National University should become an alternative to EHU, while its slogan should be “More Europe to Belarus” — is said in the statement signed recently by 57 renowned Belarusans.

More than fifty culture figures and bright civil society representatives put their signatures under the statement about the formation of the National University. This document broadly advertised by non-state media was very short, but the list of signatories was much longer: from Svetlana Alexievich, a writer known worldwide and famous musicians Zmicier Vaitsyushkevich and Kasia Kamotskaya to the former Belarus’ leader Stanislav Shushkevich.

The fact that it was Aliaksandr Milinkevich, the leader of the Movement “For Freedom”, who initiated the idea and that the university is planned to open in Warsaw wasn’t mentioned in the statement.

However, the opinions about the need of the second Belarusan university in emigration were divided. The EuroBelarus Information Service discussed this question with Tatiana Vadalazhskaya, the coordinator of the Flying University, candidate of sociological sciences, with Vladimir Dounaev, professor of philosophy, a former Vice Rector of the EHU, the member of the Public Bologna Committee, and with Svetlana Matskevich, an expert of the Humanitarian Techniques Agency, the candidate of pedagogical sciences.

EuroBelarus.Info: Will another university in exile be useful for Belarus?

Vladimir Dounaev: It is a very hard question. I promised not to comment on what has to do with the EHU, and the new project under discussion is its alternative. As far as I understand, all the pathos of this statement lies in explaining that the EHU has lost its original mission, that all academic values for which the university was put in exile are questioned, and for that reason the project should be substituted with some other one that would be able to unite all national and academic values under one roof.

The very idea that we constantly need to renew our academic landscape and look for new forms has academic reasons apart from the political ones. And all the more academic initiatives appear that prove the need of new forms in education and in the so-called “third mission” within the frames of which universities need to aspire to contribute to the public development and define their attitude towards the socially useful aims.

So I think that the university with its clearly expressed “third mission” if it, of course, appears, won’t harm Belarusans. It’s a different matter that the realization of such project is very hard. We should rather think about the way we integrate the projects that already exist in it even if it doesn’t concern the EHU. Since Belarus has such projects that could get united around a very significant academic and national goal.

Svetlana Matskevich: It’s one very hard question! We should welcome any innovative centers and any educational initiatives that proclaim the development of education’s content and formation of new qualities in Belarusans, especially in situation of intellectual hunger in our education system.

But from this statement I didn’t quite get what goals are set and what strategy is chosen. I am confused with several things. First: the university is being created outside Belarus. Earlier Milinkevich and his team were coordinating the Kalinouski Programme, which, on the one hand, is a certain protection from internal repressions, but on the other means outflow of youth abroad, i.e. it makes the country pooper in the sense of human resources.

Migration of active young men outside our country arouses concern. This process started in 2006 and is continuing today. We shouldn’t also forget about the natural migration of university entrants that are able to pay for their own studies abroad.

I think that educational initiatives should be concentrated inside the country. And it is not their forms that matter, but discussion of the goals and tasks set by these initiatives.

Education has always been an artificially organized system. Its aims, goals, quality, and content are programmed; and depending on those educational technologies are realized later. But I saw no such meaningful purposeful moment in this statement. I.e. I consider the idea of creating a National University suggested by Milinkevich to be a logical registration of Kalinouski Programme into a more legitimate organization and structure.

We can hardly call it a National University or a university at all. The discussion about the content of the civil education and university education has unfolded in Belarus long time ago. Such initiative is now also coming from the Agency of Humanitarian Technologies. The main intellectual potential of the country is now trying to discuss these things meaningfully, not formally. And this tendency to formalize these aspects creates competition: let’s do the National University without real discussion, and all the rest is just “folly” of intellectuals, who are concerned with the content of education.

Such competition is, basically, the struggle of two paradigms: a formalized, certified education and intellectual, thoughtful, meaningful education. And this fight is now starting to show itself with this statement.

The important question is which of these two programs wins? We can even make a forecast. Usually, simpler and more attractive from the point of view of PR things tend to win, not the ones with deep content. That is why Milinkevich is likely to create this university with the support of certain forces. Teachers and humanitarians that are now banned from working in Belarusan state universities might attend it, attracted by stable work and inclusion in the process of standard European education.

However, will a number of goals, such as formation of a new Belarusan nation and new processes of thinking be reached in this case is an open question. It is important that this university announced as the National one resolves these tasks. If no, the next question is whether this university can be called National and answer for the whole nation.

Tatiana Vadalazhskaya: To answer this question responsibly, we need to know what exactly we are going to create. If we are talking about the National University I think that it is impossible to establish it in exile. The statement under question isn’t explaining what is meant by such phenomenon as “the National University”.

For me, National University is defined differently and Belarusan language as a medium of teaching is not enough. I have already mentioned that the National University for me is the place where people think about Belarus, where people that are ready and able to think and set the development of the country and nation “are grown”. Right now we lack a lot for the creation and formation of such university — we lack readiness of intellectual and academic community to take upon themselves responsibility to create and realize modern concept of the National University, elaborate the educational content adequate to modern situation that would be able to lead Belarus to leaders. And all this work can and should be done in Belarus, not outside the country and not outside the society.

It seems to me that now the question is not about an educational institution. It is a question of developing the concept of the National University and assembling those, who are ready to implement this concept to life — experiment, search, make input, and so on. And we need to do it in Belarus.

EuroBelarus.Info: Were you suggested to sign the above-mentioned statement about the formation of the National University?

Tatiana Vadalazhskaya: Personally, I haven’t, but my colleagues from “EuroBelarus” were. Altogether we decided that we wouldn’t support it because we are not ready to agree with the call to practical steps for creating the university.

But I think practical steps are being made — in Belarusan Collegium, in the Flying University, though in stereotypical sense these steps remain unnoticed since these universities are not about professional training ad don’t provide diplomas.

Vladimir Dounaev: No, I weren’t.

Svetlana Matskevich: My position is associated with the last-year story that is certainly related to the methodological community, and that might be the reason why I wasn’t suggested to sign the statement. But even if I were, I wouldn’t sign it. However, I can model the behaviour of my colleagues from the academic sphere — for many of them such statement and hope for new education forms is viewed as a big perspective,

Academic community definitely wants our education to become more open and available to Europe; and creation of the National University, including that in Warsaw, can be viewed as one of the variants of leaving the closed education system we have in Belarus.

EuroBelarus.Info: There is possibility that the university might be opened in Warsaw. IS there a risk of its Polonization? We have a similar example with the EHU in Vilnius.

Tatiana Vadalazhskaya: It is hard for me to say what will happen with the institution that will be opened in Warsaw. For now the idea and mechanism of work of this university are unclear and that is why dangers are invisible. However, we still need to understand that the circumstances of the country and ratio of interested agents in the country where the university is situated will seriously influence the way it will look like.

Vladimir Dounaev: There are always risks, though it might be not the biggest one. The only thing is that we shouldn’t understand the existing projects as the clone of the already existing ones. If we creating something, we need to make in principally new and up-to-date.

Svetlana Matskevich: Polonization of the university as such won’t happen since common European processes are under way. It is most likely that we’ll have the universalism of the European tradition established today. But then, again, the question appears: what is our understanding of the “Europeanism”? We need to bring Europe to Belarus, whereas the reverse process has little possibility; this is utopia.

Thus, Polonization won’t happen, but the frames of Europeanization will be set. However, the processes of the European education should also be treated with caution. Europe is finishing Bologna process and enters the new phase of rethinking the education with no clear contours. Most likely return to the former academism with the use of new technologies will be announced.

The old version of European education is quietly being removed; that is why it isn’t very logical to get included in this process and spend efforts and resources to realize the old versions. Apart from student migration it will also lead to the outflow of teachers from Belarusan universities and that will dip us into fuss. It would be great if problematization of inner processes would be brought to discussion.

EuroBelarus.Info: Will such project become a reason for outflow of funds that EU countries allocate for education programs in Belarus?

Svetlana Matskevich: Resources in education matter, but the main things are humanitarian systems are concepts, ideas, and goals, while funds are picking up. That is why the initiative of creating the National University clearly sets the fight of different approaches and different paradigms and what funds will be used for depends on the personal self-determination of teachers and students.

As a methodologist I am concerned with the formation of intellectual resource and potential of academic community inside Belarus, so the process that we are talking about is negative for me. It is some kind of challenge for me as well as the reason for discussing strategically meaningful and technological issues. Regardless of the difference between the initiatives, we need to look for possibilities of partnership.

Being aware of our opposition leaders and even those, who signed the initiative, I haven’t seen conceptual developments and clear understanding of the ways to reform the education and use new education technologies from them. That is why, I think, we will take the new way of standardization, having EU as an example.

But then it will be European education, not Belarusan. For example, EHU is given for us not to reflect on it, but to make conclusions and avoid repetitions of mistakes. But I don’t exclude the possibility that the example of EHU might be repeated in Warsaw.

We need to put the discussion “to be or not to be?” to the category of “who they are?” Who is stating about the establishment of the National University? Do they have a right to do so? This question is rightful; since such statements usually bring about populist slogans that discredit all sound ideas we have today.

It can be viewed as an object of political games. For example, Milinkevich applied for the position of the EHU’s rector, but never won it. However, he has most probably got some donor’s support through this competition and that might be the basis for initiating the establishment of the National University. I think this isn’t right; such university should be based on a broad collective party, the one that has already been formed.

Milinkevich is trying to represent this party: the signatories of the statement are its initiators. But it is not so at all! We can sign as many declarations and documents as we want, but we don’t become parties because of that. A person is not a party. And Milinkevich cannot establish a university alone, he need a team for that.

Besides, this basically nullifies a lot of already existing initiatives, such as the Flying University. As the question of establishing the National University refers not only to the EHU but also to the Flying University. Since I was the founder of the latter, I see how it is being transformed and undergoes hardships and how its concept is altering. But the university has its concept! We can agree or disagree with it, but still see its realization. The Flying University also needs to transfer informal education to the legitimate zone, but there are difficulties with that, and that is where help is needed.

But we have choice: to help the university develop the same rational core that we already have in Belarus or to create competition and basically nullify the existing initiatives. Our country doesn’t have that many resources to create competition at the education sphere.

Indeed, this statement puts a lot of actual questions to the public screen of conscience and to the judgment of the academic community.

Tatiana Vadalazhskaya: I don’t have the information about the allocated funds, so there can only be some other speculations that we would like to avoid.

The only thing that can be said is that the formation of the fully-fledged university presupposes absolutely different budget than the informal initiatives realized in Belarus.

What concerns me more now is the outflow of attention from what we have and what is developing in Belarus. There is a widespread saying that it is impossible to create a National University in Belarus. Of course, it is, if we talk about the official institution with registration and diplomas.

But it doesn’t at all mean that it is impossible to make steps towards the formation of such university in Belarus. But still, whether the university in emigration can be a national one is a very big question for me.

Vladimir Dounaev: This is not the question to me; this is the question to Europe. Of course, bigger part of European funds goes for the EHU, others only get little. I.e. EU or its separate states differently support different projects in Belarus. And, perhaps, it would be good if we manage to unite these projects not separate them. Bigger coordination and integration of projects (such as the Flying University, Liberal Arts, and Belarusan Collegium) are needed.

We have different formats of programs that answer the requirements of Belarusans. Perhaps, it is very important that these projects work for the common goal and are coordinated between them. This is how I understand this goal. We don’t need to subdivide and complicate the situation of mutual relations between these projects. We need to find some common-European variant of cooperation and collaboration that is really rare for our country.