The Island :
The passage of the 18th Amendment Bill in parliament has drawn our attention once again to the politicization of key institutions that we have witnessed over the years. The public has become increasingly cynical about the capacity of the police, the public service, and the administration responsible for conducting elections to legislative bodies to act in the public interest.. Professor Sasanka Perera’s article published in the Island of 8th September 2010 in the midst of the Constitutional debate draws our attention to another reality – the politicization of administrators holding important posts in the university system that we have also witnessed, especially in the last two years.
Eight academics from three of our State Universities have in the ‘Opinion Page’ of the same newspaper called upon the government to reconsider its decision on the 18th Amendment, and give the public time to debate its implications. A lecturer from the Faculty of Law in the University of Colombo appeared as a petitioner and argued against the Bill in the Supreme Court. A few signed the statement on the unconstitutionality of the Bill, published by the Civil Rights Movement and the Friday Forum, that appeared in the Island on the 8th September. This may create the impression that the values on intellectual freedom of thought and expression upon which great universities throughout history have been founded, are values that are internalized and respected in our own university system. Professor Perera’s piece in the Island stimulates a discussion on whether or not these important values are being undermined in our State universities, and their relevance in the new context where there is highly publicized and strident rhetoric on the need for ‘strong and stable governance’ for development.
University academics unlike public servants governed by the Establishments Code have been free to appear on public platforms and speak for or against the government’s position on issues of public concern, even though their salaries are paid by the State. However, when an academic becomes an administrator – as a Vice Chancellor, a Dean of a Faculty – they are considered administrative ‘officers of the University’ under the Universities Act 1978. The Chairman of the University Grants Commission (UGC) appointed under this Act is also considered an administrator, as the head of the agency responsible for resource allocation and monitoring academic standards and administrative efficiency in the university system. These ‘officers’ are expected to respect the norm of university autonomy and independence from political interference, which the Act of 1978 tried to incorporate.
The Universities Act 1978 was passed by Parliament, and tried to give back to the State University system, structures of governance that could help to create a teaching research and learning environment free of political interference. It reverted to structures of autonomous university governance familiar in many countries, such as a University Senate (the highest academic body) and the council (the governing body responsible for university administration). The Vice Chancellor became the ex officio Chairman of the Senate and the Council. All Deans of Faculties became ex officio members of the Council, to ensure voice of the Senate and the academic community of the University in the governing body, the Council. This is the model followed in many universities including the university system in India.
The University Grants Commission (UGC) as its name suggests, was the agency conferred with the important responsibility of resource allocation and ensuring that universities conform to government policy on Higher Education (e.g. medium of instruction and admissions). Despite these safeguards, academics have constantly complained of the erosion of university autonomy and the need for greater independence, particularly in regard to the appointment of Vice Chancellors. Since a sitting Vice Chancellor could manipulate the process of nomination by the Council, the Act was amended in 1994 to restrict the term, creating a value system on two terms in office that has been followed by many Faculties in the election of Deans. The National Education Commission (NEC), the government agency responsible for advising on educational policy chaired by Professor R P Gunewardene, with the participation of senior university academics and administrators, studied the Universities Act 1978, and made proposals for giving further autonomy to the universities. These proposals recommended the repeal of controversial provisions in the Act that were considered to conflict with the values on university autonomy, introducing more safeguards against political interference. The UGC under the Chairmanship of late Professor S Tillekeratna also had many discussions on amendments to the Act. A draft Act incorporating some of these proposals was submitted by the NEC to President Kumaranatunga in 2005.
Professor Perera in his article refers to a judgment of the US Supreme Court by Justice Brennan on the “transcendent value” of academic freedom in universities, to the whole community. The initiatives described above demonstrate that the concept of university autonomy was understood by the academic community sometime ago. In fact, a group of academics from the University of Colombo were among many who successfully challenged amendments to the Universities Acts 1978 brought by the Kumaranatunga Government, on the ground that they created an environment for political interference with legitimate academic freedom. The Supreme Court cited extensively from the international document known as the ‘Limberg Principles,’ on the critical importance of sustaining values on university autonomy in the State university system. Relevant extracts from this judgment are included in the Year 2000 Calendar of the University of Colombo. The judgment of the Supreme Court of the day should inspire both administrators and academics to work together to strengthen these values within the university system.
These norms and standards were values that the Federation of University Teachers (FUTA) as well as many academics and university administrators tried to build within the university systems. Some university administrators came into the system with strong political affiliations. However up to 2010 no Vice Chancellor of a University or the Chairman of the UGC appeared on a public platform or at media events canvassing political support for a government Bill, or the election of a President or a Cabinet Minister.
The Universities Act provides a clear procedure for appointment of Vice Chancellors. The President appoints the person recommended by the UGC from among three persons recommended by the University Council. President Kumaranatunga’s decision, unquestioned by the UGC of the time, to make her own appointment of Vice Chancellor contrary to the UGC recommendation, appears to have set a precedent that is now followed. An impression has been created that academics have only a token involvement in the process, and that a Vice Chancellor is a political appointee of the President. No one has queried the ensuing violation of the Universities Act. In this environment, it is clear that senior academics like Professor Perera have come to accept this position without questioning the process. The current practice has had a ‘chilling effect,’ preventing many persons of high academic standing, personal integrity and proven recognition within the university applying for these high posts.
What would have been considered a conflict of personal interest and responsibility to the institution some years ago, is now considered legitimate acceptable conduct for Vice Chancellors and the Chairman UGC. They do not have any inhibitions about appearing together in their official capacity and addressing the media on a public platform, canvassing for a Presidential candidate or a Minister. One Vice Chancellor in a widely publicized statement to the Press stated that he would not have been appointed but for the fact that he was an active supporter of the government in power. More recently Vice Chancellors and the Chairman UGC appeared once again before the media, canvassing support for the 18 Amendment Bill, focusing on a political manifesto, the ‘Mahinda Chinthanaya,’ rather than issues in the debate on the Constitutional implications of the Bill.
At a time when academics are asking tax payers to take on the burden of increased salaries in the university system, the public has a right to know what Vice Chancellors and senior academics and administrators are doing to ensure that core values on maintaining a teaching, research and learning environment free of political interference and bias, are safeguarded. They have a responsibility to explain to the public why the Committee of Vice Chancellors (CVCD) and University Senates with Professors and Deans are silently watching the continuous erosion of these values, to the point where a politicized environment in university administration is fast becoming the accepted norm. If some administrators defy the norms, is it not the responsibility of the majority in the academic community to formulate regulatory guidelines that all administrators must conform to, in harmony with university autonomy?
Some senior academics give us, ever so often, cameo insights in highly publicized press interviews, on their rich academic and professional lives and the wonderful eco friendly holidays they spend with their families in this beautiful country. There is not even a marginal reference to their responsibility to ensure good governance in the academic institutions in which they work. It is this complacency and indifference that places the development of the university system at risk, especially in an environment of increased politicization of all State institutions.
What has changed so much in such a short time to generate so much apathy in regard to the autonomy of universities that senior university academics and administrators in the past valued and appreciated, and was also incorporated by the Supreme Court in the jurisprudence of this country? Members of Senate and Council in the two Universities I worked in, the Open University and Colombo, expressed different viewpoints, and discussed the matters such as the award of honorary degrees, government policy on academic matters, or UGC policy decisions, arriving at a collective response through discussion and debate. This happened even in the period 1987 – 1990 when there were threats of personal violence from political forces within and outside the universities, and a university Professor and a Vice Chancellor were shot dead on their University Campuses.
Professor Arjuna Aluvihare as Chairman UGC, and Vice Chancellors of that time gave leadership in helping universities to face the many challenges with courage and dignity. Do academics today really believe that they operate in an intellectually stimulating environment, where universities teach and research on issues of Public and Constitutional Law, human rights, political theory, sustainable development and philosophy, while remaining uncritical of negative forces that seek to undermine democratic governance and freedom of thought and expression. What role models are they to their students when they fail to ‘walk the talk’? What if one day they have to study their papers in silence if an honorary degree is to be awarded (bypassing accepted procedures) to a politician, for his contribution to a new kind of home grown Sri Lankan ‘palm tree’ justice? Or will they respond with that now famous epithet, ‘we disagree strongly but we will not say no.’
How long will it take for promotions to Professorships and decisions on teaching and research to be determined according to the creed of what is seen as political correctness? Will a Centre for the Study of Human Rights or a Department of Law or Political Science organize a public seminar on the 18th Amendment, when a Vice Chancellor has gone public in support of it?
The mantra of economic growth and providing resources for infrastructure and Information Technology has become the current ideology of the university system. Policy makers and administrators in higher education speak of creating a ‘knowledge based society,’ as if giving greater access to these facilities will magically resolve the crisis in the teaching and learning environment created over decades of missed opportunities. Great universities throughout the world have been created through an academic leadership within these universities that recognized the importance of values such as personal integrity, academic independence, and the need to prevent political interference in these institutions. If these values are not safeguarded with commitment by academics themselves within the university system, ‘the Pearl of Great Price’ of the Kannangara reforms that enabled many distinguished Sri Lankans of diverse social and economic backgrounds to contribute to democracy and good governance in this country will surely be lost, and replaced by ‘ a goodly apple rotten at the core.’ No amount of local or World Bank funding poured into universities to improve what is described as the ‘Relevance and Quality of University Education’ will create a vibrant intellectually lively university community with high standards of excellence in teaching, research and learning, if there is cynical disregard of the core values on freedom of thought, expression and personal integrity in academic life. Universities may generate knowledge, but hardly the wisdom to understand the lessons of history on the link between democratic accountable governance and human well being.
We have become accustomed in recent years to question even our Constitutional values on fundamental freedoms as irrelevant Eurocentric ideologies. Yet academic freedom is recognized as a basic right in the Constitutions of Asian countries like Japan and Thailand. Our works of antiquity respected the norm of academic freedom in scholarship and learning as a fundamental value. Witness the following exchange between the Bhikku Rev. Nagasena and King Milinda recorded in the text of the famous ‘Milinda Prasna’ or the ‘Questions of Milinda’ dated in the second century B.C.