|
The Students’ Councils – Youth Political Organizations or Students’ Representatives
“In happier times, I would have liked to approach this topic in a rather technical and professional way, asking how students might best be exposed to the leading ideas and the most stimulating and penetrating thought in the fields that particularly interest me, how they might be helped to experience the pleasures of discovery and of deepening insight and given an opportunity to make their own individual contribution to contemporary culture. At this particular historical moment, however, there are other, more pressing matters”. Noam Chomsky, Some thoughts on intellectuals and the schools, (1966), 2003
Is there any raison d’être of a Students’ council here and now?
What is a Students’ council? Why the students nowadays in Bulgaria need to have a Council in their higher education institutions? The answer to this question seems a platitude. Traditionally the students are the largest group in every educational community. In many countries today the higher education institutions more or less try (or at least pretend) to adhere to the paradigm of the participatory democracy. Hence, the first task of a Students’ council should be to socialize the students, to transform their group from a mass of atomized individuals into a community. Secondly, it seems self-evident also, that a Students’ council should express the interests and the demands of the most numerous group in the academe concerning:
However, in the past years, in the yearly elections for the Students’ council of the Sofia University in the different faculties vote approximately 10% percent of the students. In the last elections in November 2002 several faculties had to elect their new representatives, but the number of the students, who participated in the voting was even lower than 9% ( Иванов, Свилен и Мила Минева, 2002 б). And all this despite the fact, that the Students’ council and the Academic council have provided ‘clever’ measures in order to increase the students’ activity. Namely, all the entrances of the main and the greatest building were locked, and only one had been left open – the one neighboring the voting places.
The following text is a personal essay, provoked by this event.
What happened in this respect during the first dozen of years of the transition in the University of Sofia ?
The first dozen of years of the transition period in Bulgaria were marked by an extremely active participation of the students in all possible kinds of political deeds: street demonstrations, strikes, three lock-outs of the Sofia University – which is the oldest and the biggest Bulgarian university ( these occupational strikes were in the summer of 1990 – June and July, again in the autumn of 1990- October and November, and in the spring of 1994). This was the dominating sphere of their activity, particularly in the beginning of the transition period, when the Federation of the Independent Students’ Clubs was established, and in the national protests from December ’96 till the 4th of February ’97 against the then socialist government. Curiously enough, there is a certain parallelism in these two waves in the students’ political activism and an analogy of the results of it.
The first wave of students’ political activism
In the very beginning of the political changes in Bulgaria, immediately after the internal coup-d-etat in the Communist Party, ruling the country, on the 10th of November 1989, one of the most radical groups catalyzing the political processes was the Federation of the Independent Students’ Clubs. For an incredibly short period of time, in the winter months, they achieved two great successes: 1) They forced the abolishment of the so-called ‘ideological disciplines’ – the sacred five disciplines of the ideological catechism (History of the Bulgarian Communist Party; Dialectical materialism; Historical materialism; Scientific communism; Political economy). They had been obligatory in the curriculum of all the students in all higher education institutions not only in Bulgaria, but also in all our ‘former socialist’ countries. 2) Marching threateningly around the building of the National Assembly they forced the entirely communist parliament, which still had not been dismissed, to pass very quickly a Law for the Academic Autonomy of the Higher Education Institutions. This happened in January 1990 and it was a great achievement, indeed, having in mind that the majority of the various political parties still from the other parts of the political spectrum have not been established. They appeared in the following months. For this period it is not an exaggeration to say that the students’ leaders were leading the appearing politicians. However, soon after that the most distinguished students’ leaders became politicians themselves for a while, and some of them left the country to study abroad. They didn’t care that almost all of the splendid provisions and the imperative demands of the Law for the Academic Autonomy of the Higher Education Institutions have never been implemented. On the contrary. The academic life in general in the state universities has remained unaltered. There was a pretty legislative document, which de iure changed the academic practices and policies and the most significant consequence of it was the establishment of several prospering private universities, but in all other respects de facto the state universities continued to inhabit the realm of the late-socialist era stagnation.
Till finally a brand new neo-socialist Higher Education Act was passed in the end of 1995. Compared with the previous one the HEA from 1995 is more restrictive and etatist, prescribing unification of the higher education institutions and great centralization. Still, concerning the prerogatives of the Students’ councils, it declares in Article 73 that they are allowed to participate in the governing bodies and the governance of their institutions and the campuses; to organize the distribution of the grants and the financial support for some groups of students. Moreover, according to the same article, they are allowed to do significant things concerning the learning and the teaching: *to suggest the introduction of complementary disciplines and to propose changes in the curricula; *to invite visiting lecturers; *to establish students’ research communities for advanced learning and to publish the best students’ research papers and texts in specialized journals, edited by themselves; *to establish educational and cultural contacts with other higher education institutions inside the country and abroad; *to establish and support the clubs of the alumni. All these provisions seem more than fine.
The second wave
The second wave of the extreme students’ activism was in the period from the second half of December 1996 till the 4th of February 1997. The economic collapse, the fiasco of numerous banks and the hyper-inflation, that began to evolve in the middle of 1996, reached uncontrollable speed by the end of the year, when the PM of the then ruling party BSP resigned. The daily demonstrations, organized by different trade unions, the opposition parties and the students’ activists reached their peak on the 10th of January 1997, when the demonstrators violently attacked the building of the National Assembly. They have aimed to force the Parliament not to appoint another government, but to resign and to organize early elections. The country has been almost totally paralyzed for three weeks between the 10th of January and the 4th of February 1997, since almost all great industrial factories were striking, many main roads and even some rail-roads have been cut off for several days. These dramatic events might be characterized as a “national civic uprising”, as Eugene Daynov explains: Firstly, they had a scope, covering the hole territory of Bulgaria, whereas the previous revolutionary events, especially in 1990, were more or less concentrated in the capital Sofia. Secondly, it was ‘civic’, because the mass protests originated as a revolt against the insurmountable everyday problems ‘to make the two ends meet’, but very quickly the protesting people elaborated a program and formulated their aims – a system of demands, concerning the social establishment, the life and the goals of the society, of the Bulgarian polity. Thirdly, these events have been an uprising, because of the many blatant violations of the law and the public order, and many crude demonstrations of civic disobedience against the power of the state institutions (Дайнов, 2000, с. 662 – 701.) Where have been the students and their leaders meanwhile? On the barricades on the crossroads of the great cities, in the front line of the demonstrators in the daily marches, on the barricades of the rail-roads and the highways.
But what happened after that and why the tens of thousands young people, who violently protested in the winter of ‘96-’97 for social and political changes after that retreated? Why they have neglected the thousand possibilities for peaceful and calm communal and social activities afterwards? Why they more and more alienate themselves from the society and its political problems, solved via the elections? Why the number of the young people and the students voting for the local and parliamentary elections drops dramatically? Why they feel alienated from the life of the academe and their own students’ organizations?
It seems to me that the sad list of the mistakes inevitably has to enumerate some unpleasant facts: *The Students’ council of the Sofia University flagrantly associated itself with the professed anti-socialist Party, which ruled the country in the period 1997-2001. Despite the fact that the political activity inside the universities is explicitly forbidden by the Higher Education Act and the Rulebook of the Sofia University, several meetings have been organized, at which the Students’ council enthusiastically supported the then ruling party for its clever running and guidance of the state towards ‘Europe’. The most awkward for me in these rallies was the fact, that apart from the frenetic support for the Party’s leaders, there was no discussion whatsoever about what we, the people in the academy can do and should do, in order sooner to become part of ‘Europe’. *The newspaper, published by the Students’ Council since the spring of 2000 – “Sofia university” had a completely bad targeted audience: Instead of presenting the students’ points of view or opinions on one or another problem, and defending them in front of the Academic council and the Rectors, it operated vice versa. It was the informative channel for the presentation of the portraits of the Rector, the deputy-Rectors, and the members of the Academic council and their opinions on whatever problems to the students. *The Students’ council of the greatest and the biggest university left the National Council of the Students’ representatives after the unsuccessful attempt to achieve a dominating position and to impose there decisions, favourable only for “the greatest and the biggest”, neglecting the smaller and the private universities. Thus the solidarity between the students was buried. *Inside the university the Students’ council isolated the efforts of the Assistants’ collegium to discuss critically the academic status quo and to try to create a community. All the criticisms expressed by the younger teaching academic staff have been removed with the cheerful postponing: “Don’t worry! Be happy! Everything will be solved during the Party’s second mandate!” (But for good or bad, the Party, supported by the Students’ Council with enthusiastic meetings, lost the elections in 2001 and now is in opposition).
The admirable communities
There are some other, wonderful examples, which deserve mentioning here. The life in the Sofia University precisely in this period was animated by two admirable students’ communities: the philological seminar “Small nasal”, created mainly by students of the two philological faculties and the philosophical students’ equip “Projectoria”. These two students’ communities acted (some times jointly) as discussion circles on the problems of the humanities. They created their own interesting sites on the web space, where they published different texts and supplied abundant information with lots of useful links to all kinds of related information. Moreover, they tried to provoke a reflexive public debate for everything, which according to them makes sense in the University, but also about its absurdities. They never stopped insisting on the dramatic issue of the quality of education… Some of the members of these students’ communities (Йордан Люцканов, Васил Видински, Еньо Стоянов, Лидия Динкова, Петя Абрашева, Дарин Тенев, Георги Илиев, Галина Георгиева, Юнуз Юнуз, Надя Енева, Ясен Праматаров и Яна Иванова) have published a text, which was meant to trigger the debate in a somewhat scandalous matter. The text was entitled “The university: nobody knows WHY” (Университетът: никой не знае ЗАЩО. В “Култура”, бр. 48, 8. 12. 2000).
In it they have developed ten radical theses about the situation in the Sofia University: 1. The University is history 2. The University reproduces a tradition and produces bureaucrats 3. The University is in danger 4. The University speaks to itself 5. The University – an European one 6. The moral irresponsibility meets students’ apathy 7. The University has no excuse 8. The University is the students’ Diploma 9. The University as chaos and annoyance 10. The University has not reached maturity
However, there was no debate. The text remained neglected. And as Aristotle has written in the “Nicomachean ethics”: “One swallow does not make a summer”.
Another wonderful example of a “good practice” is the students’ community in the American University in Blagoevgrad ( www.aubg.bg). The Students’ government there consists of a President, a vice-President and twelve members in the Students’ senate. For a University, which has at about 700 of students such a number of students’ representatives in the governance of the academe is acceptable. Apart from this there are other students who have a decisive voice in 12 from the 17 commissions, which administer the life in the university and the campus. There are students even in the selective commissions and the jury for the appointment of the teaching faculty. The Students’ government has its sessions regularly once a week and the detailed minutes from them appear on the following day – in the computer labs, in the library, in the bookshop, in the canteen. Thus all the students get immediately informed about the decisions of their colleagues-representatives, about the argumentation for one or another solution of a certain problem, about the way each of them has voted, about the consensus position, which will be defended in front of the Rector or the board of trustees. It should be emphasized that the students of the American university publish 2 newspapers and 1 journal and broadcast a radio-program. In all these media their attention is devoted mainly to the internal academic problems of their study and the faculty, the city and the every day life, etc. and not to the partisan struggles extra muros universitatis.
The possible explanations of the students’ political activism
Of course, everyone can say that none of these is an exception. The students have been the most radical actors in many political, partisan, social, revolutionary etc. events and movements all over the world, in different countries and continents on different time, in the XIX and especially in the XX century. Why the students had been one of the most radical groups in all kinds of societal and political developments all over the world in the past two centuries, is the key question here. A whole range of explanations might be proposed here: psychological, age-generational, sociological, epistemological and value-driven….
Also, in Bulgaria this preoccupation of the students and their leaders only and solely with political activities and ideological battles is
a century long historical tradition
This tradition has several culmination peaks: 1907 - In the beginning of this year the students of the Sofia University had demonstrated and mocked the then Bulgarian monarch, after which the first great University crisis had begun. The University had been closed for almost a year. Meanwhile, with the support of the society and the most influential dailies, the professors of the University had managed to disseminate the ideas of the academic autonomy and the intellectual freedom, which have to be paid by self-regulated university governance and detailed annual accountability. ( For these events see the indispensable book by Prof. Arnaudov, published for the 50th Anniversary of the establishment of the Sofia University in 1938 – Арнаудов, Михаил, 1938) 1922 - The University had been closed for half a year after the attempts of the Ministry of education to reform and simplify the orthography of the Bulgarian language. 1931 – 1944 – Permanent clashes between the Bulgarian National Students’ Union ( gravitating to the rightist pro-monarchist parties) and the leftist pro-communist Bulgarian Common People’s Students’ Union. 1948-1989 – Total politicization and brutal imposition of the Marxist-Leninist ideology in the higher education institutions in Bulgaria. In order to be a student one had obligatory to be a member of the Dimitrov’s Communist Youth Union ( The Bulgarian Komsomol).
On the other hand, explaining the political activism of the students in the past twelve years, we have to take into consideration the fact, that the transition period in Bulgaria turned out to be a harsh one, much longer and much more painful than what was expected in its beginning. On the peculiarities of the Bulgarian transition period have written many Bulgarian intellectuals, politicians and public figures. ( E.g. Барух, Еми, съст., 2000; Бодаков, Емил, ред., 2002; Венедиков, Йордан, 2000; Георгиева, Патриция 2001; Герджиков, Сергей,1998; Даскалов, Румен, 1998; Даскалов, Румен, 2000; Дайнов, Евгений, 2000; Денков, Димитър, 2002; Деянова, Лозанов, Спасов, 2000; Димитров, Румен, 1992; Димитров, Филип, 2003; Желев, Желю, 1996; Кавалджиев, Тодор, 2000; Калинова, Евгения и Искра Баева, 2000; Лилов, Александър, 2001; Малинов, Светослав, съст. и гл. ред, 2003; Тотоманова, Анна-Мария, 2003;) But here I would like to quote a foreigner, who has written on the transition from a comparative perspective. His name is J. William Derleth. The title of the book is The transition in Central and Eastern European Politics (published by Prentice-Hall, New Jersey, 2000). The interesting in his book is the comparative analysis of the processes, that have evolved in Russia, Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland. His analysis of the political, the economic and the social developments in Bulgaria is detailed and abundant of information (p. 122-193). I feel tempted to quote a large portion of his Summary on Bulgaria ( on p. 183 - 184). His main conclusion is:
“The Bulgarian polity is fundamentally split between those who want to build on the achievements of the socialist experience and those who want to rebuild the polity. Both views have prevailed since the end of the communist regime, and their struggle has wasted precious time… The key question is: Where will the transition lead? Will Bulgaria be able to fulfill its goal of becoming a democratic, market-oriented, law-based state, or will historical legacies and contemporary problems be too difficult to overcome? Optimistically, Bulgaria has made significant progress since 1989. Small businesses are growing, democracy is generally accepted, and perhaps most significantly, for the first time in its modern history Bulgaria has managed to stay out of a Balkan war. On the other hand, Bulgaria has numerous, serious problems. The polity is polarized, personalities are more important than policies, living standards are dropping, and political apathy is increasing. Although these features are present to some degree in Hungary and Poland, they are more pronounced in Bulgaria. Seemingly contradictory, when compared with these other states, Bulgaria’s voter turnout and optimism are among the highest in the region ( Jill Chin, “Political Attitudes in Bulgaria”, RFE/RL Research Report, April 30, 1993, p. 39). This is largely because the average Bulgarian expects less than his Hungarian, Polish, or Russian counterpart, since Bulgaria started from a much lower social and economic level. Though it cannot claim the political stability of Hungary or the economic prosperity of Poland, Bulgaria has not experienced violent societal clashes as in Romania, or an attempted coup as in Russia. To many observers, the ability of Bulgaria to keep civil peace despite economic hardships, the war in neighboring former Yugoslavia, and the pettiness of politicians is nothing short of miraculous”.
(All the bolds in this quotation are mine – D. G.)
The fault of the senior academic community: too much politicization and too little reasoning
However, it would be cruel and unjust for all these stories of manifested support for one of the existing political parties, narrated in the paper so far, to blame only the present and the former members of the Students’ council. True, for four years they have acted as the junior organization of the ruling party, comically analogous to the Komsomol in the totalitarian times. But it is not the students’ leaders, who might bear the responsibility for this. On the contrary. It is the fault of the senior academic community. It was us, the teaching faculty, who have made them think like that and act like that. We have suggested them to look like that. The first twelve years of the transition, in the whirlpool of all these dynamic, and sometimes catastrophic changes in the political, the social and the economic aspect of our communal life, the Bulgarian university intellectuals and politicians (many of whom are also former university faculty or researchers from the institutes of the Bulgarian academy of sciences) produced hundreds of thousands of papers and oral statements in the electronic media. In almost all of them one dominating conceptualization has been offered. This type of conceptualization, this kind reasoning was desperately reductionist and grounded on three unverifiable identifications. (Here I will allow myself to add something personal and autobiographic. In 1989, when the democratic changes began, I have been already 25, and I will never forget that in the socialist time it was said and spoken ‘social-political’. That’s it.) The ‘social’ was identified with and reduced to the ‘political’. This first type of reductionism, which identifies the social with the political, is still reigning 13 years after the beginning of the transition period. The worse is that not only the journalists, but also the prominent university intellectuals, who are public figures, suggest that all the problems of the society will be solved thanks to the existence of the political pluralistic party-system. But for the time being it seems worse. More and more political parties and movements appear, whereas the most serious social problems aggravate. There is a second reduction, which follows the first one: the political is reduced to and identified with the partisan. According to this second level of reductionist thinking, the polity is the sum total of the existing political parties. But even Aristotle more than two thousand years ago had argued in the “Politics”, that the polity and the well-being of its citizens depends on the balance of the three genera of the power (generally corresponding to the executive, the legislative and the judiciary). At least one of them, the third one, should be independent from the partisan struggles. In contemporary Bulgaria neither the educational sphere, nor the judiciary are independent from the hectic political struggles. The third level of reduction: Too many of the prominent academics, intellectuals and political figures in Bulgaria, who are current or former university faculty, tend to favorize one and unique political party and to demonize all the rest. But then, is there any difference between this final and the totalitarian mental profile, according to which, one and only one party is more than enough for the running of the country towards the “luminous future”?
Given all these, a sad conclusion is inevitable. The majority of the opinion-makers, the decision takers and the public figures here do not distinguish the phrases “political system” and “civil society”. The majority treats these two phrases as complete, interchangeable synonyms. For this majority there isn’t any difference between the words “citizen” and “member of the party”. If we, the academics, have explained more frequently that the pluralistic democracy is an advantage for the society, that the political is much larger than the partisan and that the societal is more important than the political, we could be right to demand from the students’ activists another behavior. In our publicity there have been more than sporadic voices claiming that the educational problems are important social problems and it is harmful to treat them as political and partisan problems. That’s why we cannot blame the students now.
The latest positive developments
After the striking results of the last elections for the Students’ Council, the new members decided to change entirely their image inside the university and began to update a web page, where they finally explained why there is and there should be such a representative body and what is its positioning among the other actors in the academy, and in the society. The launching of their web-activity is visible at http://www.studentsmatter.org/who/index.htm
…….
References and other related papers:
Александров, Харалан. Живот в култура на заучена безпомощност. Интервю на Марин Бодаков. В: “Култура”, бр. 39, 1.11. 2002.Александров, Харалан, Тома Томов, Рафаел Чичек, Иван Иванов / “Динамика консулт”/. Българското общество: идеите от нас, реализацията – от вас. В: “Дневник”, 3. 10. 2002. Алесина, Алберто, Франческо Гиаваци. Европейските университети дишат праха на Америка. Преподавателите на Стария континент правят всичко възможно, за да блокират реформата. В: “Капитал. Кариери”, 22-28 февруари 2003. Ангелов, Николай. Кой се страхува от стопанските съвети в университетите. В: “Дневник”, 29. 7. 2003. Андреев, Александър. Българо-германски интелектуалски разлики. Разговор с Митко Новков. В: “Култура”, бр. 4, 1. 2. 2002. Арнаудов, Михаил. История на Софийския университет Свети Климент Охридски през първото му полустолетие 1888-1838. С., 1938, Университетска библиотека, № 201. Арон, Реймон. Социология и политика. Т. 3, С., 2001, ЕОН – 2000. Превод Рада Минкова, Михаела Георгиева, Любомир Владимиров. Атанасов, Владимир. Дебатът за българското образование предстои. Разговор с Марин Бодаков. В: “Култура”, бр. 15. 12.4. 2002.Атанасов, Владимир, Михаил Неделчев и Румен Спасов. Публичности, университети, незавършени дебати. В: “Литературен вестник”, 19-31.12. 2001. Арнаудов, Венцислав. Университетите трябва сами да решават проблемите си. Интервю на Ванина Стоянова. В: “Дневник”, , 15.1. 2003. Баландие, Жорж. Политическа антропология. Превод Евгения Грекова. С., 2000, ИК “Женифер-Хикс”. Барух, Еми. Отвъд утопиите. България, Балканите, Европа – визии за следващото десетилетие. Българска редакция на Радио “Дойче Веле”, С., 2000. Текстове на и интервюта с: Мария Тодорова, Румен Аврамов, Андрей Райчев, Димитър Йончев, Иван Кръстев, Михаил Неделчев, Иво Прокопиев, Живко Георгиев, Вера Мутафчиева. Безансон, Ален. Нещастието на века. Относно комунизма, нацизма и уникалността на Катастрофата. Прев. Тони Николов. С., 2002, “ЛИК”. Бикова, Вероника. Горчивата истина за българската интелигенция. В: “Детонация”, бр. 3, ноември, 2002. Биолчев, Боян. Загуби се блясъкът на университета. Интервю на Ралица Кръстева. В “Стандарт”, 21. 6. 2002. Богданов, Богдан. Интелектуалецът – светският духовник. Интервю на Митко Новков.В: “Култура”, бр. 39, 9. 11. 2001. Богданов, Богдан. Не можем да бъдем просто алтернатива на образованието в България. В: “Литературен вестник”, 30.5. – 5.6. 2001. Боде, Кристиан. “Изтичането на мозъци” вътре в страната е най-страшно. Интервю на Екатерина Попова. В В: “Капитал. Кариери”,11-17.1. 2003. Бодаков, Марин. Състояние на обществото. В: “Култура”, бр. 35, 4. 10. 2002. Бодаков, Марин, редактор. Предговор Вера Мутафчиева. На/за какво служи интелектуалецът. Сборник есета от Йордан Ефтимов, Георги Стайков, Биляна Налбантска, Иван Попов, Александър Иванов, Александър Манев, Ана Васева, Антония Колева, Борис Попиванов, Васил Колев, Вяра Рангелова, Галина Георгиева, Лили Иванова, Марина Маринова, Роман Михайлов, Светлозар Стоянов, Сергей Стефанов. “Труд” & НДК, София, 2001. Бочукова, Радосвета и Дарина Шолева. МОН намалява драстично бюджета за висше образование. В: “Дневник”, 2. 10. 2002. Бояджиева, Пепка. Съвременните университети – между автономията, отчетността и отговорността. Непубликуван ръкопис. Бояджиева, Пепка. Свободният университет или цената на правото да бъдеш различен. В : сп. “Разум”, 2003/1. Бюлетин за институционалната акредитация на висшите училища. “Държавен вестник”, 2001, брой 50, с. 50-73. Бюлетин № 2, София, март, 2001. Издание на НАОА. Бюлетин № 3, София, юли, 2001. Издание на НАОА. Бюлетин № 4, София, март, 2002. Издание на НАОА. Вебер, Макс. Смисъл и ценност. С., 1998, превод Кольо Коев, ИК “Критика и хуманизъм”. Вебер, Макс, представен от Реймон Арон. Ученият и политикът. С., ЕОН-2000. София. Превод на Иво Георгиев, Румен Даскалов и Любомир Владимиров.
Велева, София и Елена Друмева. Образователни пирамиди мамят студенти. В: “Капитал. Кариери”, 7-13.7. 2001. Велков, Велко. Големият провал в образованието. В: “Дневник”,, 1.8.2003. Венедиков, Йордан. Преходът – от комунизъм към посткомунизъм. С., 2000, ИК “П. Венедиков”. Видински, Васил. Еньо Стоянов. Университетът – кой знае защо? В: “Литературен вестник”, 19-31.12. 2001. Гандова, Теодора. Кои сме и накъде вървим. В: “Дневник”, 30. 9. 2002. Гаврилова, Десислава. За гражданското образование, гражданското общество и дебатирането. В: Критика и хуманизъм, кн. 15, бр. 1/2003. Тема на броя: “Българското образование. Проблеми, тези, стратегии.” Гелнър, Ърнест. Срещи с национализма. С., 2002, “ЛИК”, превод Ивелина Ватова. Гелнър, Ърнест. Нации и национализъм. С., 1999, “Панорама”, УИ “Св. Кл. Охридски”. Превод Ивелина Ватова, Албена Знеполска. Георгиева, Патриция. Съст. и отг. редактор. Управление на качеството във висшето образование. Процеси, структури и стратегии. С., 2001, Център за висше образование, Национален институт по образование. Георгиева, Патриция.Висшето образование в процеса на обществена промяна в България. С., 2001, Национален институт по образование. Герджиков, Сергей. Хаос и ред след комунизма. С., 1998, УИ “Св. Климент Охридски”. Герджиков, Сергей. Феноменът комунизъм. С., 1994, УИ “Св. Климент Охридски”. Грекова, Мая. Свят – училище – личност и гражданско образование. В: Критика и хуманизъм, кн. 15, бр. 1/2003. Тема на броя: “Българското образование. Проблеми, тези, стратегии.” Гунев, Снежа, съст. Феминисткото знание. С., “Полис”, 2002. Гуно, Жан-Мари. Краят на демокрацията. ИК “Христо Ботев”, С., 1997, превод Росица Григорова. Гурова, Лилия. Модели на либерално образование в северноамериканските университети и колежи. В: Критика и хуманизъм, кн. 15, бр. 1/2003. Тема на броя: “Българското образование. Проблеми, тези, стратегии.”
Гюрова, Светломира. Висшето образование се гърчи в недоимък. В: “Капитал. Кариери”, бр. 41, 12-18 октомври 2002. Даскалов, Румен. Нещата наоколо. Наблюдения и размишления за промените. С., 1998, “ЛИК”. Даскалов, Румен. Оттук-оттам. С., 2000, “ЛИК”. Дайнов, Евгений. Преходът. Вместо история 1989/1999. С., 1999, “Планета 3”. Дайнов, Евгений. Политическият дебат и преходът в България. Фондация “Българска наука и култура”, С., 2000. Дайнов, Евгений. Политическата икономика на българската неформална икономика. В: “Дневник”, 2. 10. 2002. Дайнов, Евгений и Мария Панчева. Дебатът върху състоянието на българското общество. В: “Дневник”, 8. 10. 2002 Дайнов, Евгений. Интелектуалците и доматопроизводството:slight return. В: “Култура”, бр. 5, 8. 2. 2002. Декларация на Федерацията на независимите студентски дружества и Декларация на “Младежи за гражданско общество”. В: “Избор”, 21-27. 4. 2003. А Денков, Димитър. 17 юни на Симеон Сакскобургготски. С., 2002, Изд. “Захарий Стоянов”. Денков, Димитър. Третата българска държава е сакскобургготната. Интервю на Веселин Стойнев. В: “Сега”, 9.1. 2002. Денков, Димитър. Терор и политика: медийна стръв за интелектуалци. В: “Култура”, бр. 1, 11. 1. 2002. Деянова, Лиляна, Георги Лозанов, Орлин Спасов съст. Медии и преход. Център за развитие на медиите. С., 2000. Димитров, Георги.Университетски курс по социология. Краят на ХХ век. Социология на свободата. Том І. С.,2001, УИ “Св. Климент Охридски”. Димитров, Георги и Петя Кабакчиева. Една неосъществена реформа. Кратък разказ за провалянето на проекта за модернизация на българското образование. Непубликуван ръкопис. Димитров, Георги и Петя Кабакчиева. Проектът Модернизация на образованието – общо представяне и резултати от външен мониторинг. В: Критика и хуманизъм, кн. 15, бр. 1/2003. Тема на броя: “Българското образование. Проблеми, тези, стратегии.” Димитров, Румен. Трибунал или форум. Размисли и есета 1986-1992. Издателство Жорж НЕФ АД. Женева-Париж-София, 1992. Димитров, Филип. Митовете на българския преход. С., Сиела, 2003. Добрев, Александър. Главата “Образование” в преговорите с ЕС бе затворена, но реформата продължава. В: “Демокрация”, 20 юни 2000. Дойнов, Пламен. Съставител. Книга за Студентския дом. Документален сборник. С., 2002, Академичен център за литература и култура. Дойнов, Пламен. Съст. и редактор. Юбилеен лист 70 години Студентски дом. Документален сборник. С., 2003, Академичен център за литература и култура. Дронзина, Татяна. Дебатът, или четиринадесет години неяснота. В: Критика и хуманизъм, кн. 15, бр. 1/2003. Тема на броя: “Българското образование. Проблеми, тези, стратегии.”
Дюамел, О., Фр. Шатле, Е. Пизие. История на политическите идеи., С., 1998, превод Милена Георгиева. Дюверже, Морис. Социология на политиката. С., 1999, “Кама”, превод Анелия Райчева. Европейска социална харта. С., 2001, Council of Europe Publishing & Колибри. Превод Светослав Терзиев. Ефтимов, Йордан. Палиативи около матурата. В: “Дневник”, 13.9. 2002. Ефтимов, Йордан. Парламентът стопира възможностите за реформиране на образованието. ЛВ, 12-18.2.2003. Желев, Желю. Обръщения на президента към народа и парламента. Изд. “Хр. Г. Данов”, Пловдив, 1996. Знеполски, Ивайло. Интелектуалецът и ценностите. Разговор с Митко Новков. В: “Култура”, бр. 39, 9. 11. 2001. Йончев, Димитър. Теория на скритото присъствие. С., 2002, Фондация “Демокрация и сигурност”. Калинова, Евгения, Искра Баева. Българските преходи. 1944-1999. 2000, С., изд. “Тилиа”. Камбуров, Димитър. Състоянието на обществото и липсващата фигура в килима. В: “Култура”, бр. 40, 8. 11. 2002. Кенън, Патрик. Залезът на демокрацията. “Обсидиан”, С., 1995, превод Кольо Коев. Кийн, Джон. Гражданското общество. Стар образ, нови визии. С., 2002, ЛИК, превод Дора Габровска. Кисинджър, Хенри. Политиката. С., 2002, Труд и “Прозорец”. Превод Боряна Семкова-Вулова. Кисинджър, Хенри. Дипломацията. Прев. Георги Илиев, Юлияна Цветкова, С., 1997, “Труд”. Комб, Соня. Отношенията между интелектуалците и държавната власт. Типове репрезентации на източно-германски университетски учени в архивите на ЩАЗИ. Лекция в Центъра за академични изследвания, София, 30 април, 2002. Кохак, Еразим. Пътеводител по демокрация. С. 1999, превод Валентин Траянов, Издателство “Валентин Траянов”. Лепенис, Волф. Култура, политика и европейска интелигенция. В: “Култура”, бр. 15, 20 април 2001. превод Мариана Панова. Липман, Уолтър. Общественото мнение. С., 2001, “ЛИК”, превод Ивелина Ватова. А. Иванов, Свилен и Мила Минева. Свещената крава на българското училище. В: “Капитал”, 20-26. 7. 2002. Б. Иванов, Свилен и Мила Минева. Ще гласувам, няма да гласувам. В: “Капитал”, 16-22.11. 2002. Кавалджиев, Тодор. Моите интервюта 1995-2000. ИК “Анубис”, С., 2000. Кръстев, Иван и Ралица Пеева. Невидими контексти, невидими бариери. Ограниченията пред нормативното обяснение на конституционната промяна. В: “Култура”, бр. 31, 6 септември, 2002. Кръстев, Иван. К-думата. Корупцията в три малки истории и заключение. ЦЛС, София, Институт за висши научни изследвания, Берлин. Приложение на в. “Култура”, бр. 9, 9. 3. 2001. Кръстев, Иван. Капанът на политическата безалтернативност. За състоянието на демокрацията на Балканите. Специално приложение на “Капитал”, 16-22. 3. 2002. Кьосев, Александър. Университетът трябва да бъде автономен по правилен и функционален начин. В: “Литературен вестник”, 19-31.12.2001. Лилов, Александър, ред. Защо рухна реалният социализъм, С., 2001, Център за стратегически изследвания и ИК “Христо Ботев”. Лозанов, Георги. Горещата метафора: срещу новия страх от виртуалност. В: “Култура”, бр. 1, 11. 1. 2002. Майер, Артур. Златната младеж. Тенденции на поляризация във възникващото на Балканите капиталистическо общество. В: “Култура”, 15.11.2002. превод Зорница Христова. Малинов, Светослав, съст. и гл. ред. Тематичен брой на списание “Разум”, 2003/1 – “Парадигмата на прехода”. Текстове на Томас Кародърс, Гилермо О Донъл, Гиа Нодиа, Кенет Уолък, Джералд Хайман. Дискусия “България и краят на парадигмата на прехода?” с участници Веселин Методиев, Георги Ганев, Георги Фотев,, Димитър Димитров, Иван Костов, Иван Кръстев, Любов Минчева, Огнян Минчев, Румяна Коларова, Светослав Малинов, Филип Димитров. Михайлова, Надежда. Темата за образованието е начин за отваряне към гражданското общество. В: “Литературен вестник”, 19-25.6. 2002. Мичева, Нева. Алма Матер и пустота. В: Култура, бр. 49, 22. 12. 2002. Мишкова, Диана. Приспособяване на свободата. Модерност – легитимност в Сърбия и Румъния през ХІХ век. С., 2001, “Парадигма”, Младенов, Емил. Още нещо за образованието. В: “Капитал”, 22-28.6.2002. Общественото мнение за престъпността. Спец. Приложение на в. “Дневник”, ЦЛС и “Алфа рисърч”, 18.11.2002. Неделчев, Михаил. Двете култури на/от социалистическата епоха. В: “Дневник”, 17. 10. 2002. Николчина, Миглена. Семинарът: начин на употреба. В: “Литературен вестник”, 18-24.9. 2002. Пълен текст в “Критика и хуманизъм”, кн. 14, бр. 2/2002. Differences, 13, 1 (2002). Новков, Митко. За прехода и за неговия /възможен/ край. В: “Култура”, 15. 11. 2002. Олброу, Мартин. Глобалната епоха. С., 2001, превод Кольо Коев, “Обсидиан”. Пенчев, Бойко. Ейдосът университет. В: “Литературен вестник”, 8- 14. 5. 2003. Попова, Екатерина.Тръгват проверки за нелегални университетски филиали. Държавата ще даде тримесечен срок на висшите училища да узаконят звената си за изнесено обучение . В: “Капитал. Кариери”, 1 – 7. 2. 2003. Попова, Екатерина. Образованието у нас не обещава кариера. В: “Капитал. Кариери”, 27.7 – 2.8. 2002. Попова, Екатерина.Стипендиите за следване в Канада са изключение. В: “Капитал. Кариери”, 26.10-1.11. 2002. Попова, Екатерина. “Еразъм” “вкарва” студенти в чужди вузове. В: “Капитал. Кариери”,2-8.11. 2002. Попова, Жасмин. Основи на правото на ЕС. С., 2001, “Планета-3”. Райчев, Андрей. Привилегировани гледни точки (Книга, която за малко да нарека “Социология на мъртвия човек”). София, 2000, R&S.. Райчев, Андрей. Интелектуалецът – този, който крепи лисицата на небето. Разговор с Митко Новков, в. “Култура”, бр.46/47, 21. 12. 2001. Райчевски, Стоян. Университетът. Закони и дебати до 1939 г. УИ “Св. Климент Охридски”, С., 2003. Русев, Георги. Образованието като стока. В: “Капитал”, 24.5-31.5.2002. Салман, Хари. Изцелението на Европа. Пробуждането на европейското самосъзнание. Превод Лилия Нанева. С., 2001, “Кибеа”. Ставрев, Светослав. За “добрия живот” – BG case. В: “Дневник”, 29.8.2002. Стоянова, Ванина. Програма “Еразъм” – неуредици по български. В: “Дневник”, 15.1..2003. Сърдъмов, Ивелин. Интелектуалците – между McDonald’s и бунището на историята. В: “Култура”, ??? Танева, Албена и Ваня Гезенко, съст. Гласове в защита на гражданското общество. Протоколи на Св. Синод на БПЦ по еврейския въпрос (1940-1944). Център за еврейски изследвания при СУ, ГАЛ-ИКО. С., 2002. Тодоров, Владислав. Обезвреденият Месия – опит върху Интелектуалеца. В: “Култура”, бр. 8, 21 февруари 2003. Тодоров, Добрин. Създатели и носители на българската философска култура. В: Българската философска култура през ХІХ-ХХ век. Биографично-библиографски справочник. С., 2000, “ЛИК”. Тодоров, Добрин. Пролегомени към историята на българската философска култура от тоталитарната епоха / в огледалото на тоталитарната епоха/. Тодоров, Цветан. Памет за злото, изкушение на доброто. С., “ЛИК”, 2002, превод Стоян Атанасов. Тотоманова, Анна-Мария. Ролята на българските университети за трансформацията на обществото. В: Критика и хуманизъм, кн. 15, бр. 1/2003. Тема на броя: “Българското образование. Проблеми, тези, стратегии.” Удуърд, Сузан. Балканската трагедия. Хаосът и разрухата след края на Студената война. С., 2002, Сиела, Фондация “Отворено общество”. С., 2002, “ЛИК”. Фотев, Георги. Граници на политиката. С., 2001, “ЛИК”. Фулър, Стив. Висшето училище като верига за бързо хранене. В: Капитал. Кариери, брой 9, 8- 14 март 2003. Фурние, Еманюел. Позицията на интелектуалците през ХХ век. В: “Литературен вестник”, 10-16. 7. 2002. превод Елена Щилянова. Хабермас, Юрген. Среща с гости. Разговор на Юрген Хабермас с китайски интелектуалци. В: “Култура”, бр. 23, 15. 6. 2001. Превод Ирина Илиева. Хаджиилиев, Васил. Ще помогне ли папата на българските университети?. В: “Капитал. Кариери”, 16-22.2. 2002. Хаджийски, Валентин. Антиамерикански кучета в резерв. В: Литературен вестник. 16-22.4.2003. Хикс, Саймън. Политическата система на ЕС. С., 2001, “Парадигма”, превод Йонка Кръстева. Христакудис, Апостолос. Многостранното сътрудничество в Югоизточна Европа и европейската интеграция. История и съвременност. С., Херон прес – 2002. Христозов, Димитър. Идея: Държавна субсидия за ВУЗ под формата на ваучери. В: “Капитал. Кариери”, 18-23.5.2002. Цветков, Пламен С.. Европа през ХХ век. С., 2002, НБУ. Шнапер, Доминик. Общността на гражданите. С., 2001, “ЕОН-2000”, превод Любомир Владимиров. Янова, Мира. Изчезнала е идеята какво всъщност е образованието. В: “Капитал”, 20-26. 7. 2002. Интервю на Мила Минева.
Aupetit, Sylvie Didou. The role of universities in the transformation of society. Political Democratization, Social Change and Educational Reform in Mexico. www.open.ac.uk/cheri/TRreports.htm Berger, Brigitte, Peter L. Berger, Hansfried Kellner. The Homeless Mind. Modernization and Consciousness. Penguin Books, 1973. Berglund, Sten, Frank H. Aarebrot, Georgi Karasimeonov. Challenges to Democracy. Eastern Europe Ten Years after the Collapse of Communism. 2001, Edward Elgar Publishing.Bogoev, Ksente: Stabilization, Social and Structural Problems of the Countries in Transition. In: Balkan forum, Vol. 3, number 3 (12) September 1995.Bolčić, Silvano: The meaning of the Social System and the Initial Achievements of the “Post-Socialist Transition”. In: Balkan forum, Vol. 3, numbers 3 (12) September 1995. Boyadjieva, P. (2000). University Autonomy and Social Change: The Bulgarian Lesson. In: Ch. Giordano, D. Kostova, E. Lohmann-Minka (Eds.), Bulgaria: Social and Cultural Landscapes. Freiburg: University Press. Caplanova, Anetta. The reform of higher education for increased equity in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe: the case of Slovakia. www.policy.hu/caplanova. Chomsky, Noam. On democracy and Education. Edited by C. P. Otero. RoutledgeFalmer, 2003. Chowdhury, Sunandan Roy. Mapping Minds, Changing Maps: Comparative analysis of the role of universities in societies undergoing change. www.policy.hu/roychowdhury Clark, Burton R. The Higher Education System. Academic Organization in Cross-National Perspective. University of California Press, Berkeley, Los Angeles, London. 1986. Dahrendorf, R. (2000). Universities After Communism. The Hannah Arendt Prize and the Reform of Higher Education in East Central Europe, Hamburg: Koerber Stiftung.
Derleth, J. William. The Transition in Central and Eastern European Politics. Russia, Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, 2000. Dounaev, Vladimir. The role of universities in the transformation of society. Institutional case study of the EHU ( Minsk, Belarus). www.open.ac.uk/cheri/TRreports.htm Fedotova, Nadezhda. The role of the Moscow State Institute of International Relations University ( MGIMO) in social transformation. www.policy.hu/fedotova Fukač, J., J. Kazelle, Alena Mizerova. Universities and the Bologna Declaration. A Strategy of Changes. Proceeding of the Conference, held in Brno 2-3. 11. 2000. Brno University of Technology, VITIUM Press, 2001. Gboyega, Alex. The role of universities in the transformation of society. National case study of Nigeria. www.open.ac.uk/cheri/TRreports.htm Georgiev, Ljudmil. The role of universities in the transformation of society. The New Bulgarian University Institutional Case study. www.open.ac.uk/cheri/TRreports.htm Ginsburg, Mark B. (ed.) Understanding Educational Reform in Global Context. Economy, Ideology and the State. Garland Publishing Incorporated. New York and London, 1991. Includes articles on the reform in England, Australia, Mexico, Spain, Nicaragua, Tanzania, Hungary, Cote d’Ivoire, New Zealand, Israel, and the United States. Gocheva, Dimka. Legislating for higher education in some Balkan countries. www.policy.hu/gocheva Kandikjan, Vladimir: The European Union and the Countries in Transition. In: Balkan forum, Vol. 3, numbers 3 (12) September 1995. Karmadonov, Oleg. The role of universities in the construction of new social realities. www.policy.hu/karmadonov. Kroos, Karmo. The role of universities in social transformation. Case study of Estonia. www.policy.hu/kroos. Kwiek, Marek. The identity crisis of the modern institution of the university: a study of Polish higher education in transition. www.policy.hu/kwiek. Niane, Boubacar. The role of universities in the transformation of society. National case study of Nigeria. www.open.ac.uk/cheri/TRreports.htm Nicolescu, Romania. The impact of Romanian higher education reforms on university financial and academic management. Romanian private versus public higher education: Success or failure on the labor market. www.policy.hu/nicolescu Nussbaum, Martha C. Cultivating humanity. A classical defense of reform in liberal education. Harvard Uni Press, 1997. Papaconstantinou, Michalis: The Balkans. In: Balkan forum, Vol. 3, numbers 1 (10) March 1995. Perlman, Baron, James Gueths and Donald A. Weber. The academic intrapreneur: strategy, innovation and management in higher education. Praeger Publishers, NY 1988. Powell, W. Walter and Paul J. DiMaggio (ed.). The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis. The University of Chicago Press, 1991. Reeves, Madeleine. The role of universities in the transformation of society. The case study of the American University – Central Asia. www.open.ac.uk/cheri/TRreports.htm Richardson, Jeremy (ed.). European Union. Power and policy-making. Sec. Ed. Routledge, London and New York, 2001.
Sabloff, Paula L. (ed.). Higher Education in the Post-Communist World. Case studies of eight universities. In Germany, Russia, Poland, Slovak Republic, Ukraine, Mongolia, China, Laos. Garland Publishing, New York and London, 1999. Schwartzman, Simon. Universities and the Transformation of Society in Brazil www.open.ac.uk/cheri/TRreports.htm Slantcheva, Snejana. Reforming Bulgarian education: an institutional perspective.www.policy.hu/slantcheva. Sodnomtseren, Altantsetseg. University-science-business cooperation for the sustainable financial development of higher education in Mongolia. www.policy.hu/sodnomtseren. Todorova, Maria. Imagining the Balkans. New York, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1997. Tomusk, Voldemar. The Rise of the Transnational Capitalist Class and the World Bank ‘Aid’ for Higher Education. Still unpublished draft. Tomusk, Voldemar. The Open World and Closed Societies. Essays on Higher Education Policies ‘in Transition’. Still unpublished draft. Forthcoming in Palgrave. Totomanova, Anna-Maria. The role of universities in the transformation of society. National case study of Bulgaria. www.open.ac.uk/cheri/TRreports.htm Weissberg, Robert (ed.). Democracy and the academy. Nova Science Publishers, Inc. New York, 2000. Weissberg, Robert. Academic tyranny: The Tale and the Lessons. In: Weissberg, Robert (ed.). Democracy and the academy. Nova Science Publishers, Inc. New York, 2000. World Bank. Constructing Knowledge Societies: New Challenges for Tertiary Education. A World Bank Strategy. Vol. I and II. A draft paper prepared by the Education Group, Human Development Network. 2002.
|