The UGC and the Universities Today
May 21, 2011, 3:36 pm
By Savitri Goonesekere
The academic communities were
present in large numbers at the recent funeral of the late Professor B.
A. Abeywickreme, Emeritus Professor in the faculty of Science,
University of Colombo, and former Vice Chancellor of the university. As
I entered the cemetery, an employee of the University of Colombo who
recognized me rushed up and offered me an academic gown to wear, like
the other ‘dons’ who were present. I thanked him and politely declined
the gown. I am one of those old fashioned academics who believe that
academic robes should be worn at ceremonial academic events. As I
followed the funeral procession, I reflected that the Vice Chancellor,
Staff and others dressed in their academic robes of office were perhaps
participating in a final ritual that would see the demise of values on
academic freedom and university autonomy that an older generation
believed were the essence of respected seats of higher learning. I was a
member of the UGC and a university academic and administrator, when
these values, handed down to us by our predecessors, still seemed
important. And yet today, Vice Chancellors, academics and university
trade unions are passively watching while core principles of university
autonomy in the present Universities Act 1978 are being violated by
the University Grants Commission and the Ministry of Higher Education.
The
Universities Act has clearly indicated that university academics are
not government servants regulated by the State Establishments Code, and
norms that apply to the public service of the country. The University
Grants Commission is not a government department placed under the
Minister and the Secretary to the Ministry of Higher Education. The
powers of the Minister in relation to universities are defined by the
Act. The Commission is authorized to function as an independent
regulatory authority within the framework of the Act, which
incorporates the concept of university autonomy, and the recognizes the
distinct powers and responsibilities of University governing bodies
(Councils) and University Senates responsible for all academic matters.
These principles and the structure were recognized by the Supreme
Court as a dimension of the concept of academic autonomy in
universities enshrined in the Universities Act and international
standards, in the celebrated case of Udagama and Others v Minister of
Higher Education. Certain changes to the Universities Act including
amendments to the provisions in the Act regulating the appointments of
heads of departments of study were rejected by the Supreme Court as a
violation of this important concept. The case must be familiar to the
legal officer at the UGC, law teachers in the university system, Unions
and university administrators. Extracts are published in the
University of Colombo calendar of 2000. The UGC under the Chairmanship
of the late Professor S. Tillekeratna, engaged in a consultative
exercise to propose reforms to the Universities Act that would give
more academic autonomy to universities, restricting the UGC to a
standard setting and funding authority like in many other countries of
the Commonwealth. This was considered essential to enable universities
to become competitive institutions that could also generate and use
their own funds for research and development. A new Universities Act
drafted to reflect these perspectives was submitted by the National
Education Commission to the government in 2005. Some academics like the
current Vice Chancellor of the University of Ruhuna were involved in
these consultations, and the preparation of the Act.
And
yet, recent events indicate that University academics are permitting
the UGC to regularly take decisions in violation of the Act. For
example:
(1) S. 73 of the Act provides for retirement of
teachers, indicating that a university teacher confirmed in the post
continues in office until he/she reaches the age of 65, or if this
event occurs in the course of the academic year, at the end of the
year. Since this is a statutory provision, the UGC or the Minister have
no power to change this except by an amendment to the Act. Yet a
cabinet decision, communicated by the UGC to a University Council has
been implemented, in violation of the Act, enabling a person who has
retired to continue as a Dean of a Faculty. S 33 and 49 of the Act
clarifies that the Dean is a fulltime officer of the University elected
from among the Heads of Departments, who must also be permanent
(tenured) members of staff. A professor who has retired may be employed
again on contract but not as a permanent member of staff. The Dean
receives certain payments and the Vice Chancellor as Chief Accounting
officer and the UGC will have to explain to Parliament and Auditors at
some time, how these payments are being made, and an appointment held
on a Cabinet decision that violates the law.
(2) Powers of
the UGC are specified by S 15 of the Universities Act which authorizes
the Commission to determine in consultation with the Councils and
Senates, the courses to be provided by Universities. We are told that
the Ministry has now decided that all first year students shall follow a
course in a military camp or facility. How did the UGC allow the
Minister to make this decision? Was this discussed by the UGC with the
Senates and Councils of Universities, as required by the Act? To permit
the UGC or Ministry to determine the content of courses without
discussion with university Senates violates the provisions of the Act
on the universities powers regarding teaching programmes.
(3)
The University Grants Commission (not the Chairman) issues circulars
within the scope of provisions of the Act. Any changes in provisions to
the Act can only be made by Parliament (through amendments) to the Act.
This has been respected by all earlier governments. Yet on 3 May 2011
the UGC Chairman has issued a circular, apparently in his individual
capacity, purporting to change the provisions in S.51 of the Act, which
deals with the terms of appointment of a head of department of study.
Following usual practice, there is no reference to the meeting of the
Commission that adopted this circular. The circular strangely refers to
S.51 (3) and ignores its content, thus constituting an administrative
decision in violation of the Act.
The Universities of Sri
Lanka like respectable academic institutions all over the world have
systems of governance regulated by laws. There was a time in the not so
distant past when Chairmen of UGC, Vice Chancellors and senior
administrators, Councils and Senates understood that they had
responsibilities to ensure transparent accountable governance in these
institutions according to powers given to Councils and Senates by the
Act. Members of these bodies now seem to have become active or passive
parties to undermining the very fabric of universities as academic
institutions of the nation. Some Vice Chancellors as Chief executives
seem to pursue their personal agendas and political affiliations, with
no questions asked by the university bodies like Faculty Boards,
Senates and Councils. The concept of "following orders" seems to have
replaced the concept of academic voice and participation in decision
making on matters that concern universities.
When the last
salary revision took place decades ago, the academic community,
consisting of University Trade Unions, the UGC and Vice Chancellors
were in close contact, working together in negotiating with the
government to advocate for a just and fair salary structure. I recall
how Prof. Arjuna Aluvihare, Chairman UGC at the time, Professor
Dayantha Wijesekere, VC of the Open University and senior Professors
who were union leaders were actively engaged together in negotiating
with government to adopt a new salary structure. Today we witness the
unsavoury spectacle of the Chairman UGC and some Vice Chancellors on a
collision course with University Unions as witnessed in the UGC
Circular of 3 May 2011. Academics refer to the unprecedented manner in
which one Vice Chancellor addressed a union before a key decision was
made on the proposed industrial action, reportedly even demanding that
staff should not go on strike. Recent contributions by academics in the
press indicate how academics are abused or treated as conspirators
against the government when they seek to exercise the trade union
rights that they have legitimately exercised for decades. In the past,
Vice Chancellors dialogued with union leaders and tried to negotiate a
settlement and prevent a strike. They did not use their official status
to interfere with a union’s right to freedom of association and
industrial action.
Should Vice Chancellors, Senates and
Councils unquestioningly accept these violations of the Act and the
erosion of their powers, and follow what are in effect "orders" that
violate the law under which universities have been established? Three
Universities have either a Faculty or Departments of Law. Why are these
teachers so silent when these violations are taking place? Some travel
overseas, write and present erudite papers on human rights. But do
they discuss these issues of rights and governance with students or
raise them in appropriate fora such as Faculty and Senate meetings?
The
current trade union action for salary increases is based on a long
standing need to rectify anomalies, in a context where other public
institutions like the Central Bank and the judiciary have witnessed
salary reviews. The newly appointed UGC has two members who were
respected Vice Chancellors and administrators in the university system.
Hopefully they will give new leadership and understanding on the role
and responsibility of the UGC under the Universities Act, and help to
resolve the current salaries dispute.
However academics too
will gain more public support for their cause if they fulfill their
responsibilities and act collectively to safeguard the core values on
which our academic institutions have been built over many decades of
higher education in this country. Vice Chancellors, Deans, Chairmen of
UGCs and University Faculties and Senates, with the full gamut of
professors and academic staff must give the leadership that these
institutions desperately need to sustain transparent accountable and
democratic governance in universities. Caliban, writing of the "Disease
of Sycophancy" in the Island of 27 April 2011, refers to the "putrid
example" of servility in the University community. Symptomatic of this
sycophancy, as he describes it, is "holding on to positions that are
not their rightful due, stooging the benefactors, acquiescing and
covering up their misdeeds or inadequacies, and basically betraying the
sanctity of the office they hold." When the Sri Lankan University
system crumbles beyond repair, like many other public institutions in
this country, the public will come to realize that, as Martin Luther
King once said, this was not just because of a few sycophants, "but the
appalling silence of the majority."
