The Referendum

 Results Analysis Quantitative

The results indicate very broad support for the Students' Assembly's proposal, with more than three–quarters of all respondents in favor: Out of 1,712 voters, 1,298 (75.8%) voted "In Favor," while 414 (24.2%) voted "Against."

 

Consistent Support Across All Groups: The high level of support is not limited to a single sector but remains strong and consistent across students, faculty, and administrative staff:

• Students: The largest participating group with 1,315 responses; 76.3% support the framework.

• Academic Staff (Faculty): 74.6% of 284 respondents voting in favor.

• Administrative Staff: 72.6% in favor.
   

Qualitative Analysis

All voters were given the option to provide qualitative comments. Of the 1,712 participants, 273 (approx. 16%) chose to leave a written remark. While the general vote shows a landslide for the "In Favor" camp, the textual arena is a dead heat:

• 142 commenters (52%) supported the framework.

• 131 commenters (48%) opposed it.

This reveals a significant "Intensity Gap." While the general ratio of support is 3:1, the ratio among those who chose to comment is 1:1. This implies that "Against" voters were three times more motivated to write a comment (approx. 32% of opponents commented, compared to only 11% of supporters).

Notably, while a majority of students who commented supported the framework (54%), the majority of commenters among the academic and administrative staff voted against it (54% and 64%, respectively).

​

"In Favor" Voters

Supporters view the framework as a democratic and institutional breakthrough. Their primary arguments include:

• Democratization and Power Transfer: Many welcome the shift of strike–related decision–making from the "President" or "Union Leaders" alone to the broader campus community. This mechanism is seen as providing essential institutional legitimacy.

• Moral and Civic Responsibility: A perception of the university as a "lighthouse" or beacon that must act during constitutional crises or threats to democracy. For this group, silence equals consent.

• Overcoming Apathy: Students see the framework as an opportunity to spark civic engagement. Phrases such as "It's time to wake up" or "It is important to have a voice" were frequently repeated.

• Protection Against Arbitrariness: The framework is viewed as a restraint mechanism—it makes "wildcat" or unregulated strikes more difficult by requiring a formal, orderly process.

• Internal Checks: Some supporters noted that the framework empowers opponents of a strike as well, allowing them to mobilize and defeat a proposal through the same democratic process.

Representative Quote: "I didn’t expect that in a proposal I had to approve or reject, there would be so many processes for public participation and checks and balances... it sounds like an excellent mechanism."

​

"Against" Voters

On average, those voting "Against" wrote at greater length than those in favor. Their concerns centered on the quorum of 2,500 being too low (allowing a small minority to shut down the "silent majority"), the ambiguity of the term "constitutional crisis," and the process being too cumbersome for emergencies.

The Principled Objectors A small but significant subgroup—over forty voters (approx. 2.7% of all participants)—explicitly rejected the university's right or need to strike on political/national issues. Nearly all of them (>95%) voted against the framework.

• Rationale: They do not want an "orderly strike framework" because they believe it legitimizes strikes that shouldn't happen at all. They view the framework as a tool to sanitize political interference in the academy.

Categorical Arguments by Group:

• Students: Presented consumerist, practical, and emotional arguments. They view the university as a service provider and a strike as a breach of contract (e.g., "I paid to learn a profession, not to strike over politics"). Some expressed a sense of alienation, claiming the university has been "hijacked" by a specific political side.

• Academic Staff: Provided principled arguments regarding the nature of the academy, often citing external standards (such as the University of Chicago’s Kalven Report). They argue that the university's role is strictly research and teaching, and that institutional stances compromise individual academic freedom and scientific neutrality. They also feared damage to public funding and donor relations.

• Administrative Staff: Rarely offered arguments against the framework itself, focusing instead on proper governance and the fact that a government–funded public institution should not engage in strikes against the state.