UNIVERSITY AUTONOMY: DEMOCRACY AGAINST TOTALITARISM
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.28925/1609-8595.2025.2.3Keywords:
academic freedom, commercialization of university education, counterfactual approach to academic values, democracy, totalitarianism, university autonomy, value functionalism.Abstract
The article analyzes the value, functional, and institutional advantages of developing university autonomy in a democratic society compared to comparable opportunities in a totalitarian society. The strengths and weaknesses of democratic and totalitarian governance as an institutional basis for establishing university autonomy are analyzed. The methodology of value functionalism by M. Boichenko and the counterfactual approach to academic values by N. Boichenko were used. The method of presenting the material is built on the classical principle of consistent formulation of the thesis, analysis of arguments that deny it, and the presentation of counterarguments that nevertheless confirm the initial thesis (following the example of the works of Thomas Aquinas). The fundamental value of academic freedom for the establishment of university autonomy and the fundamental error and harmfulness of M. Heidegger’s concept of serving the state and the fate of the nation as the basis for the university are revealed. Thus, the main flaw of the totalitarian method of establishing the “self-affirmation” of the university is revealed. The arguments against considering the commercialization of university education as detrimental to the development of the academic sphere in general and to the institutional functioning of universities in particular are clarified. The danger of the commercialization of universities is considered as a weak side of the democratic arrangement of university autonomy, which, however, can be largely neutralized through proper educational management and academic strategic planning. The command style of collective leadership under totalitarianism is contrasted with collegial decision-making under deliberative democracy. The particularism in the management style of totalitarian regimes is contrasted with the universalism of academic values as the basis for democratic university management.
References
Arendt, H. (2013). Ajhman v Yerusalimi. Rozpovid pro banalnist zla [Eichmann in Jerusalem. A Report of the Banality of Evil] / trans. from English A. Kotenko. Spirit and Letter.
Boichenko, M. (2021). Etichna vidpovidalnist universitetiv: pravovij, socialnij i politichnij vimiri [Ethical Responsibility of Universities: Legal, Social and Political Dimensions]. Universities and Leadership, 2 (12), 186–200. https://doi.org/10.31874/2520-6702-2021-12-2-186-200
Boichenko, M. (2023). Socialno-etichne pidgruntya vidpovidalnosti universitetiv Ukrayini [Socio-ethical Foundation of the Responsibility of Ukrainian Universities]. Policy and Mechanisms for the Implementation of Social Responsibility of Ukrainian Universities in Wartime and Post-War Recovery: Monograph / edited by S. Kalashnikova, & O. Orzhel (pp. 36–43). Kyiv: Institute of Higher Education of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine. https://doi.org/10.31874/978-617-7644-62-9-2023
Boichenko, M. (2024). Filosof u Imanuelya Kanta yak arbitr i poradnik: vid «Superechki fakultetiv» do «Vichnogo miru» [The Philosopher in Immanuel Kant as an Arbiter and Advisor: from the “Dispute of the Faculties” to “Eternal Peace”]. “Education and the Destiny of the Nation”. “Morality, Law, Education – I. Kant’s Testament to Modern Humanity”: Materials of the XXV International Scientific and Practical Conference (May 24, 2024) / H.S. Skovoroda Kharkiv National Pedagogical University (pp. 10–13). H.S. Skovoroda Kharkiv National Pedagogical University. https://dspace.hnpu.edu.ua/items/e6b82e1d-86b2-4d97-85d2-90e0da4c732c
Boychenko, M. (2012). Cinnisnij funkcionalizm yak paradigmalne yavishe suchasnoyi socialnoyi filosofiyi [Value functionalism as a paradigmatic phenomenon of modern social philosophy]. Philosophical problems of the humanities, 21, 23–26.
Boychenko, N. (2016a). Kontrfaktichnist cilej universitetskoyi osviti [Counterfactuality of the goals of university education]. Philosophy of education, 18 (1), 136–149. https://doi.org/10.31874/2309-1606-2016-18-1-136-149
Boychenko, N. (2016ab). Cinnisni zasadi viznachennya kontrfaktichnogo statusu etichnih norm universitetskih spilnot [Value principles for determining the counterfactual status of ethical norms of university communities]. Bulletin of Lviv University. Philosophical Sciences Series, 18, 37–45. http://fs-visnyk.lnu.lviv.ua/archive/18_2016/6.pdf
Broszat, M. (2009). Derzhava Gitlera: stvorennya i rozvitok vnutrishnoyi strukturi Tretogo rejhu [Hitler's State: Creation and Development of the Internal Structure of the Third Reich] / translated from German by O. Nasyk. Nauka.
Bulvinska, O. (2024). Modeli universitetskoyi avtonomiyi v krayinah YES: komparativnij analiz [Models of university autonomy in EU countries: comparative analysis]. Continuing Professional Education: Theory and Practice, 1 (78), 155–169. https://doi.org/10.28925/1609-8595.2024.1.12
Zakon Ukrayini «Pro vishu osvitu» [Law of Ukraine “On Higher Education”] (2014). https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/1556-18#Text
Zakon Ukrayini «Pro osvitu» [Law of Ukraine “On Education”] (2017). https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/2145-19#Text
Kwiek, M. (2018). Universitet v epohu peremin: Instituciyi i akademichni kadri v umovah zrostayuchoyi konkurenciyi [University in an Era of Change: Institutions and Academic Staff in an Environment of Growing Competition] / trans. from Polish by R. Skakun. Takson.
Klepko, S. (2006). Filosofiya osviti v yevropejskomu konteksti [Philosophy of Education in the European Context]. POIPPO. https://pano.pl.ua/file/klepko/klepko-book-fowek-2006.pdf
Kultaieva, M. (2018). Filosofiya osviti i vihovannya Tretogo rejhu: vitoki, politiko-ideologichni konteksti ta konceptualni konstrukti [Philosophy of Education and Upbringing of the Third Reich: Origins, Political-Ideological Contexts and Conceptual Constructs]. Philosophy of Education, 22 (1), 25–87. https://doi.org/10.31874/2309-1606-2018-22-1-25-87
Novitska, I. (2021). Tehnologiya pidgotovki doktoriv filosofiyi: tendenciyi, perevagi, nedoliki [Technology of Training of Doctors of Philosophy: Trends, Advantages, Disadvantages]. In M. Filipovych (Ed.), Third education level: quality control over scientific-professional training of a PhD: individual issues: Collective monograph (pp. 180–211). Baltija Publishing. https://doi.org/10.30525/978-9934-26-149-7-6
Tkachenko, V. M. (2022). Ukrayina – Rosiya: na rubezhi geopolitichnogo rozlomu [Ukraine – Russia: on the verge of a geopolitical fault]. Scientific journalism. Politia Publishing House. https://ivinas.gov.ua/images/978-966-9778-85-7.pdf
Aquinas, Th. (2005). Summa сontra Gentiles. Trans. by J. Rickaby. The Catholic Primer. https://basilica.ca/documents/2016/10/St.%20Thomas%20Aquinas-The%20Summa%20Contra%20Gentiles.pdf
Boichenko, M. (2023). Global Challenges to National Values of Education. In A. Michalkiewicz-Gorol, Z. Nowak (Ed.), Kultura i wychowanie w globalnym i lokalnym świecie / Bielskie studia pedagogiczne (Tom 1) (pp. 95–110). LIBRON. https://katalog.ubb.edu.pl/integro/573500857228/ksiazka/kultura-i-wychowanie-w-globalnym-i-lokalnym-swiecie?bibFilter=57
Heidegger, M. (1983). Die Selbstbehauptung der deutschen Universität. Das Rektorat 1933/34. Hrsg. von Hermann Heidegger. Vittorio Klostermann. https://giuseppecapograssi.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/martin-heidegger-rektoratsrede-1933.pdf
Heidegger, M. (2014). Gesamt Ausgabe. IV. Abteilung: Hinweise und Aufzeichnungen. Band 94. Überlegungen II-VI (Schwarze Hefte 1931-1958). Hrsg. von Peter Trawny. Vittorio Klostermann. https://www.klostermann.de/Heidegger-Martin-Ueberlegungen-II-IV-Schwarze-Hefte-1931-1938
Kant, I. (1798). Der Streit der Fakultäten. Friedrich Nicolovius. https://dokumen.pub/qdownload/der-streit-der-fakultten-9783787320677-9783787314508.html
Schmitt, C. (1988). The Crisis of Parliamentary Democracy. Trans. by E. Kennedy. MIT Press. https://dokumen.pub/the-crisis-of-parliamentary-democracy-0262192403-0262691264.html
Svyrydenko, D., Boichenko, N., & Bondarenko, G. (2024). Axiological Dimension of the Modern Science Communication. Philosophy & Cosmology, 32, 97–106. https://doi.org/10.29202/phil-cosm/32/7
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Михайло Бойченко, Наталія Бойченко

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 Unported License.
