More than 400 members of the academic community at the University of Novi Sad, including professors and researchers from various faculties, have addressed the university Senate regarding the re-election procedure of associate professor of psychology Vladimir Mihić. Opposition-aligned coverage reports that the Senate is considering objections submitted by the dean of the Faculty of Sport and Physical Education, Patrik Drid, who allegedly questions Mihić’s political and moral suitability rather than his academic record, and that this has raised fears of a repeat of an earlier case involving professor Jelena Kleut, who was previously removed under what critics describe as a staged or “mounted” process.

Opposition-oriented outlets agree that the core issue is the potential departure from established academic criteria and university statutes in assessing Mihić’s re-election, particularly if his public statements and political views are treated as grounds for negative evaluation. They emphasize that the intervention by hundreds of academics is framed as a defense of institutional integrity, legal certainty, and academic freedom at the University of Novi Sad, highlighting broader concerns about political pressure on higher education and the need for clear, consistently applied rules to prevent arbitrary or politically motivated personnel decisions.

Areas of disagreement

Nature of the case. Opposition-aligned outlets portray the Mihić re-election controversy as a politically motivated intervention into academic procedures, describing it as part of a pattern of persecution at the University of Novi Sad. In the absence of explicit pro-government reporting cited, they infer that pro-government media would either minimize the case as an internal procedural matter or avoid framing it as political at all. Opposition sources stress the reference to Mihić’s public statements as proof that politics is central, while pro-government narratives, where they appear, tend to emphasize formal legality and internal autonomy of university bodies.

Role of university authorities. Opposition media present dean Patrik Drid and higher university bodies as instruments or conduits of broader political pressure, suggesting that objections to Mihić’s re-election mirror ruling-party priorities and prior controversial dismissals. Pro-government coverage, when it addresses similar cases, typically frames deans and senates as neutral institutional actors applying rules and quality standards, and would likely characterize Drid’s objections as part of routine oversight. The opposition side questions the legitimacy and motives of these authorities, whereas pro-government narratives lean on their formal authority and the presumption of procedural correctness.

Implications for academic freedom. Opposition-aligned reporting argues that the Mihić case threatens academic freedom across Serbian universities, warning that scholars may be punished for their public or political speech and drawing explicit parallels to the Jelena Kleut case. Pro-government-leaning messaging in comparable disputes tends to assert that academic freedom remains intact and that personnel decisions are based on performance, ethics, or institutional discipline rather than viewpoint discrimination. For opposition outlets this is a test case of whether critical academics can safely speak out, while pro-government narratives, where offered, usually present such fears as exaggerated or politically instrumentalized.

Scale and meaning of academic support. Opposition reports highlight the more than 420 signatories as evidence of broad, cross-faculty resistance to political interference and as a strong mandate for the Senate to adhere strictly to statutes. Pro-government-aligned discourse, in similar episodes, often downplays such letters as the action of a vocal minority or as being politically orchestrated, and would likely question whether they represent the wider academic body. Thus, opposition media interpret the petition as a protective shield for Mihić and academic standards, whereas pro-government narratives tend to relativize its significance and reframe it as part of a politicized campaign against institutional decisions.

In summary, opposition coverage tends to frame the Vladimir Mihić re-election process as a politically driven threat to academic freedom and institutional integrity, while pro-government coverage tends to normalize or downplay political dimensions, presenting university authorities as neutrally applying internal rules and treating broader criticism as overstated or politically motivated.