Your Magnificence,
Distinguished Guests, Honourable Members,
distinguished members of the Academic Senate and the Scientific Council,
distinguished members of the academic community, colleagues,
dear students,
distinguished guests,
I would like to welcome you all to today’s festive meeting to celebrate the Dies Academicus, a cherished tradition at our university which has been observed for many years to conclude the academic year. We have also gathered here to honour the individuals who play a fundamental role in shaping the image of our university, society, and democracy.
During the ceremonial opening of the academic year in September 2025, I discussed the state of Czech higher education and the events due to take place at Masaryk University. If I were to offer a brief comment on the current state of higher education and its development over the past year, I would use the famous phrase that there has been modest progress within the bounds of the law.
Although insufficient funding is a factor, it is not the only reason for the generally poor results of Czech higher education institutions in international comparisons. Furthermore, I believe that there is an absence of comprehensive debate on funding rules or legislation that would enable the kind of diversification of roles within the higher education sector that is absolutely essential. The higher education sector in our country suffers from great fragmentation, a lack of strategic vision, and legislative standards that are no longer fit for purpose in the 21st century. The fragmented and often controversial functioning of university interest groups, which are unclear about who they represent and what interests they promote, is also a problem. The prevailing narrative of “let’s not change anything as long as things are calm and cosy” – or, to quote Jára Cimrman: “it doesn’t have to pour, as long as it drips” – is underlined by a focus on pursuing particular interests. These may be the interests of one’s own higher education institution (which I shall refer to as a university) or the interests of one’s faculty, or one’s own strictly personal interests. The results of the International Evaluation Panels in 2025 illustrate this perfectly: according to the self-evaluation reports, the Czech Republic can count itself blessed, because nearly 75% of higher education institutions and universities are rated as excellent or (almost) excellent in international rankings, obtaining grades A or B. Let’s not worry about the fact that this does not correspond at all with the number of prestigious grants such as ERC or the fact that the institutions are not among the world’s top 300 universities. We have our own rankings, our own criteria…
The proverbial “peak” of this way of thinking is the draft principles of the higher education institutions bill, penned by the Council of Higher Education Institutions and published last year. I criticised the document at the time, and I am not alone in my vocal opposition now. So what is the problem with this draft?
For example, it rejects the system of academic leadership positions. I quote: “The Act should level the playing field for private higher education institutions in accessing public grants and scholarship schemes and programmes, including doctoral scholarships” – meaning the Council recommends legislating the transfer of public funds from public to private higher education institutions. The phrase “[we] also recommend introducing the possibility for the Ministry to review decisions by university bodies at the instigation of faculty bodies, should the latter consider that their rights guaranteed by law or by the internal regulations of the faculty or university have been curtailed” sounds like a bad joke. This would clearly restrict the autonomy of higher education institutions and transfer decision-making powers to the Minister of Education. Let me remind you that the Council’s Presidium has committed its members to adherence to these draft principles. On the one hand, the Council “rejects the proposed restrictions and abolition of academic self-governance at higher education institutions”, yet at the same time it wants to transfer decision-making from university bodies to the Minister. I cannot think of a better example of the word “chutzpah”, and I find the tactic of trying to please everyone utterly deplorable, and I strongly advise against it.
The National Accreditation Bureau’s activities continues to merely “police” the proverbial low-hanging fruit and insists on proper administrative and bureaucratic processes, rather than focusing on the substance of the matter and cultivating, through access to accreditation, a system of educational quality. This, in the absence of legal protection for universities’ know-how, leads to utterly bizarre situations. Alas, as I have come to expect, in this country it is not the one doing something against the rules who is at fault, but the one who draws attention to it. Yet, in defence of the National Accreditation Bureau, I should say that it lacks sufficient legislative backing to cultivate a quality system.
So that I am not overly critical, it is a fact that the process of drafting a new Higher Education Institutions Act has begun initiated ‘from outside’, by the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports, and I am not sure whether university representatives are prepared for or united enough to engage in these difficult negotiations.
I am curious to see how far the ideas and the key areas under discussion will go, which include the governance of universities, the election of senior officials, human resources, the transition to a system of academic leadership positions, and contract-based funding. Based on my experience to date, I am somewhat sceptical about the outcome, but I would be happy to find that my concerns were unfounded. In any case, we desperately need a new Higher Education Institutions Act, not because of internal disputes over the roles of individuals within the system, but so that we can succeed in a highly competitive world and have something to offer rapidly changing societies. As a higher education sector, we are meant to be bearers of education and knowledge, in keeping with the idea of the universitas. If we cannot do this, someone else will step in with a different offer – with poorer quality, more technocratic approach, and traditional Czech parochialism, wrapped up in fine words about the needs of the industry, the preference for applied research and technical education, and the irrelevance of humanities and social sciences. Or even less fine words meant to ostracise segments of the academic community and educated society, all with the assistance of our own people. We live in a world undergoing the most challenging period of its development since the Second World War, facing issues of internal and external security, demographic change, social and economic instability, and moral decline. Appealing and simplistic solutions on offer may fall on “fertile ground”, with devastating consequences for universities and education in general.
In the new Higher Education Institutions Act, I would expect to see an emphasis placed on university autonomy as an essential prerequisite for the existence and growth of universities and higher education institutions, which predate both the European Union and its member states. Indeed, a structural change to the Czech higher education system is necessary. Within this system, research universities operate alongside regional and private higher education institutions, which naturally have different reasons for existing and different ways of operating. Diversification of institutions is necessary. Following the example of many European countries, there must also be a concentration of human, scientific and infrastructural resources, achieved through the integration of institutions and the elimination of internal duplication. Legislation, including the Higher Education Institutions Act, should reflect 21st-century HR policy: responsibility and authority go hand in hand. In a time of demographic decline, we must prioritise internationalisation and openness to international cooperation in our foreign policy. To meaningfully develop Czech universities and higher education institutions, we need predictable funding, increased institutional funding and alignment with international standards. Furthermore, we urgently need higher education institutions to be evaluated with an emphasis on quality, taking into account the principles of international rankings and prestigious international grants (e.g. ERC and Horizon). We also need a legislative environment that protects the know-how of higher education institutions in terms of staff, innovation, investment and patents. It is also essential to invest in infrastructure, such as accommodation, sports facilities, medical and other services. All of these factors will influence future students’ decisions on where to apply.
We must not lose sight of the permeability between the various levels of education, the emphasis on foreign language teaching in secondary and primary schools, and a completely new approach to lifelong learning – there I see the centrepiece of our efforts. Unfortunately, the successive Czech governments have neglected building modern transport infrastructure over the past few decades. This reduces access to education and study, particularly for those from socially disadvantaged families or regions with poor transport connections and it must be taken into account when drawing up the national budget.
Allow me to return to Masaryk University and the academic year that is slowly drawing to a close. What have we achieved together at Masaryk University in the academic year 2025/2026? What has happened, and what can we be proud of? How has our university developed, and how has it contributed to the cultivation of our society?
In terms of funding, the university’s budget rules for 2026 have been amended further: the draft budget, which I am submitting to the MU Academic Senate for its 1 June 2026 meeting, stands at nearly CZK 14.6 billion. The internal salary regulations have been updated and pay scales increased; in the area of HR, we have been very successful in securing MSCA grants, and through GAMU we are managing to attract outstanding individuals. For the critics who prefer to measure everything in terms of numbers rather than processes, I should add that this approach is also proving financially beneficial for the university and its component parts.
In the academic year 2025/2026, we made significant progress with our strategic investments in Masaryk University’s development. MUNI BioPharma Hub is set to open on 30 June 2026, with the Faculty of Pharmacy set to begin teaching there in the next academic year. Construction has also begun on the MUNI SPORT PARK, a comprehensive sports infrastructure scheduled for completion in spring 2028. Meanwhile, major renovation of the Faculty of Informatics complex is ongoing. Now that the land opposite our Faculty of Sports Studies is under the university’s ownership, we can look forward to the construction of student accommodation on campus, expected in 2029/2030. This will also bring a systematic approach to catering services, ensuring they meet 21st-century standards while we manage them with due diligence.
As I predicted back in autumn, the issue of catering has proved complex and multi-layered. Its origins date back to the construction of the university campus, and it is not possible to meet all requirements. However, we are already seeing concrete results and more will follow soon.
As part of our recruitment campaign, I was pleased to note that we managed to increase the number of applications for Bachelor’s degree programmes by 5 percent. The systematic work carried out in the area of external relations, in collaboration with the Strategy Office, is finally beginning to bear fruit. Further internal regulations have been adopted – of which I would like to highlight the amendment to the MU Employment Code – which brings them into line with international standards.
Two weeks ago, we visited Mauthausen Concentration Camp, a place that serves as a permanent reminder of the consequences of hatred, contempt for human dignity, and the abandonment of freedom and democracy. Our colleagues, who were scientists, educators and representatives of Brno’s universities, were also among the victims of Nazi tyranny, who were persecuted, deported to this camp and murdered. We must remember their fate and pass on the message that freedom, including academic freedom, cannot be taken for granted. I am glad that Masaryk University has succeeded in restoring the memorial plaque in Mauthausen which bears the names of Brno’s academic victims. In this way, too, we pay tribute to those who perished, committing ourselves to the responsibility of remembering and doing everything in our power to cultivate the world around us. This entails gaining a deeper and more detailed knowledge of our own history, as well as repentance, forgiveness and reconciliation. Let us be deeply grateful that, in these unstable times, there are no foreign troops on our soil, as was the case until June 1991.
Masaryk University’s dynamic development is inextricably linked to the Velvet Revolution of November 1989 and Czechia’s subsequent EU membership. Our university has risen from a small regional school to become one of the most prestigious institutions in Central Europe. We are the leading university in the Czech Republic in terms of the volume of projects under various framework programmes, such as Horizon and Horizon Europe. We are pioneers when it comes to digitalisation, and our micro-certificate system is ready for wider deployment. I would also like to point out that we are the only university in the Czech Republic to have borrowed money for strategic development purposes, and we have been repaying a loan from the European Investment Bank for over 20 years. The final instalment will be repaid next month. I believe that, in this area and others, we can serve as a model for other institutions in the Czech Republic.
In conclusion, allow me to repeat what I said at the start of this academic year:
“The above – and many other things that I cannot mention due to time constraints – testify to the extraordinary ability that adorns Masaryk University: the art of reaching agreement despite the naturally diverse currents of opinion that are the essence of our critical thinking and critical debates.
It testifies to an extraordinary ability to work for the benefit of a larger whole than a department, institute, clinic, division, or faculty. An extraordinary ability to look beyond the boundaries of one’s office. The adjective ‘extraordinary’ is not the most appropriate; I should replace it with words such as ‘common’, ‘automatic’, or ‘everyday’. That is, the common ability to work for the benefit of a larger whole than a department, institute, clinic, division, or faculty. The common ability to look beyond the boundaries of one’s office.
Reflecting on all this and bearing in mind what has been said above, I would consider a separate law for Masaryk University – Lex Universitatis Masarykianae – to be the best solution.
Ladies and gentlemen, distinguished guests,
On behalf of Masaryk University and myself, I would like to thank you all and wish you all the best, as well as a well-deserved rest over the summer.
I would also like to thank today’s laureates. They are an inspiration to us all, whether in our professional, personal or civic lives.
Thank you for your attention.