On Wednesday the 9th 12. 2009 at noon, a panel discussion between university management, government representatives and student representatives was held. Was triggered by the protests against current educational policy and educational systems that have been expressed in recent weeks on federal and worldwide demonstrations and occupations of classrooms and schools. At the beginning of December, after a month about 70 universities nationwide staffed by students.
First Lecture Hall 1 were then HS 4 and 5, following the demonstration of 17.11. were filled with more than 3,000 people. In the second week, said both the Unileitung and the strikers from their willingness in principle speech. The rector had asked for an interview, but decided the plenary of the occupied classroom, on the one not in secret but in public to talk to each other and the round in equal shares (three representatives) to occupy. The rector refused these conditions however.
beginning the third week turned Rector thickness, the positions on the head, and said he discussed with us only when we are through Thursday would leave the lecture hall. Since this is not a good exchange, a call was rejected by the squatters and for a later date envisaged. By the Unileitung in the press release of 02.12. alleged lack of willingness to talk so not correspond to the facts. a reply from 03.12. sets this dar.
then invited the Unileitung even one at a panel discussion. For the panel proposed the following cast: instead of the required three occupants, only one person, and one s representative for the student councils and the Stura. On the side of Unileitung now two representatives should be on the podium and sit the Secretary of State Thomas Deufel. Beginning of the fourth week brought to break the misconception conveyed triangle communications over the Stura, two representatives to the president personally, the message that we would only participate in a panel discussion when three people were sitting in the student strike on the podium. The rector refused to do so, citing as an impractical size of the podium, but he granted two envoys.
The House on Monday evening, in a five-hour discussion trying to decide the difficult question of how to deal with these circumstances, particularly against the background that the protesters from the Unileitung not as a legitimate voice were recognized, although there were hundreds of signatures, many approvals and thousands of people on the streets. In addition, on Monday announced that the discussion take place at noon and not at the central campus should Abbe. Were in agreement, the participants of the plenum that bring the panel discussion will neither solutions nor an agreement could be negotiated within the meaning of the subject demands. The discussions in recent weeks, a shift in the focus of protest, request to officers and committees, followed Waiting towards achieving democracy at the level of those concerned, the lecturers and teachers. Since neither the main Unileitung hold responsibilities for the desired Verändeurungen the study rules, or the democratic structure of the university holds should still was not clear what one should speak at all. Were unanimous in the strikers and that a panel discussion at the very undemocratic and not a good basis for discussion at eye height.
One can say that in the end, most with a feeling ambivalent, arguing for the participation in the discussion. read to The variant also discussed an informative statement, which was to communicate the rejection of a sub-company, has also been welcomed by many but in favor of the meet, conciliatory Decision discarded.
As the ultimate decision to participate in the panel discussion could not be supported by all, except that they abstained from their veto, was passed a declaration by flyers in the audience. In this declaration, the criticism of the form of panel discussions in general and on this very concrete has been issued. The criticism was shared by the participating advocates. This act shows once again the one hand the heterogeneity of the student strike movement, this is definitely our strength, and the other makes the text of the lecture hall taken place in occupied dividends discourse transparent.
Despite the not very central location (Döbereiner Lecture Hall) and the adverse noon found, more than 200 people, mostly students in the lecture hall. Lecturers were significantly less present, which can be explained in part by a fear of losing face by participating in those activities with the Unileitung - this was given to us over in advance by faculty as a reason for non-participation.
were the end the student strike ends by Tobi crown and Kirsten Limbecker represented. For the Student Council sat the Higher Education Policy Officer Joerg Hänold and for the student councils Matt Haberland. From the Rector were Unileitung Klaus thickness and the Vice President for Academic and structure Kurt-Dieter Koschmieder speaker at the podium. In addition, the incumbent for five weeks Thuringian State for Science and Research Thomas Deufel (SPD), who was previously a professor at the University of Jena was loaded. The discussion was led by Francis ..., the Stura at the University leads the talk line.
As discussed, the squatters in the run-up to expectations and criticisms of this panel discussion had turned out to be correct. A discussion or debate, could not be given the structure of a panel discussion possible. In the available good hour, the speeches were limited to two to four models. Except a criticism earlier views expressed and presenting their own arguments were given little or no counter-statements, expressed reactions or even out in the least debate.
A specific issue was not given, so the panelists responded many issues of education strike, but just not as rough in a marking. The speech was line after a first round of statements that were made mainly for the Bologna reform, its implementation and the resulting study conditions, a question about the prospects of improvement of democracy at the university, which opened the second round of speech. The second issue was tackled financial problems in case their 'answer' gave way on the issue of commodification of the university.
After these rounds podium there was an opportunity for the audience to ask questions and give comments. Unfortunately, due to time limitation and the intent of a question and answer session that led to more talk minutes from the Unileitung, only four contributions possible. A strong criticism from the audience said a student in one of the four speeches, geteiltvom yesterday's plenary, and many visitors to the welcome speech by the authority. While the Unileitung and Secretary of State with "dear" and full names were presented, and student representative bodies at least first names were given, the squatters were simply referred to as such. Noticeable was the outward appearance of particular thickness of Rectors of State Secretary Klaus and Thomas Deufel. From her posture, her rare look at the speakers and their talks said both side of arrogance and a lack of interest in the discussion and the thoughts of students. In the last speech from the audience the speaker had even though it comes to Mr. Big himself and his links with the CHE and Bertelsmann, took this call to listen up.
The discussion was inconclusive, as expected, not only because of the shape and the usual vacuous and soothing Discussion of general procedures and their own efforts on the part of the government representative and the university administration. There can be no discussion of democratic forms, fundamental criticism or reflexive questions are done when one side does not go to the thoughts of others and dismiss questionings and new ideas as spinners contempt.
A critique of the substantive comments of Unileitung are built into the product to Standing Conference and the panel discussion .
0 comments:
Post a Comment