A response from Mehmet Ali Alpar to Hasan Yazıcı

In his article on 12punto (https://12punto.com.tr/yazarlar/hasan-yazici/post-truth-bir-konusma-iki-olay-59055), Mr. Hasan Yazıcı wrote that my review of Mr. Engin Bermek's book 'Turkey's Test with Science (and its Academy)', published on sarkac.org (https://sarkac.org/2024/11/kitap-turkiyenin-bilim-akademisi-sinavi-engin-bermek/), contained a significant error and, furthermore, a 'major Post-Truth phenomenon'—that is, a disguised lie.

I would like to respond by opening up the discussion with excerpts from Mr. Yazıcı's article and my own. 

'What is the significant error in Mr. Alpar's article? The European Court of Human Rights did not register Doğramacı's plagiarism. It only ruled that I could not be prevented from voicing the same plagiarism. In one part of its decision, it also expressed an opinion to the effect of: "However, we could not quite understand what the judiciary in Yazıcı's country calls plagiarism."'  

The passage in question in my book review was provided in quotation marks as an excerpt from the book: 

'Years later, in 2014, the European Court of Human Rights "ruled that the Court of Cassation's decision was contrary to freedom of expression, thereby registering the plagiarism incident in question." (p. 166, footnote 28).'  

The word 'register' is not mine; it is a quote from Mr. Bermek's book. Mr. Yazıcı wrote: '(ECHR) In one part of its decisions, it also expressed an opinion to the effect of: "However, we could not quite understand what the judiciary in Yazıcı's country calls plagiarism."'    Yes, in this way, the ECHR does not register the plagiarism; by saying, in effect, 'We could not understand what the judiciary in Turkey calls plagiarism,' it is stating that, according to the ECHR's own understanding, what Doğramacı did was not called plagiarism, and that it could not understand what would constitute plagiarism if this does not. There is a difference between this and registering it. Mr. Bermek did not make this distinction clear, and in my review, I did not notice this nuance and highlight it. Mr. Yazıcı's application to the European Court of Human Rights was based on the point that his right to freedom of expression had been violated. Indeed, the ECHR ruled that Yazıcı's rights were violated when he was sentenced to pay compensation for defamation for saying that Doğramacı had committed plagiarism. The court's scope of activity and the subject of the case were not to evaluate whether Doğramacı had committed plagiarism. In this context, the court could not have ruled on whether the incident was plagiarism beyond what it said in effect, and it did not. I assume the author of the book, Engin Bermek, is also aware of this. Bermek used the word 'register' while writing, and when I quoted it, I honestly did not think to include the thoughts I wrote above in the review.

Mr. Yazıcı continues as follows:

'In his article, Mr. Alpar states that after losing hope in TÜBA, I carried out the struggle alone, and after detailing the legal process quite thoroughly, he says exactly this: "This incident created public awareness regarding science and publication ethics. Academic moral violations continue to be widespread at every level of our university system. Many administrators ignore these incidents, and some even commit them themselves." 

I am saying there is a major Post-Truth phenomenon here. So, in my country, the one who speaks the truth is the primary culprit for the increasing corruption of scientific ethics, rather than the opportunistic TÜBA that takes positions according to the situation. How so? Perhaps what happens to those who speak the truth gives courage to those responsible for the corruption. Why can we never consider that if TÜBA had acted a bit more properly in the incident in question, the corruption that Mr. Alpar correctly observed could have been, at the very least, somewhat prevented?'

When I said 'it created awareness,' I was thinking of public awareness regarding plagiarism, and I meant that those who led to this awareness were those who announced the incident to the public, the late Uğur Mumcu, and Mr. Yazıcı, who pursued the incident and fought for so many years. I believe this is how it was understood by the reader as well. I did not think of or write that this awareness acts as a factor that encourages plagiarism by those who ignore these incidents and commit them themselves, thinking that nothing will happen anyway. 

The cover-up or ignoring of what is morally wrong, despite it being known and pointed out, is unfortunately a phenomenon that always exists in societies to varying degrees, and sometimes, perhaps most of the time, it becomes the dominant factor. The TÜBA Ethics Committee  at that time recommended that Doğramacı be censured by TÜBA. The TÜBA Council first approved this, then reversed its initial decision  and decided that TÜBA should do nothing on this matter.  In the General Assembly, the majority of the members  voted in this direction. If TÜBA had decided to issue a censure, a more effective and lasting awareness would naturally have been formed in society on this issue. At the same time, TÜBA would have been under pressure and would have dealt with the matter. In my introductory article, I said, "As Engin Bey stated, making decisions such as censure regarding the actions of individuals can leave Academies in difficult positions before the legal system." Ultimately  The TÜBA Council and General Assembly likely made their decision due to these concerns, and perhaps even more so under the influence of Doğramacı's influence. This is also a fact. Following this, the plaintiff side of Doğramacı presented the matter to the court as if TÜBA was also supporting them. What should the president and the council have done in the face of statements claiming that TÜBA had exonerated Doğramacı?  In my article, I quoted from Mr. Bermek's book: 

'“Seven or eight members who wrote directly to the presidency expressed their concerns and requested that the Council make a statement on behalf of the Academy, declaring that Doğramacı was not considered to be in the right and condemning the unethical behavior. However, the Council did not take any new initiative on this matter.” (p.166, footnote 29)' I then wrote my own opinion on what should have been done at this point as follows:  'In my opinion, the Council should have announced to the public that the TÜBA General Assembly did not take a decision to support Doğramacı, but merely removed the issue from its agenda.' Mr. Yazıcı did not take this sentence into account and claimed that I presented a 'distortion of interpretation' and a 'great Post-Truth phenomenon.' At the beginning of his article, he states that 'post-truth' is a cover for lies,  with which I agree. Thus, he is saying that the passage I described above in my writing is also post-truth—a lie, thank you very much. I cannot accept this.