UP Rector Michael Kohajda: Times have changed, and we have to do something about it

He has always loved numbers and counting. He was so good at it that he voluntarily chose maths for his school leaving certificate subject. However, he did not become a professional “number-cruncher” but instead chose a career at first glance seemingly distant from the natural sciences: law. This year marks a quarter-century since his name and in fact his life have been attached to Palacký University. As a student, graduate, academic, vice-dean, and now... rector. As of May, jurist Michael Kohajda is the new rector of the second oldest university in the Czech Republic.

How would he like to reshape the school? What qualities should its graduates have, and how will the university stand up to these dynamic times? You’ll find out all this and more in our interview with Palacký University’s new rector.

Your professional academic career path in Olomouc has been quite direct. From student to teacher, to vice-dean, and now to the very top position.

I wasn’t only in Olomouc. I completed my doctoral studies in Prague at the Charles University Faculty of Law. In my opinion, that was where the best financial law was being taught, under the tutelage of Prof Bakeš. That I was able to get two degrees at two such hallowed and traditional universities is an experience I consider positive and beneficial. I actually deviate a bit from that frequent “inbreeding” – when someone gets their Master’s degree and doctorate at the same school and then stays there teaching and doing research, never leaving it for the rest of their professional life. I think it’s better to go to different institutions; it brings one more experiences and inspiration.

With that point of view, what would you like to bring into higher education in Olomouc, a university which has been around for some 450 years?

Traditional values are important to me, and universities have them. Respect for the heritage of the mantle I am assuming is one of the reasons why I decided to have the inauguration take place in the university Church of Our Lady of the Snows. I wanted to make it clear that we are continuing the work of our predecessors. Especially in today’s hectic geopolitical times, it is important to emphasise the existence of a stable institution with a four-hundred-and-fifty-year history which has maintained its same principles and ideals. The world around us is changing, but the university remains, and we should not forget our historical roots. They are part of the narrative which we at Palacký University are living and writing every day.

That’s the continuity you mentioned. But what is your conception for the future existence of Palacký University?

First, we must ensure that the university functions and continues further development. That may seem as obvious to some and that there’s nothing too complicated in that. But I perceive many risks: especially in the proper functioning of academic self-government. If we are not able or will not be able to effectively govern ourselves, then we are handing someone else the argument that there should be changes made.

This is a very hot political topic today, whether or not academic self-governance is proper. As an MP in Parliament, you must have certainly clocked the debates on this...

I often hear this when discussing the financing of universities. Universities are always asking for more money, arguing that they are underfunded. Of course it is legitimate to try to get more finances for development. But that is the view from inside the university. I feel it is also necessary to see how the outside world looks at us. And what they are looking at are our numbers and all the money that goes to us. Just to illustrate: as a year-on-year increase, the university received almost 10 million euros, and if you compare the roughly 1.25 million which we received in 2023 from contracted research, it is obvious that we are completely dependent on public funding. The money we earn is just a drop in the bucket of our total budget, which is in the tens of millions of euros. So then we should not be surprised that the authority who sends us the money wants us to budget it wisely and keep our house in order. There are relevant objections, and we have to show that we are capable of governing ourselves and that we are using the funds entrusted to us effectively.

We probably need to be much more aware of the reality in which we live. The Czech Republic is going to have to invest more into areas such as defence...

I have a realistic view on the economics of universities, it’s a topic I’ve done some serious thinking on. I’ve been a member of the parliamentary Budget Committee for four years, so let me mention that as a nation, we have a huge, systemic deficit, on the level of somewhere around 10 billion euros. Next year, spending will certainly increase in two key areas: defence and healthcare. Given that situation, I don’t think higher education can be a priority at present. And when someone sends us 10 million euros as a year-on-year increase, that is a very fine outcome. We are talking about money which we are not automatically entitled to.

Shouldn’t we be prepared in the event another year-on-year increase doesn’t happen, or even, as we have seen abroad, that our funding will be decreased?

I think our universities are not mentally prepared for that event. A few weeks back, I lectured at a university in Nebraska. Not a day goes by when their academic newsletter doesn’t have information from the president that the school will be losing ten million dollars here or twenty million there, and what the practical impacts will be. The situation can change here, too, and we will have to deal with it. We have to be prepared systematically, mentally, and search for alternatives. One of my goals for UP in my four-year term is to increase non-public funding sources, and if from public sources, then on the basis of contractual agreements, in a kind of civil law relationship.

Certainly not everyone in the ivory tower will be happy to hear we ought to also “raise” money.

Naturally, these opinions are not categorical. Some academics would consider it quite matter-of-fact, they already have established relationships outside the university, while others would say that such activities would take them away from their “pure” science. Okay, but that science is financed entirely by public funds. I would like the university to discuss this topic openly, because if we were to have a wider portfolio of funding sources, then we would be more resilient to outside influences.

In your opinion, do you think the mission of Palacký University should be transformed? Should we launch a technical faculty, for example?

I don’t agree with launching a new faculty in the next four years. I strongly believe we must first resolve the essential problems now facing us. The first is the relationship between CATRIN and the Faculty of Science. The second essential thing is the discomfort of students at one of our faculties. I’m talking about the Faculty of Health Sciences.

You mean that FHS does not have its own building, and that this has been a long-term problem?

Yes, we should go back and see what FHS was meant to be when it was established seventeen years ago. How many students should it have? Where should they be taught? I cannot fathom how one could found a new faculty and not think about how it would work in practice. The reality is that in some sections there are more students than seats. This is then the second problem we must resolve – to get this faculty working effectively. And unless we have managed to resolve these two systemic issues, we are not in a situation within a four-year mandate to even think about founding a new, independent faculty. What we can do is give more support to the economic-managerial direction of studies which we already have, something also sought by the business sphere in both the Olomouc and the Moravian-Silesian regions.

So the first thing you want to do is get the essential things into working order?

I think that we ought to admit that some things are not working and then have a serious talk about how to fix them. The university should consider things more strategically – for example, big investments. It shouldn’t be business as usual that some areas are able to get a lot more money than others. This is a systemic problem. Only once we have determined our workloads, our classroom and laboratory capacities, etc., does it make sense to talk about new building construction. We lack such university-wide analyses. And once we do have them, we will know better how and where to expand.

Ideally, the university should be like a glass house: it should be clear to all what is going on inside, what the rules are, where it is going, and how and on what it spends the money entrusted to it.

With a touch of idealism, I would like agreements made on all of this. In my opinion, it’s about the mutual trust which should certainly prevail at the university, and which is necessary to renew, whether between various units or between employees. I would like to treat every faculty the same, to fairly devote equal time and space to each of them. It shouldn’t be the squeaky wheel getting the grease. For me, all faculties are equally important and significant.

You teach at the Faculty of Law. What do you like about working with students?

Teaching keeps me young. I’m always out there in front of young people and it’s thanks to them, actually, that I sometimes forget I’m advancing in years.

That’s Michael Kohajda the teacher. But how does Michael Kohajda the rector see students?

I would like the students to fully enjoy the university experience and for the university to give them enough space and opportunities to do so. In addition to interesting study programmes, we also have to offer them a good environment. For studies and for relaxation. For example, I really miss the old U-klub, where I went to many concerts and where students could also realise their own projects, etc. In recent years it has been partly turned into a storage area and no longer serves the student body. I’m not okay with that, although I know restoring it to its former glory won’t be easy. I also see a lack of athletic fields and study relaxation zones. I know that some will say: “We never had those, and we did just fine.” But the times and the standards have changed, and if we want the narrative which the students here live for five years to be not only theirs but also the university’s, we have to do something about it.

Working with alumni is built upon working with students. How do you see that?

I believe that we should strengthen our work with alumni so that they feel themselves to be part of the university community even after they finish school. I’m aware that much has already been done in this area, but it’s necessary that that work should be systematic. We ought to take advantage of modern tools. If we have an app for students which makes their studies easier, then it would be great if that tool wasn’t discarded after their studies are over. If we were able to shift it into “Alumni mode”, then it could be a means of keeping in touch with our alumni. It could offer them information according to their choices, for example from their faculties or fields of study, allowing us all to keep in mutual contact. This way that student university narrative I mentioned could keep being written as an alumni narrative. The university could profit by that, too. We would get so much necessary feedback in practice to find out how our alumni are doing in the job market, and we could even do alumni fundraising on a system-wide basis.

Perhaps we could take inspiration from the West, where universities have a good working relationship with donors, naming things after them. You have experienced that in the USA, haven’t you?

I saw a building named after a Supreme Court justice who died. His family wanted his legacy to live on, so they paid for the construction and the faculty named a new building wing after him. But universities there also know how to work with smaller donations. For example, renaming an auditorium after a company for a certain period of time. I think we are going to have that debate here as well. Do we need the money, or not? What can we offer, and where are the boundaries beyond which we do not want to go? Is it acceptable to name an auditorium after Michael Kohajda because he gives us a million a year for the privilege? I do think it is important for those who give us the money to know exactly where it is going. That they can decide if they want to support a specific faculty or a specific student. We don’t know how to do that at present.

That was Michael Kohajda the teacher and rector. What about Michael Kohajda the lawyer? You were good at maths, but you became a legal expert. Yet you have found a place where numbers and paragraphs meet. One of your areas of interest is cryptocurrency, something you even recently lectured on in the USA. What interests you about that?

It’s a new phenomenon, one which can even threaten a state’s sovereignty. Money and currency have always been an instrument of power for the sovereign – i.e. a ruler or the state. It’s not for nothing that we have laws to protect currencies. But once all money – in the ordinary meaning of the word – spills over into decentralised activities where the state has no control, then of course the state loses some of its power, and that has a direct impact on its economic policies. Let’s say for instance that you have a billion crowns in bitcoins. You do something for which you are legally liable to the tune of one million crowns. But you turn around and say you don’t have that kind of money, and the state does not know how to enforce the fine, which is a highly abnormal situation, because the state can take money from a normal bank account, even confiscate your house and sell it. The state does not know what to do about these new currencies, and then its power to enforce the law is quite limited. These are uncharted waters, and new legislation must be written, which interests me greatly.

You’re an academic, a lawyer, but you’ve always been engaged in the community, in local politics, and now even in parliament. What led you to take such an active role as a citizen?

It’s important. I was a town councillor for twelve years in Šumperk, and before that I was on various commissions. Taking an active part just seems natural to me. If someone has the opportunity and the abilities, they should do it. Not because of the money, but because you have the chance to make a difference in the place you live.

By the way, how do you relax? You’re a dog lover, aren’t you?

Yes, I like to go for walks with my Tibetan mastiff. He’s quite deliberate himself, so time permitting, we’ll go out together for several hours at a time. But I don’t take him to work, because he’s quite protective and wouldn’t let anyone get near me. I also go to animal shelters and rescue stations, bringing food donations. The animals there have often had quite tragic histories, so I try to help them a bit. Otherwise, I like to play squash, I go mountain biking, and I love downhill skiing. But actually, I don’t really have a great need for relaxation, I’m used to working hard. I’m lucky that in my work life, I can do what I like and what is fulfilling to me.