Violation Of The Right To Education Due To Expulsion From School As A Disciplinary Punishment
Events
The applicant participated in a press statement made by a group of students to protest the investigation launched by the university administration against students protesting the Ankara Station attack.
The university administration launched a disciplinary investigation on the grounds that the press statement in question contained expressions that undermined the honor and dignity of the university rector. As a result of the investigation, the applicant was given a disciplinary penalty of one month’s suspension from the higher education institution on the grounds that university staff had engaged in actions that undermined honor and dignity within or outside the institution.
The applicant filed a lawsuit in the administrative court seeking the cancellation of the administrative action. The administrative court ruled to reject the request for cancellation of the action in question on the grounds that there was no violation of the law in the action in question. The applicant’s appeal was rejected by the regional administrative court, and the court’s decision to dismiss the case became final.
Allegations
The applicant claimed that his right to education had been violated because he was punished with a one-month suspension from school for using expressions that were damaging to the honor and reputation of the rector of the university he attended during a press conference he participated in.
The Court’s Assessment
The level of education is of great importance in terms of regulations imposed on students’ freedom of expression. In this context, the level of education of the individual subject to disciplinary sanctions is significant. As the level of education increases, interventions in the student’s freedom of expression should decrease. In the specific case, the scope of intervention in the applicant’s right to education related to freedom of expression should be narrower than at the primary and secondary education levels. In this context, greater tolerance should be shown to university students with different opinions at universities, which are seen as the cradle of free thought and critical thinking. Even if the views and ideas in question are controversial or unpopular, they should benefit from the strict protection of freedom of expression.
In a press statement read in front of a group that included the applicant, it was alleged that the rector had expelled 170 university students since taking office. The courts did not address the issue of where the line between legitimate criticism and insult lies, despite the rector allegedly resorting to harsh measures such as severing ties with the university for many academics and students.
Firstly, it is clear that the press release in question approaches university policies from a different perspective and uses oppositional language. However, it should not be forgotten that ensuring social and political pluralism depends on the peaceful and free expression of all kinds of thought. Interfering with the ideas expressed in the press release that is the subject of the application and punishing those who support such ideas for one reason or another makes it impossible to achieve a free environment for debate and, consequently, pluralism.
Secondly, it should not be forgotten that the limits of acceptable criticism are much broader for public authorities than for private individuals. In a democratic system, it must always be borne in mind that the actions and omissions of public authorities are subject to strict scrutiny not only by the legislative and judicial branches but also by the public. The press release in which the applicant participated should be considered part of the public’s scrutiny of the university administration’s policies.
Thirdly, public authorities have the opportunity to respond and react to criticism directed at them using various means. Indeed, the university administration could have refuted the allegations made in the press release in question, informed the public correctly about statements it considered false, and countered some of the allegations with evidence. Given the existence of these options, the rector and university administration should refrain from initiating disciplinary investigations or criminal investigations and prosecutions in response to verbal attacks they deem unjust—unless such attacks incite violence—as was the case in the concrete incident.
has been established.
Fourthly, even if certain statements in the press release are deemed harsh and offensive by the university administration, it must be reiterated that freedom of expression applies not only to information and ideas that are accepted by society or deemed harmless or irrelevant, but also to information and ideas that are offensive, shocking, or disturbing. In many of its decisions, the Constitutional Court has confirmed that thoughts that disturb state officials or a section of society are necessary for pluralism, tolerance, and open-mindedness, which are essential for a democratic society. Indeed, even if the statements in the press release that is the subject of the application, claiming that the rector is subservient to the government and that he is a trustee rector appointed by the government rather than elected by the majority of academics, are found to be disturbing and provocative from the rector’s point of view, it must be accepted that freedom of expression must be interpreted broadly to allow for a degree of exaggeration and even provocation.
On the other hand, in their decisions regarding disciplinary penalties to be imposed on university students, the administration and courts must also demonstrate the potential or actual negative effects of the action in question on the order of the educational institution. At this point, it should first be noted that the action subject to punishment took place outside the university campus. Undoubtedly, disciplinary rules can also be applied to students’ statements or other actions outside of school. However, students can only be subject to sanctions for their actions outside of school—in a manner that constitutes interference with the right to education—if it can be demonstrated that the action occurring outside the institution seriously affected the order of the institution. In the specific case, it is seen that the court’s reasoning does not include any assessment of the extent to which the press statement, which was the subject of the applicant’s punishment, affected the order of the university, how it disrupted it, or created a risk of disruption. In other words, the decisions do not reveal what mandatory social need the disciplinary penalty imposed was intended to meet. It is constitutionally impossible to punish students with disciplinary penalties for disrupting the order of an educational institution based on hypothetical assessments, such as the honor or dignity of public authorities, and thus to restrict their right to education.
Consequently, the applicant was punished with expulsion from school for exercising his freedom of expression and was deprived of his right to education. It is clear that the courts of appeal did not evaluate the reason for using the statements in question, their content, how the statements affected the order of the institution, the level of education the applicant was receiving, or the medium in which the press release was made. In light of the circumstances of the case and considering the reasons stated above, the disciplinary penalty imposed was not deemed to meet a necessary requirement or to be proportionate. In this context, the reasons put forward by the courts were not considered relevant or sufficient to justify the interference with the applicant’s right to education.
The Constitutional Court ruled that the right to education had been violated based on the reasons stated.
