University Governance

Some Issues for Reflection Presentation on January 17, 2012 Jayadeva Uyangoda, AFTA, Colombo

University Governance
The present debate on university education focuses on i. Salaries and economic/service-related issues of academic and non-academic staff. ii. Consequences of the expansion of private sector role in higher education. (There is already a private sector in all levels of education preprimary, post-primary, secondary, tertiary, vocational and professional education).

University Governance
Issues of university governance have been a major theme of debate in the past. Some major documents that deal with university governance issues: (i).Needham Committee Report of 1958 (ii). Gunawardena Committee Report of 1963 (iii). J. E. Jayasuriya Commission Report of 1966 (iv). Osmund Jayaratne Report of 1970.

Present Debate
iii. Role and objectives of higher education normative vs. pragmatic goals; social relevance vs. market relevance. iv. Role of the state in shaping (a) directions, (b) management, funding, and (d) quality assurance in higher education.

University Governance
We need to introduce the issues of university governance to the on-going debate. University governance can be looked at, at two levels: (i). Governance issues arising from the relationship between the universities, and the UGC, Ministry of Higher Education, Treasury, the President. (ii). Governance issues within universities.

University Governance
University Governance takes place within 4 frameworks. They are: i. Legal framework, provided by the Universities Act of 1978, which was amended in 1985. ii. Institutions framework of Ministry of HE and UGC. (Governance by circulars.) iii.Establishments Code.

Governance Frameworks
iv. Unwritten and un-codified practices and traditions evolved within universities. Most of them pre-date 1978 Act. We should distinguish university governance from university administration. Governance is the overall normative and value framework within which administration takes place.

University Good Governance

University Good Governance. Key dimensions and commitments: (i). Democracy, openness, pluralism and tolerance (ii). Transparency and accountability (iii). Academic freedom, including right to dissent.

University Good Governance

iv). Non-interference by the state. (v). Secular and liberal values.

University Governance
From a good governance perspective, University Governance has 3 key areas of concern, which are means and ends at the same time: (i). Autonomy (ii). Accountability (iii). Quality and Standards

University Good Governance

Four hypotheses: (i). Good governance cannot be entirely legislated. There should be checks and balances within institutions that can provide a culture of good governance for legal provisions to work better. (ii). Autonomy and Accountability are a necessary condition for university good governance, but not an adequate condition.

Hypotheses on Good Governance

(iii). University autonomy is liable to be abused by those who exercise it, leading to mal-governance. (iv). Without downward accountability within the universities, upward accountability, as practiced in the universities at present, can lead to creating regime-dependent governance.

University Autonomy Dimensions

Two dimensions of university autonomy: (i)Administrative autonomy (ii)Academic autonomy.

Administrative Autonomy
Administrative Autonomy of Universities entails: (i). Non-interference into university administration as well as academic matters by the government, state agencies, President, parliament, politicians.

Administrative Autonomy
There is continuing tension on this noninterference thesis. Governments consider they have a right and duty to interfere into university affairs, because universities are run on public funds allocated by the Treasury and sanctioned by Parliament. Interference for Accountability has been the slogan of many Ministers of HE. Thus, governments tend to define admin autonomy in minimalist terms.

Academic Autonomy
Academic Autonomy is about educational and research programmes of the universities; how they should be conducted; their norms, quality and standards; ethical issues of research and knowledge production etc. They entail: (a) Non-interference by the state into subject matters of teaching, research and publication.

Academic Autonomy
Non-interference into freedom of research, teaching, teaching programmes, content of teaching and research, dissemination including publications and expression of views in public, by the state or by the university itself. Creating and sustaining an atmosphere, values, norms and practices for academic freedom and excellence. Thus, academic autonomy is closely linked to academic freedom and fundamental rights. UNESCO Declaration on Academic Freedom. Social Sciences, law and humanities have a greater bearing on academic autonomy.

University Autonomy
Three Hypotheses. Hypothesis I: The state should guarantee university autonomy by legislation, but good governance can be best guaranteed when there are institutional, formal as well as informal, checks and balances in place. Hypothesis II The politicization of the universities through the office of the VC has emerged as a major threat to university autonomy. Therefore, depoliticization of university administration is a precondition for university autonomy.

Autonomy and Internal Democracy

Hypothesis III: Institutional autonomy should be accompanied with internal democracy. Otherwise, internal autonomy may run the risk of producing autocratic regimes of governance within universities.

Autonomy and Autocracy

The University of Ceylon, under the University Ordinance of 1942 is an example. The best autonomy arrangements for universities led to producing autocracies, with no downward accountability. Jennings and Attygalle era. See the Gunawardena Commission Report of 1963.

Autonomy and Autocracy

We need to address the question of university autonomys autocratic consequences, because it is politicians and bureaucrats who have so far addressed it. Their solution has been greater state control of universities. Our approach should be autonomy with, and for, democratic governance of the universities.

Autonomy and Accountability

Accountability should be a two-way process: (i). Upward Accountability. (ii). Downward Accountability. Practices of accountability recently emerged in the universities emphasize upward accountability, and no regard for downward accountability.

Autonomy and Accountability

Upward accountability by university administration has two processes: (i). Institutional process, to UGC and MHE. (ii). Political accountability accountability to regimes and political masters. Both processes are now intertwined through the excessive politicization of the UGC and the office of the VC.

Autonomy and Accountability

Excessive and exclusive reliance on Upward Political Accountability is a threat to university autonomy. Should VCs act as regime representatives, rather than representatives of the university community? Arent some VCs embarrassingly subservient to political and bureaucratic masters. Is it correct to say that VCs (and UGC Chairmens) involvement in election campaigns on behalf of ruling parties, specific political parties and candidates has undermined the quality of governance in universities?

Autonomy and Accountability

Is it correct to say that VCs involvement in active party politics has led to factionalism within universities? Does it divide the university community into two broad camps (i) pro-VC and (ii) anti- or not-pro VC. Do VCs promote factionalism within universities based on the principle of regime loyalty?

De-politicization of Universities for Greater Autonomy

Review and change the VC appointment process? Appointing authority should be a non-political entity? Constitutional Council? University Court? Are they realistic options? Academic Trade Unions other university civil society bodies as a check on regime-linked politicization of university administration? How to prevent process manipulation that leads to mal-governance?

Accountability
Need a critical review of the practices of accountability that emphasize upward accountability within the universities. Are Senates and Faculty boards effective forums to ensure open debate, discussion and dissent to ensure accountability and good governance? Havent Senate and Faculty Board meetings been reduced to mere administrative forums? Havent university academics tolerated process manipulation too long? Should a Dean represent, and accountable to, only the VC, and not the Faculty? Should VC represent, and accountable to, the university communities or the regime? Havent some VCs brought down the esteem of the office of the VC by willingly being subservient to political masters?

Accountability
Review Appointment and re-appointment process. (i). Shouldnt there be greater accountability mechanisms before a person is nominated for the post of VC? Example: VC candidates should make presentations before a joint session of the Council and the Senate on their visions and plans. The presentation should also be the basic document for performance evaluation.

Accountability
Shouldnt the VCs performance be evaluated by a university body when s/he applies for a second term? Shouldnt the performance evaluation procedure be extended to Directors, Deans, Heads of Departments and other positions, when re-appointment is sought?

Accountability
Shouldnt VCs and Deans provide intellectual leadership as well to their universities and faculties? At present, arent they pre-occupied with providing only administrative leadership?

Accountability and University Civil Society

It is important to develop the concept of university civil society that includes academic and non-academic trade unions, students unions and other spaces of social, intellectual, professional autonomy within the University. Academic trade unions led by FUTA has the capacity and credentials to assume leadership of the university civil society.

University Civil Society

Academic trade unions should assert themselves as stakeholders of university governance and act as a counterveiling force to check mal-governance in the universities.

Autonomy and Accountability

For example, it is difficult to legislate that UGC Chairman and VCs should not involve in national election campaigns and engage in partisan politics. But, the university civil society should be able to campaign for politically neutral conduct by VCs and UGC Chairman and members.

De-politicization for Autonomy

Academic right to engage in party politics should be protected. However, whenever an academic becomes a VC or UGC Chairperson, s/he should suspend party politics during the term of office.