The visit of Belgrade University Rector Vladan Đokić to Brussels and his meeting with EU Enlargement Commissioner Marta Kos triggered sharp reactions in Serbia, turning what was presented as an academic and institutional engagement into a broader political controversy. According to the University of Belgrade’s account, Đokić took part in a conference on the future of the Erasmus+ program and stressed the need for stronger synergy between Erasmus+ and other programs, especially those supporting scientific research, in order to better connect education and research. He also emphasized the need for stronger and more stable support for the European Universities initiative and university alliances, particularly through improved and stabilized mobility funding so that more students can benefit.
The strongest positive reaction came from Marta Kos herself. In a public message, she said she appreciates Đokić’s commitment to defending the autonomy and dignity of the University of Belgrade. She added that universities must remain places of critical thinking and open debate, free from any form of intimidation, and described such a stance as important for Serbia’s democratic and European future. The meeting was therefore framed by supporters as part of a wider discussion on higher education, academic freedom and Serbia’s European path
The meeting, however, immediately drew criticism from Serbia’s state leadership. President Aleksandar Vučić said the EU had violated the principles of the rule of law, arguing that Đokić, whom he referred to as someone who had still not resigned as rector, had no right to engage in politics. Vučić specifically pointed to the reported agenda of the meeting and said it included discussion of political action, adding that he regretted that Đokić had not responded to an invitation from the Serbian president while responding to invitations from others. His reaction presented the Brussels meeting not as an academic event, but as evidence of political positioning.
Further criticism came from Labour Minister Milica Đurđević Stamenkovski, who said Đokić had grossly abused the principle of university autonomy for political action. She argued that after the meeting with Kos, all doubts had disappeared and that the rector had definitively appeared as a political actor. According to her statement, the principle of university autonomy had been used to create a kind of “diplomatic immunity” for Đokić’s political activity. She also said that a rector must not perform party functions or use the university’s position for party politics, even in the case of movements still being formed. In her view, discussion at the international level about elections, political stability and the country’s foreign-policy course erased the line between academic and political roles. She concluded that Marta Kos, instead of protecting him, had effectively given him a formal label as a political actor.
That same dilemma was pushed further in the wider media reaction. One report framed the controversy directly around the question of whether Đokić met Marta Kos as rector or as a politician, while legal commentator Petričković, as cited there, argued that if Đokić had entered the sphere of politics he should have resigned. Another cited criticism stated that the meeting represented a direct and flagrant violation and misuse of university autonomy, turning that autonomy into a political tool. These reactions built on earlier public debate about Đokić’s role, especially in light of previous statements, also cited in the criticism, that he would be ready to engage politically if that were requested by students in blockade and
citizens supporting them.
A meeting that moved beyond education policy
Taken together, the reports show that the Brussels meeting quickly outgrew the framework of education policy. On one side, the event was presented as part of a legitimate European discussion on university autonomy, academic dignity, Erasmus+, mobility funding and the future of higher education. On the other, it was portrayed by Serbian officials and pro-government voices as proof that Đokić had stepped into open political action while still holding the office of rector. The result was a sharp clash of interpretations in which the same meeting was seen either as a defense of academic autonomy and European values or as an improper politicization of the university’s institutional position.
