玩偶姐姐

Richard Olehlaprorektor pro akademickou kvalitu a internacionalizaci na Anglo-americk茅 vysok茅 拧kole

Many people who studied in Europe around the turn of the millennium will remember the film The Spanish Apartment (). It鈥檚 not just nostalgia that sweeps over us when we think of the story about Erasmus students in Barcelona. Setting aside the film鈥檚 artistic qualities, it brings back feelings of freedom, openness, and simply discovering the 鈥渨orld鈥� beyond our borders.

The program, established in 1987 to provide practical support for the values on which the European Union stands, has since grown into the largest international educational project in the world, and it still remains vibrant. It has evolved with the times and with students鈥� needs, now operating as Erasmus+. Feedback has also changed, and in recent years 鈥� alongside constructive criticism 鈥� one can also encounter voices claiming that the program is a 鈥淭rojan horse for 鈥� into the EU.

This stance is illustrated by Milan Mikuleck媒, a security-policy specialist who appears in a number of mainstream Czech media articles. Mikuleck媒 works with facts but frames them in a strikingly misleading and ideological way.

Mikuleck媒 and other commentators with similar views claim, for example, that the goal of expanding the program is to 鈥渟implify entry into the EU for students from countries with high migration鈥� which is to be achieved by increasing the funding planned in the next EU budget period beginning in 2028. They suggest that the European Union is effectively undermining itself by financing illegal migration and everything critics associate with it: rising crime, potential terrorism, and threats to traditional European values.

In reality, the situation is completely different. Erasmus+ is not an immigration mechanism; the program鈥檚 primary purpose is to support the mobility of students and educators among European countries. These exchanges are always short-term and require applicants to meet the academic institution鈥檚 admission criteria and, of course, to fully comply with the visa requirements of the host EU member state.

Opponents of like Erasmus+ also often object to public subsidies, arguing that the market should take care of such things. However, the Czech Republic benefits directly from Erasmus, for example, through support for university alliances and innovative projects. Thanks to Erasmus, Czech universities can collaborate with top European and global institutions which otherwise would barely notice their more modest Czech counterparts.

And then there are the supposedly 鈥減roblematic鈥� values that Erasmus+ is said to vehemently promote through its programs  in the current budget cycle. One area of activity includes supporting education, digital skills, and green competencies in partner countries in the southern Mediterranean, such as Tunisia, Morocco, Egypt, and others. The EU鈥檚 cooperation with these countries is actually intended to limit illegal migration into Europe.

The 2028鈥�2034 Erasmus+ program aims, among other things, to strengthen democratic participation and media literacy 鈥� skills increasingly emphasized not just in Europe, but worldwide. Reducing these issues, which are vital for Europe鈥檚 future, to some kind of migration agenda and to suggest that exchange-program participants are potential migrants whose stay in the EU is organized by smugglers is unfair, to say the least, and far from the point.

In fact, the claim is outright absurd. Erasmus+ has a transparent system of selecting applicants which each university organizes and which is subject to strict supervision by European and national authorities.

The current media criticism of Erasmus+, however appealing it may sound to the ears of a belligerent public, is not a professional analysis. Its purpose is not to raise new topics or improve the current situation with them, but to attract attention and mobilize the discontented. Unfortunately, this trend is growing not just in the media, but across public life.

This article was originally published in Czech by .