This year, the issue that captured the attention of students, professors, and staff at CBNU was undoubtedly the Glocal University 30 Project. CBT has consistently covered and reported on this issue since April. Our coverage includes the initial glocal briefing session held on July 3 for students, 6 small-scale briefing sessions, demonstrations by the student council and the Student Coalition Against Integration, coverage of the public debate on Sept. 1, and on-site reporting during the voting period on Sept. 19-20.

  The core of the glocal project lies in the integration with the Korea National University of Transportation (KNUT). On June 20, CBNU was designated as a candidate for the project, and it became evident through media coverage that the entire student body had applied for the project under the premise of integration with the KNUT. Many students expressed anger and disappointment on getting to know about integration, not from the CBNU itself but through the media. On July 3, CBNU held its first-ever glocal briefing session for regular students. During the session, officials acknowledged that there had not been sufficient persuasion and explanation regarding the university’s autonomy in the decision-making process. Even when questioned about the urgency by the Ministry of Education and asked whether CBNU would consider applying for the project next year, they emphasized their commitment to the project. Despite of vacation, over 500 students attended, and there were numerous voices of criticism. I pointed out the rushed integration and the lack of consultation among members, questioning the reasons for not seeking support independently. The president responded by stating that CBNU is relatively small among national universities and needs to grow in size. He denied intentionally scheduling the briefing during vacation when fewer students were present. During the session, students raised practical issues such as the university name, overlapping departments, re-locations, and graduation requirements. However, clear answers were elusive.

  Subsequently, during vacation period, 6 small-scale briefing sessions were held. CBT collected questions from students, presented them on their behalf, and reported summaries and analyses of the sessions. However, meaningful discussions on the project were hard to come by. The strong determination of CBNU to push forward and the loss of trust in the previous process were seen as the reasons. Additionally, non-local students found it challenging to participate due to the scheduling during vacation. In the end, these sessions, attended by around 15 students each, became more of promotional events celebrating what had been DONE. After the final public debate on Sept. 1, no more sessions were held.

  CBNU explains the need for integration with KNUT based on the Research to Find Future Development Plans for CBNU report conducted by the Faculty Council as representative statistical evidence. I was curious about this data that I encountered at every session. However, students can not access to this research report. Through a phone call with the faculty council, I received an answer that a meeting must be held at the faculty council to provide the report, and I was able to receive it the next day. In addition to the statistical data, we were able to confirm detailed and diverse opinions from professors. Such as, “For the preparing future development plans, the survey itself is poor,” “The president represent members, not make own decisions,” “Important agendas such as integration with KNUT are being carried out without sharing with general professors,” “Please. Really think about our future. Think of the people who will bear all this conflict, not the people who will leave in 5 years. Why are you trying to sell us at a discount? Leave the current universities alone for the sake of diverse education in this area. Do not throw away those who came with hope,” “Honestly, there is talk about integration with KNUT, but I wonder if professors know where KNUT is and what it does,” “If we bring it down to KNUT’s level, top students will go to Chungnam National University, the metropolitan area, or other university where they live, and the university’s ranking will fall further. Do not drag down our self-esteem. Only when research becomes the foundation will future preparations and other things become possible.” CBNU’s explanations make it seem as if most professors are in favor of integration. However, there were voices of criticism and concern even within the professorial community.

  What I perceived to be serious during the reporting, was the CBNU’s communication. They cite the faculty council report but hide the opinions of professors and present only statistical data. This is proof that the members are not taken into consideration. The same goes for students. They even missed information on canceled schedules. The 6 briefing sessions was held on vacation when out-of-town students were not in the area, and because of this, the attendance rate was naturally low. However, after the semester started, they did not hold sessions due to the low attendance on vacation. Therefore, all of these were for external propaganda communication.

  As CBNU was finally selected as a glocal university on Nov. 13, they must hold detailed integration discussions with partner amid opposition from members and internal conflict. If CBNU does not improve its communication methods, it is obvious that it will face difficulties in integration.