In this article I will attempt to answer the question of why systemic solutions to (social) problems of Polish economic migrants fail to be instituted in Poland by means of social negotiations. Therefore, while emphasising the social dimension of Polish migration, I briefly present its specificity and point to some associated threats. Referring to the category labelled as social problem, I demonstrate the nature of obstacles which prevent a debate on Polish migration in the area of social negotiations from taking root on public ground in Poland. I also refer to the mechanisms of degradation of the public sphere as those which are preventing the development of systemic solutions to the problems of Polish migrant workers by means of social negotiations.

The public character of school has recently been called into question more often. I examine the question given in the title in terms of three different aspects (juridical, institutional and performative), each of which is linked with a number of disturbing transformations of public schools (privatization of that which is public, re-feudalization, and commodification of education). By virtue of such an analysis and with reference to research on the essence of what is public, I make an attempt to formulate the key meanings of the public character of school.

Jürgen Habermas’ theory of the public sphere has provoked a massive reaction in European historiography in the last thirty years. However, methodological debates driven by the new questions that it inspired in Germany, England, or France had no equivalent in Poland and more broadly in Eastern Europe. This essay suggests why this might have been the case and argues for the deeper engagement of Polish historians with the Habermasian theory. In the text, I reintro-duce the aims of the theory of the public sphere and look for the possible roots of its lacklustre reception among Polish historians in the idea about the Polish case’s supposed incompatibility with the course of modern history assumed by Habermas. I argue against this view, emphasising the flexibility and open‑endedness of the main Habermasian concepts, as well as underlining the necessity for a specifically Polish answer to Habermas’ theoretical enterprise. In the final part, I present the opportunities brought by adapting the theory to the Polish case, claiming that the original history of the Polish public sphere could be a prospective topic for both Polish historians and other historians of the public sphere.

On a certain illusory strategy for survival.

Confronted with a natural tendency of marginalization national/ethnic minorities and immigrant communities respond by adopting two diverse strategies of showing their presence in the public sphere of the host country. Depending on the level of their integration and the goals they want to achieve, they can either stress their links (affinity) with the majority culture or the differences that mark them out. However, some minority communities succeed in achieving a distinctive presence in the public sphere already at the stage of launching its own media.

This article concerns the conditions for the institutionalization of open academic debate. The author focuses on the changes that have occurred over time in the seminar’s place in academic practice. She describes three types of seminars, from various eras in university history. In each case, the bases for the institutionalization of academic discussion were generally-held convictions as to what knowledge is and how it should be sought. Seminars legitimized academic debate. The examples provided—of the medieval university, Humboldt’s university, and the so-called entrepreneurial university—have various sources of legitimation: religion, the authority of scholarship, or the economic ‘usefulness’ of science (devoid of other authority). The author attempts to show that the sources of legitimation are reflected in the forms of the seminar’s institutionalization: the composition of the participants, the conversational rules (its public or closed character), and the transparency of academic knowledge.