The Ministry of Education and Training is currently seeking feedback on the second draft of the amended Higher Education Law. Article 13 of the draft proposes abolishing university councils at member institutions within national and regional universities.

At the roundtable discussion “Consultation on the Higher Education Law: Should dual-level university councils be kept or abolished?” hosted on July 10 by Phap Luat TPHCM, Dinh Duc Tho, Deputy Editor-in-Chief, explained that national and regional universities in Vietnam are governed by a two-tier model. This includes a university-wide council and an individual council at each member university. In theory, this model links system-wide strategic direction with the autonomy of each institution. In practice, the coexistence of both tiers has raised some concerns.

According to Tho, the proposed removal of member university councils is a major issue that must be carefully considered. It is not simply an organizational change but a strategic decision that directly affects institutional autonomy, governance mechanisms, and the unique development of each university. It also has far-reaching implications for national human resource quality.

Professor Le Minh Phuong, Chair of the University Council at HCMC University of Technology, emphasized that their institution was the first within the Vietnam National University HCMC system to organize its university council in compliance with the 2018 Higher Education Law. Their council has 25 members from diverse sectors, meets regularly, and makes strategic decisions through transparent voting processes.

Phuong expressed concern about the draft’s clause stating, “Higher education institutions under the Ministry of National Defense, Ministry of Public Security, and member universities of national or regional universities shall not establish university councils.”

“This directly contradicts the principle of university autonomy enshrined in the 2018 law and in Party Resolutions 19 and 29,” he said. “Imposing a model without university councils effectively strips away core autonomy in organizational governance.”

Phuong proposed revising Article 13 to ensure all higher education institutions - regardless of affiliation - retain equal autonomy rights. He recommended preserving the university council model outlined in the 2018 law for all civilian universities. Furthermore, any changes to the law should be based on broad surveys, scientific data, and independent impact assessments, not speculative reasoning.

Independent structures, not hierarchical  -  no need for removal

Associate Professor Dr. Doan Thi Phuong Diep, Head of Legal Affairs at the University of Economics and Law (Vietnam National University HCMC), emphasized that whether to retain the dual-council model must be addressed from both legal and practical perspectives. She noted that the model emerged from the 2012 Higher Education Law and was clarified further in the 2018 amendments and Decree 186. However, referring to them as “two levels” is misleading, as the councils are not hierarchical but independent governance entities within the same academic system.

The university council at each member institution functions as the highest governing body at the school level. The overarching university council, in contrast, focuses on strategic, system-wide issues without directly overseeing or managing individual schools. If member university councils are abolished, shifting all governance functions to the university-wide council would be impractical and legally inconsistent.

Diep pointed out that the current Higher Education Law offers a progressive structure by balancing governance with oversight, feedback, and community engagement. It affirms the university council as the highest governing authority within a school. The council does not operate full-time, so it is not financially burdensome, yet it provides a vital “counterbalance” to ensure transparency and improve university management quality.

Eliminating university councils would undermine institutional autonomy and run counter to modern trends in higher education governance globally.

Sharing the same view, Assoc. Prof. Dr. Le Tuan Loc, Chair of the University Council at the University of Economics and Law, said the draft law fails to distinguish between national, regional, and other types of universities, treating them as one category.

He argued that the law must differentiate among “university,” “university system,” and “university institution” concepts, as these directly affect the structure and role of both university-wide and school-level councils. Genuine autonomy, he stressed, begins at the member university level.

Loc affirmed that university councils, composed of representatives from various sectors, are vital for ensuring objectivity and sound decision-making.

“If these councils are functioning well, there’s no reason to eliminate them. Removing them would overload the university-wide council, reduce responsiveness, and increase bureaucracy. It’s better to retain the councils at member universities and introduce reforms to improve their effectiveness,” he suggested.

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Doan Duc Luong, Rector of the University of Law – Hue University, also argued that member university councils are indispensable governance institutions. He emphasized that member universities are fully fledged higher education institutions with the same functions and responsibilities as any university, and therefore require their own governance councils.

Le Huyen