A voice in the wilderness
By Dr Tariq Rahman

posted: June 25, 2002

Since the last 17 years I have been arguing that the public universities should be reformed. I have published my arguments in the press and in my book Language, Education and Culture (1999). As such it is with great enthusiasm that I welcome the 'Report of the Task Force on Improvement of Higher Education in Pakistan' (2002) (Referred to as 'Task Force' in this article). I am glad that the government has, at least, acknowledged that higher education should be reformed.

The Task Force agrees that higher education has inadequate funding, poor recruitment practices, inadequate support for research and so on - some of the things I have been crying myself hoarse about. It also agrees that 'universities must have autonomy to develop their academic programs'. This is music to my ears but the Task Force, unfortunately, stops short of taking radical steps - steps which are not at all radical in some countries of the world - to bring about this autonomy.

The reason we do not have autonomy is because the colonial masters who created the university system in South Asia did not want it to have autonomy. This was ensured by making the chancellor a high functionary of the government (viceroy or governor) and making him appoint the chief executive officer (CEO) of a university who was called the vice chancellor (VC). In addition to that the decision-making bodies of the university - syndicate etc - were dominated by persons appointed by the chancellor or government functionaries. Moreover, the universities were mostly dependent upon public funds because of which they had to tow the official line.

British universities too were dependent on public funds though some did have independent resources but some of the oldest of them had initially been established as church schools. Since the church valued its autonomy the universities were more autonomous that their colonial counterparts in South Asia.

The Task Force has recommended that the university be governed by a Governing Board (GB). This GB should have 15 members. Out of these 5 are from 'society', 2 from government and 1 is an alumni. This means that most of the members can be non-academics. Moreover, the CEO of the university is ultimately the choice of the chancellor. Even those members who are from the academic community can be college principals and not the professors of the university. Indeed, only two members of the university's faculty will be members of the GB.

The inclusion of members from the civil society is justified in the name of accountability - that the universities' products are 'consumed' by the civil society. I do not doubt that the members of the Task Force sincerely believe in this and, indeed, their logic does appeal at face value.

In my view, however, the people who will make it to the GB will be powerful, possibly manipulative, individuals with no real understanding of a university. They will bring their own interests and ideas to decision-making in universities. As for the government members, they have always been treating the university from their own point of view which is bureaucratic.

Actually, the world view of the members of 'society' (Chambers of Commerce etc) is that of the business world. The world view of the state functionaries is that of towing the line of whoever happens to be in power. The world view of college principals, who live in institutions less concerned with research than universities are supposed to be, is that of teacher-administrators.

The world view I would like to prevail in the GB in that of the scholar i.e. innovative, interested in novelty for itself and not averse to taking an independent view which may not conform to the official line. Moreover, the university should be the only place where power should be with the academics. They can and should rule themselves and this has never been allowed in Pakistan and the present report of the Task Force does not allow it either.

That is why I suggest that the GB should consist of eight members from the full professors of the university provided that at least two are women. If women full professors are not available then associate professors or assistant professors who are women may also be chosen.

There should be two eminent persons with known achievements in science, arts, letters or the media. The four remaining members should be full professors from other universities. The CEO should be a member but only an ex-officio member. The chairmanship of the GB should be by elections held on the first meeting of the GB. The CEO should, as envisaged by the Task Force, be responsible to the GB.

The Task Force recommends that a search committee should recommend names to the Chancellor for the CEO. In my opinion the CEO (or VC) should be elected on the model of the election of the Pope. The Pope, as we know, is elected by the cardinals. No candidate puts his own name forward and the election is held in one sitting. In my view all the full professors of a university along with some associate professors known for their academic achievements should elect the VC.

The candidate should be a full professor with a high number of publications and recognition as a scholar. No other candidate should be allowed to contest under any circumstances. If it is feared that a VC from the same university will take sides with one faction or the other, it would be possible to elect the VC from among the outstanding academics (but not below the rank of full professor) from other universities. Once a VC is elected the Chancellor's approval of him should automatically follow. The Chancellor should not have the power to reject a candidate who comes through the due electoral process.

The Task Force's recommendations for an Executive Council (EO) are fine. However, its members should not include principals of colleges for reasons which will be given later in this article. It should also not include the heads of non-academic functions. The members should be full professors with representatives from other ranks of faculty.

The heads of departments, directors etc should be in rotation for three years with the option of opting out should someone desire not to be a chairperson. In many universities of the world senior most professors opt out from the duty of a chairperson and this is permitted.

There should be a Senate as well as an Academic Council. The Senate should consist of all the full professors, the most published associate professors, assistant professors and lecturers. It should make changes to statutes, elect members of the GB and other bodies and so on.

The Academic Council should have one full professor from each subject taught in the university. If a full professor is not available, an associate or assistant professor or lecturer may be chosen in his or her place. The member and quality of the publications of an academic should determine whether he or she can be chosen to be on the Academic Council or not.

The Task Force has recommended the replacement of the UGC by a Higher Education Commission. I agree that a body to grant university status is needed. Another of its functions could be to establish the equivalence in status of different degrees. However, other functions such as 'enhancement of the quality of higher education' are not needed. That is the function of the universities and any outside interference, no matter how well-intended, will erode the autonomy of the university.

In the end I would also recommend that the Chancellor, whom the Task Force leaves untouched, should be an eminent scientist, poet, writer, artist, scholar (including a religious scholar or alim) or journalist. He or she should be really eminent - people like Faiz Ahmed Faiz or Maulana Maudoodi come to the mind - and should be selected by a search committee of the GB. The Chancellor, however, should not have any powers. He or she should be a figurehead.

The steps I have recommended will bring the universities out of the powerful shadow of the government and non-academic people and pressure groups. However, to be really autonomous the universities should be granted property, land and business concerns as endowments (waqf comes to the mind). These, along with the annual budget grants from the state, should be such as to ensure that the universities should remain solvent. As so much money is hard to come by I have always been recommending that the number of universities should be fewer but their quality should be better than it is.

Another radical step I would like to suggest is that universities must not grant affiliations at all. No colleges or any other institutions should be affiliated with them. However, medical and engineering faculties can impart professional education provided they become part and parcel of the university. This will ensure that the university degree will be given to those who have had the exposure to the same faculty, have had the same library and laboratory facilities and gone through the same kind of courses.

What we have now is that our MA in a subject can come from a degree college with few facilities as well as a university department providing an entirely different atmosphere. This also ensures that one can have innovative courses evaluated and taught by academics as in American universities and Quaid-i-Azam University. Other institutions cannot replicate the course because it depends on the personality and competence of the faculty member who teaches it. As such affiliation gives the name of the university to students who have entirely different academic experiences.

I recommend that there should be a Council of National Standards upto BA/BSc level which should look after college curricula, teaching and examinations. After a four-year BA students should enter the university which should have no affiliating college at all. It is because I had this in mind that I did not recommend that principals of colleges should be part of any governing or decision-making body of a university. They should, of course, be part of the decision-making about colleges.

The reforms I have given above are not the last word on this subject. They will, and should, be subjected to scrutiny and criticism. What I would like to clarify, however, is that they have not been advanced in a critical, defiant or anti-authoritarian spirit. Though they may be contrary to some of the suggestions of the Task Force they are meant to serve the same purpose - reforming the universities. Mine is a voice in the wilderness; a lone voice; a weak voice and were it not that I really have the good of the universities at heart I would not have bothered raising it at all. All I request you, readers, is to read me once even if it is to reject my 'idealism' with laughter.

This article appeared in Dawn issue of May 26, 2002.