The prime minister once allocated a 1.5 million square meter plot to someone and that someone, a rector, was then referred to an academic committee to make a decision on the offer, in an effort to ensure appropriate democratic measures were taken. And then 95 percent of the committee voted against accepting the land. Parlak expressed his sorrow over his inability to utilize this land to journalist Balçiçek Pamir with the following words: "Ninety-five percent of the committee voted against it. I don't know why. Our prime minister had said, 'God forbid, in the event of an earthquake in İstanbul, 85 percent of the damage will be incurred by the district of Faith.' Eighty-five percent. There are two medical schools in Fatih. This school would have supplied the country and the city with vast medical resources. This is really a source of embarrassment for me. Ever since then, every time I see our prime minister, I look for a spot to hide, because I know there won't ever be a similar opportunity for İstanbul University."
It isn't known whether the refusal of the offer was a result of "neighborhood pressure" or the sheer distance between the land offered to the current medical clinics. Rector Parlak doesn't wish to clarify this matter either. And if he can't clarify this matter, how can we find out why 95 percent of a body can opposed to something which would work to the benefit of a country?
I also can't understand the lack of response to an old speech circulating on the Internet said to belong to former Higher Education Board (YÖK) Chairman Erdoğan Teziç. Teziç's words certainly aren't expected of a constitutional jurist. The person in the video, who initially indicates that he's given the Ministry of Education a piece of his mind, goes on to speak about the presidential election process in Turkey and, in not so many words, touches on Abdullah Gül's candidacy. In an apparent reference to Erdoğan, he says:
"I'd like to see him try and bring the person of his choice to Çankaya, or try and let someone go. … There may be an accident en route, the lights might go off. … All kinds of things could happen. It wouldn't work. It looks like it won't. You can't do something like that." An ordinary civilian would react to such a thuggish statement, let alone a jurist. And because this video wasn't obtained by legal means, there's no way he could face legal ramifications for what he says in it. Actually, those who taped this speech may be put in a really difficult spot if such action was taken. Why does Teziç refrain from clearing his name with regard to this video? Why doesn't he go after his rights? Is his attempt to remain silent a plan to have the video forgotten about sooner than later? Or, as columnist Taha Kıvanç asserts, is the location of the video being exposed more a threat to him than the actual content of his speech? I can't understand how the stance of, 'We'll perform a coup,' or better yet, 'We'll have a bone to pick with you when we're in power,' still manages to work, especially when there are so many people who have been tricked and forced into making mistakes …
I also can't understand those who defend the legal ruling being effective for everyone considering everyone other than themselves to be mentally inept. There can't be illegalities without laws and a court excuse can't be used as a legal ruling. What are we to do with the constitution itself? The supremacy of the constitution is expressed in Article 11. I can't understand the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP)'s insistence on having changes made to the addition made to Article 17. Can they not see what is trying to be done by the "choir of change"?
Don't they understand they will pay the price for the ban that comes into effect once the current change is undone? The list of things I simply don't understand could go on for days. When I was young, adults always said, "You'll understand when you grow up." I guess some things in Turkey will be better understood when they go through a phase of growth as well.
