Debate on university reforms vital

Shelley Walia

Professor Emeritus, Panjab University, Member, Governance Reforms Committee

On the occasion of the 402nd anniversary year of William Shakespeare's death, his writings entreat us to confront the lie, "to unmask falsehood and bring truth to light". In a post-truth world, "the lie becomes the truth" and "realities are turned upside down". The accountability for our bleak situation lies not only in the governing elite, but also in the people who withdraw from the public space, thus sanctioning regulatory strategies of Orwellian doublespeak and understatements challenging fundamental norms of impartiality and prudence. 

The recent weeks have been volatile in Panjab University, with a conflict raging between the governing bodies and the Vice-Chancellor on the question of governance reforms. There has been recrimination and the language used gives a sense of deja vu: when derogatory language was used for the members of the governing body a few years ago. And now the teaching community is horrified at the vilification of the governing bodies. A decline in the way language is used is unacceptable. George Orwell is bang on in his famous essay "Politics and the English Language" where he explains the manner in which bad politics debases language and misused language coarsens political thought.

The question of governance is critical in shaping the ability of universities to adapt to a new world. The teaching community as well as the members of the Senate and the Syndicate feel this more strongly in the wake of the Vice-Chancellor's submission of an affidavit to the judiciary,  saying that there is an impediment in the timely decision-making process owing to the prevalence of "groupism". Groupism, it is alleged, impedes the smooth functioning of the administration at PU and matters of good governance are held hostage by the whims and fancies of certain groups. Academic politics can be so vicious.

The accusation of "groupism" acting as a deterrent is unsubstantiated. Having been in the Senate and the Syndicate for three terms, I can say that the two bodies have never scuttled any positive academic or administrative matter. Let the minutes of the Senate or Syndicate meetings over the last few years be scrutinised to ascertain if there has been any irrational or needless opposition to an issue. Debate is vital to any intelligent and judicious decision. It must not be regarded as a premeditated move to not allow the governing body to come to any resolution. Unilateralism cannot be permitted at any cost in a democratic set-up.

Most of the agenda before the Syndicate or the Senate gets through with a rational discussion. The few issues which take up time sometimes are motivated and have the intent of taking a prejudicial decision. Let us, therefore, not ruin the status of the university and its constitution which has a long history of over a hundred years. Let us not send wrong messages to the public through a 'holier than thou' stance, blaming the very essence of the governing body at the cost of bringing to an end the healthy practice of free debate. 

The premature hijacking of the work of the Governance Reforms Committee under the chairmanship of Justice BB Parsoon which is still in the process of completing its recommendations for the years to come is a blatant infringement of the university norms. Such an unprecedented exercise initiated to bring radical reforms cannot possibly be implemented hurriedly or in any half-baked manner. The reforms must be scrutinised and discussed at various faculty levels before any consensus is reached in order that they streamline the running of the university. Undoubtedly, changes in the structure of the Senate, its composition and its election process need to be discussed threadbare. The teaching community is aware of the obsolescence of a constitution that must retain its vibrant nature through periodic reforms. Rules have to be constantly re-interpreted and re-imagined as circumstances change. Without entering into any conflict-ridden stance, the community stands united in its aspiration for progress.

Taking the case of reforms to the judiciary is to scuttle the very idea of debate. The committee has only proposed structural changes which need to be put before the teaching community and the relevant governing bodies for debate and discussion before any changes are initiated.

Apparently, the Syndicate or the Senate are not responsible for interfering with the academic atmosphere of the university. Understandably, a vivacious and robust academic environment depends on the initiatives of each chairperson of the department along with his/her faculty. However, reforms at the apex level would mean only administrative or financial reforms. The academic progress in the quality of research, teaching as well as innovations in syllabi take place at the department level. 

Governance of the university does not mean only debating on finances, or recognition of courses at the college level or extensions.  It involves important issues of examination reforms, plagiarism, broadening student access and achieving better learning outcomes. It also concerns the quality of recruitment, selection procedures as well as the need for providing a conscientious non-teaching staff that can cooperate in the administrative running of the department.

Any debate on reforms must, therefore, focus on the evolution of faculty roles in decision-making and not only on the constitution of the Senate or the election to it. The present debate must take up problems at the grassroots faced by teachers and students. Modifications are always required and it is the faculty that are in a position to bring about reforms.  Leadership at the department level must not be constrained by rules and endorsements from above. 

A joint effort is needed by both the faculty and governing bodies in evolving a wise exercise of leadership. Shared governance is vital for smooth running. Daunting challenges to improve outcomes and to examine the affordability of education at all economic levels will depend on how each stakeholder intervenes in the debate and contributes to reforms that will take the university to a higher level. Mere structural changes in the Syndicate and the Senate overlook the vital consideration of technological, academic and cultural development so vital for successful reforms. We have advanced over time in response to pressures and challenges and we are adept at continuing to evolve.