Is our university fully autonomous? The answer is no, it has never been. Will the proposals in the new University Education Bill to set up administrative boards render the university more or less autonomous? They will make the institution less autonomous.
The university’s administration and finance are controlled by its council, where the government has a majority of members. This means that the government, through the council, can decide which course programmes the university offers, as well as students’ entry.
The council approves or vetoes appointments and promotions of academic and support staff. It regulates the institution’s budget and endorses or sanctions administrative decisions and development plans.
Simply put, the university cannot function without government approval.
The State has power over how the university spends its funds, whether the money derives from the 80 per cent provided from the national kitty or the 20 per cent generated by the institution itself.
The boards proposed by the new Bill –made up of four or five government- appointed members – will retain all the power presently enjoyed by the council, so one may legitimately ask: what’s new?
The significant difference lies in the human dynamics involved and the ways in which the current and proposed exercise of power operate.
Currently, the 32-member council (this number can be reduced) forms an assembly of academics, students and support personnel, together with a number of government-appointed members, where the latter form a majority.
The members of this forum discuss issues – whether academic, administrative or budgetary – from their various perspectives to reach equitable decisions.
Consequently, policies are formulated and resolutions reached jointly by non-government and government-appointed members, even if ultimately the latter can have the final say.
Boards composed of four or five technocrats will possess the legal power to run the university
The important point to note here is that collective decision-making results from interaction between the immediate stakeholders, namely students, staff, administrators and government representatives.
In contrast, boards composed of four or five technocrats will possess the legal power to run the university.
However, regardless of how well-meaning, their members will lack the richness of interests, the heterogeneous experiences, the varied capabilities and, most essentially, the collective moral authority that the council currently enjoys.
The proposed changes, therefore, raise three questions.
What prompts the government to add other decision-making boards entirely composed of members appointed by itself with the restrictive implications the move implies? The declared aim is to introduce greater accountably to a State-financed institution.
In truth, the government, through the council, already has all the power to ensure that the university functions in the nation’s best interests. It does not require more.
A second stated reason is to provide the university greater autonomy. The government will not achieve this aim by creating another regulatory, supervisory and bureaucratic layer of decision making and another bottleneck that will only delay the implementation of necessary action.
Or will the legislation create an opportunity for the public service to rein in what it has always wrongly regarded as an over-privileged institution operating outside its domain?
The Minister of Education has said the government has no intention of adding new strictures to the university. This statement in itself indicates that the proposed legislation contains the potential to reduce the university’s autonomy.
Can the minister vouchsafe that another minister or a future government will not use the proposed provisions to limit further the university’s autonomy?
The anticipated benefits of the pro-posed boards are illusionary. At best, they will act as another bureaucratic layer to slow performance; at worst, they will shrivel the arteries that provide the institution’s lifeblood.
Responsible autonomy constitutes a major criterion with which to gauge the international reputation of a university.
Limit this asset and the standing of our university plummets.
Charles Farrugia was the founding dean of the Faculty of Education, pro-rector for 10 years and university Ombudsman/Commissioner for Education for 10 years.