Ferenc Mádl referred the higher education law to the Constitutional Court before signing it into law - parts of it were unconstitutional, he thought. But there are problems with the law that go beyond his own reservations. Amongst the most important relate to the reform of higher education management and the switch to a 'multi-cycle' system.
There is no doubt that the structure of higher education needs to be reformed. The traditional University Council and the scholarly Rector is no longer enough to meet the challenge of running today's greatly expanded institutions. The law tries to solve the problem by restricting the purview of a so-called senate to research and education affairs, whilst leaving swathes of strategic management questions to a body composed of the Rector and a few other people from outside the university. They would be appointed, dismissed and paid by the Education Minister. So the body would not be part of the university's autonomous structure - just the tip of the government's very long arm. It would be in charge of development plans, the university's budget and the structure of the institution. So the law would not promote university autonomy, whatever the minister claims. It would undermine autonomy. And this contradicts the main aim of administration reform: that of deregulating and decentrelising. Furthermore, this new body contradicts the Constitution's provision that academic freedom should be respected and supported.
It's worth mentioning that there have been similar governing bodies in some European countries for a few years. The Hungarian law follows the Austrian model, almost word for word. But the Austrian experience was not examined, despite the frequent problems that Austrian universities have encountered. But the drafters didn't examine practice in countries where legislators had managed to preserve autonomy whilst establishing governing bodies, like in France, Norway of Spain. That's what we should be trying to do here - next to the Senate there should be a separate management council. The members of this council could mostly be academics, with external representatives from the government, the region, business and the Hungarian Academy of Sciences. There should also be an oversight and audit committee and a chancellor in charge of university operations. The latter idea featured in a 1993 draft law, but it was opposed by the government of the day.
