대학의 자율성과 국립대학 총장 임용 제도에 대한 헌법적 검토 -「교육공무원법」 제24조 제3항에 대한 비판적 검토를 중심으로-

As a key task of higher education reform, the need for and importance of changes in university governance are being highlighted, and the government is promoting the strengthening of the public nature of higher education and the expansion of university autonomy as national tasks. As the highest decision- maker and executive authority of national university governance, the election of the president is an important issue that can determine the success or failure of university operation from the perspective of national university governance. Currently, the appointment of the president of a national university is stipulated in Article 24 of the 「Educational Officials Act」 and Article 12-2 of the 「Decree on the Appointment of Public Educational Officials」, which requires the university to recommend at least two candidates for the position of president with the participation of university members (faculty, staff, and students), and the Minister of Education to appoint the candidates based on the recommendations, and the President appoints them. Most national universities choose the so-called “direct election system,” a selection method based on the agreed method and procedures of the university’s faculty, staff, and students. And every time they elect the president every four years, they argue over the proportion of votes reflected among university members, and they all cite ‘university autonomy’ as their main argument. University autonomy is a means to realize the basic principle of the Constitution, liberal democracy, and to guarantee academic freedom guaranteed by Article 22 of the Constitution. Therefore, in cases where the autonomy of a university is being disputed, it should be reviewed with a focus on the relevance to the academic research of university members. In this regard, the revision of Article 24, Paragraph 3 of the 「Educational Officials Act」, which adds ‘staff and students’ to faculty members by stating ‘a method agreed upon by the faculty, staff, and students of the university’ in relation to the method of selecting the presidential candidate, can be said to be a revision that runs counter to the guarantee of university autonomy. The same can be said of the movement to revise the voting reflection ratio, which mandates a student ratio of at least 50%. In order to realize academic freedom and university autonomy, it is time for the state to recall the basic principle of the cultural state principle of ‘supporting but not interfering.’