The simmering tension in higher education, which appeared publicly in October 2025 with the creation of a second association - of state universities, finally erupted with the departure 2 weeks ago of 15 higher education institutions from the last meeting of the Council of Rectors, uniting state and private higher education institutions.
The interest in the news lasted for several days, but its negative consequences will have a much longer horizon. It seems that the current lull is only temporary - until the next storm, which will either rearrange the players in Bulgarian higher education, or further shake its already damaged reputation. Why did the split in university circles come about and what does it portend?
"We do not want to be members of the Council of Rectors, but of the Council of Rectors"
If you think there is an error in the above sentence, there is none. It simply sounds wrong - as are the arguments of 1/3 of our higher education institutions, which stormed out of the meeting of the Council of Rectors on June 11. "We no longer wish to be members of an association registered under the Non-Profit Legal Entities Act (NPLE) and duplicating the name of the Council of Rectors of Higher Education Institutions. NATFA will be the only and only member of the Council of Rectors, within the meaning of Art. 23 of the Higher Education Act". This is what the rector of NATFA, Miroslav Dachev, wrote to the Council of Rectors a few days before its last meeting.
If you still don't understand, the fault is not in your TV. From his statement it follows that in our country there are two associations with the same name - one under one law, the other - under another. Shocking! Not only does it suddenly turn out that we have two identical associations, but Prof. Dachev has also established this right now and is using it as a motive for leaving one of the associations. At the moment, it is not clear which of the two he is a member of. All that is known is that he is the chairman of the Association of State Universities, established at the end of last year. at the head of Sofia University (he inherited the post from the then rector of Sofia University, Prof. Georgi Valchev, who became Minister of Education).
The official reason for the departure of the 15 is disagreement with the refusal to include in the agenda of the meeting as a separate item "debate on the tension that has arisen in the academic community, as well as on the reputational problem that has arisen, related to publications and defamation of rectors and the institutions they represent". Otherwise, in their explanation to the media they also mention the "open", in their opinion, issue of the inconsistency of the association of the Council of Rectors (under the Law on Legal Entities) with Art. 23 of the Law on Higher Education. "This article clearly defines the existence of the Council of Rectors, which has only and exclusively advisory functions before state bodies. In contrast, the association of the Council of Rectors of Higher Education Schools since 2008... has the right to benefit from membership fees and to own property, as well as a number of other powers, unregulated and contrary to the law on higher education, "says the 15 in their position.
Absurd dichotomy
"Such a dichotomy and division of the organization is not based on legal and factual premises," says attorney Kalin Kostov and cites a number of evidences that the two associations are the same legal entity, and there is no duality between them. First of all, the BULSTAT of the Council of Rectors has remained unchanged over the years, as there is no other legal entity with a similar name and subject of activity.
When the Council of Rectors was established in 1993, the current Law on Higher Education did not yet exist. The legal regulation of the current Council of Rectors was made by amending the aforementioned Art. 23 of the Law on Higher Education in 1999. "Then neither a new parallel and previously non-existent legal structure was created, nor did the Council of Rectors become a state body. The status and powers of the existing association, identical to the body under Art. 23, were only legally established. The statements of Prof. Dachev that "the existing association duplicates the name of the Council of Rectors" are categorically not supported by the stenographic protocols, says Adv. Kostov. In his words, with this act the state recognizes the Council of Rectors as a legitimate and the only entity entitled to express the common interests of higher education institutions before state bodies.
"Such a thesis destroys the very foundation of academic autonomy and erases the work, successes and achievements of a number of scientists and public figures who have made efforts and participated with their work in strengthening the authority of the association, including internationally", reacted the Council of Rectors. They stated that they had not refused a debate on the tension in the system - the 15 rectors were offered to include it in the "Miscellaneous" item (because the agenda cannot be changed with insufficient members present) and to still conduct it qualitatively, but this was rejected. As is known, when you want to make a scandal, you invent motives and make a scandal.
Backstage
And for those unfamiliar, it is obvious that there is a second plan behind the whole mess - some want to displace others. This is also seen in the statement of the Association of State Universities, which emphasizes the "advisory" functions of the Council of Rectors - something that the current head, Prof. Miglena Temelkova, has requested changes to. The logic is that every university wants to increase the powers of the association in which it is a member, in order to have greater weight before the state. In this sense, the distinction "only" of the advisory functions, against the background of the ambition of the Association of State Universities to be an "equal partner" of the state, means purely and simply one thing - a desire for one body to seize the role of the other. Or simply for the Council of Rectors to be controlled by other players. Why with such means is a rhetorical question.
If the rectors did not agree with Prof. Temelkova's policy, they had the chance to change it - during the elections of a new chairman of the Council of Rectors in March this year. However, no one challenged her position at that time - she was re-elected with 29 votes "for" against 18 "against" for a second term. Prof. Dachev did not answer the questions of "Sega" about which actions and policies of the head of the Council of Rectors she considers problematic. Apparently, however, behind the scenes, her statements and positions, appealing for more rights for the Council of Rectors, irritate certain circles.
Her main "sin" is considered to be challenging the new rules for research universities from 2025 before the Supreme Administrative Court and the Protection of Personal Data - because their organization was excluded from an interdepartmental commission evaluating the scientific results of higher education institutions for their inclusion in the List of Research Universities, as well as because of the very criteria, which she believes favor certain universities. Observers also point out another unforgivable "mistake" - her intervention to reduce fees for paid students, around which a huge scandal broke out last year. Since their amount depends on the maintenance that universities receive in a state order, and it was increased, in some higher education institutions the fees for paid students jumped threefold - for example, in Sofia University. The intention of the then Minister Krasimir Valchev to reduce them by 25% later changed into a 40% reduction, proposed by MPs, for which Prof. Temelkova had lobbied all political forces.
The battle may also mark the beginning of the fight for students, which is coming against the backdrop of the demographic crisis in our country. "Hard times are coming. Students are decreasing. They have determined which research universities will receive the lion's share of the funding. For years, no second track has been given to professional universities. The splitting of the Council of Rectors is the next step in the plan of certain universities to ensure an official advantage over others," an observer speculates.
What does the Ministry of Education and Science think?
The key is what the state thinks about the kicking in the knuckles in question and, more specifically, what it intends to do, since it is "both the bread and the knife". With a quick, but crude, change in the law on higher education, it would probably be very easy to replace one organization with the other. At least for now, however, the Ministry of Education and Science is not making such a request.
They said that they are monitoring the processes with increased attention, but with full respect for academic autonomy. "Differences in the positions of higher education institutions on organizational or strategic issues are an internal matter of the academic community," they said, emphasizing that they do not have the legal authority to pronounce on the membership and internal processes of the Council of Rectors. The ministry states that the Rectors' Council is legally regulated and is the official body for expressing the common interests of universities. However, they add that they also respect the right of higher education institutions to associate, and therefore will not isolate any organization from public discussions.
However, the dispute is not only organizational, but also about whether the winners will be chosen administratively, or whether quality will be the leading factor. The risk of such a division is that it will turn into a model in which access to resources is determined not by results, but by who has stronger institutional representation or political patronage. Our higher education does not need new lines of opposition between "big" and "small", but by clear rules and their observance, in which the criteria should be the quality of education, the realization of students and the contribution to society. A university that is sought after by students and develops successful directions should be given the opportunity to build on, and not be limited by official redistribution of resources. This would be a loss not only for individual higher education institutions, but for all higher education.
Who wins from the war between rectors? Certainly not necessarily the best. At first glance, the winners are those who manage to rearrange the representation of universities before the state and gain greater weight in funding and policy decisions. The question is whether this victory will not be Pyrrhic - because divided higher education loses its most important resource - trust. When universities speak with two voices, the state gets the convenient opportunity to choose whose arguments to listen to. And when the battle for a place at the table becomes more important than the battle for quality, the losers are the students and society.
Author: Silviya Georgieva, segabg.com