During a departmental meeting in May 2022, the Department of a certain university resolved to “amend and revise the Statute on governance, attesting to its full autonomy and independence.” This made some people conclude that the Department was “more than independent.” But this was not really the case! By no means was this about creating a separate institution — God forbid! The decision was only about affirming its “autonomy.” Moreover, the first article of the new Department Charter explicitly states that the Department “is autonomous and independent in its governance and structure, in accordance with the University Rector’s Order from October 27, 1990,” which clearly affirms that “the Department remains connected to the academic world through the university.” However, a few permanent members of the Department Council refused to sign the meeting protocols and related resolutions, and two members decided to report directly to the Rector instead. The Department’s Chair was entirely comfortable with this, alleging that “what matters most is that we stay united.”
That said, not a single person reached out to the Rector or the academic community. The Department didn’t communicate its decision to the Rector, other Departments or universities, the ministry, or anyone else. When asked directly why so, the Department representatives cited temporary internet issues. They simply removed any mention of the Rector and the University from the Department Statute and decided not to share the final document with anyone, including their own staff. Furthermore, they allowed the Department employees to “independently decide” whether they consider themselves part of the university or not.
Consequently, in line with this “bold and momentous decision,” some employees of the Department came to view themselves as independent and began using new document templates that avoided any reference to the university (though some of them claimed this was only a temporary measure). In contrast, others firmly viewed themselves as an integral part of the university and continued to use the university’s templates, with the tacit approval of the Department’s leadership. Additionally, some staff members kept referring to “His Excellency the Esteemed Rector of the University” and his decisions in their interviews, including the specific decision to ban communication with representatives of other institutions, a policy that also provides for the penalties on their own staff for any such interactions.
The Department’s leadership stance remained essentially unclear. While the Chair preferred to use vague language that allows for contradictory interpretations, his deputies were more straightforward. One of them stated, “Nothing has changed; we’ve merely affirmed the Department’s long-standing status.” The Deputy for Research added, “All the changes we introduced affect just nothing...” Meanwhile, the Deputy for Public Relations was explicit: “The Department remains a part of the university.” Moreover, the Department’s administrator recorded a statement emphasizing the unwavering and unbreakable connection between the Department and the university, labeling those seeking the Department’s independence as traitors and Judases. All of this evolves with the Chair’s tacit approval.
The Department’s leadership response to media publications was even more confusing. When journalists quote these statements from the Department’s professors, they are accused of “slander and provocation by the enemies of our Department.” Instead of holding the professors accountable for their remarks, they blame the journalists for merely citing their words. The Department’s representative to international organizations even claimed that associating the Department with the university was nothing more than “a manipulation tactic.” Yet, neither this representative, nor the chair, nor any spokesperson or professor from the Department have ever condemned, clarified, or disavowed the contradictory statements made by their colleagues.
In response to journalists’ inquiries, the Rector’s office understandably stated that there had been no communications from the Department to the Rector or the university regarding any changes. Thus, the university continues to regard the Department as an integral part of its structure. The university still publishes reports and calendars that include the Department and its faculty in the general list of university divisions, without any protests or objections from the Department
The situation has only escalated since then. The Rector, through his decisions, has reallocated part of the Department’s staff, along with their laboratories and office infrastructure, to other faculties, facing no opposition from the Department’s leadership. However, when individual professors make independent decisions to transfer to another Department, the leadership responds immediately with curses and bans on teaching and research. Those who vocally advocate for independence or simply call for consistency in aligning documents with the Department’s stance also face repercussions. Such individuals are being removed from the teaching process. Meanwhile, staff who assert the unbreakable connection between the Department and the university face no such restrictions. On the contrary, the Department calls for understanding and respecting this position “for the sake of unity.”
Thus, the Department has continued this course of action since May 2022. Any questions addressed to the leadership are being met with hostility. Meanwhile, they continue to wring their hands and ask, “Why? Why is our Department still considered connected to the university?’ They dismiss or ignore any answers to this question, perceiving them, along with any attempts to assist, as acts of hostility and obstacles to their constant refrain of “Why?! Why?!”
In October 2023, due to the incitement of hostility by the university’s rectorate and calls for violence, the state adopted a draft law stating: “The operation of scientific and educational structures affiliated with the university is prohibited.” Suddenly, those who yesterday proclaimed that the Department was “more than independent” and incredulously asked, “Where can any connection between the Department and the university even be found? There is none!”— have been horrified by their own realization: “This is a law banning our Department!” (Ultimately, it’s a good thing when people finally wake up and admit the truth, sometimes without even realizing it). But instead of demanding that the Department’s leadership formally sever ties and adopt the appropriate documents, they intensify their cries about their “more than independence,” while at the same time urging all staff to “suffer for the sake of science, but not betray the inseparable connection to the university.” And again, they lament, “Why?! Why are we still considered in any way connected to the university?” Thus, lies and manipulation have been piling up like a snowball.
For any mentally sound individual, all these reactions are diagnostically significant and vividly illustrate Orwell’s concept of Doublethink — the ability to hold two contradictory beliefs simultaneously. It involves telling blatant lies while simultaneously believing in them, forgetting any inconvenient facts only to retrieve them when needed, and denying the existence of objective reality while accounting for the reality you deny—all of this is essential. A Party member knows in which direction they need to alter their memories; thus, they are aware that they are distorting reality, yet through Doublethink, they convince themselves that reality remains untouched. This process must be conscious, or it cannot be conducted with sufficient reason and precision, but it must also be unconscious; otherwise, there would be a sense of lying and, thus, guilt. In relation to opponents, the key term is black-and-white. When applied to an opponent, it means the shameless habit of asserting that black is white, contrary to obvious facts. When applied to a Party member, it signifies a total willingness to declare that black is white when party discipline demands it. But it is not just about naming; it is about believing that black is white, knowing that black is white, and forgetting that you once thought otherwise.
Unfortunately, it is not Science but Doublethink that has long become the cornerstone, not only of the University but also of the Department.
* * *
All characters and entities are fictional, and any resemblance to real people or existing institutions is coincidental… or maybe it isn't.