MAY 29 — A spate of recent actions against students and lecturers of public universities has revived the debate among academia on the critical issue of academic freedom. Forums proposed by student organisations have been disallowed; guest speakers prevented from speaking, lecturers suspended for articulating views within their disciplines and contracts promised to lecturers aborted. Aggrieved lecturers have been reinstated or awarded compensation by courts. Students are routinely threatened with action for participating in peaceful and officially sanctioned demonstrations, or for the momentary display of banners at public meetings. Have universities reached the nadir of the constitutional right to freedom of speech and assembly — of which academic freedom is but a subset?
Institutional academic freedom became embedded a very long time ago as a firm universal tenet for institutions of higher learning. Universities were seen as not mere transmitters of established truths but, more importantly, as places where new truths were discovered. And this required unimpeded space for the free flow of ideas and the free expression of thought and action within an overarching guarantee of university autonomy.
States funded universities but, beyond that, left them largely alone. This did not last for long, for example, in our part of the world.
As an example, in Singapore the slippery slope emerged with 3 incidents: one, the 1960 Enright affair where a professor was publicly castigated by the government for criticising, albeit obliquely, government policy on culture in the course of a public lecture; second, the dismissal of a vice chancellor (VC) in 1963 for refusing to exclude for admission to the university, candidates identified as ‘subversives’ by the government; third, the en masse expulsion in 1966 of students championing student rights and academic freedom in tertiary institutions.
In Malaysia academic freedom was severely mauled by the 1974 government clampdown triggered by demonstrations (within the campus) by the Students Union supported by the Academic Staff Association. Staff and students were hauled in under the draconian Internal Security Act; some detained without trial from several months and up to 6 years; yet others released on 2-year restrictive police conditions. The consequential amendment of the Universities and University Colleges Act (UUCA) in 1975 introduced new wide provisions which banned every conceivable activity of students to address the wider societal issues. Significantly, students were denied the right to engage in social discourse on campus, although they had the constitutional right to vote as citizens. They were denied the right to participate in politics or even associate with ‘any society, political party, trade union or any other organisation, body or group of persons whatsoever, whether or not it is established under any law, whether it is in the university or outside’. The Court of Appeal recently struck out this provision as unconstitutional in the very first challenge of its validity. It violates the freedom of expression and imperils the future of the nation, said the judges, for it “impedes the healthy development of the critical mind and original thoughts of students — objectives that seats of higher learning should strive to achieve. Universities should be the breeding ground of reformers and thinkers, and not institutions to produce students trained as robots. Clearly the provision is not only counter- productive but repressive in nature”.
The UUCA has since been amended to excise the offending section. Now students of public and private institutions of higher learning can become members of political parties or other organisations; but other provisions seemingly antithetical to academic freedom still remain. Students and their societies, organisations, bodies and groups are prohibited from expressing or doing anything which may reasonably be construed as expressing support for or sympathy with or opposition to not only any lawful body, but as well, in respect of any such entity which the University Board of Directors (more on this later) determines to be unsuitable to the interests and well-being of the students or the University. Students’ are prohibited from expressing their views in relation to any organisation deemed unsuitable to the interests or well-being of students or the higher institutions. Nor can they be members of any group (other than a political party) which the board determines to be unsuitable to the interests and well-being of the students or the University. The vast subjective discretion given to the authorities in these widely cast catch-all provisions seem to fly in the face of the expressed beneficent intent of the amendments.
Interestingly, the 2007 — 2020 National Higher Education Strategic Plan, identifies university autonomy as a key element in turning Malaysia into a higher education excellence hub. The governance structural changes, however, seem to belie this laudable aim. A new entity, the Board of Directors (BOD), replaces the originally larger University Council. It is the highest executive body in the university and all powers of the university are placed and held by this board. Its members are all appointed by the Minister. There is only one member of the academic staff in this 11-member body. The Vice Chancellor is appointed by the Minister on the advice of a committee appointed by the Minister and after consultation with the BOD. Ultimate authority seems always traceable to the Minister — even if the Senate as the academic body is vested with the control and general direction of instruction, research and examination. This may render illusory the promise of autonomy to the 5 public universities accorded research status ‘to make decisions that were once decided by the then Ministry of Higher Education’. The performance of these universities is also audited ‘to ensure that the integrity and accountability of the universities would be kept in check under the Code of University Good Governance and University Good Governance Index’. The mandatory oath of loyalty by lecturers is seen by some as questioning the integrity of academics.
Undoubtedly the state has a clear and legitimate stake. It provides funding — in most cases, as in Malaysia — up to 90 per cent. It would want a say in the direction of the policies. Recognition of degrees and accreditation is also usually an accepted function of government. The challenge then is to strike a balance that allows for governmental input without impairing the university’s autonomy and academic freedom. This much is urged by UNESCO’s 1997 recommendations — subscribed to by Malaysia. The university’s self-governance in areas within their preserve must be consistent not only with public accountability, especially in respect of state funding, but crucially, respect for academic freedom and human rights. This is followed by an obligation to protect higher education institutions from threats to their autonomy coming from any source.
The university’s role then is to provide the necessary ambiance for the emergence of a graduate who is more than a competent technocrat bearing a ration card to the country’s surplus. The graduate must be the harbinger of creative and innovative solutions to the multitude of societal challenges. In the words of Malaysia’s prominent Islamic philosopher, Syed Naqib al Attas —universities should produce ‘a good man’ rather than ‘a good worker’.
Gurdial Singh Nijar
Professor, Law Faculty, University of Malaya
- See more at: http://www.themalaymailonline.com/what-you-think/article/whither-academic-freedom-gurdial-singh-nijar#sthash.maxO5yfF.dpuf
No comments:
Post a Comment