The law “On Higher Education and Science,” adopted and now in force in Armenia, introduces significant changes across several key areas: the consolidation of universities, reform of scientific activity, a new system for awarding academic degrees, as well as mechanisms for incorporating student experience and individual educational plans.
According to official statements, the law aims to improve the quality of educational services, implement licensing and accreditation systems, create a digital management environment, and establish a multi-layered scholarship system that encourages academic progress and research activity. However, is everything really so straightforward? This is the question addressed by Atom Mkhitaryan, Dean of the International Center for Scientific Education at the National Academy of Sciences of Armenia and an international expert in the field of education.
According to him, the new law consolidates four previously separate laws: “On Higher and Postgraduate Professional Education,” “On Scientific and Scientific-Technical Activity,” “On the National Academy of Sciences,” and “On Expertise.” All four laws have lost their legal force and have been merged into a single law, “On Higher Education and Science.”
“But this is not just a mechanical merger; in fact, it is an attempt to turn all possible provisions of the law upside down,” emphasizes Mkhitaryan. He notes that the authors of the law were guided not by the logic of systemic reforms but primarily by practical objectives.
The expert points out that initiators often act in the following way: if any provision of the law obstructs the implementation of their decisions, they simply amend it or adopt a new law that allows the desired action within the framework of the new legal regulation. “This is precisely what happened,” he explains:
“For example, if a decision is made to use university buildings in the center of Yerevan for other purposes, the initiators examine whether the law allows this. If it turns out that the existing law prohibits such a step, they make legislative changes to legalize it.”
Mkhitaryan also draws special attention to the section of the law concerning the so-called “Academic City.” According to him, this idea had been discussed for three to four years, but no legislative justification had existed until now. The new law now includes specific articles addressing this topic.
“This is an exceptional case,” Mkhitaryan notes, “because in the laws of other countries, the existence or functioning of an ‘Academic City’ is not regulated separately. In our case, however, such provisions are not only included but also stipulate that a university cannot establish any infrastructure outside the ‘Academic City.’ This means that if in the future a university is relocated to this city, it will not be able to have laboratories, branches, or other facilities outside it.” According to him, this provision contradicts the Constitution.
The next group of contradictions, he says, concerns the organizational and legal status of universities. Mkhitaryan notes that the law no longer allows universities to operate as commercial entities, while this is recognized practice worldwide.
“Under this law, universities must be foundations, which effectively hinders the normal functioning of private educational institutions,” he explains.
Mkhitaryan also draws attention to the age restrictions established by the law, which also contradict the Constitution. He recalled that the Constitutional Court has repeatedly confirmed the inadmissibility of age discrimination.
“Previously, this resulted in many teachers losing their jobs upon reaching retirement age. Fortunately, this is no longer allowed, and they continue to work, passing on their experience,” he emphasizes.
He adds that all contradictory provisions were noted and submitted to the presidential office, with a proposal to refer the law to the Constitutional Court to assess its compliance with the Constitution. However, the president hastened to sign the law, ignoring the existing contradictions.