Monday, July 18, 2011

Faculty and students speak out against compulsory leadership training in universities

LANKA Independent

By Nirmala Kannangara | Published on June 25, 2011 at 5:45 am
The compulsory leadership training introduced by the Higher Education Ministry for university students has come under severe criticism by University Academics. Many insist the ongoing leadership training program violates the University Act and allege it is an insidious method to provide military training to students.
The compulsory “leadership and positive attitude development” program for university entrants may have been suddenly sprung on unsuspecting students by the ministry of higher education but it is conducted by the military and overseen by the ministry of defense and is a three week program undertaken at some 30 military camps around the country. Each prospective student, male or female, will be schooled in disciplines including physical drill, conflict management, history, Sri Lanka’s future and global changes.
Political mileage
Minister of Higher Education, SB Dissanayake, is accused of introducing the compulsory training program for personal political gain
“It is disheartening to note the way these programs were introduced. Neither the Ministry nor any government official has any legal power to create and implement such programs for university students. It is the university academic staff that has the power to implement any extra programs for the students. Since this has been introduced and implemented to gain ‘political mileage’ for certain groups in the government but not by the university academics it violates the university act completely,” a member of the University Grants Commission(UGC) told the Lanka Independent on conditions of anonymity.
He further raised concerns as to the way the Supreme Court dismissed the five petitions filed by three individual students, a group of student activists and by the Ceylon Teachers Union. The Petitioners pleaded that the rights of students would be infringed if they were forced to undergo a residential training program in army camps without regard to their beliefs and cultural sensitivities. But the petitions were dismissed, and the first batch of students commenced their training this May.
“This should be debated in public. The Supreme Court would have cited the reason for the dismissal of the five petitions. If the judiciary acts in such a dubious manner, it is then clear that government pressure is behind such decisions” he alleged.
According to this source although the UGC has the authority to overlook university functions and admissions, it is up to the university academics to decide on the students’ university education.
“This decision was solely taken for political gain. The Minister I suppose wants the attention of his superior. In this country
Prof. Arjuna Aluwihare
politicians want to do something that could boost their image. This is one good example. The Higher Education Minister S.B.Dissanayake was once humiliated by the university students and in order to get revenge he wanted to suppress them. As a result of such suppression one university student from the Ruhuna University was killed due to alleged police brutality. Minister Dissanayake became unpopular as the general public criticized him openly. He then remained silent for some time and has now taken centre stage by introducing leadership programs for university newcomers in a military environment,” he added.
Academic sources who only spoke on conditions of anonymity further queried as to why the leadership program’s study guidelines carries a photograph of the Defense Secretary Mr. Gotabaya Rajapakse.
The very fact that hardly anyone was willing to speak on the record for fear of terrible reprisals is a sad reflection of the state of the country and the culture of impunity that now prevails.
The training program will include military drills and fitness training. Photo courtesy www.bbc.uk
Moreover this training of students under the auspices of the Ministry of Defence and Presidential sibling and Defense Secretary Gotabaya Rajapakse comes at a time there is unprecedented scrutiny of the activities of the armed forces, its top brass and particularly the commander in chief President Mahinda Rajapakse and his brother during the last months of Sri Lanka’s civil war. The Defense Secretary has made no secret of his mindset in these matters such as the fact that hospitals outside no fire zones are legitimate targets in times of war.  And it is in the backdrop of allegations of war crimes and crimes against humanity leveled against the armed forces that this program was launched.  The Training also started just one month after a UN report by a panel of experts commissioned by the UN Secretary General  released in April, found credible evidence of serious violations of Human Rights laws by both the armed forces and the LTTE.
That said some experts have also pointed out that compulsory military training is contrary to the values of freedom of opinion and expression, robust discussion, respect for opposing views that is at the core of university education. They opine that the curriculum and study guidelines also tends to discourage tolerance and focuses only on reinforcing a mono ethnic viewpoint.
Speaking to the Lanka Independent also on the basis of anonymity  a student who underwent the leadership program in Maduru Oya military camp described as to how a fellow female student broke her left ankle at a Physical Training (PT) programme.
“It was surprising for us to note as to how these female students were asked to follow rigorous PT programmes. I studied in a mixed school and I have seen how our teachers did not allow the girls to do painstaking exercises. Even I have seen as to how my mother advised her two daughters to avoid many exercises for their betterment. But however the way these young girls were asked to follow rigorous exercises I was surprised. In this instance this girl had to jump over a parapet wall. When she broke her ankle she was rushed to the hospital but they did not even have the courtesy to inform the parents, it was the hospital that had informed the parents,” he claimed. “According to the orthopedic doctors, she has to be in bed for at least three months,” sources also said.
These reactions by students many hailing from villages and traditional backgrounds must be taken in the context of Sri Lanka’s culture and beliefs and traditions and its propensity to shield and shelter young girls before marriage. Making this kind of training compulsory has already been likened to military conscription and unlike youth programs like the cadet corp this is not voluntary.
Many have accused the Rajapakse government of using this program to identify troublesome elements in universities who may
Students protesting against the program
potentially lead a formidable rebellion against its repressive family run empire while a few have felt the program will actually help students.
Yet another student who underwent the leadership programme in the Boosa army camp said that they were severely admonished by the military officers who told them not to dirty the camp premises.
“True the students should not dirty the camp premises which were kept meticulously clean. But there is a way that we should be told. We were told that if we were found strewing garbage all over we would be severely punished. All of us had to undergo the three week course in abject fear,” she said.
Another student who underwent the programme at the Diyatalawa camp told Lanka Independent how a fellow male student fractured his leg after jumping over a high wall.
“He underwent an emergency surgery and was brought back to the camp without sending him home. In addition we were given many lectures on table etiquette. Ironically however even the military officers who conducted these program did not know proper etiquette,” he said.
Meanwhile Prof. Arjuna Aluwihare Emeritus Professor of Surgery, University of Peradeniya and a highly respected past chairman of the University Grants Commission (UGC)  told the Lanka Independent that the concept of giving leadership training to university students was not new.
“When I was the Chairman UGC (1989 to 1993) programmes were conducted on English and IT training, Sri Lanka history and environmental studies. If the UGC was planning the same programs it would be very useful but these programs should be held within universities,” said Prof. Aluwihare.
According to Prof Aluwihare it was unfortunate that the UGC too has either been sidelined or has failed to fulfill its responsibilities to consult with universities before this was implemented. We certainly do not object to leadership training for new entrant students in the national university system. They need to be exposed for personality development opportunities. But however, such programs have to be implemented by the universities in order to maintain their standard of teaching. That was how I introduced orientation programs. The Ministry should be able to resource further in upgrading programs,” said Prof. Aluwihare.
When asked whether the leadership program was meant to decrease ragging in universities, Prof Aluvihare noted that all the public statements that have been made in this regard cannot be understood.
“Unless the UGC or Higher Education Ministry speaks about this we cannot make any comment,” he said.
But however he said that it was unfortunate that the Inter University Student’s Federation (IUSF) that speaks and work towards the betterment of university students was silent on ragging issues.
The IUSF is yet to come out with a statement on ragging. It would have been interesting to see if they could put a complete stop on ragging. When I was the Director of Student’s Welfare in the Peradeniya University during 1975- 1976 I could stop ragging there,” Aluvihare said.
All attempts to contact Higher Education Minister S.B. Dissanayke and Higher Education Ministry Secretary Sunil Jayantha Nawaratne for their comments on this extremely important issue failed as they were apparently too busy to speak to the media.

Friday Forum deeply concerned about leadership training outside university system

by Jayantha Dhanapala and Professor Savitri Goonesekere
The Friday Forum makes this statement in a spirit of democratic dialogue on the above issue, which we believe is of concern to all citizens. This programme has been introduced by the Ministry of Higher Education in a military environment under the leadership of the Ministry of Defence.

cartoon courtesy: sundaytimes.lk
According to the letter sent to students they may be offered a place in the national university system and will be expected to produce a certificate of completion which suggests that it is compulsory.

The decision in the Supreme Court dismissing, without stating reasons, all the petitions against the programme, has made it all the more important to have a public discussion on its relevance and impact on the university system. The Friday Forum expresses its deep concern in regard to both the manner in which this programme has been developed and implemented, and the very concept of such leadership training outside the university system.
We wish to emphasise the following:
1. This programme has been imposed on universities and university students by the Minister of Higher of Education in a manner which violates the Universities Act No.16 of 1978 (as amended). Part VII of this Act deals with “The Authorities of a University,” and refers to the Council, the Senate and the Faculties. The Senate is the academic authority, which makes all decisions on academic programmes.
According to Section 20 of the Act the power of the Minister to issue directives to the Universities Grants Commission is extremely limited, referring to finance, university admissions and medium of instruction, and in regard to investigations and responses to crises in administration or the functioning of universities.
2. The Ministry has no legal authority to formulate and implement programmes or courses for university students. Such programmes necessarily come within the purview of the university academic authorities. Under the circumstances development and implementation of such a programme without the approval of these bodies violates accepted procedures of university governance.
3. The UGC is authorised to determine admission but is required to consult universities regarding any teaching courses and programmes. It appears that the UGC too has either been sidelined in presenting this programme or it has failed to fulfil its responsibilities to consult with universities. It is deeply disturbing that a leadership programme for new entrants which has not been considered by the relevant university authorities has been introduced on the basis of a unilateral decision by the Ministry.
4. We certainly do not object to leadership training for students in the national university system. In fact, all students should be exposed to opportunities for personality development throughout their education. However, such programs have to be designed and presented by the universities in keeping with their norms and standards on teaching and learning, and academic freedom. Most universities, following the practice in such institutions of higher education all over the world, already conduct orientation programmes including English programmes for new entrants. The Ministry should be able to resource further upgrading of such programmes.
5. In some countries all youth between certain ages may be required to undergo periods of military training, but we are unaware of any other country where such training is a pre-condition for university admission. Military type training is founded on a system of regimentation. University education is meant to encourage independent learning discussion and argument with tolerance and respect for disagreement and viewpoint difference. In contrast, in the military and allied kinds of training, the emphasis is on command and control, action without disputation, except among the high command.
6. Universities are seats of higher learning where students not only study a curriculum but are also encouraged in critical thinking and a search for knowledge. While the special skills and capacities of the military should be appreciated and military discipline is obviously essential for the purposes of an army, it is not the form of leadership training appropriate for young people who would later play a role as civilians in the country’s development.
The concepts of academic freedom and university autonomy provide the foundation of the teaching and learning environment in universities throughout the Commonwealth. They have not been considered idealistic and antiquated norms that have no relevance to market economies or in meeting the challenges of development or the growth of information technologies. Encouraging military style leadership skills, regimentation and behaviour patterns, is contrary to core values of freedom of thought, opinion and expression, and the value of dissent which all universities should strive to inculcate in their students.
7. These values, and the fundamental rights of students and teachers that are embedded in them, have been recognised in the Supreme Court Determination of 1999 of the Universities Act (Amendment) Bill in a judgement which was delivered by three judges including then Justice Shirani Bandaranayake. It is jurisprudence of this nature in the Supreme Court that confirms the fundamental rights guaranteed in the Constitution which can create an appropriate environment for university education. The dismissal of cases challenging the 18th Amendment, the Local Government Bill and the Pensions Bill, and the recent petitions on the leadership programme must not prevent us as citizens from hoping that the foundation laid in earlier jurisprudence protecting fundamental rights will not be diluted.
8. Officials in the Ministry have made public statements that this military training will help new university entrants to resist the degrading practice of ragging. The ragging culture has in fact spread to and is embedded in many schools and public institutions in this country. In 1998 the late Minister of Higher Education, Richard Pathirana, helped to introduce the Prevention of Ragging Act. Some Universities and Faculties now assist the police to enforce the Act, and they have domestic disciplinary procedures as well as programmes to respond to and prevent ragging. The current ad hoc programme encourages an aggressive response to ragging, rather than focusing on prevention. This may undermine university efforts at preventing and responding to ragging while increasing the risk of violence between student groups.
9. The curriculum of the training programme obtained by the Friday Forum after some effort reveals extremely problematic aspects. No mention is made of the authority responsible for the curriculum but a prominent photograph of the Defence Secretary on the cover of the study guide suggests authorship by the Defence establishment. The predominant focus is on instilling discipline and self-confidence through military regimentation including a five-kilometre walk to be completed in 45 minutes irrespective of individual physical fitness or the widely disparate facilities for sports and physical training in the schools from which the students come.
10. What is more problematic is the content of the module on history and national heritage. The topics are, in order, the arrival of the Aryans, foreign invasions, (who the foreigners are is not clear) and the development of Sinhalese kingdoms. “National heritage” focuses exclusively on prominent cultural symbols of the majority Sinhala community such as Sigiriya, the Temple of the Tooth and the Aukana Buddha statue with none from other communities. Subjecting new university entrants who may well become future leaders of this country to a course which focuses exclusively on the majority community, undermines all the official statements on national reconciliation after three decades of civil strife. If this is an officially sanctioned method of national reconciliation what hopes do we have for a peaceful conflict free future in this country?
11. On the whole the curriculum seems to discourage tolerance for viewpoint difference, and sensitivities for the pluralism and diversity of our country. Regimentation, military discipline and taking pride in a majoritarian version of national heritage and history are what seem to be envisaged as the ideal model of leadership. It is of interest to note that in a group exercise on world leaders the suggested world famous leaders are Mahatma Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru, King Dutugemenu, Anagarika Dharmapala, Mahinda Rajapakse, Veera Puran Appu, and Ranasinghe Premadasa.
We urge the Minister of Higher Education to recognise and respect the autonomous roles of academics and academic authorities in the Higher Educational System under the Universities Act of 1978. We hope that he will refrain from imposing arbitrary decisions on the university system in this manner. We also wish to remind university academics and administrators that it is their duty and responsibility as members of university authorities such as Faculty Boards, Senates and Councils to safeguard and nurture academic autonomy and the integrity of the university system. It is only active engagement and interest on their part that will help to prevent continuous infringements on academic freedom and university autonomy. We need a State university system which up to now has given equitable access to higher education even as universities meet the many challenges faced in achieving high standards of excellence in all universities and disciplines of study.
Unless these negative trends are resisted Sri Lanka may well become the “knowledge hub” of Asia, not through a balanced public private mix, but through exclusive privatisation that will replace decades of a valued public education system.
Jayantha Dhanapala and Professor Savitri Goonesekere
On behalf of Friday Forum, the Group of Concerned Citizens:
Mr. Jayantha Dhanapala, Professor Savitri Goonesekere, Rt. Reverend Duleep de Chickera,
Professor Gananath Obeyesekere, Ms. Manouri Muttetuwegama, Professor Arjuna Aluwihare, Dr. Camena Gunaratne, Ms. Suriya Wickremasinghe, Mr. Ahilan Kadirgamar, Mr. Lanka Nesiah, Mr. J.C. Weliamuna, Dr. A. C. Visvalingam, Dr Stewart Motha
Dr. Jayampathy Wickramaratne, Dr. Deepika Udagama, Ms. Sithie Tiruchelvam,
Ms. Shanthi Dias, Dr. Selvy Thiruchandran, Professor Siri Hettige, Dr. Devanesan Nesiah,
Dr. G Usvatte-aratchi, Ms. Dhamaris Wickramasekera, Mr. Daneshan Casiechetty, Mr. Prashan de Visser, Mr. Chandra Jayaratne