Centre for Civic Education (CCE), regarding the response by Vedran Vujisić carried by some media outlets, points out that Vujisić did not refute any of CCE’s claims. On the contrary, his interpretation essentially confirms our key thesis – that the absence of a normative prohibition may exist, but that is precisely the problem, not an argument in his favour.
CCE did not assert that this was a matter of formal illegality, but that the simultaneous performance of teaching, representative and managerial functions at the University of Montenegro (UoM) raises a serious question of conflict of interest or risk of its emergence. There is a clear difference between “not prohibited” and “not problematic”, which should be evident to both Vujisić and UoM. The fact that something is “established practice” does not mean it is correct or should not be subject to scrutiny. After all, there are many examples of poor practices that persist for a long time.
CCE does not dispute Vedran Vujisić’s academic achievements, but that cannot justify bypassing mechanisms that protect integrity. Shifting the focus to personal accomplishments does not answer the key question: is studentship status being maintained through multiple enrolments in study programmes in order to retain positions in governing bodies?
It is inappropriate for Vujisić to relativise the issue of conflict of interest by invoking students’ right to engagement, and that is not the subject of our initiative. CCE does not dispute the right of students to be elected, nor the right of teaching associates to be students. The problem lies in the concentration of roles: a teaching associate is in an employment relationship with UoM, while as a student representative they should represent students’ interests vis-à-vis that same institution, and as a member of the Management Board they participate in making key decisions.
Pointing to similar examples from other structures does not diminish the problem, but, unfortunately, confirms its scope and the systemic resistance at UoM to regulate a framework for recognising and managing conflicts of interest.
Vujisić’s claims about “counting” students and pressures are unfounded. CCE cited the number of student representatives in governing bodies solely to highlight their position and influence in decision-making. Precisely for that reason it is important that this role be free from any suspicion of conflict of interest and that students do not “lose” their voice. If Vujisić claims there were pressures or “targeting”, CCE invites him to specify concrete cases, actors and the manner in which this was done, as well as which decisions he participated in that give rise to a doubt whether they were in the interest of students or the leadership of Faculty of Political Sciences or UoM.
CCE reiterates that such cases emphasise the need for clearer normative regulation, which is why in January 2026 we submitted an initiative to UoM to improve that framework, with recommendations. It is very telling that UoM remains silent on such an initiative.
Finally, CCE expresses the hope that Vujisić will support the introduction of clearer rules that protect both students and the integrity of UoM, rather than using normative gaps as an excuse.
Jovana Radulović, Projects assistant