Make your own free website on Tripod.com
 
Jovica Thkulja                                                                                                                                     Case Study
Faculty of Law                                                                                                                                     UDK: 378
Belgrade                                                                                                                                 Received: 20.03.1999
 


LAW FACULTY UNDER ATTACK

The Inexorable Fate of Anti-Intellectualism

    The new University Act is a link in a whole string of war campaigns against the centres of the institutions of culture in Serbia, another proof that anti-intellectualism is the inexorable fate of these parts. This is where we have to face a major encumbrance of our tradition which will be borne as a cross by our intellectuals for a long time yet. It is the intellectual ostracism - mistrust and the worst possible treatment the Serbs manifest towards the nation's greatest minds. Is it not true that Vuk Karadzic', Svetozar Markovic', Slobodan Jovanovic', Milos Crnjanski and numerous other great men spent the major part of their lives abroad, since it turned out that it was easier to obtain recognition and glory in the world, then in their own country. Does it not appear that the predicament of Vuk Karadzic' was carried over to Mihailo Duric' and dozens of thousands of experts who, rejected by Serbia, left it to find affirmation elsewhere in the world? That accounts for the topicality of the words written by Vuk Karadzic' way back in 1832: »Bearing in mind that Miloje Djak - who in early 1825, rose the Smederevo district against (Prince) Milos - could read and write a little, the prevailing view at Milos's court at that time (and perhaps even now) was that schools were definitely not required since the learned people rebelled against their government. Milosav Lapovac even proposed puffing to death of all who could read and write(< (Karadzic', 1968: 243-244). After World War II this ostracism was »supplemented« with Bolshevik anti-intellectualism which treated the party as the collective intellectual and generated fear, resentment and even hatred of autonomous intellectuals. Moreover, the Yugoslav power holders brought Stalin's tactics towards the intellectuals (»Make them part of a mass to humiliate them«) to absurd. This made a well-known aphorist of the 1 970s, Vladimir Bulatovic' Vib note:
»Very soon this country will have more doctors of sciences than literate people«.
    Thus an army of petty political intelligence of minions was formed. Finally, in the past decade the worst befell us: treason and self-compromising of intellectuals whose political engagement supplied the political passions and national conflicts with moral and intellectual authority. The surge of this anti-intellectualism over the past decade, drove into the world hundreds of thousands of young and educated people, including top experts and artists who are now recognized as such far from their country. In their wake they left an emptiness which is most often filled by mediocre substitutes or spiritual Pygmies. Many people tend to see the reasons for this national Golgotha and political downfall of Serbia during the past decade precisely in this exodus and ostracism of its wisest and most vital forces.

The subjugation of the University

    Manifest forms of anti-intellectualism in present-day Serbia are quite different: they range from an enormous devaluation of intellectual work and services to occasional attacks of the centres of political power against the autonomous intelligentsia and the temples of culture. The new University Act is the crown of this anti-intellectualism. Actually, it is an act which works against the university since it is aimed at eradicating the very idea of the university and annihilating its being. The hitherto history of the Serbian university legislation, starting from the establishment of the University of Belgrade in 1905, does not register a single university act with so many inadmissible procedural and substantial flaws, or so numerous restrictive and repressive provisions (Popovic', 1998). The Act was prepared in secrecy without the knowledge or cooperation of relevant scientific-research and educational institutions in Serbia, ignoring and affronting both the Serbian University tradition and internationally accepted standards of academic autonomy. Scientific institutions of highest level and repute in Serbia (the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts, the University of Belgrade, etc.) were not given the opportunity to state their views on the proposed legislation. Moreover, their suggestion to withdraw the text, still in the form of the proposal, from the legal procedure was dismissed.
    Despite serious objections and criticism on the part of most prominent institutions and individuals in the country, and regardless of the unsustainable legitimacy basis and professionally inferior outcome as well as the deficiencies of formal legal and processual nature, the University Act entered into force on June 4, 1998, as yet another in a series of acts imposed by an unwise authority. The Act replaces the university autonomy with »enforced management«, freedom with submission and humility, creativeness with political narrowness (Ivosevic', 1998; Vujacic', 1998).
    The creators and apologists of the new University Act were not prepared to openly trample on the generally accepted standards of the university's autonomy and freedom. Therefore, they set out to prove that the Act had: 1) merely changed the regime of university management, without infringing upon the autonomy of high education or interfering with the freedom of scientific work and the regime of studies; 2) enabled state control of the university by introducing certain prerogatives, but also responsibilities of the state towards the university, and 3) created the conditions to depoliticize the university, i.e. banish from it all parties and politics (Markovic', Bojic' and Seselj, 1998; Kalajic', 1998).
    These arguments are an expression of specific cynicism and hypocrisy. The participation of professors and associates in managing the university and faculties was not merely limited, but it was cancelled altogether. Instead of the so-called state control and depoliticization of the university, we saw it submitted to the current authorities. This is expressly anticipated by Article 123 of this Act which stipulates that the rectors and the deans are appointed and relieved by the founder, that is the Government. If the rectors and the deans are appointed by the Government without the employees having any say in the matter, and primarily in line with political criteria, or criteria of complete loyalty to the current authorities, and if the deans »have a hold<( over the professors and associates - it is quite clear that the modern principle of the university autonomy and freedom is replaced by the premodern principles of vassals and their lords. Namely, according to this Act the professors and associates are vassals to the dean, the deans and rectors are vassals to the government, i.e. the ruling party which, ultimately, appears as the true lord of the university. However, should the current authorities change, there is no doubt that the new team would replace the deans and rectors appointed by the previous government by others more suitable for their purposes. This widely opens the door to politics, political autocracy and scheming at the university (Basta, 1998:1; Batakovic', 1998:139-144).
    Created as a normative result of an authoritarian regime, the University Act paradigmatically uncovers how a legal act has been made a tool in securing the authoritarian demands of a political reality. It suffers from the diseases typical of the Serbian legislature and its products - starting from a disproportion between the liberal-democratic form and authoritarian-repressive contents. Namely, the University Act has a manifest form of liberal order of the university, which expresses the general (and ideological) needs, although not of the political reality. At the same time, it includes the hidden forms of repression which reflect the political reality, that is the need to discipline and marginalize the university. Thus, we come into a situation wherein we have this Act as a simulated norm creating a semblance of rights and the truth of a distorted (legal) reality.
    Therefore, it is an inferior, repressive and regressive legal act which, by abolishing the last guarantees of academic freedoms and autonomy of science, negates the university as a place for free research, education and creative work. The adoption and enforcement of this fatal Act are a specific kind of attack on universities in Serbia and mark their most profound and largest downfall. With the exception of the German regime of 1 930s no European government of the 20-th century has ever manifested so much mistrust of the university cadre and their ability to care for the university's interest in the process of self-administration, as we see expressed by this Act (cf. also articles by Cedomir Cupic', Zagorka Gohibovic' and Goran Milicevic' in: Sta se zhiva na univerzitetu, 1998). Its enforcement marks the beginning of annihilation of the very idea and purpose of the university, leaving it merely its name and form.

Exile of professors from the Faculty of Law

    On May 20, 1998 the Educational and Scientific Council of the Faculty of Law met to discuss the proposed University Act. On that occasion the Council considered the following questions: Did the government act in line with democratic standards when it decided to prepare a text of this kind without consulting the university or any professional organization? Was the proposed abolishment of the university autonomy in the sphere of management and election of professors and associates in conformity with the basic achievements of civilization the academic communities in modern societies rest upon? Did the new legal solutions provide for the »banishing of politics from the university" or conversely created a wide space for political action and persecution of professors and associates'? Were the proposed provisions of the University Act constituional and in contravention with international standards? Was the regime of studies sharpened in the right way'? Would this improve or rather worsen the material position of the University (Popovic', 1998: 57)'?
    Having analyzed the legislative history of universities in Serbia since 1905, the Council concluded that over the past 93 years no regime had ever resorted to a solution whereby the founder should undertake the management function and on that basis appoint rectors and deans, and even professors and associates, without regard to any criteria and invoking its unlimited discretionary authorities. Even when the minister of education had the authority to appoint the dean, which is what happened at the time of the country's occupation, he did that upon the proposal of the faculty. The Council found that the Act ran contrary to the Serbian university tradition and the high, internationally accepted standards of academic autonomy. »The idea that the founder of the university, i.e. faculty, should manage these institutions as if these were his firms, was alien to all governments - from democratic ones during the golden age of parliamentarism in the Kingdom of Serbia, through the anti-popular, occupational and socialist ones in the post-war period« (Popovic', 1998: 61).
    Three days after the adoption of the University Act in the national Assembly of Serbia, on May 29, 1998 the Scientific and Educational Council of the Faculty of Law stated its view about the text of the enacted legislation and agreed on conclusions subsequently signed by 52 professors and associates (out of the total teaching staff of 96): 1) The Council repeated its belief that the new University Act had dealt a hard blow to the university autonomy by abolishing it altogether in the vital spheres of election of professors and associates and managing the faculties and the University; 2) Most Council members believed that the new legal solutions created ample space for interference of politics in the life of the faculties and the University; 3) They noted that it is essentially a moral issue for all concerned to individually define their attitudes towards the possibly offered functions, and decide whether they would accept to continue working at the university under such conditions; the Council invited their colleagues appointed to functions in management bodies (deans, vice-deans, members of the Managing and Supervisory boards) not to accept the appointments unless they have previously obtained the majority support of professors and associates at a secret ballot. Failing that, the professors and associates would not be able to cooperate with them. As for the election of professors and associates the future dean is expected to adhere to the university standards - with respect to the procedure as well as election criteria - which had thus far been applied at the Faculty and the University; 4) The Faculty must not under any circumstances concede to the creation of a climate of persecution in it or at the University. The highest moral imperative for any member of the Council must be actively to resist all pressures for purges among colleagues of different minds, through the authorities vested in the dean. In addition, it would be necessary to preserve the high criteria the Faculty applied for the admission of professors and associates to the faculty and for promotion to higher positions; 5) The Council condemned the entirely unnecessary and brutal intervention of the police against the students and professors who protested over the adoption of the Act on the day it was voted in, as well as later; 6) The Council indicated that it was the task of the University to apply all legal and legitimate means to oppose the solutions which not only undermined the autonomy of the University but were, moreover, contrary to the Constitution and the undertaken international obligations (»Zakljucci...«, 1998: 235-236).
    At this same session a proposal was made that the Council should adopt a conclusion stating that »in order to defend the university autonomy and the dignity of the Faculty the professors and associates of the Faculty of Law on Belgrade consider it a demand of their professional conscience and their ethical duty to discontinue their work due to the monstrous and disastrous solutions of the new University Act((. The motion failed to obtain majority support - with 22 votes in favour, 9 against and 18 abstained (»Zakljucci...«, 1998: 235).
    As soon as the University Act entered into force on June 4, 1998, sixteen professors of the Faculty of Law signed a statement' refusing to conclude employment contracts anticipated by Article 165 of the Act. After that, the signers of this statement launched an initiative to the Constitutional Court to examine the compliance of certain provisions of the University Act with the Constitution and the law.2

  1. 1  The statement was signed by: Danilo Basta, professor; Mirjana Stefanovski, assistant professor; Vesna Rakic-Vodinelic', associate professor; Miroljub Labus, professor; Gaso Knezevic', associate professor; Kosta Cavoski, professor; Jovica Trkulja, professor; Dragor Hiber, associate professor; Vojin Dimitrijevic', professor; Mirjana Todorovic', professor, Dragoijub Popovic', professor; Vladimir Vodinelic', associate professor; Radmila Vasic, associate professor; Dragica Vujadinovic'Milinkovic', associate professor; Slobodanka Nedovic', assistant professor; and Aleksandra Jovanovic, assistant professor.
  2. 2  See »The initiative to examine constitutionality of Art. 165, Art. 160-164, Art. 94, Art. 109, paras I and 2, Art. 122 paras I and 2 of the University Act (published in Official Journal of the Republic of Serbia No.20/i 998<(). The initiative was sent to the Constitutional Court of Serbia on June 8, 1998, and was signed by all signatories to the June 4 statement.
    After Professor Oliver Antic' was appointed the Faculty's dean, on July 3, 1998, thirty professors and associates of the Faculty sent him a letter invoking the conclusions of the Education al and Scientific Council's session of May 29, and asking him to undergo a secret ballot so as to check whether he was actually sup-ported by the majority of the teaching staff The dean chose to ignore the request. A month later, seven professors sent a letter to Professor Slobodan Perovic' and Professor Miodrag Orlic' who prepared a report proposing that Vladimir Vodinelic', associate professor be promoted to full professor, asking them to intercede with the new dean (who had also signed the report) to give up his intention to refuse Professor Vodinelic's election for full professor. Attempts to dissuade the dean from doing that were also made at the session of the Scientific and Educational Council held on August 26 and the meeting of the Faculty's management and heads of departments, five days later. However, despite all these efforts the dean remained firm in his intention and on August 31 took a decision that the procedure for the election of Professor Vladimir Vodinelic' for a full professor »be concluded by witholding endorsement of his election and that a new competition for the position be announced«.3 In addition, the Dean took another decision terminating employment of Vladimir Vodinelic', due to the negative outcome of the election procedure.4
    Manifesting their protest against such a decision fifteen professors of the Faculty of Law discontinued all instructions on September 7~5 In the meantime, instead of the offer for conclusion of employment contract as per Article 165 of the University Act, the Dean presented all professors and associates of the Faculty with a document thus unheard of in the law.6
    Soon, new dismissals followed: on September 15, the Dean discharged Dragoljub Popovic', professor, Dragor Hiber, associate professor and Mirjana Stafenovski, assistant professor on grounds of unjustified absence from work for five 3 Decision by the Dean, Faculty of Law, University of Belgrade, 02-no. 314/5 dated August 31, 1998.
4 Decision by the Dean, Faculty of Law, University of Belgrade, 02-no. 314/6 dated August 31,1998.
5 Three letters were written and addressed to dean Antic', all professors and associates of the Faculty of Law in Belgrade, students and the public. The letters were signed by all who had also signed the June 4 statement, with the exception of the dismissed Professor Vodinelic'.
6 The document reads: "Pursuant to the decision 02-no. ... you have established regular employment with the Faculty of Law of the University of Belgrade. I am taking this opportunity to inform you that I shall, suibject to your agreement, consider the above-mentioned decision the basis for your continuing employment under conditions contained therein and pursuant to the provisions of the University Act, the Labor Relations Act and the Statute of the Faculty of Law in Belgrade".
days in succession.7 Towards the end of September the Dean took decisions suspending ten professors: K. Cavoski, V. Dimitnjevic', A. Jovanovic', G. Knezevic', S. Nedovic', V. Rakic-Vodinelic', A. Todorowc', J. Trkulja, R. Vasic' and D. Vujadinovic-Milinkovic'. Two days later Vojin Dimitnjevic' was served a decision on his retirement, i.e. termination of his employment by the force of law. After that the protesting professors were joined by assistant professor Olga Popovic-Obradovic, assistant Goran Svilanovic' and assistant Milica Delevic-Dilas. Soon after Professor Vesna Rakic-Vodinelic' and assistant Goran Svilanovic' were sacked.8
    Attempts of protesting professors to avert the Dean from unreasonable violation of the law and disastrous moves, hoping to possibly find a compromise as a way out of the difficult situation were to no avail. On the contrary, the Dean manifested his exclusiveness and self-will in performing his duties with new suspensions and selective sanctioning of the professors. This marked the beginning of a new act in the tragic drama of banishing the professors from the Belgrade Faculty of Law. However, this was not a novelty for the Faculty of Law. Since from its establishment in 1841 to this very date, this Faculty has, just as the nation it belongs to, always treated its wisest and best professors the worst. It is no accident that the cutting edge of ostracism was always turned towards the most prominent and the best.9 It did not spare even the great men in the Pantheon of the Belgrade Faculty of Law. Quite the contrary, Slobodan Jovanovic', one of the greatest among the great - was born abroad, died in exile and is considered a war criminal according to the laws of this country. The Nestor of our legal thought Zivojin Peric' was discarded and forgotten 7 On September 16, twelve professors of the Faculty of Law who were on strike, sent a letter to the Dean protesting against his illegal decisions dismissing professors Popovic, Hiber and Stefanovski. At the same time, they informed the dean that they would not go back to their teaching duties until he withdrew the unlawful dismissals.

8 The body which conducted disciplinary proceedings against Professor Vesna Rakic-Vodinelic took a decision to terminate her employment on November 12, 1998. Assistant Goran Svilanovic received his discharge papers on December 26, 1998.

9 The list of professors of this Faculty who have been persecuted and removed from the Faculty from the day of its establishment to this date is rather long: 1) Lyceum and High School #Law (1941 - 1905): Dimitrije Matic, Kosta Cukic and Djordje Ceric (1851), Vladimfr Jovanovic (1864), Stojan Veljkovic', Gligorije Gesic', Djordje Pavlovic' (1871), Milovan Milovanovic', repeatedly, Milenko Vesnic' (1899). 2) Faculty of Law, University of Belgrade (1905-1941): Mihailo Ilic', Bozidar V Markovic', Dragoljub Jovanovic'. 3) Faculty of Law during occupation (1941-1945): Djordje Tasic, Mihailo Ilic', Ilija Przic', Milos Radojkovic', Milan Zijovic', Toma Zivanovic, Ljubomir Dukanac Dragas Denkovic', Bozidar S. Markovic', Tihomir Vasiljevic', Nikola Konstadinovi~ Jovan Djordjevic', Nikola Stjepanovic', Branislav Nedebkovic', Dusan Doncevic', Borislav Blagojevic 4) Faculty ~ Law, University of Belgrade (1946-2000): (A) Banished as 'enemies of the people Slobodan Jovanovic', Zivojin Peric', Bozidar S. Markovic', Dragoljub Jovanovic', Lazar Markovi~ Aleksandar Solovjev, Milan Vladisavljevi6, Djordje Mirkovic', Milivoje Markovic', Milan Zi~~ovi~c (B) Banished as »morally and politically unsuitable(< Mihailo Djuric', Andrija Gam~ Ruzica Guzina, Stevan Vracar, Stevan Djordjevic', Branislava Joji&, Danilo Basta, Vojislav Ko',tumca Kosta Cavos~i, Aleksandar Stojanovic'. (C) Banishment of the »disobeying(< (1998).

and died in exile far away from Serbia which had never accepted him. Djordje Tasic' and Mihailo Ilic' were killed in Banjica concentration camp in 1943 and 1944 in their prime, and no one even knows where they were buried.
    Judging that the most recent dismissals and suspensions at the Faculty of Law had endangered the bases of their profession the protesting professors took a decision to continue their strike until their dismissed colleagues came back to work and until all suspensions have been removed. They particularly warned against the violation of basic principles of studies at the Faculty which rendered their lecturing on law and justice meaningless. Dismissals and suspensions of colleagues merely illustrated the jeopardy for these principles and the danger for the very being of the University. Therefore, the dismissals and suspensions were not only a matter for the faculty and do not concern merely the Faculty of Law and the University. 10
    In only three months, from September until December 1998, the new University Act was invoked to remove seven professors and associates, while twice as many were subjected to various disciplinary measures ranging from suspensions to fines. In brief, almost a quarter of the teaching staff at the Belgrade Faculty of Law became victims of the penal policy at the Faculty and the circle of the punished keeps expanding on daily basis. We will see about the direction and intensity the punitive policy against the professors of this Faculty will take in times to come. The only thing that is certain is that there are no indications that it will stop and there is a serious danger that it will destroy the Faculty as an institution. The abuse of authorities and the damage thus inflicted on the Faculty are unprecedented in the almost 160-year old history of the Faculty. If the Dean, using his wide legal authorities continues with dismissals and removes from the Faculty all the professors who protest, he will be remembered in the history of the Belgrade Faculty of Law as the Serbian Erostrate, since he had managed to chase away more professors than the Serbian princes and kings, the German occupiers and the 1945-80 regime of Josip Broz. The banishing of protesting professors might lead to the departure of many other. It would be a hard blow for the Faculty and for Serbia which is a poor country where top cadre are concerned. Therefore, the protesting professors have in their most recent appeal to the public sent the following message11: »We call upon the Dean to reconsider and, for the benefit of the Belgrade Faculty of Law, summon the courage and find the ways to restore all the dismissed professors and associates to the Faculty so they could undertake their teaching duties. We appeal to the public at large, to the dormant minds, the competent Minister and the current rector to think about 10 The contents of the letter of the teaching staff protesting at the Faculty of Law were published in the 1998 December issue of Knjizevne novine and in special issue of Nova srpska politicka niisao.
11 »Appeal to the Public« of the protesting teaching staff at the Faculty of Law, dated December 28, 1998, issued after the dismissal of assistant Goran Svilanovic' in Civil Adjective Law
the obvious ruin of the Belgrade Faculty of Law. This evil and irresponsible destruction of an old school must be put to an end«.
    However, professors of the Faculty of Law failed to obtain supports from their students12 and colleagues. Most professors and associates of the Faculty and the universities in Serbia remained passive to the fact of destruction of the university and expulsion of professors from the Faculty for reasons which had nothing to do with the university itself. Moreover, the existent university political establishment of Serbia found this kind of the University Act »a godsend to conceal the really miserable situation at the university« (Jaksic', 1998: 35). Meanwhile the numerous army of university ketmans and chameleons swim with the tide. As a »silent majority« which has survived the whims and orders of the previous (not only communist) regimes, they will no doubt survive the current rule and the ongoing and similar natural disasters at the university (Jaksic', 1998: 35).
    The events at the Faculty of Law are the disastrous but expected results of the new University Act. The Act is only a confirmation, a state certificate of the catastrophic and unsound situation at the University. This kind of Act would have been impossible to pass had Serbia had a real university instead of one on a professional and moral decline, and had the situation at the university not already been catastrophic (Pihler, 1998:119-120).
    Bearing in mind that the punitive policy at the university continues, the teaching staff of the Faculty of Law, after 6 dismissals, one early retirement and 8 suspensions, are facing a dilemma: whether to continue boycotting the instructions and be dismissed, or else return to their teaching obligations, and using the legal forms within the Faculty continue the struggle for the return of their dismissed colleagues and against new expulsions. Most professors decided to go back to instructions as of January 1999 exam term13. 12 Students of the Belgrade Faculty of Law did not oppose the exile of the professors from the Faculty, nor did they provide support to their protesting professors. In early November, a small group of students tried to organize protest meetings of law students, but it remained alone in the effort. Still, on November 5, a student panel was organized which should have been addressed by professor Kosta Cavoski and professor Jovica Trkulja speaking on the new University Act. The dean prohibited the holding of the panel discussion and instituted disciplinary procedure against Marija Rudic', student of the IV year, one of the panel's organizers for violating the order at the Faculty. After the panel discussion was once again cancelled on November 10, a protest meeting of students was held in front of the Faculty building. Dean Antic' was asked the following: 1) to restore to the instructions the four dismissed professors and abolish the suspension of another ten; 2) to discontinue disciplinary proceedings against student Marija Rudic'; 3) to abolish the order on obligatory presentation of IDs on entry to the faculty buildings. This and the subsequent protests meetings held in front of the Faculty building were attended by about 50 or so law students.

13 Professor Kosta Cavoski and professor Danilo Basta remained firm in their decision to continue boycotting the instructions and in that way fight for the reestablishment to the Faculty of their dismissed colleagues and against new expulsions.

Literature
Basta, Danilo (1998): »Slobodan univerzitet u demokratskoj Srbiji« (Free university in democratic Serbia), Kijizevne novine, December

Batakovic', Dusan (1998): »Sunovrat srpske elite« (The downfall of Serbian elite), Nova srpska pohticka misao, Special Issue: University in Serbia

Ivosevic', Zoran (1998): »Turbo-folk U visokom skolstvu« (Turbo-folk in high education), Nasa nedeljna borba, June 27-28

Jaksic', Bozidar (1998): »Spoljasnje i unutrasnje razaranje univerziteta« External and internal destruction of the University), Republika, No.208-209, March 1-31

Kalaic', Dragos (1998): »Zakon o univerzitetu otvara put istinskoj eliti« (University Act opens the way for true elite), Nedeljni Clas, November 18

Karadzic', Vuk Stefanovic' (1968): »Komentar k pismu mome, pisanom Milosu Obrenovic'u, 12. aprila 1832. godine« (Commentary to my letter addressed to Milos Obrenovic' on April 12, 1832), Dela. Istorijski spisi, (ed. Radovan Samardzic'), Beograd: Prosveta

Markovic', Ratko & Milovan Bojic' & Vojislav Seselj (1998): »Kome je do politike neka Osniva Stranku" (Those interested in politics should better establish a party), Velika Srbija, Special issue, June

Pihier, Stanko (1998): »Ravnodusnost puka, nezrelog i otupelog« (Mere indiferrence of the immature and dull), Nova srpska politicka misao, Special Jssue: University in Serbia

Popovic', Dejan (1998): »Povodom Predloga Zakona o univerzftetu« (Comments on the University Bill), Nova srpska pohticka misao. Special Jssue: University in Serbia

Sta se zhiva na univerzitetu (What's happening at the University) (1998), Republika, No. 197, September 16-30

Vujacic', Ilija (1998): »Tako su nestali dostojanstvo i autonomija...« (Thus disappeared dignity and autonomy...), Nasa borba, May 19

Sreten Vujovic': »Nametnut nam je najreakcionarniji zakon u istoriji srpskog univerziteta« (We were imposed the most reactionary act in the history of the Serbian university) Danas, November 9

»Zakljucci Nastavno-naucnog veca Pravnog fakufteta Univerziteta U Beogradu sa sednice od 29. maja 1998. godine« (Conclusions of the session of the Educational and Scientific Council of the Faculty of Law, University of Belgrade, held on May 29, 1998) (1998), Nova srpska pohticka misao, Special Jssue: University in Serhia