organised on a national basis. Even today, students seeking admission need to take a centrally organised examination, in two steps. The number of candidates taking the Inter-University Student Selection Examination rose from around 50,000 to 70,000 in the late 1970s, to more than 230,000 in 1974.21 This led, in the 1960s, to the establishment of many private higher educational institutions to meet the demand which was not being met by public institutions. Private institutions, however, depended heavily on the part-time services of teachers from public higher educational institutions. The private institutions were often poorly equipped, especially in library and laboratory facilities and student services; in addition, they charged high tuition fees. These low standards aroused opposition from professional groups such as engineers, architects, chemists and pharmacists, who first asked their colleagues not to teach in private institutions, and then challenged their legal status under article 120 of the Constitution of 1961 which reserved all higher education to the state. In 1971, private higher educational institutions were declared unconstitutional. Most of them were taken over by the Ministry of Education and incorporated into their official counterparts. The student radicalism of the 1960s and early 1970s, the increased demand for higher education, and the experience of private higher education led to the reorganisation of the Turkish higher education system with
2o For numbers and percentages of admissions in that period, see Turkish National Education on the 50th Anniversary of the Republic (Istanbul: Ministry of Education Press, 1973), p. 267. 21 See Reed, H. A., "Hacettepe and Middle East Technical Universities", op. cit., p. 206.
Changing Models of University Government in Turkey
161
the passage of the University Law 1750 in 1973.22 Although the new law contained several variations, it preserved many of the provisions of the previous law. The major innovations included a Higher Education Council and a Higher Educational Supervisory Council for the planning of manpower, supervision of individual colleges and universities in academic and administrative matters including the expenditure of their budgets, and the evaluation of higher educational institutions on a national basis. The law also introduced some participation of junior teachers and students in the government of colleges and universities. This gave them an opportunity to express their opinions on matters concerning teaching and research studies in their respective institutions. The government of Turkish higher educational institutions was again based on the bureaucratic model, .but increased elements of a collegial model could also be found, especially at individual institutions. Although colleges and universities were defined by law as autonomous and selfgoverning institutions, governmental control was still exercised through the newly established bodies such as Higher Education Supervisory Council. However, compared with the previous three decades, central governmental control over individual colleges and universities decreased. Law 1750 did not specify whether or not teachers in higher educational institutions would possess academic freedom. It is likely that the authorities perceived that the academic freedom of teachers had contributed to the politieisation of Turkish higher educational institutions. However, one cannot find any statement in the law which indicates a denial of academic freedom. Nor did the law change the financial status of higher educational institutions. Their sources of funds, the procedures to be followed in financial matters, and the management of revolving budgets described in Law 4936, were maintained in Law 1750 with minor changes. However, several significant changes were introduced into the internal government of these institutions. The law permitted minimal representation of junior teachers in decision-making. It also allowed elected student representatives to present their views to faculty governing boards, but only when requested to do so. Elected representatives of the non-academic staff could be invited by faculty governing boards or executive committees to communicate their views on subjects of direct concern to them. With these provisions and the increased collegial elements incorporated into Law 1750, the government of Turkish higher educational institutions became more democratic. Law 1750 decreased the number of ranks in the teaching staff by abolishing ordinary professorships and recognising only professors and docents as regular full-time teachers on permanent tenure. Docents had to 22 On the organisation and government of Turkish higher education under Law 1750, see Ataunal, A., Cumhuriyet Drneminde Yiiksekog,retimdeki Geli~meler (Development of higher education in the republican period) (Ankara: Ministry of Education Press, 1993), pp. 340--370; Umunc, H., "In Search of Improvement", op. cir., pp. 447-450.
162
Tokay Gediko~lu
serve at least five years in that rank, pass an examination to show proficiency in a foreign language and submit an acceptable publication or thesis, before appointment to the rank of professor. Junior teachers, who did not have permanent tenure, included the same categories described in the previous law, but a PhD was required for the assistantship. Senior and junior appointments were made by the rector upon the recommendation of the university senate and the appropriate faculty council. Teachers, however, could not be appointed if they had been disciplined or taken part in propaganda, student radicalism or disruptive acts as specified in Law 1750. There were provisions in the new law regarding the training and evaluation of teachers. Shortage of faculty members had always been a factor preventing the expansion of higher education throughout the republican period. The First and Second Five-Year Development Plans of 1963-67 and 1968-72 stated that teacher training programmes should be initiated at colleges and universities to meet the increasing need for teachers, especially at the new institutions outside larger cities. Moreover, the Second FiveYear Development Plan specified that 3,000 students be sent abroad for doctoral studies. In order to supply teachers for the institutions which were to be established, the training of junior teachers under the supervision of professors in the existing higher educational institutions was authorised. An annual evaluation of academic activities of each faculty or department had to be made by the senate; this was intended to improve teaching, research and other scholarly activities. Law 1750 stated that additional facilities and student services should be provided at Turkish colleges and universities to create an environment conducive to productive study. Tuition and other fees could only be collected in order to contribute to a fund for student aid. The law authorised individual universities to open new faculties, schools and institutes. In addition, nine new universities were to be established on the basic pattern set out in Law 1750. In response to persistent demands, mainly from provincial leaders and political groups, these universities were opened in smaller cities. Most started with either a medical or an engineering faculty or both. With their establishment, the number of Turkish universities reached 19 in 1979.
Attempts to Standardise the System (1981-1995): Law 2547 Turkish higher education was reorganised in 1981 to provide solutions to problems that institutions of higher education had faced for several years. These problems included the wide variety of laws and types of institutions of higher education and the differences in practice resulting from the variations; the lack of central planning and co-ordination of higher education on a national basis; the increasing demand for trained manpower for national development; the isolation of higher educational institutions from their environments and from current national issues; the increasing
Changing Models of University Government in Turkey
163
demand for higher education as a means of social mobility; the shortage of teachers at the universities in smaller cities; the decreasing contacts between students and staff; and the increase in student radicalism during the preceding decade. Although the several university laws and institutional charters enacted throughout the republican period up to the 1980s h a d increased the diversity of Turkish higher education, in many cases they conflicted with each other and caused administrative, academic and financial problems. Moreover, variations among these laws and charters prevented the standardisation of the system. For example, transferring from one degree programme to another between similar types of institutions became impossible both for students and teachers. Because the Council of Higher Education authorised by Law 1750 was not yet established, and the role of the Ministry of Education in higher education was not clearly defined by that law, there was no authoritative body for the planning and co-ordination of higher education on a national basis. Lack of comprehensive planning and co-ordination among higher educational institutions in the 1970s made it virtually impossible to assess national priorities in any coherent fashion, and something had to be done to make the universities more responsive to the needs of Turkish society.23 The expansion of the Turkish economy and industry in the 1960s and 1970s increased significantly the need for trained manpower, especially in vocational and technical areas. Higher educational institutions could not produce personnel of the quality and in the quantity needed, partly because of the emphasis they had placed on general education during the republican period. Most institutions, isolated themselves from their environments and current national problems, concentrated on abstract studies instead of attempting to combine their scientific expertise withenvironmental resources in order to deal with the country's practical problems. Since the beginning of the multi-party period in 1946, Turkish students had become an active force in the political life of the Republic. In the 1960s, student politics usually centred on legitimate causes, such as the desire for better student services and additional help in meeting course and graduation requirements. But disturbances in the 1970s indicated that a new type of radicalism had emerged among Turkish students. Violent student radicalism, combined with widespread terrorism throughout the country, took a severe toll in the late 1970s, resulting, in some cases, in the death of 10 to 15 persons each day. Much student radicalism of the 1970s was directed against the established political system. In the face of these developments, Turkish higher education was reorganised with the passage of Law 2547 in 1981. This law is regarded as the second most important reform act in the history of Turkish higher 23 Do~ramaci, I., The Higher Educational Reform in Turkey: Results After Three Years (Ankara: Council of Higher Education Press, 1985), pp. 3-4.
164
Tokay Gedikoglu
education. In order to eliminate difficulties encountered in applying Law 2547, it was amended by Law 2653 in 1982 and by Law 2880 in 1983.24 The Council of Higher Education has become fact under Law 2547. The Constitution of 1982 reaffirmed it as the highest administrative body authorised to plan, co-ordinate and supervise the institutions of higher education on a national basis. The Constitution also defined the university in article 130 as a "self-governing institution with academic freedom", which can only be established by law. In addition, the Turkish Constitution allows for the establishment of private higher educational institutions, subject to state co-ordination, and sponsored by and affiliated to trust foundations. The main functions of the Council of Higher Education are: to approve the budgets proposed by the universities and submit them to the government for legislation; to set minimum degree requirements; to propose to the president of Turkey a list of nominees for each rectorship; and to receive regular reports from university rectors on the performance of their institutions. The council is made up of seven members selected by the president of Turkey, seven members selected by the Council of Ministers, one member selected by the armed forces, two members selected by the Ministry of Education, and seven members selected by the Inter-University Council. The appointment of these members and of the head of the Council of Higher Education has to be confirmed by the president of Turkey. The Higher Educational Supervisory Council attached to the Council of Higher Education under Law 2547 is composed of five members selected by the Council of Higher Education, one member selected by the Supreme Court, the Council of State, and the State Accounting Bureau respectively, one member selected by the armed forces, and one member selected by the Ministry of Education. The head of this council is appointed by the head of the Council of Higher Education from among the above members. The Higher Educational Supervisory Council is authorised to supervise and evaluate the institutions of higher education. Law 2547 has altered the membership of the Inter-University Council, but has maintained its authority in academic planning and co-ordination. The Inter-University Council is composed of the rectors of all Turkish universities, one member from the armed forces, and one professor, selected by the senate, from each university for a period of four years. The Inter-University Student Selection and Placement Centre is a new component attached to the Council of Higher Education under Law 2547. The body organises and administers the Inter-University Student Selection Examination on the basis of limitations set by the universities and objectives set by the Council of Higher Education. 24 On the organisation and government of Turkish higher education under Law 2547, see Ataunal, A., Cumhuriyet D6neminde, op. cit., pp. 395-431; Umunc, H., "In Search of Improvement", op. cit., pp. 450--455.
Changing Models of University Government in Turkey
165
At the university level, the senate, presided over by the rector, is the highest authority in academic matters. Its members are the assistant rectors, deans of faculties, one member elected by each faculty council, and the directors of institutes for graduate studies and schools of higher learning. The senate prepares the rules and regulations and advises the rector on academic matters pertaining to the university as a whole. In addition, there is a university governing board in charge of the administrative affairs of the university. It is presided over by the rector and composed of the deans and professorial representatives of the faculties. The board advises the rector on the day-to-day operations of the university and the appointment of full professors, as well as on the preparation of the university budget and its investment programme. The rector is appointed by the president of Turkey on the recommendation of the Council of Higher Education for a period of four years; he or she can be reappointed for another term. The council recommends three of the six candidates elected by the senior teachers of a university. The rector is authorised to co-ordinate and supervise all academic and administrative units within the university, and can appoint two or three assistant rectors. In addition, he or she appoints a general secretary, who is in charge of nonacademic affairs at the university. Law 2547 has incorporated "institutes" into Turkish higher education as the academic units concerned with graduate studies. The structure and government of the institutes resemble those of faculties and schools of higher learning. At the faculty level, not many significant changes were introduced by Law 2547, except that deans are appointed by the Council of Higher Education for a period of three years from three candidates recommended by the rector. The faculty council, presided over by the dean, possesses authority in the academic affairs of the faculty and is composed of department heads, directors of institutes and schools of higher learning, and elected representatives of professors, docents and assistant docents. The faculty governing board, on the other hand, is presided over by the dean; it deals with the administrative affairs of the faculty and is composed of three professors, two docents and one assistant docent elected by the faculty council. The government of Turkish higher education institutions, under Law 2547, is a bureaucratic affair. Several elements of collegial government introduced by Law 1750 have been eliminated. Under the new law, Turkish colleges and universities are defined as self-governing and autonomous institutions. However, state co-ordination and control over these institutions, through the Council of Higher Education and other administrative bodies at the national level, seem to have increased. Apolitical supervision and control will probably be needed in higher educational systems if they seek uniformity and standardisation. Since the passage of Law 1750 in 1973 there have been several attempts to eliminate disparities and to institute a uniform and comprehensive system encompassing all higher educational institutions.
166
Tokay Gediko~,lu
The role of the Ministry of Education in the Turkish higher educational system is not made clear in Law 2547. Although the ministry does not seem to be directly involved in the supervision and control of higher educational institutions, the minister of education is authorised to preside over the meetings of the Council of Higher Education and to participate in the meetings of the Inter-University Council. Nor does the law include any provision for academic freedom, although the Constitution of 1982 granted this right to teachers in higher educational institutions. The financial status of these institutions remains as it was under Law 1750. The sources of funds, procedures to be followed in financial matters, and the management of revolving budgets described in that law are also maintained, with minor changes. At the institutional level, Law 2547 decreased the authority of the university senate in administrative and financial matters by limiting its authority to academic affairs, and by increasing the authority and responsibility of the rector in all these matters. The participation of junior teachers and students in decision-making, introduced by Law 1750, is not included in Law 2547. At the institutional level, all academic decisions are made by senior teachers. Senior academic ranks include professors and docents as regular full-time teachers with permanent tenure. Academic ranks include assistant docents, docents and professors as full-time members (docents and professors on permanent tenure appointments). A PhD degree is required for appointment to the post of assistant docent. Applicants for assistant docentships also have to pass a translation test of 150-200 words. They are appointed for two- or three-year terms within a 12-year period, and they have to serve a few years in this rank after the completion of their PhD, pass an examination in foreign language proficiency, and submit acceptable publications before appointment to the rank of docent. Docents must serve at least five years in this rank in their respective fields, produce research, and publish their results in internationally recognised publications before appointment to the rank of professor. Junior teachers are not on permanent tenure and include the categories described in the previous two laws, except that the post of "assistant" has been abolished and one of "research assistant" established. Assistant docents are appointed by the rector upon the recommendation of ad hoc committees. Appointments of docents and professors, on the other hand, are made by the rector upon the recommendation of ad hoc committees and the university governing board. Junior faculty appointments are made by the rector upon the recommendation of the deans or directors of institutes and schools of higher learning and faculty councils. The number of teaching staff at all levels grew between 1990 and 1994 (Table I).
Changing Models of University Government in Turkey
167
TABLEI Number of Teaching Staff at Turkish Higher Educational Institutions, 1990--1994 Associate Assistant Language Research Professor Professor Professor Instructor Instructor Assistant
Total
w
1990-91
4,775
2,433
3,862
23,399
34,469
1991-92
4,841
3,226
3,762
5,224
2,961
13,879
33,893
1992-93
5,035
3,581
4,237
5,448
3,242
15,575
37,118
1993-94
5,503
3,575
4,991
5,918
3,456
17,525
40,969
SOURCE:HigherEducation Statistics (Ankara: OSYM Publications, 1995), pp. 3--4.
Under Law 2547, the government of Turkish higher education has gained a highly bureaucratic character, similar to that under Law 2252. State coordination, formal bureaucratic procedures, appointment of administrators without election, and formal rules and regulations appear to be the basic features of the present system. The present system of higher education consists of two-, three-, four-, five- and six-year public colleges and universities, all funded by the central government. There are also a few private universities supported by foundations. Both public and private institutions fall into the three categories: universities, schools of higher learning and vocational schools of higher learning. There are 57 universities in total, ranging from well-established multifunctional universities in the major cities to less developed institutions in remote towns. The number of students and graduates in the various categories has increased in the early 1990s (Tables II and III). TABLEII Number of Students, New Admissions and Graduates at Turkish Higher Educational Institutions, 1990-1994 Total Number of Students
New Admissions
Number of Graduates
1990-91
749,921
191,265
91,317
1991-92
810,781
198,218
94,714
1992-93
915,765
263,319
100,753
1993-94
1,143,143
369,950
107,253a
a Estimated number. SOURCE:HigherEducation Statistics, op. ciL, pp. 3--4.
168
Tokay Gediko~lu TABLEIII Distribution of Students at UndergraduateLevel, 1990-i994 Vocational Schoolsof Higher Training Schools Learning
Universities
Open University
1990--91
72,207
8,891
363,349
260,962
1991-92
77,018
9,007
383,277
289,745
1992-93
134,045
9,190
412,558
303,691
1993-94
261,778
9,169
501,483
310,633
SOURCE: Higher Education Statistics, op. cit., pp. 3--4.
Most Turkish universities were established in the German, French or British tradition. However, some, such as Ankara Middle East Technical University and Istanbul Bo~azici University have borrowed elements from the American higher educational system. Schools of higher learning provide postsecondary professional training and include state conservatories, higher schools of agricultural science, the higher marine school, the police institute and the like. Vocational schools of higher learning--the latest addition of the system--were set up to train manpower for intermediate positions in various vocational fields. The majority of the schools of higher learning and the vocational schools are not independent but are affiliated to universities. There is also an "open university" which provides educational opportunities in a number of social science subjects. Conclusions Changes in the Turkish higher educational system, both before and during the republican period, have mostly been initiated by Turkish governments in response to changing national and international circumstances. In face of these changes, each university law has been ineffective, and some new political, social and economic situations have arisen which did not exist when the earlier laws were enacted. But these changes have resulted in increased co-ordination by the state of the institutions of higher education, characterised by hierarchical organisational structures and bureaucratic government. Attempts by administrators and teachers in colleges and universities to institute a decentralised system have been unsuccessful. Since the early 1990s, however, higher educational institutions have started to make their own rules and regulations pertaining to academic affairs. They also select and appoint their own faculty members. The organisational structure of Turkish higher education has remained more or less the same throughout the republican period. Major changes have occurred primarily at the national level rather than at the level of university or faculty, which accords with the increased centralisation of the system. Among these changes were the establishment of the Council of
Changing Models of University Government in Turkey
169
Higher Education, the Inter-University Council and the Higher Educational Supervisory Council, to perform the various functions exercised by the Ministry of Education in the early years of the Republic. The government of Turkish higher education in the course of its development has been essentially bureaucratic. Some elements of the collegial pattern have also been employed at various stages in the republican era as a result of the efforts of university administrators, teachers and students. The distribution of authority in decision-making has always been prescribed by law, which has stifled initiative on the part of these administrators, teachers and students. Administrators at the institutional level appear to act as executives carrying out decisions taken by higher authorities. The potential of administrators and teachers for creative ideas and actions is not utilised. A combination of bureaucratic and collegial patterns would be more appropriate in the government of Turkish higher educational institutions. This might increase contentment on the part of teachers and encourage fruitful initiatives on the part of administrators. There have been no major changes in financing Turkish higher education in the course of its development. The main patterns set up during the early years of the Republic have been maintained with only minor changes. Although increasing funds from the national budget have been allocated to higher education in the republican period, these increases could not keep up with high inflation rates and the needs created by the expansion of the higher educational system. Even in 1995, fewer resources can be allocated to higher educational institutions because of the economic crises in Turkey for some years. Limited finance and governmental restrictions on the expenditure of colleges and universities have led to a shortage of facilities and instructional material, insignificant salary increases and reduced services for students.
