Public reprimand for Živko Andrijašević

To the professor of the Faculty of Philosophy Živka Andrijašević a public reprimand was issued at the session of the Senate of the University of Montenegro (UCG) last week.

This was previously decided by the UCG Ethics Committee, after the procedure for the professor's application was completed Vladimir Drekalović.

According to the decision, which "Vijesti" had access to, Andrijašević stated in an electronic correspondence for Drekalović:

"I find no other reason for such a procedure than the impudence and personal animosity of the head of the Office, whose actions are governed by personal frustrations and political passion. I abhor such personalities."

The Council of the Ethics Committee of the UCG, consisting of Assoc. Ph.D Ana Mugoša, prof. Ph.D Marina Rakočević and prof. Ph.D Mileta Golubović found that Andrijašević had violated several articles of the Code of Ethics and issued him a public reprimand with publication at the session of the UCG Senate.

In the explanation of the Council, it is stated that when making the decision, they took into account the need not to jeopardize academic freedom, which is greater than ordinary social freedom.

However, they concluded that Andrijašević showed that he did not care about the reputation of UCG, because in his address he included persons who do not belong to the academic community of that University, and that he used his professional freedom to express negative views about the personality of his colleague, thereby injuring his dignity. . Among other things, the Council assessed that Andrijašević violated the obligation of a culture of reasoned dialogue and understanding...

Drekalović initiated the proceedings before the Ethics Committee at the end of March this year, due to the suspicion that Andrijašević violated the provisions of the Code of Ethics when he sent an email insulting his dignity to several addresses.

"I believe that it is unacceptable and inappropriate to academic practice to cancel the scheduled public defense of the initial research conducted without any explanation or reason, and especially that after the scheduled defense, the need to form a new commission is expressed. I have been at the University for almost three decades and I don't remember that such a precedent has ever been set. I find no other reason for such a procedure than the rudeness and personal animosity of the head of the office, whose actions are governed by personal frustrations and political passion. I am disgusted by such actions and such personalities, and I regret that this Office makes a mockery of academic procedures, fights personal wars and creates a bad image of our Faculty in front of colleagues from other universities and from other countries," Andrijašević stated in the controversial email dated 14. on March of this year, sent to the addresses of the Office for Doctoral Studies, two members of the commission for the defense of initial research, a doctoral student and Drekalović.

Drekalović assessed that the content of his colleague's email insults the dignity of a member of the academic community, does not foster collegial relationships based on mutual respect and a culture of communication, does not respect the personal and professional dignity of employees, does not preserve the integrity and dignity of the academic institution, nor is it written in a cultural form.

"Professor Andrijašević gives a valuable characterization of Drekalović, claiming that he is rude, with personal animosities, frustrated, politically motivated, and that these traits govern his actions, which all together causes a feeling of disgust. At the same time, he did not provide any argument to support his value-psychiatric claims. Violation of the aforementioned articles of the Code gains additional weight, since the content of the email was sent to a student and a colleague of another university," said Drekalović in his statement.

On the other hand, Andrijašević claimed in his statement that in the content of the email he communicated an opinion about the actions of a person, that is, an opinion about the motivation for such actions, and not an opinion about the person.

"The personality of Prof. I did not qualify Dr. Drekalović in any way, nor did I address my colleague Drekalović directly or indirectly. After all, the email was not intended for him," Andrijašević announced.

He also assessed that he has the right to such an opinion, be it positive or negative, and that he believes that the problems started with the appointment of Drekalović as the head of the Office for Doctoral Studies, especially for doctoral students in the field of history, and that for those who are with him (Andrijašević ) collaborated directly.

Among other things, he claimed that critical views are not prohibited by the Code of Ethics and that they are always unpleasant.

The Council found that Andrijašević violated Article 1 of the Code of Ethics, paragraph 8 (Academic and other staff in their work, actions and behavior must adhere to ethical principles, principles of scientific truth and criticality and protect the reputation of the University), paragraph 9 of the same article (Academic staff behaves according to the principles of academic freedom, ethical and intellectual responsibility, cherishes the values ​​of diverse opinions, systematic doubt and personal initiative), paragraph 10 (Professional freedom, scientific curiosity and research spirit cannot be a justification for violating basic human rights and the dignity of colleagues and other citizens ), paragraph 16 (Academic staff are obliged to promote humanistic principles and human rights, develop intellectual skills, support the development of tolerance and openness and encourage professional curiosity...).

The ethics committee also concluded that he violated Article 3, which refers to fostering collegial relations and a culture of communication and dialogue...