İmamoğlu's diploma cancelled! 35-year-old newspaper advertisement emerges

The university diploma obtained 35 years ago by CHP presidential candidate and dismissed Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality Mayor Ekrem İmamoğlu has been cancelled by Istanbul University.

While discussions regarding the decision to cancel İmamoğlu's diploma continue, former Heavy Penal Court Judge and lawyer Levent Dağdeviren shared an advertisement from the July 30, 1990, issue of the Milliyet newspaper, which he located after his research, and provided his assessment of the decision.

"EVERYONE WITH EXPECTATIONS IS IN SHOCK"

According to ANKA's report, Dağdeviren stated the following:

''The decision to cancel this diploma, which has now happened to Mr. İmamoğlu, has truly created a shock effect among those who have expectations of him and expectations for the country's future. We have gone through a process that has deeply saddened nationalist democrats, conservative democrats, Kurdish democrats, social democrats—in short, all the democrats of this country. This process has seriously worn down us democratic legal professionals in particular. Why? As lawyers who know how things should be and how decisions should be made technically, this process we are experiencing is truly shocking to us. I have the perception as if we are in an endless nightmare. I have served as a judge in many parts of the country before. I also received my law license about two months ago. I gave a speech on the day I received my license. I said that we are going through an extremely strange process in Turkey that shows that no one has legal security and that anything can happen to anyone at any time. I said this, but believe me, I did not expect it to go this far.''

ORIGINAL NEWSPAPER CONTAINING THE ADVERTISEMENT LOCATED

While the cancellation of Mr. İmamoğlu's diploma was being discussed, Mr. İmamoğlu had made the following statement: ‘An advertisement was published in the Milliyet newspaper dated July 30, 1990. I looked at the conditions in that advertisement and saw that I met them. And I gathered the documents and applied.’ I started to research what this advertisement was and what its content was. Today is the era of technology. Any kind of document can now be created and generated in a digital environment. To be more certain, I made an effort to reach the original Milliyet newspaper dated July 30, 1990, and I conducted research in second-hand bookstores all over Turkey and reached the Milliyet newspaper dated July 30, 1990.

I also saw this advertisement inside this newspaper. The advertisement really mentions various quotas. This is very important here. Milliyet newspaper was one of the three best-selling newspapers in Turkey at that time. Hürriyet, Milliyet, Sabah. This implies the following: The university administration wants this to be heard and known by everyone in Turkey. In other words, it is already understood from the fact that this advertisement was placed in one of the three newspapers with the highest circulation in Turkey that there was no intention to act in a secret, covert, or—to use a colloquial term—'hit-and-run' manner. As I said, we have this newspaper in our hands right now."

WHAT WERE THE ADVERTISEMENT CONDITIONS?

Dağdeviren also mentioned the conditions in the advertisement in the newspaper and continued his words as follows:

"What were these conditions? The 60-point requirement. I see some friends on social media saying, 'There is no 60-point requirement, or there is 60 but there is a 70-point requirement in English. Mr. İmamoğlu got 59 points, he meets neither 60 nor 70'. It is already clear in the advertisement that none of these are true. For example, this is also very important: There is a regulation that entered into force in 1982 and was still in effect in 1990, when Mr. İmamoğlu transferred. Article 3 of that regulation says, ‘transfers are made subject to the number determined and announced by the university’. That is, the number announced by the university. In this sense, the advertisement is really very important. Apart from that, Article 5 says, ‘for transfer to intermediate classes, the student must have passed the exams of all classes and have a grade point average of 60 percent’. Yes, this issue was indeed raised by the relevant parties. At that time, there was no concept of 'recognition' in the regulation. This was being said, but I think it was incomplete. Because Article 11 of the 1982 regulation says exactly this: ‘For transfer from higher education institutions in foreign countries to higher education institutions in our country, it is required that the student has studied for at least one year in the foreign higher education institution, excluding the foreign language preparatory class, and has successfully passed the year-end exams. Other conditions in Articles 5 and 6 are not sought in these applications.’ In other words, it says in this Article 11 that even the 60-point requirement is not sought for foreign students. Apart from that, with the implementation of this regulation, there is no concept related to recognition anywhere in this 13-article regulation. Since recognition is not in the regulation, there is no need to analyze it in this sense, in my opinion."

DOES İMAMOĞLU MEET THE CONDITIONS?

Pointing out that the recognition condition was not sought in the past but is sought in the new regulation, Dağdeviren continued as follows:

''But what happened? Later, the regulation changed. For example, according to the 4th paragraph of Article 14 of the regulation currently in force, a recognition condition is sought by the Council of Higher Education (YÖK). But on the date Mr. İmamoğlu transferred, the only thing stated in the regulation regarding foreign universities is, frankly, this: There is a condition like 'let him have passed all his courses'. But when we look at the advertisement, Mr. İmamoğlu meets the conditions in the advertisement and for the transfer. Because the 8-page transcript was also published, his grade point average is 62.5. This is very important."

CONSTITUTIONAL COURT'S PRECEDENT DECISION

Recalling the decision made by the Constitutional Court regarding ''Abidin Pişkin'', Dağdeviren continued as follows:

''There is the Constitutional Court's Abidin Pişkin decision. Mr. Abidin started his master's degree at the International Black Sea University in Georgia in the 2011-2012 period. Later, he transferred to Süleyman Demirel University for his master's degree. After finishing his master's degree, he was appointed as an assistant professor to a university in our country with an assistant professor position. But one year and four days after his diploma was given, the relevant unit of the university that gave the diploma makes such a decision. It says, ‘there is such a provision in our regulation. You should have taken seminar courses and passed them. Since you did not take these seminar courses, we are cancelling your diploma’. The Constitutional Court, referring to the Council of State's General Assembly for Unification of Jurisprudence decision, says, ‘in such cases, you can take back this diploma within the period for filing an annulment lawsuit’. What is this period? You can take it back within 60 days. The Constitutional Court says in its decision, 'it is not right for you to cancel this after more than a year' says. While saying this, the Constitutional Court says this: ‘Yes, as someone who graduated from university and is trying to do a master's degree, you have to know that you need to take seminar courses. But you are at fault in this sense’ it says to the applicant. But it says, ‘hey university, even though it is written in your own regulation that this student needs to take seminar courses, if you graduate this student without ensuring that he takes the seminar courses and then cancel his diploma later, you are also at fault here’ it says. The Constitutional Court makes a very important finding here. 'In such an environment where both the diploma holder and the university are at fault, loading all the fault on the diploma holder and cancelling his diploma is contrary to your constitutional right to education' it says.

Of course, for Mr. İmamoğlu, not only has his constitutional right to education been violated, but he also has this special condition: he is a presidential candidate. In this sense, Mr. İmamoğlu's constitutional right to vote and be elected has also been attacked. I mean, do those who make this decision not refer to the legislation? Can they not refer to the high court decisions? It is clear that they do not refer to the legislation or high court decisions. I wonder what they refer to? Are they referring to the Holy Quran? I don't think that's the case either. Because if it were, our holy book, the Quran, says in Surah An-Nisa, verse 58, 'Indeed, Allah commands you to render trusts to whom they are due and when you judge between people to judge with justice. Excellent is that which Allah instructs you. Indeed, Allah is ever Hearing and Seeing'. The Quran was not referred to either. Well, what did these people refer to? I really have difficulty understanding."