by Luca R Perfetti*
We Constitution guarantee the freedom of the arts and sciences and their teaching, as well as the right to University to establish autonomous regulations (article 33, Constitution). Research and teaching autonomy is a characteristic of a democratic and pluralist Republic, a connotation of freedom of thought. A freedom that – in history – has never received sympathy from governments, especially authoritarian governments. Therefore, some of the recent initiatives undertaken by the Italian government are bound to raise concerns. First of all, Anvur’s reforms.
National Agency for Evaluation of University and Research Systems (Anvur to be precise) it has a strategic function in the Italian university system – because it evaluates research processes, outcomes, training and products; determine initial and periodic accreditation criteria for universities and study programs; measuring the quality of research (VQR) which also depends on the level of resources transferred to the university; managing the career process of professors (with their scientific qualifications); propose the establishment, merger or amalgamation of universities. Precisely because of the nature of its function, Anvur was established as independent agency, deducted from the government address.
The reforms carried out a few weeks ago changed this nature. Although Anvur himself had made clear observations to the government to the contrary and made appropriate amendments to guard against ministerial interference, the approved text distorted the legal regime. In fact, the reform decree not only designed a corporate structure as a substitute for independent institutions, but stipulated that Anvur could only adopt regulations to evaluate scientific and teaching activities in universities and research bodies. “have heard the Minister” – with a formulation so general that it is impossible to understand what authority is given to the Minister.
Furthermore – and perhaps more importantly – the direct appointment of the president by the Minister was foreseen (article 7) (he was previously a member of the board of directors of Anvur, which incidentally was reduced). Anvur has proposed international selection on the basis of a tender and the results are that the president’s authority is expanded precisely because it is under the direct dependence of the ministry. Once again: to the evaluation of the overall quality of teaching and research activities is added the evaluation of “increasing university knowledge”, but only “if requested by the Ministry” – also in this case with general rules, which provide wide scope for government action. Then, quantitative and qualitative requirements, human, infrastructural and financial resources, adequacy of teaching programs and research capacity, are assessed for the purposes of establishing, merging or suppressing universities and locations, activating, closing or merging study programs, research doctorates and master’s degrees, “at the request of the Minister”. That alone is not enough: evaluation of research quality is carried out “based on one or more Ministerial Decrees”.
Because everything relevant happens at the request of the Minister or based on the guidelines he sets, and considering the results of evaluation activities Anvur determines allocation of state funds to universities and research institutions, if the Minister is not satisfied after influencing the entire process, then “further allocation of special reward funds” is reserved. Evaluation of teaching and research, university organization, financing and evaluation of research programs, as well as the professor recruitment system are essentially in the hands of the Minister.
This appears to be an anticipation of a series of further and greater reforms. In fact, in the last few days, the contents of the university governance reform plan produced by the commission chaired by Prof. has been known. Galli Della Loggia.
The signs are the same. A deputy Minister must also sit on the university’s board of directors; the university’s autonomy regarding its bodies has been completely abrogated; the composition of the management is arranged in such a way that the chancellor always gets a majority of votes and voting is carried out based on a simple majority; However, the concentration of power in the Chancellor was caused by a reduction in his independence from the Ministry, since University Strategic Plan must be made based on instructions – no better defined as “guidelines” – from the Minister.
The plural system – the academic senate (which essentially disappeared), the board of directors, the chancellor – was replaced by a chancellor without rival power which, however, operates within a framework of reduced university autonomy and the Minister’s direct influence. If more is added, it is up to the Minister to assign it reward fund (with the danger that this research would only be carried out at aligned universities) and that Anvur was substantially under his control, there was little remaining of research and teaching freedom.
Of course, these steps are correct constitutionally valid it is very clear that there are strong doubts. However, the academic world does not appear to have reacted. Unfortunately, freedom of thought and teaching is not something that can be eliminated, even because people rarely see each other. In fact, they are important conditions of freedom not only for professors (who don’t seem all that surprised), but also for students, future generations, and the country at large.
A government policy and regulation originating from the government (and from the vulnerable DPR) that makes universities and research centers articulation of government power they constitute a vicious attack on one of the cornerstones of republican freedom, in which case – pending questions being submitted to the Constitutional Court and hopefully accepted – silence is complicit and culpable.
* Full Professor of Administrative Law, Faculty of Economics, University of Bari
