Forcing the exercise of a right

Attendance is being strictly monitored at universities this year. 

Some say it is “to improve the quality of education,” others say “to prevent students from working,” and some say “to limit participation in protests.” We do not know the real reason. 

However, there is one fact: the issue of absenteeism is a complete absurdity. Students are constantly asking the same question: “How many hours of absenteeism are we entitled to?” Thus, rights and duties are confused. Yet, entering university is a right; attending class is an extension of that right. 

The very existence of something called an “absenteeism right” actually means turning the law upside down. Because no one can be forced to exercise a right they possess. But today, students are being forced to exercise their right to attend. If a course is meaningful and useful, the student will want to come anyway. If they do not come, the natural consequence is being deprived of knowledge and experience. This is a loss in itself. Failing a student for “absenteeism” is an unnecessary and unfair punishment. The university's job is not to force the student to exercise their right, but to make the right worth exercising.

The right to enter university is part of the right to attend. If a student attends class, they have exercised this right; if they do not, a direct consequence arises for them: not learning, falling behind. However, failing a student due to absenteeism as an “administrative sanction” is, in legal terms, a second punishment. This approach is contrary to both the constitutional right to education and the administrative law principles of proportionality and public interest.

It is known in administrative law: every action taken by the administration must have a “public interest” purpose. The existence of an administrative rule should be to facilitate the student's access to knowledge, not to hinder it. If the attendance system turns into a mechanism that forces the student to exercise their rights, this is no longer public interest, but administrative laziness.

One might object to what I have said: The university is not just an institution that provides information; it is also a public authority that issues diplomas and certificates of qualification. Therefore, while the state recognizes the right to education, it also has the authority to determine its procedures and conditions.

A second point is this: The absenteeism limit is not actually a sanction, but a minimum participation standard. The goal of the university is not just “accessing information,” but also ensuring the skills the student acquires during the process, their participation in discussions, and their in-class interactions. Therefore, what we call the “right to absenteeism” is not a restriction of the student's rights, but a tool to protect the integrity of education.

Thirdly, it can be said: the attendance requirement is usually tied to a certain percentage (for example, a 70% attendance requirement). This is in accordance with the principle of proportionality because the student has a certain degree of freedom, but a participation requirement is still sought to protect the quality of education. In other words, the administration is not acting completely arbitrarily; it considers both the student's freedom and the public interest.

However, these counter-arguments are not very solid either. If a student can succeed in theoretical or practical exams, it does not serve the public interest to deem them insufficient or not graduate them simply because they did not attend classes. If the courses are truly productive, it is already very difficult for students to succeed in these courses without attending them. Punishing a student who achieves this difficult feat is meaningless. 

A person does not participate in in-class discussions or focus on in-class interactions just by attending classes. They spend time there just to avoid absenteeism. Therefore, the attendance requirement does not guarantee in-class interaction or discussion. If participation in these interactions and discussions becomes a grading criterion, then the instructor's discretionary power becomes too broad. 

It could be argued that there is a measure in limiting absenteeism. But having a measure in restricting a right does not mean that this restriction is in accordance with law, reason, or logic. The existence of a measure in restriction is only related to the arbitrary attitude of the administration. Yet, the legal basis for the administration's measures to force the student to attend in the first place should be discussed. So far, we have not encountered an argument showing that the mandatory attendance requirement is based on reason, law, or legislation. 

This absurdity needs to be addressed in the courts that make decisions in the name of the Turkish Nation. I hope someone makes this a subject of a lawsuit so that we can reach a legal explanation.