After eight and a half years of excellent performance reviews, dedicated service in the faculty senate, and having held the positions of associate professor, associate dean, acting registrar (twice), and director of admissions, I was out of a job. The provost said that the dean, who had never had a performance review, could decide as he thought best. The dean said that the program no longer required full-time faculty. My contract was not renewed. Full-time faculty was hired to replace me. But what I remember most was the provost’s meeting-long smile. In Armenia we have all had to face that smile.
There are two ways that decisions can be made. One way is by the exercise of a person’s power. The other way is by process. When a person decides something for himself, personal choice is valid. But institutions do not belong to a person; they belong to all of us, and mostly to those participating in them. This is why institutional decisions, whether it be about grading a student, or hiring, promoting or dismissing an employee, or spending institutional funds, must be based on a transparent process based on relevant and fair criteria. Process respects the interests of the institution, the interests of the individuals affected by the decision, and the interests of the public. Power just feeds a person’s ego.
The Armenia Development Strategy (ADS) adopted last year states:
“The education sector in Armenia is considered to be important as one of the preconditions for sustainable development of the country, reproduction and development of the human capital. Thus, developments in this sector are one of the development priorities of the country. Increasing the quality and effectiveness of education at all levels of the educational system, increasing the relevance of different levels to international standards and ensuring affordable/accessible education for all groups of the population are priorities for the development of the sector. In order to achieve the mentioned goals, reforms are implemented at all levels of education.” ADS paragraph 430.
In eleven pages the ADS outlines the educational reforms to be pursued, and all seem justifiable. But there are two problems. First, such reforms, and the entire ADS itself, cannot be carried out without funding, and both Armenia’s budget deficit to GDP and its foreign debt to GDP have grown, meaning that funding will be difficult to get, and if got, costly. The second problem is that in these eleven pages the most serious issue gets the smallest amount of attention:
“In order to increase the efficiency and quality of the [sic.] education, it is crucial to fight the [sic.] corruption at all levels of [the] education system.” ADS paragraph 461.
That one sentence is the entire paragraph; it is the shortest paragraph in the section on education and almost the shortest in the entire ADS.
Although the ADS contains a three page section on corruption, it does not address corruption in the education sector. While Armenia adopted an Anticorruption Strategy in 2009, the implementation plan formally ended in 2012. A review of the Anticorruption Strategy as it applied to education shows that the often repeated solution was to create “transparency, openness, accountability and lawfulness” in a variety of educational processes. Anticorruption Strategy, pp. 31-32. Unfortunately, that has not happened.
A 2013 report by the CEU Higher Education Observatory found that:
“Despite the dominant reform rhetoric, the Armenian higher education is not on a genuine reform path. Instead, the higher education system is locked in a situation characterized by:
– exaggerated control grip by the political regime;
– lack of an authentic program of reforms;
– pervasive corruption;
– continuously decreasing quality standards; and
– massive emigration of young talent.” CEU Report, p. 3.
Another conclusion form this report was that:
“The Armenian higher education system serves as a model for the larger Armenian society, sometimes with negative consequences, including from the perspective of open society values. This involves the acceptance of corruption as a ‘normal’, everyday practice; a certain disregard for merit and work-based performance; a pervasive sense of hopelessness regarding public engagement – and in particular regarding the use of open dialogue in public affairs.” CEU Report, pp. 4-5.
Although the CEU report is specific to higher education, the problems are representative of education in Armenia in general. In addition to a literature review, the report was based on in-depth interviews and focus group discussions with a wide range of stakeholders, including faculty, administrators, students, and international donors or partners. One additional revelation in the report is the high degree of control exercised by political authorities over educational institutions. This is exemplified by the fact that political elites even sit as chairmen of the boards of the most prominent universities. “Transparency, openness, accountability and lawfulness” seem underrepresented.
I will never know why my contract was not renewed; different actors could have had various ulterior motives. At first the students protested. But then a message went out: “why doesn’t he fight for himself; maybe he does not want to come back.” This personalized the issue and blamed the victim for his fate based on his own inaction. What was not considered by anyone was that the issue was never about me. The real issue is how we make institutional decisions in this country – as an exercise of power or as an exercise in process – and not just in the education sector. Until we address this issue, no development strategy has a chance.
*Vahan Bournazian repatriated to Armenia from the United States in 2004 and currently conducts research and teaches in the field of human rights.