Violation of the Freedom of Expression Due to the Reprimand of the Instructor
Events
The applicant was working as a lecturer at the law faculty of a university at the time of the events subject to the application. The applicant was subjected to a disciplinary penalty on the grounds that his political discourse in the international law course was contrary to the procedures and principles of the course. Thereupon, the applicant filed a lawsuit at the administrative court for the cancellation of the disciplinary penalty imposed on him, and the court of first instance ruled for the cancellation of the action. Upon an appeal to the aforementioned decision, the regional administrative court decided to annul the decision of the first instance court and dismiss the case.
Allegations
The applicant claimed that his freedom of expression was violated when he was penalised with a reprimand for not fulfilling his duty of conducting a lecture as a lecturer at a university by getting into political issues.
The Court’s Assessment
Freedom of science is specifically protected under Article 27 of the Constitution. In this context, Article 26 and, more specifically, Article 27 of the Constitution include freedom of scientific expression within the scope of acquiring information and ideas and disseminating ideas, and these constitutional guarantees enable teaching activities to be carried out properly in the specific case. The manner in which the lecturer, the subject of the present application, conducts the course is of great importance for a democratic society due to its function of ensuring the continuity of critical reason and scientific enquiry. For this reason, the state should be more sensitive to its obligation not to interfere unnecessarily with the freedom of expression of persons engaged in teaching activities.
On the other hand, when the state restricts freedom of expression for this purpose, it must show that the measure applied corresponds to a compelling pressing need and is proportionate. Bodies exercising public power and courts have a certain margin of appreciation when assessing the existence of a compelling social need. However, this margin of appreciation is subject to the supervision of the Constitutional Court.
.
In the concrete application, the court of first instance concluded that the nature of the course was intertwined with political issues and that it should be considered normal to make political discourses in the teaching of the course. In the opinion of the Constitutional Court, the international law course is at the centre of political issues in terms of the subjects it deals with, and in this sense, it is extremely difficult to isolate the course from political discourse. However, it should also be recognised that the strong connection between international law and politics does not automatically make every political interpretation part of the course.
In an evaluation of the teaching of the remaining courses in the social sciences, it is vital that the context and scope of the subject covered in the course hours, as well as the political discourses, are taken into account exclusively. However, no assessment was made in the light of the variables in question, and apart from the abstract acceptance that the applicant touched on political issues, it was not possible to reveal exactly and precisely what the applicant said, and the conclusion that the applicant’s statements were not related to the course was reached solely on the basis of the extremely general statements of some students.
When the statements of the students taken within the scope of the investigation are analysed, it is seen that in a course with more than five hundred registered students, the statements of only nine students were taken, and among these statements, there was no common opinion that the applicant’s political statements were not related to the course. Higher education students, as individuals, have social aspects such as having political views, being interested in national problems and making choices. Therefore, political discussions in a course cannot be expected to appeal to the world of thought of all students under all circumstances. For this reason, it is understandable that students have different opinions about the way the course is taught.
.
On the other hand, students are expected to tolerate critical discourses and discussions that contribute to the integrity of the course, even if they are contrary to their value judgements, provided that they are related to the subject of the course. Otherwise, the existence of the right to teach, which is part of the freedom of science, is jeopardised and scientific questioning or scepticism is replaced by a dogmatic point of view.
In the end, it is not possible to reach an objective judgement about the relevance of the applicant’s political discourse to the course without any doubt due to the relatively small number of students whose statements were taken and the lack of consensus among the students on the subject. However, it should be kept in mind that even if the views expressed by an academic staff member during a lecture are deemed irrelevant, useless, provocative or disturbing by students or university authorities, they are protected by the freedom of expression, regardless of the subjective evaluations of individuals.
As a result, the decision of the Regional Administrative Court did not concretely demonstrate how the applicant’s political discourse constituted a violation of the conduct of the course in accordance with the determined procedures and principles. Considering all the circumstances of the application, it has been concluded that the interference with the freedom of expression protected under Article 26 of the Constitution by imposing a reprimand penalty on the applicant does not correspond to an overriding social need, nor is it proportionate.
The Constitutional Court decided that the freedom of expression was violated for the reasons explained.
You can access our other article examples and petition examples by clicking here.