Abstract:

Is it possible to evaluate the academic migration's national policies from the judicialisation of politics? The increasing role of the judiciary power in university policy matters is displayed through the analysis of two judicial decisions: the first, regarding English as a teaching language in university courses, the second, concerning the struggle between the fight against nepotism on the one hand, and the promotion of dual-careers (academic couples) on the other.

This growth in judicial power in the HE environment is threatening the autonomy of universities in local, national and global policy formation. This work highlights judges' role as actors and leaders in the policy arena (Hirschl, 2011). This paper explores the implications of this expansion of judiciary power, focusing on academic migration, and highlights how the national policies were impacted by decisions taken by the judiciary system due to concerns raised at the local level. Two different legal issues are discussed. In the first case, in response to the possibility of having to teach entirely in English, the judicial action initiated by some lecturers, who were disappointed with the local policy adopted in one Italian university only, had a significant impact on the implementation of the policy for the entire system (Italian Constitutional Court, n. 42/2017).

The second suit concerns the interpretation of the law dictated to curb the phenomenon of "parentopoli" in the university: nepotism in the faculty selection process. This regulation establishes that the candidates, who are relatives of the professors with tenure in the same department that is hiring, cannot participate in the core faculty selection processes. This prohibition aims to reduce familiarism, prominent in Italy and demonstrated by Allesina (2011). The Constitutional Court states that this prohibition does not apply to spouses, thus allowing the adoption of dual-career programs to promote the internationalisation of the faculty without dividing families.

The expansion of the role of the judiciary power implies a redefinition of personal and political boundaries, loss of autonomy for the universities, academic freedom, rights of students. The literature reflects the influences of the role of constitutional courts as veto players (Volkansek, 2001). Hirschl (2011) defines the term “judicialisation of politics” as an umbrella-like term: leaving aside the increase in legal jargon, here they detect the expansion of the decisions of the courts on issues that are increasingly removed from the political sphere through a redefinition of the border of individual freedom.

Thanks to analysing these cases through the lens of the judicialisation policy theory, policymakers can recommend a way forward. When defining policies at a general level, balancing the different interests in the implementation process is always advisable: a possible way to reduce the impact of judicial opposition is by evaluating the possibility of their occurrence during the design of the policy itself.

References:
[1] Allesina, S., 2011 Measuring Nepotism through Shared Last Names: The Case of Italian Academia. PLoS ONE 6(8): e21160
[2] Hirschl, R., 2011, The Judicialization of Politics, The Oxford Handbook of Political Science
[3] Volcansek, M.L., 2001, Constitutional court as veto players: Divorce and decrees in Italy, European Journal of Political Research 39: 34

Keywords:

Academic migration, dual career, English Medium Instruction, judicialisation, policies implementation.