Violation of the Right to Education Due to Expulsion from School as a Disciplinary Measure
Events
The applicant participated in a press statement made by a group of students protesting 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 suspended from the higher education institution for one month on the grounds that he had engaged in actions that undermined the honor and dignity of university staff inside or outside the institution.
The applicant filed a lawsuit in the administrative court seeking the annulment of the administrative action. The administrative court ruled to reject the request for annulment of the action on the grounds that there was no violation of the law in the action in question. T he 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 suspended from school for one month on the grounds that he used statements damaging to the honor and reputation of the rector of the university he attended during a press conference he participated in.
Th e Court’s Assessment
The level of education is of great importance in terms of the regulations imposed on students’ freedom of expression. In this context, the level of education of the individual subject to disciplinary punishment is important.
As the level of education increases, interventions in the student’s freedom of expression should decrease. In concrete terms, the scope of intervention in the applicant’s right to education related to freedom of expression should be narrower at the primary and secondary education levels. In this context, more tolerance should be shown to university students with different views at universities, which are seen as the cradle of free and critical thinking. Such views and ideas should benefit from strict protection of freedom of expression, even if they are controversial or unpopular.
In a press statement read before a group that included the applicant, it was alleged that the rector had expelled 170 university students since taking office. Although it was alleged that the rector had resorted to harsh measures, such as severing ties with the university for many academics and students, the courts did not address the issue of where the line between legitimate criticism and insult lies.
Firstly, it is clear that the press release in question approached university policies from a different perspective and used 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 ideas. Intervening in the ideas expressed in the press release in question and punishing those who support these ideas for any reason makes it impossible to ensure a free environment for debate and, consequently, pluralism.
Secondly, it should not be forgotten that the limits of acceptable criticism for public authorities are much broader than for individuals. In a democratic system, it should 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 bodies but also by the public. The press statement in which the applicant participated should be considered part of the public’s scrutiny of the university administration’s policies.
Thirdly, public officials have the opportunity to respond and react to criticism directed at them in various ways. Indeed, the university administration could have refuted the allegations made in the press release in question, correctly informed the public about statements it found unfounded, and refuted some allegations with evidence. Given these options, the rector and university administration should refrain from initiating disciplinary or criminal investigations and prosecutions in response to verbal attacks they deem unjust; however, this applies only if such attacks incite violence, as in the case at hand.
Fourth, even if some of the statements in the press release are considered harsh and offensive by the university administration, it should be emphasized once again that freedom of expression applies not only to information and ideas that are accepted by society or considered harmless or irrelevant, but also to information and ideas that are offensive, shocking, or disturbing.
The Constitutional Court has confirmed in many of its decisions that ideas that may disturb state officials or a segment of society are necessary for pluralism, tolerance, and open-mindedness, which are indispensable for a democratic society. Indeed, even if the statements in the press release that is the subject of the application, namely that the rector is subordinate to the government and 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 in a way that allows for a certain degree of exaggeration and even provocation.
On the other hand, in their decisions regarding disciplinary sanctions to be imposed on university students, the administration and courts must also demonstrate the potential or actual negative impact of the act in question on the order of the educational institution. At this point, it should be noted that the act subject to punishment must have taken place outside the university campus. Undoubtedly, disciplinary rules can also apply to students’ statements or other actions outside of school. However, students can only be subject to sanctions for actions that occur outside the institution and interfere with the right to education if it is demonstrated that these actions seriously affect the order of the institution.
In the specific case, the court’s reasoning does not include any assessment of the extent to which the press release, which was the subject of the applicant’s punishment, affected university order, how it disrupted it, or created a risk of disruption. In other words, the decisions did not reveal what imperative social need the disciplinary penalty was intended to satisfy. It is constitutionally impossible to impose disciplinary penalties on students who disrupt the order of an educational institution and thus restrict their right to education based on hypothetical assessments such as the honor and dignity of public authorities.
Consequently, the applicant was expelled from school for exercising his freedom of expression and was deprived of his right to education. It is clear that the appellate courts did not evaluate the reason for the use of the statements in question, their content, how the statements affected the order of the institution, the level of education received by the applicant, or the environment in which the press statement was made. Considering the circumstances of the case and the reasons stated above, it was determined that the disciplinary penalty imposed did not meet the necessary conditions or was disproportionate. 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 for the reasons stated.