аЯрЁБс>ўџ XZўџџџWџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџьЅСa №П†%jbjb„,„, +4юNюNuџџџџџџˆЪЪЪЪЪЪЪN’’’8Ъ жN•Жіі       ,K R j:Ъ     : ЪЪ  O    Ъ Ъ   оD",ЪЪЪЪ    ЪЪ ъ ыЛ:Ц’   e0•    ЪNND’NN’Freedom and Hypocrisy Roy Harris When I was casting around for a title under which to bring together the few unoriginal remarks on academic freedom that I’d like to make, I could think of nothing as appropriate as ‘Freedom and Hypocrisy’. The hypocrisy in question strikes me ever more forcibly each week as I read my copy of ГЩШЫVRЪгЦЕ. It is the collective hypocrisy of a profession which bleats about the erosion of academic freedom while constantly devising for itself new instruments of intellectual tyranny. In brief, my thesis is that the current threats to academic freedom in this country in the sphere of higher education are threats in which the academic community itself is complicit. Or, put more trenchantly, I think that restrictions on academic freedom are not only what the academic community deserves but what it wants. I have only time to mention a few of them here. I want to say something about three in particular: – the academic complicity in specialization – the academic complicity in the glorification of peer review – the academic complicity in the funding lottery. These are not the most controversial examples. We have only recently learnt of the extent of academic complicity in the attempts to justify torture as an instrument of American foreign policy. But the three I have chosen will do for starters. These three feed into one another, and even if there were no others, between them they combine to make the whole prospect for academic freedom in this country very bleak. 1. Specialization. Anyone who reads the history of European and American universities since the 19th century will recognize the following scenario. The royal road to establishing any subject as an autonomous discipline is to start calling it a ‘science’, regardless of whether it is or not, and then provide it with an arcane jargon which no outsiders can understand. Then at least it sounds like science, because for the general public the hallmark of science is that it has an impenetrable language of its own. The classic case in the popular understanding of these things is medicine. You takes yer tablets and you respects what yer doctor says because you can’t understand a word of it. Specialization serves to erect an academic barrier behind which you and your colleagues can hide from external criticism. Better still, specialization precludes academic criticism because no one on the other side of the barrier has the jargon in which to formulate criticism that might be relevant. This is the raison d’ъtre of that other sacred cow of the academic world: the syllabus. The requirement of a self-respecting disciplinary syllabus is that it shall be formulated in terms which only those studying the subject can possibly be expected to understand. We are dealing here with a form of academic protectionism, and it trumps freedom of inquiry at every turn. Disciplines lose no time in setting up their own forms of orthodoxy. Why? Because, as Thomas Kuhn pointed out nearly half a century ago, most modern academics are a lot of sheep. That is really what Kuhn was driving at when he introduced the concepts of academic ‘paradigm’ and ‘normal science’. Most academics need an orthodoxy to cling on to, because they don’t have the intellectual originality to think ‘outside the box’. 2. Peer review. The role of peer review is to forestall the objection that research within the discipline is subject to no academic controls whatsoever. The safeguard provided is to ensure in advance that judge and jury are all on the same side. You don’t criticize your peers for fear that they might criticize you. But it’s not just fear of criticism. I once asked a distinguished European scholar working in an American university why he had never published anything critical of a particular theory in his field that I knew he disagreed with, but which was currently the orthodoxy in the department to which he himself belonged. His answer was blunt and to the point. ‘Every year,’ he said, ‘these guys fix my salary’. That is the financial underbelly of peer review. And the same back-scratching principle operates on a rather different level in so-called ‘Research Assessment’ exercises, and in fact in all those cases where academics willingly allow themselves to be recruited as advisers to serve on government bodies or as members of government committees. So we have reached a situation in which the upper echelons of university staff are in practice imposing government policies on the universities, rather than standing up for academic values against political pressure. 3. Funding. Why do academics behave in this way? The answer is ‘money’. It is not only that some research projects require an investment that individual institutions cannot afford. It is also that the academic institution itself has been re-educated into thinking like a business corporation, and individual academic careers are built on notching up an impressive number of large government grants, regardless of the intellectual quality of the research involved. It’s small wonder that in this race academic freedom comes in as an ‘also ran’. The dangers of making academic inquiry dependent on the support of the state and big business have of course been pointed out before by distinguished academics. Popper and Feyerabend are two names that spring immediately to mind. Last year a Nobel laureate, Robert Laughlin, published a book called The Crime of Reason, in which he documented the rate at which areas of research were becoming illegal. Because of patents taken out by international corporations and restrictions imposed by governments, original research in an alarming number of fields is becoming prohibited as a criminal activity for the independent researcher. What Laughlin did not point out was the extent to which these restrictions have come into being with the active or tacit support of the academics involved in those fields. They are complicit in what Laughlin calls ‘the criminalization of knowledge’. Laughlin himself simply draws attention to the remarkable complacency with which most academics regard the criminalization of other academics’ research. The fact is that Homo academicus is an unattractive species whose main goal in life is not advancing freedom of inquiry but the myopic pursuit of self-advancement. I say nothing of the academics who openly sell out to Mammon and hire their knowledge to the highest commercial bidder. Most of the current evils of the world, from the arms trade to the systematic destruction of natural resources, rely on technologies which would not exist but for the active collaboration of people with the highest academic qualifications. To sum up, then. If I am right, the problem of academic freedom is a problem caused by the fact that although every individual academic wants freedom for his or her own inquiries, the profession as a whole is structured so as to preclude that. And the majority of academics prefer to keep it that way, because the perceived benefits outweigh the disadvantages. In other words, there is an inherent contradiction between the goal of academic freedom and the professional interests of the supposed freedom-seekers. So next time you think of complaining about yet another erosion of academic freedom, just pause to ask yourself whether academic freedom is something your colleagues really want; and whether, if they got it, they would know what on earth to do with it. But I would like to end on a more positive note. As far as I am concerned, freedoms bring with them responsibilities. I believe that academic freedom is an important cause. But if we are to get the general public on our side in this campaign, we need to make it clear what public responsibilities we see academic freedom as entailing. Unless we treat that nexus between freedom and responsibility as a priority, and are prepared to debate it, we must not complain if the non-academic world thinks we have failed to understand academic freedom ourselves.  PAGE 1 $Ka  ~ „ JSъї WjFUu%w%x%~%%€%%‚%…%†%ѕьтьиьтьтьЮьЮьЮьтьФьОДОДЉДОЅьh;Q>h;Q>0JmHnHujh;Q>0JU h;Q>0Jht1Сh;Q>6CJhёЁh;Q>6CJh‚bžh;Q>6CJh~,oh;Q>6CJh~,oh;Q>CJh~,oh;Q>5CJ"#$ђѓW X М щ ( [ \ ћ ќ БВчшџгд()їїїїїђђђђђђђђђђђђђђђђђђђђђђђgd;Q>$a$gd;Q>u%…%ўў)клD E G"H"F#G#t%u%ƒ%„%…%†%њњњњњњњњњњњњјііњgd;Q>) 0:p;Q>А|. АШA!А"А#i$i%А ФЅ<@ёџ< NormalCJaJmH sH tH DA@ђџЁD Default Paragraph FontRiѓџГR  Table Normalі4ж l4жaі (kєџС(No List4@ђ4 ~,oHeader  ЦрР!4 4 ~,oFooter  ЦрР!.)@Ђ. ~,o Page Number†4џџџџџџ+Ѓџџ+Ѓџџ+Ѓџџ+Ѓƒ )Ї†dчЭ"#$ђѓWXМщ([\ћќБВч ш џ гд()клDEGHFGtuƒ‡˜0€€Ъ€˜0€€Ъ€˜0€€Ъ€˜0€€Ъ€˜0€€Ъ€˜0€€Ъ€˜0€€Ъ€˜0€€Ъ€˜0€€Ъ€˜0€€Ъ€˜0€€Ъ€˜0€€Ъ€˜0€€Ъ€˜0€€Ъ€˜0€€Ъ€˜0€€Ъ€˜0€€и Љ€˜0€€Ъ€˜0€€Ъ€˜0€€и Љ€˜0€€и Љ€˜0€€и Љ€˜0€€и Љ€˜0€€и Љ€˜0€€и Љ€˜0€€и Љ€˜0€€и Љ€˜0€€и Љ€˜0€€и Љ€˜0€€и Љ€˜0€€и Љ€˜0€€и Љ€˜0€€и Љ€˜0€€и Љ€˜0€€и Љ€˜0€€и Љ€˜0€€и Љ€˜0€€и Љ€˜0€€и Љ€˜0€€и Љ€˜0€€аЩ€š€€0†%)†%…% !џ•€џ@€UUPUU…f†@ @џџUnknownџџџџџџџџџџџџGTimes New Roman5€Symbol3 Arial ˆ№аh!ŠдІFЊе†лЂеfŒ№ 7™8 7Б№ЅРДД€4dкб&@№№џџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџЖ&HџџFreedom and Hypocrisy Rita Harrisўџ р…ŸђљOhЋ‘+'Гй0ДV˜ РЬифє  0 < H T`hpx€'Freedom and HypocrisyNormal Rita Harris20Microsoft Word 11.2@4(є'@ђV‚5йЩ@žћЛ.ПЩ@$3њъйЩŒ№G,UўџџџPICTU$JSџ џўhhr ŸЁђMSWD r Ÿ,кTimes New Romanк <.(ыС (ыљ (ы 1Ѕ-Ѕ,) -)Д  F-(:fFreedom and Hypocrisy-ќ +(:9 (ŠЯ -(л' Roy Harris-ќ +(лw (+Я *Q -(ЬС#When I was casting around for a tit-§Р:(Ьšl-)eџџ-џў§рџХ) -)under-§Р:)Ÿ -)whichџџ-џў§рџХ)Ћ -)to-§Р:)6 -)bringџџ-џў§рџХ)“ -)together-§Р:)ф -)theџџ-џў§рџХ)U -(Сfew unoriginal r-§Р:(ƒe-) marksџџ-џў§рџХ)Њ -)on-§Р:)F -)academi-§Р:)шc-)  freedomџџ-џў§рџХ)њ -)that-§Р:)h -)Iеdџџ-џў§рџХ)Q -§Р:)l-)ikeџџ-џў§рџХ)U -)to-§Р:)6 -)make,џџ-џў§рџХ)Љ -)I-§Р:) -(mС could think of nothing as approp-§Р:(mPr-)ia-§Р:)2t-)eџџ-џў§рџХ) -)as-§Р:): -)дFreedomџџ-џў§рџХ(m: -)and-§Р:)e -) Hypocrisyе.-ќ +(m  (ОС Ђ-Ёў %*P -)ДThe hypocrisy in questio(*n s-§Р:)Pt-)rikesџџ-џў§рџХ)‡ -§Р:)m-)7eџџ-џў§рџХ) -)ever-§Р:)x -)moreџџ-џў§рџХ) -)forcibly-§Р:)м -)eachџџ-џў§рџХ)€ -)week-§Р:)” -(_Сas I read my copy of (_Timesџџ-џў§рџХ)Ї -)ГЩШЫVRЪгЦЕ(_П. It is the colle-§Р:(_Mc-) tive (ЏСhypocrisy of a profes-§Р:(Џs-)ionџџ-џў§рџХ)Y -)which-§Р:)Ћ -)bleatsџџ-џў§рџХ)Ђ -)about-§Р:)› -)theџџ-џў§рџХ)U -)erosion-§Р:)Э -)ofџџ-џў§рџХ): -)acade-§Р:)Ÿm-)7icџџ-џў§рџХ)2 -(Сfreedom while con-§Р:(Эs-)tantlyџџ-џў§рџХ)ž -)de-§Р:)Bv-)$isingџџ-џў§рџХ)‡ -§Р:)f-)orџџ-џў§рџХ): -)itse-§Р:)`l-)fџџ-џў§рџХ) -)new-§Р:)u -)instrume-§Р:)ѓn-)$tsџџ-џў§рџХ). -)of-§Р:): -(PСinte-§Р:)hl-)lect-§Р:)du-)$alџџ-џў§рџХ)2 -)ty)6ranny. In brief, my th-§Р:(P–e-) sisџџ-џў§рџХ)I -)is-§Р:). -)th-§Р:)6a-) tџџ-џў§рџХ) -)the-§Р:)U -)currentџџ-џў§рџХ)Х -)t-§Р:)h-)$reatsџџ-џў§рџХ)ƒ -)to-џрu)6 -(ЁС academic fr-§Р:(Ёe-) edomџџ-џў§рџХ)› -)in-§Р:)6 -)th-§Р:)6i-)sџџ-џў§рџХ) -)country-§Р:)е -)i-§Р:)n-)$ theџџ-џў§рџХ)g -)sphere-§Р:)Ж -)ofџџ-џў§рџХ): -)higher-§Р:)В -) educationџџ-џў§рџХ(Ё  -)are-§Р:)U -(ёСthrea-§Р:)‹t-)sџџ-џў§рџХ) -)in-§Р:)6 -)whichџџ-џў§рџХ)Ћ -)the-§Р:)U -)academicџџ-џў§рџХ(ё -)co-§Р:)Bm-)7munityџџ-џў§рџХ)Х -§Р:)i-)ts-§Р:).e-) lfџџ-џў§рџХ)* -)is-§Р:). -)com-§Р:)xp-)$lic-§Р:)Ei-)t.џџ-џў§рџХ)% -)Or,-§Р:)\ -)putџџ-џў§рџХ)Y m-)Gore-§Р:)Y -(BСtrenchan-§Р:)№t-)ly,џџ-џў§рџХ)H -)I-§Р:) -)thinkџџ-џў§рџХ) -)that-§Р:)h -)re-§Р:)6s-)tri-§Р:)=c-) tio-§Р:)In-)$sџџ-џў§рџХ) -)on-§Р:)F -)academicџџ-џў§рџХ(B  -)fr).eedom are not only-§Р:(B e -(’Сwhat the academic commu-§Р:(’Ќn-)$ityџџ-џў§рџХ)I -)dese-§Р:)|r-)vesџџ-џў§рџХ)] -)but-§Р:)Y -)whatџџ-џў§рџХ)ˆ -)it-§Р:)& -)wants.-ќ +)Е (уС Ђ-Ёў %*P -)ДI have only time to men-§Р:(3t-)ionџџ-џў§рџХ)Y -)a-§Р:) -)fewџџ-џў§рџХ)i -)of-§Р:): -)themџџ-џў§рџХ)‹ -)here.-§Р:)Š -)Iџџ-џў§рџХ) -)want-§Р:)ˆ -)toџџ-џў§рџХ)6 -)say („Сsomet-§Р:)Іh-)$ingџџ-џў§рџХ)Y -)about-§Р:)› -)threeџџ-џў§рџХ)‹ -)in-§Р:)6 -)par-§Р:)Yt-)icul-§Р:)ha-) r-§Р:):-ќ +) Ђ-Ёў %(дС -)Да)# the academic comp-§Р:(дХl-)ic-§Р:)2i-)tyџџ-џў§рџХ)6 -)in-§Р:)6 -)specia-§Р:)Ўl-)ization-ў@f)Н Ђ-Ёў %(%С -)Да)# the academic comp-§Р:(%Хl-)ic-§Р:)2i-)tyџџ-џў§рџХ)6 -)in-§Р:)6 -)theџџ-џў§рџХ)U -)g)#l-§Р:)o-)$ri-§Р:)*f-)ica-§Р:)Qt-)ionџџ-џў§рџХ)Y -)of-§Р:): -)peerџџ-џў§рџХ)x -)review-ќ +)О Ђ-Ёў %(uС -)Да)# the academic comp-§Р:(uХl-)ic-§Р:)2i-)tyџџ-џў§рџХ)6 -)in-§Р:)6 -)theџџ-џў§рџХ)U -)funding-§Р:)й -)lott-§Р:)\e-) ry.-ќ +)L (ЦС Ђ-Ёў %*P -)ДThese are not the most controve-§Р:( єr-)si-§Р:).al-)4 examples.џџ-џў§рџХ( ™ -)We-§Р:)a -)haveџџ-џў§рџХ)„ -)only ( gС recently l-§Р:( gЦe-) arntџџ-џў§рџХ)l -)of-§Р:): -)theџџ-џў§рџХ)U -)exte-§Р:)tn-)$tџџ-џў§рџХ) -)of-§Р:): -)academicџџ-џў§рџХ( g' -)comp-§Р:)›l-)ic-§Р:)2i-)tyџџ-џў§рџХ)6 -)in-§Р:)6 -)theџџ-џў§рџХ)U -)att-§Р:)Ee-) mptsџџ-џў§рџХ)‡ -)to-џрu)6 -( ЗСjus-§Р:)Qt-)ifyџџ-џў§рџХ)M -)to-§Р:)6r-)tureџџ-џў§рџХ)l -)as-§Р:): -)anџџ-џў§рџХ)B -)instr-§Р:){u-)$mentџџ-џў§рџХ)‹ -)of-§Р:): -)America)№n f-§Р:)Lo-)$reignџџ-џў§рџХ) -)pol-§Р:)Yi-)cy.џџ-џў§рџХ)T -)But-§Р:)e -)theџџ-џў§рџХ)U -)three-§Р:)‹ -( С I have chosen will do for starte-§Р:( #r-)s.џџ-џў§рџХ)- T-)<hese-§Р:)| -)threeџџ-џў§рџХ)‹ -)feed-§Р:)x -)intoџџ-џў§рџХ)l -)one-§Р:)e -)another,џџ-џў§рџХ)у -)and-§Р:)e -( XСCeven if there were no others, between them they combine to make the-§Р:( X Z -( ЉСwhole prospect for acade-§Р:( Љ~m-)7icџџ-џў§рџХ)2 -)freed-§Р:)o-)$mџџ-џў§рџХ)6 -)in-§Р:)6 -)thisџџ-џў§рџХ)d -)country-§Р:)е -)veryџџ-џў§рџХ)| -)bleak.-ў@f)Љ -ќ +( љС Ђ-Ёў %*Q -)Д1. )G Specializa-§Р:( Jкt-)i)on)F. )$Anyoneџџ-џў§рџХ)о -)who-§Р:)y -)reaџџ-џў§рџХ)Ud-)"s-§Р:) -)theџџ-џў§рџХ)U -)history-§Р:)С -)ofџџ-џў§рџХ): -)European-§Р:( J  -)andџџ-џў§рџХ)e -( šСAmerican unive-§Р:( šr-)si-§Р:).t-)iesџџ-џў§рџХ)M -)sin-§Р:)Qc-) eџџ-џў§рџХ) -)the-§Р:)U -)19thџџ-џў§рџХ)| -)century-§Р:)б -)willџџ-џў§рџХ)l -) recognize-§Р:( šA -)theџџ-џў§рџХ)U -)f-§Р:)o-)$llowi-§Р:)n-)$gџџ-џў§рџХ)# -( ыС"scenario. The royal road to establ-§Р:( ыei-)s-§Р:)h-)$ingџџ-џў§рџХ)Y -)any-§Р:)e -)subjectџџ-џў§рџХ)Х -)as-§Р:): -)anџџ-џў§рџХ)B -) autonomous-§Р:( ы f -( ;Сdisci-§Р:)ƒp-)$lineџџ-џў§рџХ)h -)is-§Р:). -)toџџ-џў§рџХ)6 -§Р:)s-)tartџџ-џў§рџХ)\ -)ca-§Р:)>l-)lin)Ig -§Р:)5i-)tџџ-џў§рџХ) -)a-§Р:) -)дsci-§Р:)de-) nceе,џџ-џў§рџХ)Š -) regardless-§Р:( ;h -)ofџџ-џў§рџХ): -)whether-§Р:)с -)itџџ-џў§рџХ)& -§Р:)i-)sџџ-џў§рџХ) -)or-§Р:): -( ŒСFnot, and then provide it with an arcane jargon which no outsiders can *Punderstand. Then at least it ( мЦsounds)Т -§Р:)l-)ikeџџ-џў§рџХ)U -)science,-§Р:)п -)becauseџџ-џў§рџХ)н -)for-§Р:)Q -)theџџ-џў§рџХ)U -)general-џрu)Э -( -Сpublic the hal-§Р:( -=l-)markџџ-џў§рџХ) -)of-§Р:): -)scie-§Р:)ln-)$ceџџ-џў§рџХ)> -)is-§Р:). -)th-§Р:)6a-) tџџ-џў§рџХ) -)it-§Р:)& -)hasџџ-џў§рџХ)] -)an-§Р:)B -)impene-§Р:)Эt-)rableџџ-џў§рџХ)‹ -)l) anguage of-§Р:( - š -( }С2its own. The classic case in the popular understan-§Р:( }*d-)$ingџџ-џў§рџХ)Y -)of-§Р:): -)theseџџ-џў§рџХ) -)t)hin-§Р:)Yg-)$sџџ-џў§рџХ) -)is-§Р:). -( ЮСmedici-§Р:)Нn-)$e.џџ-џў§рџХ)1 -)You-§Р:)y -)takesџџ-џў§рџХ) -)ye)B0r tablets and you respects what yer doctor says (С+because you canеt understand a word of it. -ў`ё(u -ќ +(oС Ђ-Ёў %*P -)ДSpecial-§Р:)Эi-)za-§Р:)>t-)ionџџ-џў§рџХ)Y -)serves-§Р:)Ў -)toџџ-џў§рџХ)6 -)erect-§Р:)‡ -)anџџ-џў§рџХ)B -)ac-§Р:)>a-) demicџџ-џў§рџХ)Њ -)bar-§Р:)Yr-)ierџџ-џў§рџХ)I -)beh)e ind which (С0you and your colleagues can hide from external c-§Р:($r-)i-§Р:)t-)ici-§Р:)Es-)m.џџ-џў§рџХ)H -)Better-§Р:)Њ -)st-§Р:).i-)ll,џџ-џў§рџХ)8 -(`Сspecia-§Р:)Ўl-)iza-§Р:)Qt-)ionџџ-џў§рџХ)Y -) precludes(`b acad-§Р:)’e-) micџџ-џў§рџХ)h -§Р:)c-) ri-§Р:)*t-)ici-§Р:)Es-)mџџ-џў§рџХ)6 -)because-§Р:)н -)noџџ-џў§рџХ)F -)one-§Р:)e -)onџџ-џў§рџХ)F -)the-§Р:)U -)otherџџ-џў§рџХ)  €€џџ!r!r Ÿ! Ÿ! q!q ž! ž! p!p ! ! o!o œ! œ! n!n ›! ›! m!m š! š! l!l ™! ™! k!k ˜! ˜! j!j —! —! i !i –! –! h !h •! •! џўџ еЭеœ.“—+,љЎ0ш `hpx€ ˆ˜  Ј Ъ'7 к Freedom and Hypocrisy Title ўџџџ !"ўџџџ$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNўџџџPQRSTUVўџџџ§џџџYўџџџўџџџўџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџRoot Entryџџџџџџџџ РF€OС]ѓйЩ[€1TableџџџџџџџџWordDocumentџџџџџџџџ+4SummaryInformation(џџџџ#фVDocumentSummaryInformation8џџџџџџџџџџџџOCompObjџџџџџџџџџџџџXџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџўџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџўџџџџџ РFMicrosoft Word DocumentўџџџNB6WWord.Document.8