At the beginning of 2023, the news broke of Hungary’s exclusion from the European Union’s (EU) Erasmus teaching exchange program. It was part of a sanction against almost two dozen universities in that country, which could no longer receive funds and students. The same happened with the Horizon program, which finances research and development activities.

Was the Magyar nation no longer part of the EU? Did it mean a greater rift between Brussels and Budapest? More alarming than that: despite its magnitude, the news was little disseminated and discussed in the media of the old continent. For the rest of the world, it went almost unnoticed.

The onslaught against education in the Central European country is not the first from Brussels. When the migration crisis in 2015 pushed a human mass like never before in the history of the old continent over its borders, Budapest preferred national sovereignty rather than accepting the migrant quotas proposed by the bureaucrats of the regional bloc.

To clear up any doubts on the subject, I spoke with Rodrigo Ballester, leader of the Center for European Studies at Mathias Corvinus College, and Ministerial Commissioner for Higher Education in Hungary. A polyglot of Spanish origin and with extensive experience in the corridors of the EU, he advises Budapest in negotiations that are crucial for the future of the connection between the academy of the Central European country and the rest of the continent.

Here is my interview with Rodrigo.

What reasons did Brussels give for taking this step against Hungarian higher education institutions? What, from your perspective, motivated these actions?

Brussels’ excuse was a 2018 education reform that allows public universities that wish to do so to become public foundations, a status that gives them greater autonomy and public funds. There are two governing bodies of these universities: a rectorate made up of academic professors and a board of directors made up of personalities outside the academic world who do not deal with academic matters. The EU considers that these boards of directors constitute in themselves a conflict of interest and, therefore, are a threat to the “rule of law.” It is assumed that one day, they could have an impact on the management of European funds.

What is the point of this value judgment, this chain of assumptions? Initially, the pretext was that 10% of the members of these boards of directors were politicians — for example, ministers who were alumni or mayors who had a special relationship with the university. This is an argument that is difficult to sustain since it occurs in countless universities in Europe, especially after these 11 politicians resigned in February 2023. Even so, the sanctions were not lifted. This is therefore a totally fantastic argument (European grants are received directly by students or researchers, it is impossible to misappropriate them), is hypothetical (no Hungarian university has committed any infringement), and is legally arbitrary, since it magically assumes that the composition of a board of directors constitutes in itself a violation of the “rule of law.”

In short, it is collective punishment for hypothetical behavior, is textbook discrimination without prior investigation, is a violation of the presumption of innocence, and does not have a court ruling in the name of the rule of law. It is simply Orwellian.

What are the main consequences of the abolition of the Erasmus and Horizon programs for these higher education institutions, especially for their teachers and students?

Firstly, it is impossible for Hungarian teachers and students to travel to another European country with European funding, while European students, teachers, and researchers can come to Hungary. To give you an example that illustrates the sentiment and cruelty of the measure, I will tell you that despite the sanctions against Russia, Russian students are still eligible for the Erasmus program, Hungarians are not. In fact, any student in the world can benefit from this program, even if they come from the worst dictatorships in the world, with one exception: Hungarian students, who are members of the EU.

Secondly, the exclusion is a reputational damage for Hungarian universities and research centers, since some European universities have stopped all cooperation with them because of “what will they say” concerns.

It is a waste considering the quality of Hungarian higher education. It is one of the countries with the highest rate of Nobel prizes per capita in the world. Last year, for example, it won the prizes for physics and medicine. Hungary also has cutting-edge industries, for example, the largest factories for Audi, BMW, and Mercedes. Finally, Hungarian centers are being excluded from all European funding, not only from the Erasmus program.

However, these sanctions will not have the expected impact in Brussels. Hungary remains a very attractive country, with foreign students representing 15% of the total from over 130 nationalities, one of the highest figures in Europe. Hungary has top-level universities offering over 700 degrees in English, working closely with industry, at very competitive prices, and also is one of the safest countries in the world. In the long term, I fear that the reputational damage will be much greater for the EU than for Hungarian universities.

The news was scarcely reported and discussed in the media on the continent, even though it was a European political issue involving a member state of the bloc. Why do you think this is happening?

It is true that the news has gone unnoticed. Very few university professors in Europe are aware of it and the public largely does not know. Why? For several reasons. One of them is the saturation of negative or downright false news about the conservative government of Viktor Orbán.

This creates a conditioning of hostile public opinion towards Hungary, a kind of presumption of guilt, a media stigma for carrying out conservative policies that are not in tune with a certain single way of thinking.

The silence of the academic and university community in the face of such a notorious case of discrimination is also surprising. There is a striking indifference considering the propensity of so many students to protest for a host of causes. There is very selective indignation.

At this time, you are closely following the negotiations between the Hungarian government and the EU to discuss the exclusions. When did they begin? What is the climate that you perceive in the meetings?

First, it is worth remembering that there were no negotiations prior to the sanctions and that no one in the EU has come to Hungary to interview rectors, students, or professors to find out anything that was said. Once the sanctions were imposed, negotiations began in January 2023, a year and a half ago.

The impression I have is that the EU has no political will to find a solution and that it prefers to continue with the blackmail knowing that the damage has already been done and that the longer it lasts, the better. They have prostituted the notion of “rule of law” as the perfect excuse to hide a political vendetta by taking students hostage.

Has there been any progress?

So far, none. On the contrary, the exclusion came into force last July and is already effective. It has even reached a point where the European Commission has stopped replying to the last official letter from the Hungarian government in November 2023.

Despite this obstructionism, the Hungarian government plans to adopt a law to comply with most of the conditions imposed by the EU, including some over which the EU has strictly no competence. But the level of hostility towards Hungary is so visceral that I doubt that this legal reform will change a situation in which the specific causes of the sanction are not known beyond invocations of principles as generic as they are malleable.

Do you have a projected end date for the negotiations? Do you have hopes that the process will be reversed in favor of Hungarian students and universities?

Right now, the situation is even more stagnant because, after the European elections, the new Commission will not take office until December or January. Therefore, this academic year is lost and at the earliest, the situation will not be put back on track until September 2025.

But the real question is whether there is political will on the part of the EU to resolve the situation or, on the contrary, is it in its interest to maintain the ambiguity and the status quo to prolong a punishment that will most likely be declared illegal by the European court that has not yet ruled? If so, then the EU will have demonstrated that, for purely political reasons, it is capable of trampling on the rule of law and hijacking the future of students, ironically, in the name of the rule of law.