Protesting with our Jaffna colleagues – a personal experience

Dr. Madhava Meegaskumbura, A member of the Science Teachers Association, University of Peradeniya

I was not planning to go to Jaffna protest by the academics, not by choice, but circumstances effectively prevented it, but later I found a way.

Three busses from the University of Peradeniya were travelling to Jaffna, a distance of over 300 km. One of them starting from the Faculty of Engineering, second from the Faculty of Agriculture and the third from the Faculty of Arts. From all other universities, journeys were being planned. Enthusiasm to go to Jaffna was immense; to protest in Jaffna.

University teachers had protested vigorously over the last two months. They had held placards, walked in processions in sweltering heat, got covered in dust while breathing in noxious diesel fumes. They also held a series of public rallies, where prominent academics expressed their views, at last telling the people of this country the truth. The truth about the deterioration of our higher education, brain-drain, shifting of priorities, poor governance, degradation of the values we held dear and the total denigration of academic community. They are also told the masses about the truth about broken promises. Promises broken so blatantly and unashamedly that it has helped to galvanize even the group of gentle university teachers, into action.

Peradeniya Engineers as usual were taking the practical approach, to also gain a cultural experience, while supporting the protest, and they were leaving early morning a day before the day of the protest. Apart from Engineering folks, two Professors from the Science Faculty and two from the Dental Faculty were travelling with them. Agriculture bus was leaving mid day, together with some lecturers from the Vet and Medical faculties, the same day as the Engineers. Arts faculty bus was leaving at late night, planning to travel throughout the night, starting from the famous Arts Theater at 10.00 PM.

The call for the protest was so enticing that I effectively gave up on my commitment at 9.00 PM, “come what may, I am going to Jaffna”. This left me just one hour to catch the Arts faculty bus to Jaffna. I gave a call to Dr. Ananda Jayawickrema asking him if there was space in the bus; and he said, “lets go somehow”. I knew I was pushing his hand and that the buss was absolutely full, but I could not give up the idea of going to Jaffna, the place to protest.

When I reached the bus, young Arts Faculty lecturers were loading up the large 50 seater bus with large bundles. I found out that these were books containing a compilation of selected articles from the nearly 250 articles written in all three languages that were published on the issue of higher education reforms, within the last two months. This book was launched a couple of weeks ago in the protest rally held in Anuradhapura. These books were being taken to Jaffna, for sale.

The hope of getting some sleep was soon dashed, as soon as the bus started, a lively academic discussion ensued, literature of various sorts was flying all over the bus. Travelling with academics was fun, but one has to forget the word relaxing.

After several hours of travel through the night, the bus was stopped in Omanthe. A young soldier got into the bus to check our identities. The lectures were chatting friendlily to him and he was enjoying that while doing his duty. They probably knew of us, and the purpose of our travel, as several busses coming from Sri Jayawardenapura and other universities had already passed through the Omanthe checkpoint.

When we passed through the checkpoint at Omanthe. I gave a call to my comrade in arms, a call (he went to all previous protests, but could not go for this one as his wife was heavily and absolutely pregnant), but it was nearly 2.00 AM, and he was sleeping, I sent him a text message “Machan, I am in Omanthe”. This would later surprise him as he thought I was not going.

We had coffee at “Dawood”, a night-stall bordered by a 50 m clearing, bordered by a scrub forest. Coffee was saturated with sugar and it livened up the discussion, Dr. Amarakeerti Liyanage, Prof. Keerawella and I had a brief discussion on pseudo-nationalism, under the half-moon, by the shrub jungle, breathing in the dust unsettled by construction and passenger vehicles that came into get their sweet poison at the Dawood.

There was an amazing amount of traffic on A-9 highway even at 3.00 am. Clearly this depicted positive energy that had been dormant for a long time. This was not the dark energy that flowed through this very road, many years ago. The dark energy flowing with the intention of maiming, killing, and destructing, strangely however with the intention of freeing a group of people. The positive energy we welcomed, we were a small part of that, flowing towards Jaffna. We were ambassadors of liberal democracy and education, hoping to reform the higher education in all of Sri Lanka. Over the last several months, this positive energy trickled from Jaffna to Kandy, Matara, Colombo and Anauradhapura. Now it was flowing back, gushing, inundating Jaffna! It felt good, when we got back into the bus, to be hit by more of academic discussion.

Morning broke when we were plying through Elephant Pass, the strategically important bottleneck to Jaffna where bitter battles were fought, to gain meters of land at the expense of hundreds of human lives. The early morning sun that arose was blood red, fittingly giving a solemn color to the sacrifices that were made on the narrow stretch of land.

Before Jaffna, one of our lady lecturers from Jaffna arranged some tea for us, it consisted of Jaffna Hoppers and Coffee. Jaffna hoppers are basically two hoppers with their faces put together with some sweet some coconut milk in the middle, it was so good. Later we stopped for a full breakfast arranged by another one of our lecturers. It was just wow, and as an added bonus it was vegetarian too (!): Iggli, Indiappam, Dhosa, several curries infused with Jaffna spices, Mango and Jack fruit. Hospitality, was out of this world. Later I was told by other parties that travelled independently from the south, of similar experiences.

Then some of us left for the FUTA (Federation of University Teachers Association) executive committee meeting at the Green Grass Hotel, near the famous station road, in Jaffna. This went on for about two hours in which plans were horned to take our struggle forward. Lunch was organized by the University teachers of Jaffna University, and again, there was a vegetarian stand, well away from the “normal” stand; something that I am yet to witness anywhere else in Sri Lanka.

After lunch, we walked over to the famous Jaffna Railway station, the gathering point for all of us, the people who deeply cared about higher education in Sri Lanka. By proxy FUTA was also here, as now there is hope to reform education in Sri Lanka. About a thousand attendees observed the ruins of the Jaffna railway station, there was no roof, a blast had lifted one of the floors, making it into a dome like structure, when you walk out of the opening that says “first class only”, you come on to the platform, in the wide ditch beyond, there are no railway tracks or the sleepers. All of them had been exchanged between initially the LTTE and the Army several times over, to make bunkers. The nearest functional track is 135kms, that is nearly 3 hours away, in Omanthe. So it will be a while before Jaffna will see a train again, but before they see a train, they will hopefully see education reforms in Sri Lanka.

The protestors had placards, urging the government to attend to our demands, disparaging the higher education politicians and the political appointees (UGC, CVCD) for their lack of foresight (except perhaps a very few) and suppression of our TU action. The procession was important for several reasons. It was the one of the first protests done by University Academics in Jaffna; and it was one of the biggest.

The police and the army were present, not more than that was seen in Colombo or Anuradhapura. I would say at a similar strength. Our folks gave handouts to them also, and some of our more adventurous lecturers would ask them questions: “aren’t you going to arrest us?”, “why don’t you join us”, “EGB ekak bomuda?” ect. to which most of them smiled. They cleared up the road for us, to go from the station to the Weerasingham hall, through Jaffna city center.

Weerasingham hall was fabulous. I would say it was the largest and the best halls where we had our seminars. Its high ceilings, long fans, wide stage were reminiscent of a golden era in Jaffna, but there were also signs of huge air conditioners being put up, hopefully being the positive signs of another golden era, yet to come.

The speakers were at their best, and it inspired and motivated the listeners. All of them had a message specifically for the higher education in Jaffna. Many believed that a better higher education was would also facilitate liberal democracy in the region, and Sri Lanka.

Predictably, some of the folks got a bit nervous by about 6.00 and started leaving the hall in small groups, especially the ladies. They had to leave to get their busses back to their homes. This again depicted that everything was not really Oojah-Cum-spiff. There was still a bit of nervousness amongst the locals. It was time for us to leave too.

I made a jump from the Arts bus to the Engineering bus, just so that I could also get a feeling of their mood. There was young energy within the bus. They wanted to make the universities in Sri Lanka the best, but the problems we had to overcome were monumental. But talking to them, one can see that overcoming these are possible. There is hope, as they absolutely understand the problems, and have not just one, but several alternative answers to a problem. But would they get a chance to realize their true potential?

We were again moving through the night, having accomplished our mission, with two of my most respected Professors sitting by me, slowly nodding themselves into half-sleep. One of them, will retire soon, these salary revisions and the education reforms that we are asking for will not benefit them at all. They are truly in this struggle for the future generations, they need to make sure that education in Sri Lanka is in good hands, and that it will prosper, driving Sri Lanka back into a golden era.

The government must realize that it is the will and future of our nations potential do to constructive work for the nation that is being diffused and dissipated on the streets and seminar halls of Kandy, Matara, Colombo, Anuradhapura and Jaffna. We are not just fighting to increase our salary, we are fighting to enhance and sustain the university system in Sri Lanka. Hence we are fighting to make Sri Lanka better, nobody can blame us for that, I hope…

Arsenic, Gods and Science: Another Opinion

Arsenic, Gods and Science: Another Opinion

Monday, 11 July 2011 00:00

I have recently read with great interest the response of Prof. Nalin de Silva, of the University of Kelaniya, to the statement issued by the Sri Lanka Association for the Advancement of Science (SLAAS). Also interesting was the article published in the Sunday Times of July 3rd, in which Prof. Priyani Paranagama justified the use of “divine intervention” in scientific discovery. I would like to offer the following comments.
Actually, there is little one can say about Prof. de Silva. Although a Dean of Science at a major university, he is not a scientist, but a mathematician. He openly despises science, always qualifying the word with the adjective “western.” He believes that the West is using “western” science to “suppress” us. He further states that the SLAAS represents this presumably evil, colonialist, western science in Sri Lanka, but then boasts of his life membership in it. He clearly does not understand how science works, and believes that it is acceptable, in his version of science, to collaborate with a god. He claims that it was because of this collaboration that his group did not publish theft results; did the god decline to be named as a co-author?
Prof. de Silva challenges the President of the SLAAS to a debate about western science. I would love to see such a debate take place, but I doubt that it will. There must be some common ground, some shared assumptions, before a debate can take place. As a member of the SLAAS, I do not think that the SLAAS accepts that there is such a thing as “western” science, as opposed to any other kind. Also, millions of people in the country, including many scientists, do not even believe in the god Natha. Perhaps they may be forgiven for wondering what those who claim to be in communication with Natha are drinking or inhaling!
Prof. de Silva is well known to espouse views that the SLAAS has diplomatically been characterised as “eccentric.” There are many people like that, though not all are Deans of Science. They play a certain role in society, as a source of public entertainment. However, society needs to be wary when they are in a position to influence public policy. As the leader of a research group that includes Prof. Paranagama, Nalin de Silva is in just such a position.
Unlike Prof. de Silva, Prof. Paranagama has the credentials of a serious experimental scientist. I was therefore deeply disappointed to read about her defence of the use of “divine intervention” in science, by reference to purely private and personal actions like invoking blessings of gods upon the purchase of a new car or building a new house. People are entitled to be as superstitious as they please in their private lives. Science, especially science that may influence public policy, is another matter.
Science works! That is why it is widely accepted. Both its success and its acceptance are due to certain basic features, two of which are objectivity and reproducibility. This means that a scientist must approach a problem in an unbiased manner, and whatever results he or she achieves, another scientist must be able to reproduce, or else those results are worthless. A scientist who claims guidance by a god, in whom she presumably has faith, is unlikely to be objective even when using scientific methodology, since there would be a probable bias towards confirming the god’s predictions. Indeed, this has happened. A scientist who boasts of divine inspiration (as opposed to, say, a dream), even if merely as the source of an idea, must be aware that other scientists and members of the public, who may not share her belief in that particular god, will view her results with suspicion. This too appears to have happened. While not invalidating her results, it does increase her burden of proof. Finally, a scientist’s results must be reproducible by others. So far, Prof. Paranagama’s results have yet to be confirmed by accredited laboratories, such as the Industrial Technology Institute. Taken together, all of this not only casts doubt on the conclusions proclaimed by her, but may permanently tarnish her reputation as a credible scientist.
Prof. Paranagama expresses surprise at being ridiculed for seeking “divine intervention” in support of her research. She should have expected nothing less. Not only scientists, but even members of the Sri Lankan public, who are in general quite religious, understand that science and the supernatural do not mix.
Most members of the public will probably be uninterested in this arcane discussion of what science is and how it should be done. They naturally want answers. I cannot give them answers. I can only comment on how the answers given to them have been obtained, and how much confidence I have in them, as a scientist so, as far as arsenic is concerned, let me stick my neck out and say that I have confidence in the answers provided by the accredited laboratory at the Industrial Technology Institute. Those are very likely the best answers available in Sri Lanka.
Dr. R.D. Guneratne
University of Colombo

Non-profit, not-for-profit or for-profit universities

July 15, 2011, 7:09 pm

OG. Dayaratna-Banda (PhD.)
University of Peradeniya

Government has seemingly decided to embark on further liberalizing higher education sector along a patchwork process commenced in 1978 for getting private sector to provide higher education. Market mechanism partially works in training of skilled workers so that private and public provision of higher education can co-exist. The attempt of government appears to have been to allow those who are able to pay to buy higher education by widening the options available to seekers of higher education. Accessibility for bachelor’s degrees may be broadened as there are a large number of qualified students seeking higher education. However, what is the appropriate institutional model for provision of higher education?

For the purpose of widening higher education opportunities, Sri Lanka needs to choose an appropriate institutional model. However, government has not still clarified proposed institutional model to the people of Sri Lanka. Three different models are available for the policymakers. They are: for-profit private universities, non-profit public and private universities, and not-for-profit public and private universities. First, since the introduction of free university education, Sri Lanka practiced a non-profit public university system. Internal undergraduate education was fully funded by the state. Since 1978, universities in Sri Lanka have been selling postgraduate degrees/diplomas, undergraduate diplomas/certificates through external mode in diverse fields. This allowed universities to recover part of their cost while broadening their mission in higher education. Second model is the not-for-profit private or public universities. In this system, universities charge tuition and other fees from students meaning that students pay to get a postgraduate/undergraduate degree/diploma. Grants, loans, or scholarships are given to the students from low income families. Other revenue sources are donations and government funds. However, the net revenue (revenue minus expenditure) is not distributed as dividends or profits to the owners or shareholders. The net revenue is, in fact, reinvested as scholarships, fellowships, chair professorships, quality improvement activities, and subsidies to the needy etc. Third model is a system of traditional for-profit universities. So, for-profit university/institute is similar to any manufacturing firm producing goods such as sausages and garments etc. In order to analyze the feasibility of different models of higher education, I will examine the U.S. system of universities which is one of the best university systems in the world.

In the United States, there are public and private non-profit/not-for-profit universities, and private for-profit universities. Approximately 2,200 colleges and universities offer bachelor’s degrees in the U.S. Although more than two-thirds of these are private non-profit institutions, the majority of students attend public universities. The smallest percentage of students attends for-profit private higher education institutes in the U.S. In the fall of 2007, there were 15 million students enrolled in degree-granting undergraduate programmes in the U.S. Nearly 80% of these students were studying at public universities, which are known as state universities in the U.S, that were founded and operated by state governments. Every U.S. state has at least one public university to its name, and the largest states have more than thirty. In the non-profit/not-for-profit universities, needy students are either subsidized or exempted from fees. A large number of scholarships are available for students from within the state. More affluent students pay for their higher education while the poor and the middle class get free education to a large extent. There are also not-for-profit private universities in the U.S. This model has enhanced the freedom of choice of higher education in the U.S.

In the model of not-for-profit universities, charities and endowments are performing a central role in the financial health. This is one of the salient features of the most U.S. universities. Without depending too much on government funds, most universities have established endowment funds, which were created through donations. This is one of the leading financial sources of spending in the universities of the United States. The size of endowments in U.S. universities is huge. For instance, in 2010, the endowment of Harvard University was about $ 27.5 billions, of Yale University was about $ 16.6 billions, of Princeton University was about $ 14.3, and of University of Texas at Austin was about $ 14 billions. Endowments represent money or other financial assets that are donated to universities or colleges. The sole intention of the endowment is to invest it, so that the total asset value will yield an inflation-adjusted principle amount, along with additional income for further investments and supplementary expenditures. Colleges and universities are frequently controlling an endowment fund that funds a significant portion of the operating or capital requirements of the institution. In addition to a general endowment fund, each university also controls a number of restricted endowments that are intended to fund specific areas within the institution. The most common examples are endowed professorships, endowed fellowships and endowed scholarships.

Often Alumni of universities contribute to the endowment the bulk of the capital. An endowed professorship (or endowed chair) is a position permanently paid for with the revenue from an endowment fund specifically set up for that purpose. The position is designated to be in a certain department of study. The donor is allowed to name the position. Endowed professorships aid the university by providing a academic staff member who does not have to be paid entirely out of the operating budget of the university, allowing the university to either reduce its student-to-staff ratio, a statistic used for university rankings and other institutional evaluations, and/or direct money that would otherwise have been spent on salaries toward other university needs. An endowed scholarship is tuition (and possibly other costs) assistance that is permanently paid for with the revenue of an endowment fund specifically set up for that purpose. It can be either merit-based or need-based depending on university policy or donor preferences. The amounts of money that must be donated to start an endowed scholarship are varying greatly. Fellowships are similar, although they are most commonly associated with postgraduate students and visiting scholars. In addition to helping with tuition, they may also include a stipend. Fellowships with a stipend may encourage students to work on a doctorate. Frequently, teaching or working on research is a mandatory part of a fellowship or scholarship.

There is a small number of for-profit universities and colleges in United States. Only about 10% of total undergraduate student population is enrolled in these universities/colleges. Even in the United States, for-profit model has not been feasible. Bloomberg reported on May 27, 2011 that costs in for-profit universities exceed their non-profit or not-for-profit peers. It was reported that the average cost of attending a four year bachelor’s degree in for-profit university surpassed expenses at both U.S. state and private non-profit/not-for-profit universities. Fulltime student paid an average of $ 30,900 annually at the for-profit university in 2007/2008 academic year, almost double the $ 15,000 average paid at the public universities, according to the U.S. Department of Education. American Congress has been investigating costs and students’ debt burdens at for-profit colleges, which get as much as 90% of their revenue from federal student grants and loans. Default rates among former students at for-profit universities soared to 15.2%, the biggest rise in the higher education field. Based on historical experience, there is a consensus among policymakers in the U.S. that the for-profit model is not feasible for higher education sector. A large number of higher education institutes that emerged for the last few decades in Sri Lanka offering various diplomas, certificates, and foreign degrees appear to have been established as for-profit private institutes. The relevance and welfare implication of these institutions have to be seriously considered and necessary reforms need to be made.

However, for-profit model is very profitable for investors/entrepreneurs as well as the academia. Though the vice chancellor/president of non-profit or not-for-profit universities in the U.S. are paid very high salaries, for-profit peers received even higher pays. President/Vice Chancellor of Harvard University, Lawrence H. Summers (a reputed economist), was paid about $595,871 in 2004/2005 academic year. During the same academic year, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute President, Shirley Ann Jackson, was paid $983,365, University of Pennsylvania President, Amy Gutmann, was paid $767,030, Columbia University President, Lee C. Bollinger, was paid $685,930, and the Vanderbilt’s President, E. Gordon Gee, was paid $1.17 million. Apollo Group’s (the biggest for-profit college operator in the U.S.) CEO received $6.75 million and the President/Vice Chancellor of the University of Phoenix (another for-profit private higher education provider) received $1.8 million as take home salaries, for the 2008/2009 academic year. This makes it clear that for-profit model is very profitable for the academia.

Policymakers may be wondering as to why the professors in the state universities of Sri Lanka are not aspiring to get these very high salaries by allowing the government to adopt the for-profit model for universities through a process of privatization. They may be thinking that academics in the state universities would have preferred these high perks rather than choosing a collective bargaining action demanding higher salaries. However, it is the altruistic motive of academics that has encouraged them to demand higher salaries and protect the non-profit university system rather than supporting a for-profit private university system. Though a better salary is a must, academics are not much concerned about maximizing their own welfare. They are more concerned about maximizing social welfare because larger part of population in Sri Lanka, the students of the poor and the middle class, will be unable to undergo higher education under a fee-paying system as they are unable to pay, if for-profit model is adopted. So, current trade union action of the FUTA is highly motivated by altruism rather than self-interest/selfishness.

The appropriate institutional model for higher education in Sri Lanka appears to be a system of not-for-profit public universities and not-for-profit public-private partnership universities. For-profit private universities will result in extremely disastrous socio-political outcomes. Moreover, not-for-profit public universities and not-for-profit public-private partnership universities could provide higher education to all seekers including those who want to purchase it. In such a system, government will finance higher education of those who are unable to pay to demand higher education, so, free university education can continue to be given to a larger part of population.