As the Justice and Development Party (AK Party) and the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) agree on a constitutional change to lift a ban on the headscarf at universities, the dispute between those for the ban and those against it has intensified. Meeting on Friday, a group of university rectors declared that lifting the ban on the headscarf will lead to the establishment of a religious state, replacing the current secular one. The rectors' declaration was countered by a group of independent academics whose number has surpassed 2,000 at the moment of this writing. Independent academics, based on the very concept of "university," argued that universities should be places where different ideas, beliefs, and lifestyles can be freely expressed. Pointing out that there is no headscarf ban in any university in liberal democratic countries they called for a removal of the headscarf ban.
The claims of pro-prohibition rectors are baseless. As the headscarf ban does not protect secularism, lifting the ban does not endanger it, either. The headscarf ban has been in effect for more than 20 years but pro-prohibition academics still argue that secularism is under threat. If that is the case then it is obvious that the headscarf has been less than effective in eliminating the threat against secularism over the last 20 years, so it is useless for the declared objective.
But, of course, this is not the point. The issue is not the threat per se but the hegemony the pro-prohibition groups establish by using the threat to silence the majority in Turkey. So for those who advocate a continuation of the ban, the "threat to secularism" is permanent; it will never disappear. Thus, they should remain in power for good in order to "protect" secularism from the people. It is crystal clear that the "threat to secularism" is a discursive tool to generate a "right to rule" over the people.
Radical secularists at universities have increasingly been marginalized. Their hegemony is being questioned and challenged by a group of independent academics who have declared that universities should be places where freedom, not bans, are the central idea (The Web site of this campaign is universitedeozgurluk.blogspot.com). Their declaration has underlined the fact that universities are not uniform institutions in terms of ideas, lifestyles, and beliefs. Instead, they are places of utmost diversity that should be respected and celebrated as such. The declaration has displayed that officials who advocate for a continuation of the headscarf ban do not represent the whole university. These academics agree that universities should be mentioned with the freedoms they offer to academics and students as well as the contribution that they are making to knowledge.
However, it is obvious that there is a group of authoritarian academics who at the moment happen to be in power at universities. For them diversity in terms of ideas and lifestyles is regarded as a threat. What kind of university do such pro-prohibition academics desire? Could such a place be called a university?
A leading pro-prohibition academic, Mesut Parlak, the rector of Turkey's largest and oldest university, openly stated that they would not be impartial toward their students who wear headscarves after the ban is lifted. This is a shocking admission that pro-prohibition academics are biased, dogmatic and ideologically oriented and that they do not and will not treat their students with equality. I cannot imagine an academic who discriminates against his or her students based on religion, belief, opinion or sex. This is a gross violation not only of law but professional ethics as well. Yet such an admission also reflects the fact that pro-prohibition academics are not interested in liberty, equality, non-discrimination and scholarly work, but are engaged in an ideological fight. It seems that they do not care for universities as such but use universities and their academic titles to suppress those who disagree with them.
Today we know more than ever that there are pro-liberty academics at universities who think that universities should not meddle in the way in which students think or dress.
04.02.2008
The claims of pro-prohibition rectors are baseless. As the headscarf ban does not protect secularism, lifting the ban does not endanger it, either. The headscarf ban has been in effect for more than 20 years but pro-prohibition academics still argue that secularism is under threat. If that is the case then it is obvious that the headscarf has been less than effective in eliminating the threat against secularism over the last 20 years, so it is useless for the declared objective.
But, of course, this is not the point. The issue is not the threat per se but the hegemony the pro-prohibition groups establish by using the threat to silence the majority in Turkey. So for those who advocate a continuation of the ban, the "threat to secularism" is permanent; it will never disappear. Thus, they should remain in power for good in order to "protect" secularism from the people. It is crystal clear that the "threat to secularism" is a discursive tool to generate a "right to rule" over the people.
Radical secularists at universities have increasingly been marginalized. Their hegemony is being questioned and challenged by a group of independent academics who have declared that universities should be places where freedom, not bans, are the central idea (The Web site of this campaign is universitedeozgurluk.blogspot.com). Their declaration has underlined the fact that universities are not uniform institutions in terms of ideas, lifestyles, and beliefs. Instead, they are places of utmost diversity that should be respected and celebrated as such. The declaration has displayed that officials who advocate for a continuation of the headscarf ban do not represent the whole university. These academics agree that universities should be mentioned with the freedoms they offer to academics and students as well as the contribution that they are making to knowledge.
However, it is obvious that there is a group of authoritarian academics who at the moment happen to be in power at universities. For them diversity in terms of ideas and lifestyles is regarded as a threat. What kind of university do such pro-prohibition academics desire? Could such a place be called a university?
A leading pro-prohibition academic, Mesut Parlak, the rector of Turkey's largest and oldest university, openly stated that they would not be impartial toward their students who wear headscarves after the ban is lifted. This is a shocking admission that pro-prohibition academics are biased, dogmatic and ideologically oriented and that they do not and will not treat their students with equality. I cannot imagine an academic who discriminates against his or her students based on religion, belief, opinion or sex. This is a gross violation not only of law but professional ethics as well. Yet such an admission also reflects the fact that pro-prohibition academics are not interested in liberty, equality, non-discrimination and scholarly work, but are engaged in an ideological fight. It seems that they do not care for universities as such but use universities and their academic titles to suppress those who disagree with them.
Today we know more than ever that there are pro-liberty academics at universities who think that universities should not meddle in the way in which students think or dress.
04.02.2008
No comments:
Post a Comment