W Sim The second reading of the draft amendment to the Higher Education and Science Law prepared by MEiN is taking place. It is assumed that the expression by teachers Academic, religious, philosophical, or philosophical beliefs will not constitute a disciplinary offence. The amendment is referred to as the “Freedom Package” or “Academic Freedom Package”.

Control over thoughts and words

envoy pes Kazimierz Moskal, on behalf of the Education, Science and Youth Committee, reported on its work on the draft amendment.

Moskal also presented the club’s position during the second reading pes about the project. He stressed that “work on the project began with regard to violations of freedom of expression in universities, which led to undesirable phenomena of censorship of ideas and words.”

The manifestations of threats include psychological pressure, verbal aggression, prohibition of participation in scientific events, obstruction of activity in the field of publishing activities or the filing of disciplinary proceedings. The latter was often unjustified. Many cases are severe and I felt them teachers Academics, which have consequences in their professional and personal lives – said the deputy in the Law and Justice Party.

According to Moskal, the constitution has already declared respect for freedom of expression of religious, philosophical and philosophical opinions and beliefs.

He also announced that the Law and Justice Law Club would submit an amendment to the amendment.

KO to reject academic freedom package

The Civil Coalition supports freedom, freedom of expression, freedom of science, and freedom of research. Therefore, we suggest rejecting the second reading Law on amending the law. why? After all, this is not a dispute about freedom of expression – said Barbara Novaca, Introduction to the KO Club’s position. It was based on Article 54 of the Constitution, which states: Everyone has the freedom to express their opinions and to obtain and disseminate information. Therefore – she said – there is no need to amend the verb.

This is not a dispute over the right of expression at the university, because this right exists and is well regulated by the regulations of individual universities, as well as by practices jointly established by the universities. It just works – Nowaka said. This is a dispute about the truth, about the right to preach the truth, about the right to study in universities – She indicated.

According to her, the tendency to centralization is “giant and unrestrained.” They have tried to centralize the media, the courts, limit freedom of speech in schools, and take away women’s rights. Now they are interested in the right of science to remain science. It is also a dispute about the autonomy of universities, to what extent universities will be able to decide for themselves how to clean themselves of nonsense and stupidity. Universities do it efficiently – Nowaka said.

According to her, MEiN aims to defend the “terrible repression” of many people who abused their teaching positions and had disputes with their university. Ironically, you usually stand with homophobics, abusers, and those who exclude people because of their views on women’s rights. For individual examples, you are introducing a serious canon. The Law That Will Make Colleges A Hyde Park. A law telling a university president to end up defending a newspaper or a Holocaust denier if that person says: These are my philosophical or religious beliefs. This is a violation of the right of male and female students to reliable knowledge and the right of scholars to freedom of research – said MP KO.

She emphasized that scientific debate presupposes the use of scientific arguments, not references to the philosophical or religious beliefs of the researcher. Otherwise, it is no longer science. It works in search of truth subject to the rigor of methodology appropriate to a particular discipline, and the truth can be verified in scientific discourse, but not ideologically colored. And the project under discussion is something completely different – evaluated.

Nowacka reported that the draft amendment was negatively evaluated by all the main scientific bodies: the Central Council for Higher Education, KRASP, the Scientific Policy Committee, as well as by the Ombudsman.

I also stated that KO, notwithstanding the request to reject the project, submits an amendment to it, according to which – as I have stated – the disciplinary offense does not constitute an expression of religious, philosophical or philosophical beliefs not inconsistent with the scientific standard.