at the University of Belgrade Strengthening ethics through normative improvements at the University of Belgrade

Years of indecisiveness 3 normative acts adopted in July 2016 (although the legal framework, as such, existed since 2007) 3 normative acts adopted in July 2016 Code of Ethics (the most important of the three) Regulation on Ethical committees (concerns mostly the procedure-related topics) Regulation on suppression of unacceptable non-academic conducts (outlaws plagiarism and similar practices)

What is the purpose of the Code and the regulations? Strengthening academic integrity Increasing openness (transparency) Improvement of moral values Protection of dignity of knowledge and fair scientific work Repressive as well as preventive purpose of punishing decisions (expression of the academic community taking distance from deeds of its members)

What is new in the legal framework constituted in 2016? Important principles are introduced: Freedom of expression Collegiality and professionalism Integrity of the University Autonomy Academic decency and accuracy Responsibility Duties of the University and its teachers: Informing the students Ensuring more quality in lecturing Objective, non-discriminative assessment of capabilities and work Definitions of punishable practices Neutral and dignified public appearance of lecturers and students

Ethics Committee of the University What is new in the procedure? Ethics Committee of the University new organization of its work new legitimacy of its membership (appointed by the Senate of the University, on rector’s initiative) Ethics committees of faculties & deans - analogous rules of procedure and composition The special new role for deans (suggest measures, individualize Responsibility of faculties) * Duty of cooperation with the committees (all the bodies and individuals at the University and faculties) * Submitting complaints (starting the procedure) is tax-free (still, there has to exist a direct interest of the plaintiff to initiate the procedure) Full respect of legality (right to be heard; right to plea against the decision…) New measures (punishments): warning / public warning / public conviction

B I G issue? Why is abstention from voting such a decisions of academic (faculty, but mainly University) bodies claiming competency, are being locked (dead-end) Problem: need for qualified (absolute, not relative) majorities (the same goes with other types of majority) abstention (failure to vote) is a useful ‘political’ choice however, that is the way that makes system crumble and run into inefficiency consequently, this makes the protection and development of academic ethics a joke (merely a ‘good intention’)

аbstention = non-participation = carelessness although formally allowed, choosing to abstain is “out of order” and deeply unethical and unprofessional the matter is never a political one, but it concerns some professional issue (the margin is much narrower) аbstention = non-participation = carelessness = sort of dereliction of duty (and an important one) especially problematic if constant (never representing one’s view) solid, unambiguous opinion = responsibility = integrity institutionally, abstained voting leads to lack of competent and relevant decision-making

exception: conflict of interest (family or financial ties) this is the stance of the Constitutional Court of Serbia a relevant body gains the status of a court of law = right to fair trail (right to an indepent court and to a reasoned judgment) this implies the duty to vote exception: conflict of interest (family or financial ties) proposal (not a new one): redraft the relevant legal framework exclude (or seriously limit) the possibility of vote to abstain special role of the presiding person (chairman of ethic committee) introduction of secret voting (ballot, instead of a roll-call, or voice vote)

(suggestions, corrections, questions – most welcome!) Thank you for your time! (suggestions, corrections, questions – most welcome!)