The Social Justice Center believes that granting accreditation to Ilia State University with a monitoring condition is illegal and unjustified, posing serious risks of governmental interference in the university's institutional independence and academic freedom. In the context of growing authoritarian tendencies and the suppression of independent public and cultural spaces, it is suspected that the government plans to repress independent universities and punish them for their critical civic stances.

Accreditation Council's decision on Ilia State University

On September 26, 2024, the Higher Education Institutions Accreditation Council (hereafter referred to as the Council) granted Ilia State University accreditation for six years, with an additional requirement to submit a report within one year. [1]Furthermore, the Council requested the center to evaluate the submitted report on the implementation of recommendations as part of scheduled monitoring.

The expert group on Ilia State University’s accreditation assessed the university's performance very positively in most areas related to accreditation standards (sub-standards). Specifically, all seven standards were deemed in compliance with the requirements, and a good practice example was identified. The expert group formulated one recommendation for the university to monitor and promptly follow legislative changes, though it was noted that these changes do not affect the university's overall assessment, which was very positive.

During the Accreditation Council meeting, the international expert and chair of the accreditation expert group stated: "All seven accreditation standards were assessed as meeting the requirements. One recommendation was issued, as reflected in the expert group’s report. The experts identified best practices, detailed information on which is also included in the report. Thus, the expert group believes that Ilia State University should be granted accreditation by the Council."

The co-chair of the expert group, also an international expert, fully agreed with the colleague's opinion, stating: "The expert group's conclusion was positive, reflecting the university's strengths and areas for improvement."

One of the experts explained that the group provided some advice regarding the seventh standard. At the same time, the experts emphasized that the institution is engaged in substantial work, and the components given as advice under the seventh accreditation standard were not treated as a recommendation.

Despite the expert group’s assessment that Ilia State University complies with all accreditation standards, the Council believed that certain components should be assessed as "mostly in compliance with the standard's requirements" instead of "in compliance with the standard's requirements." This evaluation was based on the content of the "advice" provided in the expert group's report, which the Council interpreted as more of a recommendation than mere advice.

The Council made this assessment despite the experts explicitly stating that the advice given to Ilia State University did not constitute a recommendation and was only advice.

Ilia State University considers the Council's decision unfounded and plans to appeal it through the appropriate legal channels.

Inconsistencies with the Law

According to Georgia's Law on Higher Education, the Council must base its decisions on the expert group’s evaluation, whether granting, denying, or revoking authorization. The concept of "conditional authorization" does not exist in law, though the Minister of Education's directive allows the Council to request reports on recommendation fulfillment within a one-year period. The Council may also request the monitoring of the institution or decide to restrict student admissions or revoke authorization.

This means that if the Council does not accept Ilia University’s self-assessment report, the university will undergo reauthorization under general standards, with outcomes including the potential revocation of authorization.[2]

According to the expert group, Ilia University fully meets all standards and exemplifies best practices. Their recommendations were only technical, such as improving the English version of the university portal or balancing the ratio between affiliated and invited academic staff. These suggestions were not intended as mandatory recommendations.

It is essential to distinguish between advice (non-mandatory suggestions) and recommendations (mandatory actions to align with standards). Nonetheless, the Council reclassified the expert group's advice as recommendations without explanation, lowering the university’s compliance rating. A problematic example is the Council’s recommendation to increase the number of affiliated academic staff to improve the ratio between affiliated and invited personnel. This issue was not identified in the experts' report, nor was it discussed at the Council meeting. It is unclear what indicators the Council used to justify this recommendation, raising questions about consistency across other institutions.

The Council’s reclassification of advice as recommendations without justification suggests an overreach of its authority and interference in the university’s autonomy. For instance, the expert group advised that the law school should consider employing assistants to ensure program continuity and professional development. The Council, however, turned this into a mandatory recommendation, interfering with the university's staffing policy. Such interference disregards the university’s needs and the qualifications of its personnel, who are among the most highly qualified in Georgia.

By altering the expert group’s findings without proper authority, the Council undermines the experts' independence and casts doubt on the impartiality of the authorization process.

Political Risks of the Authorization Process

The existing method of authorization for higher education institutions, particularly the appointment and dismissal [3]of permanent and invited members of the authorization council by the Prime Minister, points to shortcomings in the authorization process and conflicts with international and regional standards regarding academic freedom and institutional autonomy of higher education institutions.

• Authorization Expert Council for Higher Education Institutions

According to Article 2 of the Decree No. 99/N issued by the Minister of Education and Science of Georgia on October 1, 2010, titled “On the Approval of the Authorization Regulation and Fees of Educational Institutions,” [4]“Authorization is an external mechanism for ensuring the quality of education, implemented by the National Center for Educational Quality Enhancement (hereinafter referred to as the Center). The goal of authorization is to conduct an institutional evaluation of the institution and determine its compliance with authorization standards. Authorization assessment is carried out by a group of experts and is based on the institution’s self-assessment and the analysis of information obtained during the authorization visit.”

According to the Law on Higher Education, the National Center for Educational Quality Enhancement forms an expert group for the authorization of higher education institutions (hereinafter HEIs). In the formation of the expert group, recommendations developed within the Bologna Process are taken into account, including the requirements of the European Standards and Guidelines (ESG) for quality assurance in the European Higher Education Area. The expert group includes members from the expert corps – administrative/academic personnel from other higher education institutions, a student, an international expert, and, if necessary, employers and other individuals with relevant qualifications.

The authorization process for universities in Georgia follows international standards, involving 7 standards and 23 sub-standards, covering everything from evaluating the university’s mission to infrastructure. It assesses educational programs, quality assurance mechanisms, research activities, the qualifications of academic staff, their contracts, and student support services.

The expert evaluation serves as the basis for the authorization decision made by the Authorization Council. The experts’ report provides institutions with information to assist in their future consolidation and development.

After the self-assessment by the HEI and the authorization visit, the expert group evaluates the institution’s compliance with the authorization standards. Specifically, compliance with the standards is assessed using a four-level scale: “In compliance with the standard requirements, “Mostly in compliance with the standard requirements,” “Partially in compliance with the standard requirements,” “Not in compliance with the standard requirements.”

An HEI is deemed “in compliance with the standard requirements” if it is assessed as “mostly in compliance with the standard” for no more than one component, and “in compliance” for all other components.

An HEI is considered “mostly in compliance with the standard requirements” if it is assessed as “partially in compliance” for no more than one component and not assessed as “not in compliance” for any component. This status implies that the institution’s resources and established practices largely meet the requirements, and it can demonstrate corresponding results. However, the institution has weaknesses that it is prepared to address within a short period (no more than one year) with available resources.[5]

The draft report of the expert group is submitted to the Center and describes the institution’s compliance with the authorization standards.

• HEI Authorization Council

The Authorization Council, comprising permanent and invited members, makes the authorization decisions. The Prime Minister appoints and dismisses the council members upon the recommendation of the Ministry for a two-year term. The Prime Minister can replace or dismiss council members at any time, which compromises the stability and independence of the council. Additionally, the legislation does not limit the reappointment of members for consecutive terms, allowing the Prime Minister to extend their terms indefinitely.

The council bases its decisions on the authorization documentation, the expert group’s report, and the HEI’s argumented response to the report, including the conduct of oral hearings.[6]

The council authorizes an institution if it meets all the standards. Each standard is considered satisfied if the institution is assessed as “in compliance,” “mostly in compliance,” or “partially in compliance.” If:

1. a) All standards are assessed as “in compliance,” and one is assessed as “mostly in compliance,” the council grants authorization.
   b) More than one standard is assessed as “mostly in compliance” and the others as “in compliance,” the council grants authorization with a specified period (not exceeding one year) to implement the recommendations, recorded in the council’s meeting minutes.[7]

Decisions on extensions for implementing recommendations and submitting reports are made by the council based on the expert group's report, the institution’s responses, and oral hearings.

• Mechanism for Appealing Authorization Decisions

An educational institution seeking authorization can appeal the council’s decision to the Appeals Council. However, similar to the Authorization Council, the Appeals Council members are appointed and dismissed by the Prime Minister upon the Ministry’s recommendation for a two-year term, raising questions about its independence. If the Appeals Council upholds the decision, the interested party can challenge it in court as per the law.

Academic Freedom and Institutional Autonomy of Universities in a Democratic State

Academic freedom and the institutional autonomy of higher education institutions are interconnected guarantees. Enjoying academic freedom under the umbrella of freedom of expression requires an institutional environment conducive to the dissemination of critical knowledge and analysis, free from institutional practices and arrangements with a “chilling effect.” Conversely, individual restrictions on academic freedom negatively affect institutional autonomy.

This interdependence between freedom of expression, academic freedom, and institutional autonomy is recognized by the UN Human Rights Committee[8], the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression[9], the European Court of Human Rights[10], and the Venice Commission[11]. Judges at the European Court emphasize the importance of recognizing this link, even in cases involving a university professor’s accountability for criticizing the judiciary[12]. Furthermore, the Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers views institutional guarantees as integral to academic freedom.[13]

The right to education, protected by the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (Article 13, Section 4), directly relates to institutional autonomy. In its interpretation, the UN Human Rights Committee emphasizes that public accountability mechanisms for universities should balance autonomy, allowing institutions the self-governance necessary for independent and effective decision-making on academic matters. [14]

Although the European Court has not explicitly addressed institutional guarantees essential to academic freedom, it has acknowledged the institutional dimension in cases concerning the right to education [15](Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention). The Court explains that access to educational institutions involves the individual right to official recognition [16]of the education received, with any obstacles permissible only if foreseeable, legitimate, justified, and proportionate.[17] The European Court, in general, also establishes institutional standards necessary for objective decisions [18]in the process of granting legal status, which, by analogy, would apply to the procedure for making authorization decisions. These standards imply that for the realization of autonomy, the legal status of a university should be determined based on the objective assessment of an independent body. An authorization council cannot be considered an independent body from the executive branch when the appointment and dismissal of its members fall under the unrestricted discretion of the Prime Minister.

The standards of autonomy for higher education institutions are examined in more detail by UN and Council of Europe bodies, specifically within the context of quality control. The Council of Europe Committee of Ministers' 2007 recommendation states that quality control mechanisms should be based on trust, take into account internal processes for quality development, allow room for independent decisions, and align with pre-agreed principles[19]. A subsequent 2012 Council of Europe Committee of Ministers recommendation on this topic reiterates that quality control mechanisms should be adapted to the needs of university autonomy, specifically that they should adopt a flexible and reasonable approach that supports higher education institutions in realizing their autonomously defined mission and priorities. [20]

UNESCO's 1997 recommendation, in the interest of protecting university autonomy,[21] sets a standard that accountability mechanisms for educational institutions should be clear, simple, based on scientific methodology, and fair[22]. UNESCO's 2008 guidelines provide more specific instructions on the institutional structure of bodies responsible for quality control. Based on best practices, UNESCO establishes the standard that accreditation bodies should either be fully independent of the state or function as an independent intermediary within the state structure. Furthermore, according to UNESCO's guiding principles, an agency's authority in the quality control process of educational institutions should be limited to procedural matters, with the ultimate responsibility for professional assessment resting solely with a peer team composed of colleagues[23]. The European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (ENQA) also emphasizes the necessity of independence from external influences in decisions regarding authorization, including the freedom of invited experts from political influence.[24]

Suspected Political Interests in the Case of Ilia State University

Although the Law on Higher Education considers the recommendations developed under the Bologna Process in the authorization process of higher education institutions, including the European Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance (ESG) within the European Higher Education Area, the Authorization Council regrettably disregarded international standards in evaluating Ilia State University and made its decision by neglecting the assessment of the expert group.

Given that the members of the Authorization Council are appointed by the Prime Minister; this decision raises legitimate concerns that the ruling against Ilia State University may be connected to the university's critical stance.

A clear example of this is the observation and comparison of the evaluation processes of other universities. Analysis of recent decisions by the Authorization Council reveals a different and more lenient approach towards Akaki Tsereteli University, Grigol Robakidze University, and the Georgian Technical University. In these cases, the Council interpreted the recommendations of experts merely as suggestions and downplayed them. Similarly, in 2021, Webster University was granted authorization despite failing to meet four out of seven legally required standards according to the experts' report.[25]

The suspicion that the decision concerning Ilia State University might be politically motivated is further supported by recent statements from high-ranking officials of the "Georgian Dream" government. Regarding the spring protests, Irakli Kobakhidze stated that one of their campaign promises would be to implement fundamental reforms in education aimed at reducing political influence within the education system. He said: "Ultimately, one of the main systems that the previous government molded to their interests was the education system... We will offer a reform that will provide a qualitatively different infrastructure in four years, giving students ten times better opportunities to realize their potential. Higher state institutions will no longer serve anyone's political interests but will focus entirely on delivering high-quality education."

Ilia State University was among the public universities that refused to sign the rectors' statement concerning the academic boycott by students and professors in response to the "Russian law." The statement from the National Center for Educational Quality Enhancement (NCEQE) emphasized that "any political process must remain outside the academic space" and that "it is unacceptable for some academic staff to refuse to fulfill their duties." During the protests, the NCEQE issued warnings to universities about the potential risks of strikes and stated that failing to meet obligations could jeopardize their accreditation and authorization processes.

Later, the Prime Minister expressed support for only two institutions. Specifically, on September 6, Irakli Kobakhidze, at the Kutaisi International University (KIU), stated that there should be two prominent educational hubs in Georgia: "Our goal is for two distinct educational hubs to exist in the country—Tbilisi State University and Kutaisi International University—with equal significance in delivering education throughout the country."

These statements clearly indicate the government's interest in controlling independent academic institutions and actively interfering with university autonomy.

Conclusion

In light of the above, it is evident that, on the one hand, the lack of justification and legality of the decision, and on the other hand, the institutional model of the authorization process, raise well-founded suspicions that the decision regarding Ilia State University was politically motivated. These suspicions are further strengthened by the critical and undemocratic statements made by high-ranking officials and the National Center for Educational Quality Enhancement concerning universities.

The Authorization Council's disregard for the independent experts' conclusions and deviation from its own practices leave no doubt about the purpose of its decision—to restrict civil society activities and extend a "chilling effect" to the academic field as well. Otherwise, the Council's decision to arbitrarily alter the experts' conclusions, which highlighted not violations but best practices and expressed clear approval of Ilia State University, cannot be explained.

Considering the above, the Social Justice Center calls on the Appellate Authorization Council to uphold the appeal of Ilia State University and correct the unlawfulness and arbitrariness reflected in the initial decision by granting the university unconditional authorization.

Share