Just how constructive and on target was the protest action by the “Miasin” youth group that featured photos of alleged bribe-taking teachers? What were the real objectives of the action and what will the consequences be, both for the organizers and for the teaching staff? How will it influence the anti-corruption campaign being waged within the educational system?

These are questions that came to the fore on the morning of March 11, when students and teachers hurrying to school noticed the photos of some 30 teachers, with the moniker “bribe takers, affixed to the walls and corridors of nearby buildings and parks and some lying in muddy pools of water on the street, having been already ripped down and trampled underfoot. The action gave rise to such heated debate that it became immediately apparent that it most likely struck at the correct target, exposing as it did one of the most painful problems, that while under wraps, strongly reverberates within society. This problem has several layers to it which need to be locked at separately. Legal Bribery is a criminal offense, punishable according to the statutes of the criminal code. The plastering of photos of individual teachers with the inscription “bribe takers” below is a specific charge being directed at those individuals, given that there was no accompanying substantiation or proof. Consequently, in legal terms, the issue raises another punishable offence according to the criminal code; that of slander. This means that, all things being equal, there is a more substantiated basis on which to charge the organizers of the action directed at those 30 teachers, especially if we take into account that the defamation in question is one of direct character assassination, smearing their reputation and professional standing However, amazing as it may seem none of the aggrieved parties displayed the determination to resolve the matter via legal redress. The “Maisin” movement offered no explanation at all as to why it chose such an open-faced accusatory method to fight corruption in the colleges. Neither did the teachers, to defend their reputation and status, make an attempt call the organizers accountable for their actions before the courts. Here, the issue has absolutely nothing to do with corruption in the universities. It would have been possible to accuse these individuals of committing other offenses, with similar success, and they wouldn’t have done anything to defend themselves of the charges. This signifies that the problem at hand is one of the manifestations of a widespread social sickness that in a word can be described as – the syndrome of unaccountability and immunity. All sides are ready to curse and defame one another, even taking the issue to the level of national security. But none are ready to take responsibility for their own actions. From this point of view, the protest action and its targets are totally worthy of the other. Political The need to view the problem through this prism arises when we try to answer to questions. First, in any event, why did the actions organizers pick these specific individuals as targets, individuals who did more than their share in terms of directing and shaping student attitudes more in line with the tastes of the regime? Second, why was it that not one of these thirty dared to demand that the actions organizers make amends and recant their slander? At first glance it would seem that the answer to the first question is quite logical. Either those individuals, or most of them, by offering various services to the regime in the universities at the time, tried to obtain a freer carte-blanche and to not fear bearing any responsibility for patronage or bribery. Now, after receiving a direct blow by such a powerful segment of the youth that stands shoulder to shoulder with the top echelons of the ruling regime’s pyramid, these individuals are so confused that they don’t know how to respond. They understand that they have already become vulnerable while at the same time realizing that they possess no real resources or leverage to prevent it. This is directly linked to the second question. These teachers haven’t sought redress from the student organizers because they don’t know what or how powerful a force is opposing them and to what lengths that force will go if they stamp on the foot of the sleeping lion. One can confidently argue that had the action, for example, been organized by any opposition youth group these same teachers wouldn’t have hesitated for a minute to drag them into court, to completely politicize the issue and to initiate a lengthy process of retribution against those students who could have participated, even theoretically, in the social queries at the heart of the action or who had oppositional viewpoints. Whereas the blow came from a place rather unexpected and the teachers were obliged to fear the consequences of taking any action. The problem in question is that these individuals, like any other member of society, can’t be certain that they’d be able to defend their rights via the judicial process. This too is a manifestation of a pervasive social sickness. These teachers have fallen into the same web that they had been so diligently and continuously weaving in institutions of higher learning for so many years. Here, it doesn’t matter at all what the political context of the action was or the aims it pursued, it is connected to the elections of the deans, the Yerevan mayoral election, or other, heretofore, hidden political considerations. Of more importance is that such manifestations create possibilities in the universities for political manipulation. Moral Aspect By reflecting on the moral side of the issue only one aspect of the problem is observed. That is to say that this action dealt a moral blow to the faculty, it became more vulnerable, and this threatens to demoralize the entire educational system. From this point of view, the interpretations are on point and understandable. However, the question arises why the issue isn’t being viewed from the perspective of what is in the best interest of conscientious students who actually apply themselves and No one can argue that it is moral when a student who has toiled over lessons day and night, goes to take an exam and sees the smiling face of a classmate who has just received a passing or excellent mark leaving the exam room when that student can’t even write his or her own name. And the demoralization doesn’t take place as much here as when the student understands that his or her illiterate classmate who gets the green light by corrupt teachers will be their potential competitor in the job market and especially in the corridors of government where the leverage of those who support and sponsor such people is much greater. The question facing such a student in such an unjust situation is what value system should one be guided by and how should he or she think about their future. Then too, just how morally justified is the situation in which an upright and conscientious teacher finds him/herself in, when they see their colleagues, who make the same salary, riding around in an expensive automobile and constantly making repairs to their home, something which out of the realm of possibility on such a salary. What must that teacher feel and just how dedicated must they be towards their work? From this point of view, of course, one can’t fall into extremes because clearly the illiterate student leaves the exam room with a smile on his/her face primarily for the reason that, fully in agreement with the accepted social rules and standards, they or their father offer the teacher a bribe, something they regard as quite natural and routine. It is from this aspect that the action of the youth movement was severely deficient. There was every justification to plaster the walls with the photos of these students with the caption “bribe-taker” below. And if these students remain outside the purview of social reproach, then the action can become politicized, taking on the nature of an exercise in pure slander and thus giving rise to objective suspicions. Not less important is the question of how well planned and thought out the action was. When it was discovered that one of the individuals in the list of photos wasn’t a teacher at all and had nothing to do with the educational sector, it became clear that the action was organized quite sloppily and that the students never took into account what the consequences of their action might be. Proof of this was the students’ indifference towards the agitation created and the absence of any desire to give explanations. The impression was created that “Miasin” would offer absolutely no reckoning for its actions and that the need for accountability between it and the public wasn’t an issue. This is both incomprehensible and unacceptable. Social Aspect Clearly, when there’s a bribe-taker there will be one who takes it. And corruption breeds as a result of this unholy alliance. At the base of this, the social component is quite significant. Teachers don’t have such a “clean” income so that they don’t consider solving their quality of life issues via the criminal route. Simultaneously, a social stratum has come into existence that is not only ready to obtain a graduation diploma or good grades via such methods, thus ensuring a certain future for their offspring, but who regard such methods as normal and routine. This is clearly a result of social polarization. However, there is no guarantee that this flawed manifestation would disappear or even lessen even if teacher salaries were to be raised. In the same vein, increasing the salaries of judges hasn’t resulted in a concomitant rise in the level of justice. What’s more at play here is the system of social customs - when education and corruption, or justice and corruption, are so intertwined that the public cannot imagine one without the other. The crux of the matter is that we haven’t devised a mechanism directed to eliminating these stereotypes. The student action, despite being hastily and sloppily organized, must be evaluated from these perspectives. Now, after the action, we can only imagine how the bribe-taking teacher and bribe-giving student will be able to look into the eyes of the hard-working and decent student and the teacher who makes an honorable living. This will not be easy to do since everyone knows who’s who and what’s what.