“Guest student” status has not eliminated the violation of rights

Two weeks ago, inspectors from the Ministry of National Education visited Armenian schools and verbally informed school principals that students from Armenia would no longer be admitted and that students who had already enrolled should be transferred to public or private schools. This development caused concern among families and schools. Last week, AKP MP Assoc. Prof. Dr. Sevan Sıvacıoğlu issued a statement following his meeting with Minister of National Education Yusuf Tekin, saying that Minister Tekin had told him that “the existing regulation will continue.” However, the source of the problem remains still unknown. We spoke with MAZLUMDER General Coordinator and attorney Musa Melih Demirbaşçı about the issue.

What is the underlying source of the problem with the guest student system in Armenian schools?

There is a process that began orally and continued in that manner. Therefore, based on the information we have, it is impossible to determine whether a policy change has been decided upon or whether this is simply the overzealous conduct of certain bureaucrats. We would like to believe that the latter is the case and hope that there will be no regression in access to education for migrant children who are citizens of Armenia.

During this process, the only official statement came from the Center for Combating Disinformation. It stated that no practice had been introduced beyond the provisions of the existing legislation. Of course, this statement is insufficient. The real question here is this: Will you continue to implement these legal provisions in the way they have been interpreted for the past 14 years, or will you implement them in exactly the opposite way, as the inspectors indicated? This question was probably deliberately left unanswered in the statement.

For that reason, it is difficult to reach a definitive conclusion about the process. However, if we go further back, it is possible to say that we have reached this point because of an unresolved problem that has merely been managed through an interim formula.

Article 51 of the Regulation on Private Educational Institutions, published in 2012, states that “... foreign-national guest students may receive education.” Does the Ministry’s categorization of foreign nationals actually mean that this problem has never truly been resolved?

The 2012 regulation provided some breathing room in response to an existing practical need. However, “guest student” status has not eliminated inequality and rights violations. Families then had to look for new ways to overcome problems such as their children being unable to receive diplomas and being unable to continue their education at high schools. So, rather than a problem that has newly emerged today, we can say that there is a danger of an already existing problem becoming even more severe. All of these violations should be considered under the heading of “violations of the right to education,” and thought should be given to a formula that would completely eliminate the problem, followed by the necessary legislative changes.

In your first statement to Agos, you said that you had spoken with the families of students from Armenia. How long have you been working on this issue?

As MAZLUMDER, we have kept the issue of migrant children’s access to education at the center of our human rights advocacy for many years. Likewise, violations and discriminatory policies affecting citizens of the Republic of Turkey who belong to minority communities have always been on our agenda. Although this issue may appear to be a problem concerning migrant rights, it is also closely connected to minority rights.

Initially, we wanted to address the access to education of children attending minority schools as guest students, specifically in terms of their inability to receive diploma. The issue came onto our agenda several months ago as a result of media monitoring by our Human Rights Violations Commission. Following preliminary research into the grievances being experienced, a team was established specifically to study and report on the issue. As our team deepened its research and conducted interviews, it concluded that the problem was much more deep-rooted and extensive than initially thought and expanded the scope of its work. While we were continuing our preparations, the possibility emerged that the current practice, which we already considered inadequate and believed was causing grievances, could be rolled back even further. Our aim is to produce a coherent study examining the problem and bring it to the attention of both the authorities and the public.

Although we have not yet spoken extensively with families, we have met with some families during this process, particularly through their lawyers. The families’ greatest concern is, of course, their children’s education. As we talk to them, it becomes clear that the problem has many layers and is connected to numerous other issues. A child going to school essentially means being able to establish relationships with their surroundings and with the society in which they live. We see this even more clearly among migrant children. A child who has a healthy educational experience will often also have a healthier relationship with their family. Families are looking for solutions to overcome this problem. But these solutions also bring other difficulties and new problems with them. It would ultimately benefit the state as well to look at all of these issues holistically and fully understand what the problems being experienced are costing.

Following your investigations, did you meet with the authorities as association? How do they view the issue?

As an association, we initially met with officials in order to hear about the implementation from their perspective. Of course, this was not so much a formal meeting as an effort to obtain information from an official who was knowledgeable about the issue. We have also had some contacts during the most recent phase, but unfortunately, we cannot say that we have received any significant or clear information.

It was said that not only Armenian, but also Greek and Jewish schools would no longer be able to admit guest students. The 2012 regulation used for this practice refers generally to “schools” when describing guest students. Yet, 14 years after the regulation was issued, isn’t it contradictory for the ministry inspectors to state that “minority schools” cannot admit guest students?

It is a very obvious contradiction. A state governed by the rule of law must be predictable. There must be consistency in the administration’s practices. Legal certainty must be ensured.

Everyone knows that the purpose of the amendment made in 2012 was to provide this opportunity. This can even be understood from media reports published at the time. Naturally, the implementation developed in accordance with that intention over the following 14 years. For a provision introduced to provide an opportunity and implemented in accordance with that intention for all these years, it is clearly neither legally nor humanely appropriate to suddenly say, “No, this does not apply to you!”

Are you going to tell children who are currently studying at minority schools as guest students, “Now go and continue your education at a public school”? Is there any possibility that something beneficial for the child, the family, and society will come out of this? A bureaucrat may approach these matters from a technical perspective, but it should not be forgotten that plans made behind a desk and interpretations on paper can fundamentally disrupt people’s lives.

Guest students cannot be issued diplomas. You also address this violation. Can the issue of these students receiving diplomas be resolved through regulation? Or is a legislative change necessary?

Actually, we had initially brought this issue to our agenda because guest students could not receive diplomas. It is important to repeat that this constitutes a rights violation in itself. It is possible to address this problem through an amendment in the regulation. However, this would still be a secondary route. Although secondary solutions may appear to resolve the problem temporarily, they can produce similar results to what we are seeing today at any moment. Correct approach would be to amend the relevant provision of the Law on Private Educational Institutions governing students who attend minority schools, remove the provision preventing foreign-national students from receiving education at these schools or introduce an exception, and then establish the details through regulation.

Naturally, legislative amendments take longer to enact than regulatory amendments. However, as is well known, laws rank above regulations in the hierarchy of norms. If legal protection can be provided, the exercise of the right to education will no longer be left to the discretion of the administration, and an acquired right cannot subsequently be taken away through regulatory changes.

Finally, it should be emphasized that resolving these kinds of problems is possible only if there is an intention and a will to resolve them. When that intention and political will exist, the laws and regulations thought to be the source of the problem can be changed much more quickly and easily than we might expect.