The Academic Spring continues!
June 17, 2012, 7:51 pm
,the island
By Camena Guneratne and Harini Amarasuriya
Open University of Sri Lanka
Almost
one year ago, we wrote an article suggesting that there were signals
from the academic community that it was waking up from a long slumber.
We wrote about the fact that the Federation of University Teachers
Association (FUTA) was moving away from, primarily a battle for
salaries, to addressing a range of issues affecting not just higher
education, but education in general.
We felt inspired to
write another piece after participating in the FUTA march and rally
that marked the academics’ token strike on the 26th of April, 2012.
After almost one year, FUTA called upon academics from all the national
universities to come together for a protest march starting from the
University of Colombo to the Public Library where several speakers
addressed the gathering. The proceedings were chaired by Prof. H
Sriyananda, a much respected, former FUTA President. What was
significant about this rally was that of the many demands put forward
by FUTA, explaining the reasons for the strike, the primary focus was
not on salaries but on other pressing issues faced by state
universities and the national education system. The slogan for the day
was, ‘Let’s Protect State Universities’ and one of the main demands was
for the government to allocate 6% of the GDP for education. Other
demands included a more consultative and transparent policy making
process and halting the politicization and micro-management of
universities by the Higher Education Minister in violation of the
Universities Act. Academics also registered their protests against the
suppression of student activism and the instigation of intra-student
violence through the Ministry’s open support of certain student
factions.
The letter sent by the General Secretary of FUTA to President Mahinda Rajapaksa and Minister of Higher Education
S. B. Dissanayake giving notification of the token strike was in a
sense historic in that perhaps for the first time in the history of
FUTA’s trade union struggles, it sent a strong message to the
government, that the academic community is no longer confining itself
to the issue of university teachers’ salaries and other benefits, but
is now taking on the many issues and challenges faced by the higher
education sector and that it is holding the government to account on
these matters.
Given that salary issues were not the main
focus of the march and the rally (and also considering the inclement
weather at the time), the turnout was particularly impressive. Almost
800 academics from all parts of the country converged on Colombo that
day. Their enthusiasm and energy were palpable and the concerns of
academics were eloquently expressed by the stream of speakers at the
meeting.
Success
Part of the reason for the
success of the token strike on that day could be attributed to the slow
and incremental steps FUTA has been taking over the past several
months with regard to keeping its membership awake. When the trade
union action was called off last year, there was a feeling of shock and
even betrayal. Many within the academic community were not ready to
call the strike off and were unhappy at the decision. But it is clear
that the mobilisation of academics that took place during last years’
trade union action has not diminished and has now been channelled into
wider national issues.
The activism of the academic
community gained a renewed impetus as a result of the government’s
attempt to pass an ill conceived law relating ostensibly to the
establishment of non state universities. This Bill was earlier titled
the Qualification Framework, Quality Assurance and Accreditation of
Higher Educational Institutions Act, and then, in a later version,
re-named the Higher Education (Non-State) Act. Notwithstanding its name
it is not limited to establishing a (very questionable) legal
framework for setting up non-state universities. While the current
Universities Act clearly excludes any political interference in the
functioning of universities and limits the role of the Minister in
their academic and administrative affairs, the proposed law reverses
this position. Under the guise of ensuring quality control of
universities, it gives the Minister total control over all academic
matters in state universities to the extent of permitting him/her to
terminate or suspend academic programmes.
UGC sidlined
The
draft law sidelines the University Grants Commission, which is
currently the apex body overseeing the functioning of State
universities, including quality control, and takes away the autonomy of
university Faculty Boards and Senates to decide on matters relating to
instruction, education, research and examinations in universities.
Most amazingly, a ‘secrecy’ clause in the draft law requires all
persons involved in the process of quality assurance of universities to
sign a declaration of secrecy in respect of any matter which may come
to their knowledge in the exercise of their functions. In effect, the
law, if enacted would give the Minister the power to terminate
university academic programmes without giving any reasons and with no
accountability for his/her actions. This Bill was, in fact, drafted in
secrecy and to date its origins are unknown. It would probably have
been rushed through Parliament if academics had not got wind of it. The
swift reaction by FUTA which voiced its strong protests against the
Bill has, for the time being, resulted in it being put on hold.
Non-State universities
Academics’
concerns are that the establishment of non-State universities is in
effect a strategy of the government to abdicate responsibility for
university education in Sri Lanka and transfer this sphere totally to
the private sector. The draft law was one such attempt. However, over
the years the capacity of universities in this country to function
effectively and to provide a quality education to students has been
systematically eroded, partly by political interference in university
matters, but mainly by the withdrawal of funds for education.
A
presentation by Prof. Amal Kumarage of the University of Moratuwa at
the public meeting demonstrated very clearly the extent to which
successive governments had sidelined education and higher education over
a period of time. He quoted a World Bank Report of 2011 titled
Transforming School Education in Sri Lanka which states, "Public
expenditures on education in Sri Lanka are modest when compared to
middle income countries and other comparable nations. Education
expenditure as a percentage of GDP is 1.9 percent and as a proportion
of the government budget is 7.3 percent. This is the smallest share of
public investment in education among a cluster of countries that share
common features with Sri Lanka. Public investment in education in Sri
Lanka falls below the level of East Asian countries such as South Korea,
Malaysia, Thailand and Singapore; Latin American countries such as
Argentina, Brazil, Bolivia, Columbia and Cost Rica; and of the other
South Asian nations such as India, Bangladesh, Pakistan and Nepal. It
is also well below the share of investment for middle income countries
as a whole. In fact, advanced middle income countries normally invest
about 4.6 percent of national income in education, which is more than
double the share of national income devoted to education by Sri Lanka."
UNESCO statistics
According
to the UNESCO Institute for Statistics even sub-Saharan Africa spends
close to 4.5% on education and it further states that "By far the
lowest level of public spending is found in Central Asia and in East
Asia and the Pacific – both of which report only 2.8% of GDP." Sri Lanka
with an annual expenditure of 1.9% of GDP on education does not even
come close to the lowest. Of this amount, the proportion that has been
allocated for university education has been steadily decreasing. In
2005, it was 0.50% and this has decreased to a mere 0.27% in 2010.
Universities are accused of not being able to cater to the increasing
demand for higher education; with such woefully inadequate investment
in university education how can we accommodate larger numbers, let
alone improve the quality of higher education?
University
academics are now campaigning for greater investment in education and
the slogan "6% of GDP for education" has become a central theme in
discussions. This is not a random figure plucked out of the air; it is a
UNESCO recognised benchmark on what a country should invest in
education. There is now far more discussion in Sri Lanka regarding this
allocation and this is due to academics taking up this issue as a
primary concern. Faculty Boards and Senates in universities have also
slowly started taking up matters such as these with more energy, making
it clear to university administrators that they cannot ride roughshod
over established procedures.
Such bodies exist for the
purpose of debate and consultation on all matters relating to higher
education and there are signs that they are now becoming forums of
intense debate on a range of issues. Academics are beginning to assert
their rights and obligations to actively participate in the decision
making process.
A related matter of concern for academics
is the erosion of university autonomy and academic independence in
recent years. Academics themselves have contributed to this erosion by
remaining ignorant of proper procedures and not only allowing
procedures to be bypassed but by actively by passing these themselves.
For instance, the University Grants Commission (UGC) remains the
central body that is responsible for universities and academics. This
is very clear in the Universities Act. Although, this Act gives the
Minister of Higher Education a role, it is an extremely limited one and
the Minister has no say in academic matters. It is clear that over the
years, these boundaries have been seriously violated. The ‘leadership
training’ given to university entrants without consultation with
universities is a case in point. The recent concessions provided to
CIMA to operate within universities is another instance where Senates
and Faculty Boards were bypassed when making decisions that have
implications for academic programmes of universities. It has now become
the practice for some academics to deal directly with the Minister and
the Ministry, bypassing the university bodies and also the UGC. Of
course, the UGC has not helped by actively ceding its role to the
Minister and the Ministry, but academics need to insist that the UGC
fulfils its mandate. Issues that should be dealt with at university
level by Faculty Boards and Senates, are now being decided upon by the
Minister. The gradual erosion of established systems and procedures
through ceding too much authority to the political leadership is a
serious problem in Sri Lanka. We must recognise our own complicity in
this process and be aware of its dangers.
Finally, its
actions over the past several months have put FUTA and university
academics in the public eye. As many speakers on the 26th of April
noted, in a way, this is a historic moment for FUTA and for university
academics. It is coming forward as a strong voice not just on behalf of
itself but on behalf of the broader public interests. This means that
it has raised expectations not just among its own membership but among
the public as well. When the last trade union action was called off,
the public saw it as an admission of defeat by FUTA.
FUTA
has decided to resort to trade union action again in the near future.
This time around, the stakes are even higher: there are a few signs
that the government may be prepared to give into FUTA demands on salary
and other welfare issues of academics. The tone with which the Ministry
is dealing with the academic community has also changed. There are no
longer attacks on the academic community by the Minister of Higher
Education like during the last trade union action. There was no doubt
that the crudity of those attacks also helped to mobilise the academic
community. What does this then mean at this juncture of the battle?
Will FUTA and its membership decide not to persist with the broader
agenda if its salary demands are met? If that happens, the academic
community’s legitimacy and relevance in the eyes of the wider community
will be seriously eroded. During the last year or so, the FUTA
leadership and the academic community have worked hard to make
themselves relevant after a period of long hibernation. This would be
wasted if the current momentum is not sustained. Despite the
superficial easing off of the cold war, this government has not in any
way shown a serious interest in addressing the broader issues raised by
academics regarding the problems in the state university system and
education in general. It is important that we remind ourselves that this
time around, we are not fighting only for ourselves but for the future
of public higher education in Sri Lanka.
