Centre for Civic Education (CCE) has received, after nine months, the decision of the Ethics Committee of the University of Montenegro (UoM), which confirms that the Director of the Historical Institute of UCG, Dr. Radenko Šćekić, violated the principles of academic writing by using parts of another person’s work without proper citation. It was determined that his published work was not written in accordance with the principles of academic integrity.
The Ethics Committee found that Šćekić had plagiarized the work “The Wealth of Diversity: Preserving Cultural Identity in the Era of Globalization.” However, it is puzzling that they did not see this as grounds for sanctions. On the contrary, the Ethics Committee went further, stating that Šćekić did not obtain any grades, awards, titles, or recognition based on the plagiarized work, making an unconvincing attempt to soften their own decision acknowledging the plagiarism.
To recall, the CCE filed an Initiative with the UoM Ethics Committee at the end of 2023 to review the violation of academic integrity by Radenko Šćekić, before he was appointed Director of the Historical Institute. At that time, the CCE also appealed to the UoM Managing Board to delay his appointment until the plagiarism proceedings were concluded before the relevant body of UoM, thereby protecting the institution from reputational damage.
The CCE’s initiative was supported by extensive and well-founded documentation as evidence. We expected, as the initiators, to be invited to a hearing before the Ethics Committee, which did not happen for unexplained reasons. In doing so, the Ethics Committee, aside from reluctantly addressing this case and delaying its processing, violated procedure as it was obliged to invite the CCE as the initiator to the hearing. The UoM Code of Ethics clearly stipulates that the absence of the initiator is not an obstacle to holding the hearing, but only if the initiator was properly invited. There is no provision that exempts the initiator from being invited, and it is indicating that the Ethics Committee chose not to have witnesses to its decision, possibly to avoid stricter judgment in the interest of fully protecting UoM as an institution.
The CCE emphasizes that the Ethics Committee is responsible, by law, for imposing measures for violations of academic integrity, including plagiarism, forgery, fabrication, borrowed authorship, and out-of-context citations. In this case, the Ethics Committee did not impose any sanctions for Šćekić’s violation of the Code of Ethics, despite him being a member of the academic community who committed a serious breach of academic ethics. This raises the question of who at UCG is powerful enough to protect Šćekić in this case.
Although Šćekić received the Ethics Committee’s decision before the CCE, he still did not resign from his position as Director of the Historical Institute, which further illustrates his (lack of) understanding of academic integrity.
Given that the damage caused by this extends to the institution itself, particularly to the Historical Institute as long as Šćekić remains in charge, the CCE calls on the UoM Rector and Managing Board to remove Šćekić from his leadership position as his proven non-academic conduct has discredited both UoM and the Historical Institute. Failure to act in such a manner would undermine the Ethics Committee’s decision and send a public message that those who violate academic rules are rewarded in the academic community.
Snežana Kaluđerović, Senior Legal Advisor