University students, suffocated on campuses where spring festivals, events and concerts have been banned and clubs rendered inoperative, are venting their pent-up grievances at graduation ceremonies. We spoke to Dr Hakan Yücel, a lecturer at Galatasaray University, about how graduation ceremonies across every corner of the country have turned into venues for protest.

What was your initial assessment when you witnessed the events at these graduation ceremonies? What might have fuelled these protests?

Recent events at graduation ceremonies can be assessed in the context of the political arena being closed to youth participation, university administrations generally lacking a participatory approach, campuses having drifted far from being student-centred, and, of course, the absence of the right to entertainment—which should be a fundamental right.

Unfortunately, youth are not given a place in institutional politics in our country. The proportion of MPs under the age of 40 in the Grand National Assembly of Turkey is just 10 per cent. When we narrow this down to those under 30, we see that the figure is around 1 per cent. Despite the voting and eligibility age having been lowered to 18, this has had no practical impact. This figure alone demonstrates just how weak the presence of youth in institutional politics is. The situation in local government is not much different.

In an environment where youth are absent, their issues cannot be addressed in a concrete manner. Good intentions alone are not enough; those directly affected by the problems must also be included in the decision-making process. Youth face numerous problems, and the political arena is where these issues should be resolved. Yet they are virtually absent from that sphere. Consequently, when institutional politics fails to make room for youth and their issues, social movements come to the fore. When social movements—and the communication efforts arising from protests—are not taken seriously and are viewed with suspicion, the space for dialogue narrows considerably, and crises deepen. We can describe today’s youth not only on a social but also on a global scale as a multi-dimensional ‘generation of crises’.

The second point concerns how campus life is structured at a time when around 40 per cent of the young population – that is, almost one in every two young people – are university students. In parallel with the rise in student numbers, restrictions on students’ campus life have also intensified.

This contradiction constitutes a crisis situation and is the reason for students’ alienation from university. In my view, these problems are felt even more acutely in secondary schools. Student protests that occasionally arise in established secondary schools require separate consideration, as the situation is not only more severe but the tension with the disciplinary system is also deeper.

Restrictions on campus life, and bans on festivals and celebrations, should be regarded as violations of the ‘right to enjoyment’—a fundamental right that should be recognised, particularly for youth. It is worth noting that the dimming of campus life as students engage in fewer leisure activities coincides with a decline in academic output and a deterioration in the quality of teaching. Daily life is a crucial arena for youth to resist and realise their potential. One of the most fundamental elements of social movements is the reactions to restrictions in daily life, and acts of resistance—sometimes vocal, sometimes silent and indirect… Asef Bayat beautifully conceptualises this situation as ‘demanding youth’ based on his observations centred on the Middle East.

As long as social problems remain unresolved, the reactions of those affected will not cease. Protests will not end until the issues raised during them are resolved. Where there is social potential, it will emerge in one form or another.

In my view, it is possible to evaluate all protest examples within two contexts: raising issues and taking a place amongst the actors who resolve them. The reality that older people need to recognise is this: young people are not merely voicing certain concerns and grievances. They are also demanding to be involved in decision-making processes. You cannot satisfy youth simply by listening to their grievances. It is also necessary to make decision-making mechanisms participatory—that is, more democratic. In fact, what we call a ‘generational conflict’ is, at its core, a conflict over the sharing of regime power. The solution to this tension lies in ensuring participation. When participation in decision-making is ensured, not only are issues better understood because they are raised directly by those affected, but decisions taken in a participatory manner are also embraced by everyone. Decisions taken through democratic methods may not necessarily be the most correct ones (though they often are), but they will be the most widely accepted. This is a significant contribution to social consensus.

Is it possible to explain the failure to voice these and similar reactions throughout the year solely by citing repression? How are youth's basic demands taking shape?

In my view, the most fundamental demand of youth is to be taken seriously. Whilst youth's demands for respect and participation are growing, communication channels are weakening.

As the climate of repression becomes entrenched, various strategies and tactics are employed to voice these demands. By this I do not necessarily mean choosing the safest or least risky option, but rather the most feasible one. What cannot be expressed in lectures or meetings is, where possible—and with the associated costs accepted—voiced at graduation ceremonies. These ceremonies are perhaps the only opportunity where students, university lecturers, administrative staff, students’ families and the media come together. Moreover, intervention is more difficult compared to a protest.

Generally speaking, if one sphere of society is closed off, people turn to another. For example, if there is pressure in the political sphere, the realm of humour gains strength and becomes politicised. Even in very democratic and stable countries, humour in general—and political humour in particular—tends to be weak.

In fact, graduation ceremonies should be, in the narrowest sense, moments when politics takes a back seat, serving as enjoyable events where wishes and emotions take precedence over demands. In times when problems are not escalating, it is expected that graduating students will spend their time deciding what to wear at the graduation ceremony and the ball, rather than planning which banners to prepare or how to express their protests. This is what is expected and what ought to be the case, but it can only happen if all stakeholders at the university or school meet frequently to discuss issues and make decisions together. Otherwise, society will not tolerate a vacuum.

Now that the agenda is so packed and the issues so weighty, every sphere can become politicised. In one of our field studies, a young person told us that even dating platforms had been caught up in this politicisation, remarking, ‘We’re even talking politics on Tinder.’ If politics is not practised sufficiently in the political arena, it will be practised on Tinder. Society is like that: when one door closes, another is forced open.

Note: This article is translated from the original article titled Gençliği talep etmek, published in BirGün newspaper on July 23, 2026.