The final nail in the coffin of merit – Sözcü

The results of the promotion and title change exams held at Istanbul University also revealed a scandal.

The first written candidates in the Istanbul University promotion exam were eliminated in the interview, and the candidates in the 8th and 9th places were appointed as branch managers. The complete change of written exam success rankings with interview scores in appointments to branch manager positions has restarted the merit debates in the public personnel system.

POLITICAL REFERENCES

İzzet İldeş from the Education and Science Workers’ Union (EğitimSen) said, “The promotion and title change exams held at Istanbul University have once again revealed the merit problem, which is the biggest wound of the public personnel system, and the injustice of oral exams.” In the news published in Evrensel Newspaper, İldeş said, “Where impartiality is essential in public service, these results strengthen the arguments that political references take precedence over merit.”

THE ISSUE WAS CARRIED TO THE ASSEMBLY

Allegations that the winners of the written exam were eliminated in the interview, that the candidates in the 8th and 9th places were appointed as branch managers, and that the wife of the rector’s driver was given an exceptional position were brought to the Turkish Grand National Assembly through a parliamentary question. Labor Party (EMEP) Istanbul Deputy İskender Bayhan submitted a parliamentary question requesting that the Ministry of National Education respond.

Asking for details about the appointments made in his motion, Bayhan asked in his motion: “How many department heads, faculties, institutes and college secretaries were appointed during the term of Rector Osman Bülent Zülfikar? Were political references effective in the appointment of people at the bottom of the ranking?” He included topics such as.

Only loyalty is measured as a criterion

Education Union member İzzet İldeş pointed out the practices during the reign of Istanbul University Rector Osman Bülent Zülfikar and called for transparency to the university administration:

“The answers to the questions about who made these appointments during the Rector Zülfikar’s term, for what reasons, and considering colleague/kinship relations should be urgently disclosed to the public. Oral exams have unfortunately been turned into a screening mechanism where “loyalty” relationships are measured, not merit. We invite the university administration to put an end to these practices that damage the trust in the public personnel system and to take transparency as a basis.”