Scrapping aptitude test: A wrong decision University of the Visual and Performing Arts

The Island, June 21, 2012, 7:51 pm 

By Prof. Sarath Chandrajeewa|
Faculty of Visual Arts
University of the Visual and Performing Arts

A few weeks back, the Minister for Higher Education made a public declaration regarding the Aptitude Test, which is held to select students for the University of the Visual and Performing Arts. He said that the above practical examination would not be held hereafter, and that the criteria for entrance would be three passes including an A, for an aesthetic subject at the GCE Advanced Level Examination.

An Aptitude Test is an internationally accepted criterion used in selecting students for universities offering distinct courses like Painting, Sculpture, Music, Dance, Drama, Theatrical Arts and Architecture etc; to evaluate the creative capacity of the applicant. This methodology has been a regular feature for a long time in our university as well as our earlier institutes. The history of higher education pertaining to Visual Arts in this country goes back to 1893. The Drawing and Painting Course which was held at the Maradana Technical College progressively developed into the Faculty of Visual Arts at the contemporary University of Visual and Performing Arts. In 1952, J.D.A. Perera, the eminent painter, who was also the principal of the Government College of Arts, became a pioneer by introducing Performing Arts, Dance and Music to the existing subjects of painting, sculpture and craft to tertiary level education in this country. The Faculties of Dance and Music at our present university is the result of the development of these two subjects. Accordingly, the history of visual arts in tertiary level education in this country spans for 119 years while performing arts spans for 60 years. Throughout this long history, students for these subject streams have been selected through the means of Aptitude Tests. 21st century international universities conducting visual and performing art courses have developed their level of education by advancing these aptitude tests to a higher standard.

The University of the Visual and Performing Arts is the only university in Sri Lanka to offer courses in visual and performing arts. It is wrong to compare it to other universities.

There are similarly unique universities differentiated according to their subject streams. Among such universities, the University of Moratuwa has a special identity. Our university produces artists and artisans. So, the authority to select the most suitable students according to these disciplines should be held by the particular university. Gaining an A Pass for an aesthetic subject at the Advanced Level examination alone is not sufficient for this purpose. Particulars of the subject matter that are not taken into consideration at the GCE Advanced Level should be looked into at this stage. As an example, an applicant’s capacity for creativity, his skill in using visual space for his 2D creations and his cultural specialty can be read by his drawings and painting compositions. In music, the applicant’s sensitivity to singing and the playing of an instrument, high and low pitches as well as personality when performing are important to us. Likewise, the distinguished body formation in dance, rhythmic peaks in movements, and again the personality in performing should be observed by the university in direct contact with the applicant. These details are not taken into account at the Advanced Level examination. On the other hand, marks at the Advanced Level examination is given on the basis of 50% for the practical paper and 50% for the art history paper. In this regard, a student with a low skill in practical knowledge could also get an ‘A Pass’ by writing a good theory paper.

There are approximately 5,000 applicants, qualified in their GCE Advanced Level, waiting to gain admission to the University of the Visual and Performing Arts every year. However, taking into consideration the available facilities and space at the university as well as the job market, only a little more than 500 can be accommodated. Because of this reason, it is imperative to select a skilled, practical group with a higher capacity for creativity. More than 100,000 students per year pass their GCE Advanced Levels in this country. From this amount, fewer than 25,000 students are selected for universities. What we do is to select the most suitable student. Regrettably, based on petitions we have been informed by a circular to stop these aptitude tests without having any academic discussion or a proper investigation.

Practice elsewhere

In similar universities in other countries designated for Visual and Performing Arts, an applicant must prove his sensitivity and creativity towards the chosen subjects in the field of Architecture as well. A mere ‘A pass’ at university entrance examinations is not considered a qualification in those universities. The competition is at the admission/aptitude test or at the interview. The aptitude test, personal portfolio or a performance in front of an examination board to judge their capabilities is mandatory in this regard. The Delhi College of Art in India, LaSalle College of Art in Singapore, Tokyo University of Fine Arts & Music in Japan, Central Academy of Fine Arts-Beijing-China, Silpakon University-Bangkok-Thailand, University of Wollongong-Creative Arts-Australia, The University of Arts-London, Academy of Arts University-San Francisco, California, Surikov-Moscow serve as examples.

Removing us from this system is a wrong decision. Subsequently, our universities in the future will produce artistes who can only speak about art but without practical ability. International universities imparting visual and performing art education, pay much attention to these guidelines to maintain the standards of these practical oriented degrees and to uphold their reputations as renowned universities. To list two brief examples, the Royal College of Art in London, accepts only four students per year worldwide for their course in Bronze casting at the Faculty of Fine arts. Likewise, at the State Academy of Art Institute in Moscow, the intake is only nine students per year worldwide. These limitations are based on many factors.

The present Minister of Higher Education S. B. Dissanayake, held a one-day seminar at the BMICH under the theme ‘Beyond the Horizon’ soon after he took up his appointment. At this seminar it was stressed that the standard of Sri Lankan universities should be on par with international universities. However, through the autocratic decision that has been taken regarding our university, the standard of recognition for our disciplines has been lowered. These decisions are not compatible with the 21st century vision of Visual and Performing Arts education.

Disregard for procedures

Decisions on examination methods, cut off marks, preparing guidelines etc. are taken by the University Senate based on the recommendations of the Faculty Board. These recommendations are arrived at after several academic discussions, debates and in-depth study of facts. This responsibility is carried out in keeping with the University Act. The decision to do away with the aptitude test has been taken without any such discussions with the Faculty Board of the University. The methodology of legalising these foolhardy decisions is also dangerous. Lecturers are highly frustrated over this decision. An incident that happened during the last year can be cited here as an example.

A circular dated 2011.08.25 and No. UGC/AD/1 was sent to us from the University Grants Commission, under the heading "University Admissions Academic Year 2010-2011 (Extra Intake). It reads:

"This refers to the discussion your university had with the Minister of the Higher Education regarding petitions forwarded by the students in connection with the practical test which was held by your university.

As agreed during those discussions, it has been decided to bring down the pass mark of the practical test to 40% from 50% .... According to this an additional 183 students have been successful in gaining admission to courses being held at your university for the academic year 2010/2011…."

By bringing down the pass mark from 50% to 40%, it can be decided whether we are going beyond the horizon or being limited to this island. What actually happened was that the Vice Chancellor, the three Deans of the Faculties and only the Heads of Departments of the Faculty of Visual Arts were summoned urgently for a discussion with the Minister. The Minister came into the meeting saying, "We have to bring down the pass mark for the practical examination. There were petitions from students against this examination. This has to be stopped." This meeting was neither open for discussion, nor was the minister patient enough to listen to those present. The whole meeting lasted for about 15 minutes. The Heads of the Department were against lowering the pass mark and also against terminating the practical test. Nevertheless last year, lowering the pass mark to 40% was legalised by a circular and accordingly, the extra number of students gained admission to the university. Because of this additional intake we now face many difficulties regarding infrastructural facilities.

Again, from this year the methodology of selecting students from an aptitude test has been terminated without any academic discussion. So much for transparency and academic freedom! It is rumoured that the government has taken this decision as some of the applicants who failed at this aptitude test have political connections and therefore a decision has been taken to lower the marks and terminate the aptitude test.

Insulting lecturers

According to the Minister of Higher Education, the Aptitude Test is tainted with corruption. Lecturers admit students who are on good terms with them, according to him. The Ministry claims to have received many petitions on such alleged malpractices.

This is an insult to the lecturers of our University. If the minister’s claims are true then they should be investigated and punitive action taken against the culprits after an impartial inquiry. It is a common practice in our country for applicants to write petitions when they fail a test. Even in 1998, this aptitude test was suspended by the University Grants Commission. Following objections by the lecturers, the Dean of the Creative Art Faculty of the Wollongong University, Australia, Prof. Sharon Bell was appointed to look into this matter as a one-member committee. Her recommendation at that time was also that the aptitude test was essential to strengthen and develop art education and to make it more productive. I wish to gratefully mention Professor Carlo Fonseka, who supported this decision in his capacity as a member of the University Grants Commission at that time. Accordingly, the test was restored. There are ways and means of conducting this examination free from malpractices. We have experience and the methodology to do so. Even now, the examination boards for these aptitude tests comprise, apart from the permanent lecturers of the faculties of Visual Art, Dance and Music, one visiting expert on the subject, a member of the University Grants Commission, Heads of department and Deans of Faculties. It is illegal for lecturers who are conducting private classes to serve on examination boards. A written declaration is also obtained to this effect from these lecturers. The proper procedure is to find methods to conduct the examinations with complete transparency. Scrapping the aptitude test is not the answer.

The writer is a renowned sculptor. He is former Director of the Institute of Aesthetic Studies. He was involved in a campaign which led to the restoration of the aptitude test after its earlier suspension.

(2001 – 2002)

FUTA President Intimidated and Threatened

20/06/2012, uteachers.sl,

We have learnt from the FUTA president Dr. Nirmal Ranjith Dewasiri that a group of people identifying themselves to be attached to the Ministry of Defense have inquired about Dr. Dewasiri and his family from his neighbors.

The FUTA is taking necessary legal action to ensure Dr. Nirmal Ranjith Dewasiri and his family's safety.

Updated 6:00PM..

Dr. Nirmal Dewasiri has lodged a complaint with this regard at the Maharagama police and the FUTA has written to the Ministry of Defense and the IGP requesting that immediate steps be take to ensure his and his family's safety. Further to this the AFTU-CU has also requested the above authorities to ensure their safety.

Autonomy of Sri Lankan Universities and forthcoming Trade Union Action - What is our Role?

A talk by, Dr. Deepika Udagama, 21st Thursday 2012 at 10:30AM at the Open University.


Download the googledoc notice.

ලංකාවේ සරසවි අර්බුධයට පිළියම් එතෙර විද්වතුන් කියති

Gossip9.com, 19/06/2012

වර්තමානයේ ශ්‍රී ලංකාවේ විශ්ව විද්‍යාල වල පැන නැගී ඇති අර්බුදකාරී තත්වය අඩු කර ගැනීම සඳහා ගතයුතු පිළියම් ගැන ඇමරිකාවේ ෆ්ලොරිඩා විශ්ව විද්‍යාලයේ ශ්‍රී ලංකික සම්භවයක් ඇති ආචාර්යවරියක් විසින් අදහස් දක්වා තිබේ.

මෙම යෝජනා ආචාර්යවරිය විසින් උසස් අධ්‍යාපන ඇමැතිවරයාටද යොමු කොට තිබේ.

එම යෝජනාවලිය පහතින් බලන්න

1) ශ්‍රී ලංකාවේ සරසවි වලට බඳවාගන්නා සිසුන් සංඛ්‍යාව අඩු කොට සංඛ්‍යාත්මක අගයට වඩා ගුණාත්මකභාවයට මුල් තැනක් දීම

2) දැනට රැකියා අවස්ථා අඩු සහ එලදායිතාව අඩු ශාස්ත්‍ර පීඨ වලට ගන්නා සිසුන් 60 % දක්වා අඩු කිරීම

3) රැකියා අවස්ථා අඩු සහ ගුණාත්මකභාවයෙන් හීන උපාධි පාඨමාලා අවලංගු කිරීම

4) යල් පැනගිය සිද්ධාන්ත සහ විෂයමාලා අඩංගු උපාධි පාඨමාලා නවීකරණය

5) න්‍යායාත්මක දැනුම සමග ප්‍රායෝගික දැනුම සිසුන්ට ලබාදීමට පියවර ගැනීම

6) ශ්‍රී ලංකික විශ්ව විද්‍යාල වල ගුණාත්මකභාවය ආකල්පමය වර්ධනය සඳහා සංවර්ධිත විශ්ව විද්‍යාලවල සේවය කොට ඇති අත්දැකීම් සහිත ආචාර්යවරුන් සහ පරිපාලකයන් බඳවා ගැනීම

7) ශ්‍රී ලංකික විශ්ව විද්‍යාල වල ඉගෙනුම ලබන සිසු සිසුවියන්ට අන්තර්ජාතිකව පිළිගත් විශ්ව විද්‍යාලවල ස්වභාව පිළිබඳව පරිචයක් ලබා දීම සඳහා කෙටි කාලින සිසු හුවමාරු වැඩසටහන් පැවැත්වීම

8) නවක වදය තුරන් කිරීම සඳහා දැඩි පියවර ගැනීම සහ නවක වදය කෙරෙහි Zero Tolerance ප්‍රතිපතියක් අනුගමනය කිරීම

9) නවක වදය නැවැත්වීමට අසමත්වන විශ්ව විද්‍යාල පරිපාලකයන් ඉවත් කොට නිපුණ පරිපාලකයන් පත් කිරීම

10) උපාධිය අවසන් කිරීමෙන් පසු ආණ්ඩුවෙන් රැකියාවක් දෙනතුරු බලාගෙන සිටීම වැනි පසුගාමී ආකල්ප වලින් සරසවි සිසුවා මුදවා රාජ්‍ය මෙන්ම පුද්ගලික අංශයේ රැකියා සඳහා තරඟකාරීත්වයක් ඇති කොට රැකියාවන් සඳහා නිසි පුහුණුව ආකල්පමය දියුණුව ඇති කිරීම

11) තරඟකාරීත්වය මගින් රාජ්‍ය විශ්ව විද්‍යාල වල ගුණාත්මකභාවය ඉහල නැග්වීම සඳහා නිසි ප්‍රමිතියකින් යුතුව පුද්ගලික විශ්ව විද්‍යාල ඇති කිරීම

12) දේශීය විශ්ව විද්‍යාලවල විනය හා සංස්කෘතිය ඉහල මට්ටමකට ගෙන ඒම සහ ඉන් පසු විදේශීය සිසුන් මුදල් අයකරගැනීමේ පදනම් මත බඳවාගැනීම. එමගින් විශ්ව විද්‍යාල වලට අදායම් ඇතිකරගැනීම

- දර්ශිනි විමලසුරිය

The Academic Spring continues!

The Island, June 17, 2012, 7:51 pm 

By Camena Guneratne and Harini Amarasuriya
Open University of Sri Lanka

Almost one year ago, we wrote an article suggesting that there were signals from the academic community that it was waking up from a long slumber. We wrote about the fact that the Federation of University Teachers Association (FUTA) was moving away from, primarily a battle for salaries, to addressing a range of issues affecting not just higher education, but education in general.

We felt inspired to write another piece after participating in the FUTA march and rally that marked the academics’ token strike on the 26th of April, 2012. After almost one year, FUTA called upon academics from all the national universities to come together for a protest march starting from the University of Colombo to the Public Library where several speakers addressed the gathering. The proceedings were chaired by Prof. H Sriyananda, a much respected, former FUTA President. What was significant about this rally was that of the many demands put forward by FUTA, explaining the reasons for the strike, the primary focus was not on salaries but on other pressing issues faced by state universities and the national education system. The slogan for the day was, ‘Let’s Protect State Universities’ and one of the main demands was for the government to allocate 6% of the GDP for education. Other demands included a more consultative and transparent policy making process and halting the politicization and micro-management of universities by the Higher Education Minister in violation of the Universities Act. Academics also registered their protests against the suppression of student activism and the instigation of intra-student violence through the Ministry’s open support of certain student factions.

The letter sent by the General Secretary of FUTA to President Mahinda Rajapaksa and Minister of Higher Education 
S. B. Dissanayake giving notification of the token strike was in a sense historic in that perhaps for the first time in the history of FUTA’s trade union struggles, it sent a strong message to the government, that the academic community is no longer confining itself to the issue of university teachers’ salaries and other benefits, but is now taking on the many issues and challenges faced by the higher education sector and that it is holding the government to account on these matters.

Given that salary issues were not the main focus of the march and the rally (and also considering the inclement weather at the time), the turnout was particularly impressive. Almost 800 academics from all parts of the country converged on Colombo that day. Their enthusiasm and energy were palpable and the concerns of academics were eloquently expressed by the stream of speakers at the meeting.

Success

Part of the reason for the success of the token strike on that day could be attributed to the slow and incremental steps FUTA has been taking over the past several months with regard to keeping its membership awake. When the trade union action was called off last year, there was a feeling of shock and even betrayal. Many within the academic community were not ready to call the strike off and were unhappy at the decision. But it is clear that the mobilisation of academics that took place during last years’ trade union action has not diminished and has now been channelled into wider national issues.

The activism of the academic community gained a renewed impetus as a result of the government’s attempt to pass an ill conceived law relating ostensibly to the establishment of non state universities. This Bill was earlier titled the Qualification Framework, Quality Assurance and Accreditation of Higher Educational Institutions Act, and then, in a later version, re-named the Higher Education (Non-State) Act. Notwithstanding its name it is not limited to establishing a (very questionable) legal framework for setting up non-state universities. While the current Universities Act clearly excludes any political interference in the functioning of universities and limits the role of the Minister in their academic and administrative affairs, the proposed law reverses this position. Under the guise of ensuring quality control of universities, it gives the Minister total control over all academic matters in state universities to the extent of permitting him/her to terminate or suspend academic programmes.

UGC sidlined

The draft law sidelines the University Grants Commission, which is currently the apex body overseeing the functioning of State universities, including quality control, and takes away the autonomy of university Faculty Boards and Senates to decide on matters relating to instruction, education, research and examinations in universities. Most amazingly, a ‘secrecy’ clause in the draft law requires all persons involved in the process of quality assurance of universities to sign a declaration of secrecy in respect of any matter which may come to their knowledge in the exercise of their functions. In effect, the law, if enacted would give the Minister the power to terminate university academic programmes without giving any reasons and with no accountability for his/her actions. This Bill was, in fact, drafted in secrecy and to date its origins are unknown. It would probably have been rushed through Parliament if academics had not got wind of it. The swift reaction by FUTA which voiced its strong protests against the Bill has, for the time being, resulted in it being put on hold.

Non-State universities

Academics’ concerns are that the establishment of non-State universities is in effect a strategy of the government to abdicate responsibility for university education in Sri Lanka and transfer this sphere totally to the private sector. The draft law was one such attempt. However, over the years the capacity of universities in this country to function effectively and to provide a quality education to students has been systematically eroded, partly by political interference in university matters, but mainly by the withdrawal of funds for education.

A presentation by Prof. Amal Kumarage of the University of Moratuwa at the public meeting demonstrated very clearly the extent to which successive governments had sidelined education and higher education over a period of time. He quoted a World Bank Report of 2011 titled Transforming School Education in Sri Lanka which states, "Public expenditures on education in Sri Lanka are modest when compared to middle income countries and other comparable nations. Education expenditure as a percentage of GDP is 1.9 percent and as a proportion of the government budget is 7.3 percent. This is the smallest share of public investment in education among a cluster of countries that share common features with Sri Lanka. Public investment in education in Sri Lanka falls below the level of East Asian countries such as South Korea, Malaysia, Thailand and Singapore; Latin American countries such as Argentina, Brazil, Bolivia, Columbia and Cost Rica; and of the other South Asian nations such as India, Bangladesh, Pakistan and Nepal. It is also well below the share of investment for middle income countries as a whole. In fact, advanced middle income countries normally invest about 4.6 percent of national income in education, which is more than double the share of national income devoted to education by Sri Lanka."

UNESCO statistics

According to the UNESCO Institute for Statistics even sub-Saharan Africa spends close to 4.5% on education and it further states that "By far the lowest level of public spending is found in Central Asia and in East Asia and the Pacific – both of which report only 2.8% of GDP." Sri Lanka with an annual expenditure of 1.9% of GDP on education does not even come close to the lowest. Of this amount, the proportion that has been allocated for university education has been steadily decreasing. In 2005, it was 0.50% and this has decreased to a mere 0.27% in 2010. Universities are accused of not being able to cater to the increasing demand for higher education; with such woefully inadequate investment in university education how can we accommodate larger numbers, let alone improve the quality of higher education?

University academics are now campaigning for greater investment in education and the slogan "6% of GDP for education" has become a central theme in discussions. This is not a random figure plucked out of the air; it is a UNESCO recognised benchmark on what a country should invest in education. There is now far more discussion in Sri Lanka regarding this allocation and this is due to academics taking up this issue as a primary concern. Faculty Boards and Senates in universities have also slowly started taking up matters such as these with more energy, making it clear to university administrators that they cannot ride roughshod over established procedures.

Such bodies exist for the purpose of debate and consultation on all matters relating to higher education and there are signs that they are now becoming forums of intense debate on a range of issues. Academics are beginning to assert their rights and obligations to actively participate in the decision making process.

A related matter of concern for academics is the erosion of university autonomy and academic independence in recent years. Academics themselves have contributed to this erosion by remaining ignorant of proper procedures and not only allowing procedures to be bypassed but by actively by passing these themselves. For instance, the University Grants Commission (UGC) remains the central body that is responsible for universities and academics. This is very clear in the Universities Act. Although, this Act gives the Minister of Higher Education a role, it is an extremely limited one and the Minister has no say in academic matters. It is clear that over the years, these boundaries have been seriously violated. The ‘leadership training’ given to university entrants without consultation with universities is a case in point. The recent concessions provided to CIMA to operate within universities is another instance where Senates and Faculty Boards were bypassed when making decisions that have implications for academic programmes of universities. It has now become the practice for some academics to deal directly with the Minister and the Ministry, bypassing the university bodies and also the UGC. Of course, the UGC has not helped by actively ceding its role to the Minister and the Ministry, but academics need to insist that the UGC fulfils its mandate. Issues that should be dealt with at university level by Faculty Boards and Senates, are now being decided upon by the Minister. The gradual erosion of established systems and procedures through ceding too much authority to the political leadership is a serious problem in Sri Lanka. We must recognise our own complicity in this process and be aware of its dangers.

Finally, its actions over the past several months have put FUTA and university academics in the public eye. As many speakers on the 26th of April noted, in a way, this is a historic moment for FUTA and for university academics. It is coming forward as a strong voice not just on behalf of itself but on behalf of the broader public interests. This means that it has raised expectations not just among its own membership but among the public as well. When the last trade union action was called off, the public saw it as an admission of defeat by FUTA.

FUTA has decided to resort to trade union action again in the near future. This time around, the stakes are even higher: there are a few signs that the government may be prepared to give into FUTA demands on salary and other welfare issues of academics. The tone with which the Ministry is dealing with the academic community has also changed. There are no longer attacks on the academic community by the Minister of Higher Education like during the last trade union action. There was no doubt that the crudity of those attacks also helped to mobilise the academic community. What does this then mean at this juncture of the battle? Will FUTA and its membership decide not to persist with the broader agenda if its salary demands are met? If that happens, the academic community’s legitimacy and relevance in the eyes of the wider community will be seriously eroded. During the last year or so, the FUTA leadership and the academic community have worked hard to make themselves relevant after a period of long hibernation. This would be wasted if the current momentum is not sustained. Despite the superficial easing off of the cold war, this government has not in any way shown a serious interest in addressing the broader issues raised by academics regarding the problems in the state university system and education in general. It is important that we remind ourselves that this time around, we are not fighting only for ourselves but for the future of public higher education in Sri Lanka.

FUTA to take TU action

Ceylon Today, Date:2012-06-14 15:41:00

By Aisha Nazim

University lecturers will launch aggressive trade union action from 4 July, for a number of unresolved issues in the university sector, asserted the Federation of University Teachers’ Association (FUTA).

Addressing a media briefing, FUTA president Dr. Nirmal Ranjith Devasiri said the FUTA has warned the Higher Education Ministry and the University Grants Commission (UGC) that the lecturers would agitate if the demands they put forward to the government are not met.

The academics’ demands were that the Higher Education Ministry should consult the lecturers before making any reforms in the university system, that the academics should receive better salaries and benefits, and for private universities to be abolished. In addition, the FUTA also demanded that at least 6% of the GDP should be allocated for the education sector.

“We withheld trade union action last year based on an agreement with the government, in which President Rajapaksa himself promised to look into our issues. However, it’s nearly one year now, and the agreement has been violated as the government has made no effort to fulfill their promises to us,” said Dr. Devasiri.

The universities are in chaos, with the non-academic community on strike and the students also agitating against the lack of resources and against student suppression, he said, urging the government to seriously consider the appeals of the university community.

Meet demands now or face strike action, says FUTA

Sunday Times, 17/06/2012

Higher Education in crisis
12,000 non academic staff still out on strike

By S. Gunasekara
Academic staff of state universities will join the ongoing strike by non-academic staff from July 4, unless the Government agreed to meet demands put forward by them, Federation of University Teachers’ Association (FUTA) President Nirmal Dewasiri has announced.

Addressing a news conference in Colombo on Friday, Dr. Dewasiri said the academics’ strike would be in support of their demand for a 20 per cent pay hike and a government undertaking to safeguard the free-education system.

He charged that the government was reluctant to support education in general and university education in particular. “In 2005 the government’s expenditure on education was 3.4% of the GDP, while in 2012 it had been reduced to a miserable 1.9%. In 2005, the government spent 0.52% of the GDP on the universities. It has declined to 0.27% in 2012,” he said.

FUTA’s Peradeniya University Branch General Secretary Terrance Madhujith warned that if the strike by the academic staff was allowed to continue, not only state universities but education in general too would be affected.

He added there would be no “new intake to the universities in October and there would be no undertaking of any school matters such as the setting of papers for the ‘A’ level exams, nor will there be any marking of papers” he warned.

Referring to the ongoing strike of non-academic university staff –numbering 12,000 workers- which commenced at the beginning of the month he said it had critically affected the day-to-day functioning of all sate-run universities. It had also led to the cancellation of daily schedules including weekend classes.

A case in point he said was the abrupt cancellation of weekend classes at the Colombo University without adequate notice being given to students. He added the decision to launch strike action came in the aftermath of failed talks between the Inter University Trade Union Federation and the Secretary to the Ministry of Higher Education Dr. Sunil Jayanthe Navaratne on June 5.

The issue in dispute was the failure of authorities to settle salary anomalies which had existed over the past several years. Dr. Madhujith said facilities such as sanitation, garbage disposal, hostel services were a few of the services provided by the non-academics which had been brought to a standstill following the strike.

As a result large numbers of students staying at university hostels had no alternative but to return to their homes.President of the Inter-University Student Union, Sanjeewa Bandara said if the strike continued it would affect the academic timetable for the year. This action would cause the semester to be extended and delays in holding of exams he added.

FUTA Demands 2012

The summary on the FUTA trade union action initiated on 15th March 2011, its suspension on 21st July 2011, its revival on 26th the April 2012 and the basis for its actions is detailed in the following FUTA document titled ``Federation of University Teachers' Associations’Continuous Strike of 2012 July - Demands''


Download Google Doc document.

අනධ්‍යයන වර්ජනය ගැන අද තීරණාත්මක සාකච්ඡාවක්‌

www.divaina.com, 16/06/2012, නිලන්ත මදුරාවල

වැඩ වර්ජනයේ යෙදී සිටින විශ්වවිද්‍යාල වෘත්තීය සමිති ඒකාබද්ධ කමිටුව සමග මුදල් අමාත්‍යාංශ හා වැටුප් හා සේවක සංඛ්‍යා කොමිෂන් සභා නිලධාරීන් අද (16 වැනිදා) තීරණාත්මක සාකච්ඡාවක්‌ පැවැත්වීමට නියමිතය.

වැටුප් විෂමතා ඉවත් කිරීමට අදාළ සියලුම පියවර ගෙන ඇතැයි උසස්‌ අධ්‍යාපන අමාත්‍යාංශ ලේකම් ආචාර්ය සුනිල් ජයන්ත නවරත්න මහතා ඒකාබද්ධ කමිටුවට ඊයේ (15 වැනිදා) දැනුම් දුන්නේය. ඒ පිළිබඳ සාකච්ඡා කිරීම සඳහා පැමිණෙන ලෙසද ලේකම්වරයා කමිටුවෙන් ඉල්ලා සිටියේය.

ගැටලුව සම්බන්ධයෙන් සාකච්ඡා කිරීම සඳහා මුදල් අමාත්‍යාංශය සහ වැටුප් හා සේවක සංඛ්‍යා කොමිෂන් සභාවේ නිලධාරීන් සම්බන්ධ කළ හැකි බව ලේකම්වරයා දන්වා සිටියේ යෑයි වෘත්තීය සමිති ඒකාබද්ධ කමිටුවේ සම සභාපති ආර්. එච්. චන්ද්‍රපාල මහතා zදිවයිනZට පැවැසීය. පවතින ගැටලුව විස¹ ගැනීම සඳහා ඕනෑම අවස්‌ථාවක සාකච්ඡාවට සූදානම් යෑයි ද හෙතෙම කීවේය.

රාජ්‍ය විශ්වවිද්‍යාලවලට ආණ්‌ඩුවෙන් කුඩම්මාගේ සැලකිලි - සරසවි ආචාර්යවරුන්ගේ සම්මේලනයේ සභාපති

www.divaina.com, 15/06/2012

නිලන්ත මදුරාවල

ආණ්‌ඩුව අද රාජ්‍ය විශ්වවිද්‍යාල පද්ධතියට දක්‌වන්නේ කුඩම්මාගේ සැලකිල්ලක්‌ යෑයි විශ්වවිද්‍යාල ආචාර්යවරුන්ගේ සමිති සම්මේලනයේ සභාපති ආචාර්ය නිර්මාල් රංජිත් දේවසිරි මහතා පැවසීය. එලෙස අඩු සැලකිල්ලක්‌ දැක්‌වීම පිටුපස උපාධි කඩ ආරම්භ කිරීම වැනි වෙනත් න්‍යාය පත්‍රයන් තිබිය හැකි යෑයි ද ඒ මහතා සඳහන් කළේය.

සභාපතිවරයා මේ බව ප්‍රකාශ කළේ ලබන මස 4 වැනිදා සිට ආරම්භ කිරීමට නියමිත අඛණ්‌ඩ වැඩවර්ජනය සම්බන්ධයෙන් කරුණු දැක්‌වීම සඳහා කොළඹ ජාතික පුස්‌තකාල හා ප්‍රලේඛන සේවා මණ්‌ඩලයේ ඊයේ (14 වැනිදා) පැවැති මාධ්‍ය හමුවේදීය.

රාජ්‍ය විශ්වවිද්‍යාල පද්ධතිය මේ වන විට පාලනය කළ නොහැකි මට්‌ටමකට පත්ව ඇතැයි ද පාලකයන් විශ්වවිද්‍යාලවල පවතින අර්බුදය ගැන සොයා නොබැලීම ඊට හේතුව යෑයි ද කී දේවසිරි මහතා මෙම තත්ත්වය යටතේ විශ්වවිද්‍යාල දැඩි අර්බුදයකට ලක්‌වීම නොවැළැක්‌විය හැකි යෑයි ද සඳහන් කළේය.

අධ්‍යාපනය සඳහා දළ ජාතික නිෂ්පාදනයෙන් වැය කරන ප්‍රමාණය සියයට හය දක්‌වා වැඩි කිරීම, විශ්වවිද්‍යාල දේශපාලන බලපෑම්වලින් තොරව තීන්දු ගත හැකි ස්‌ථාන බවට පත් කිරීම හා මීට සිව් වසරකට පෙර එකඟ වූ වැටුප් වර්ධකයන් ලබාදීම යන ප්‍රධාන ඉල්ලීම් මුල්කර ගනිමින් වර්ජනය ක්‍රියාත්මක කරන බව ද, මෙය හුදෙක්‌ වැටුප් පමණක්‌ ඉල්ලා කරන වෘත්තීය ක්‍රියාමාර්ගයක්‌ නොවන බව ද ඒ මහතා පැවසීය.

ආචාර්යවරුන්ගේ සමිති සම්මේලනයේ සාමාජිකයෝ රැසක්‌ මෙම මාධ්‍ය හමුවට එක්‌වූහ.

FUTA Declares a continuous strike to be launched on 4th July 2012

Download the the FUTA media statements issued on 14/06/2012 from googledocs:

English Version

Sinhala Version

Tamil Version





Download Google Doc Sinhala Version



Download the Google Doc Tamil Version

අනධ්‍යයන සේවකයෝ ඒකාබද්ධ වෘත්තීය සටනකට සූදානම්

www.divaina.com, 14/06/2012නිලන්ත මදුරාවල

වැටුප් විෂමතා ඉවත් කිරීම තවදුරටත් ප්‍රමාද කරන්නේ නම් රාජ්‍ය සේවාවේ සෙසු වෘත්තීය සමිති සමඟ ඒකාබද්ධ ක්‍රියාමාර්ග ආරම්භ කිරීමට අන්තර් විශ්වවිද්‍යාල වෘත්තීය සමිති ඒකාබද්ධ කමිටුව තීරණය කර ඇත.

අනධ්‍යයන කාර්ය මණ්‌ඩල ආරම්භ කර ඇති වැඩ වර්ජනයට රාජ්‍ය සේවා වෘත්තීය සමිති මහා සම්මේලනය දැනටම සහය පළ කර තිබේ.

සෞඛ්‍ය, තැපැල්, දුම්රිය, අධ්‍යාපන, මුද්‍රණාල, ධීවර, රක්‍ෂණ හා ටෙලිකොම් යන ක්‍ෂේත්‍රයන්හි වෘත්තීය සමිති ඒකාබද්ධව පිහිටුවා තිබෙන රාජ්‍ය සේවා වෘත්තීය සමිති සම්මේලනය ප්‍රකාශ කරන්නේ අනධ්‍යයන කාර්ය මණ්‌ඩල වැඩ වර්ජනය සාකච්ඡා මාර්ගයෙන් වහා විසඳිය යුතු බවත් එසේ නොවන්නේ නම් ඒකාබද්ධ වෘත්තීය ක්‍රියාමාර්ගවලට යොමු වන බවත්ය.

මීට අමතරව විශ්වවිද්‍යාල අනධ්‍යයන කාර්ය මණ්‌ඩල ද සිය වර්ජනයට එක්‌කර ගැනීම සඳහා සාකච්ඡා කරන බව වෘත්තීය සමිති ඒකාබද්ධ කමිටුවේ සම සභාපති ආර්. එම්. චන්ද්‍රපාල මහතා "දිවයින" ට ඊයේ (13 වැනිදා) පැවසීය. එමෙන්ම තවත් වෘත්තීය සමිති රැසක්‌ සමග මේ වන විට සාකච්ඡා ආරම්භ කර තිබෙන බවද හෙතෙම සඳහන් කළේය.

කුමන තත්ත්වයන් යටතේ වුවද තවමත් විශ්වවිද්‍යාලයන්හි ස්‌වෙච්ඡා සේවාවලින් අනධ්‍යයන කාර්ය මණ්‌ඩලය ඉවත් වී නොමැති බව ද චන්ද්‍රපාල මහතා කීවේය.

Present University Grants Commission Chairman got appointed due to serving President in election campaign and drafting his manifesto

dbsjeyaraj.com,


10 June 2012, 7:13 am

by S. Ratnajeevan H. Hoole

The University Grants Commission (UGC) never ceases to amaze me by its ability to posture through high principles which it never practices. Indika Sri Aravinda reports (Leader, 3 June) that the UGC will henceforth fine illegal doctorates and that according to the UGC Chairman, issuing doctorates for a payment is illegal.

In Sri Lanka the Universities Act purports to regulate the issuance of degrees but it really cannot regulate foreign degrees. Besides, even legitimate universities, including UGC universities, always require some payment by way of fees for any doctorate.

Reputable magazines like The Economist advertise degrees for ‘life experience.’ The organization’s ‘Affordable Career Degrees,’ for a payment, will issue doctorates with ‘no classes, no studies and no exams’ based on your knowledge and experience.

Ashwood University of Clinton, IA in the US offers a Bachelor’s Degree and a Master’s Degree at $599 each, a Doctorate for $849, and all three together at the cut-rate price of $1,448!

If I choose to get a degree from them, on what basis would the UGC fine me? Their degrees are legitimate by a legitimate institution and their fees too are legitimate for assessing an applicant as they claim to do.

What one can question, however, is their degrees’ academic merit. The UGC has powers to recognize degrees and that is how these degrees should be tackled to save unwitting employers from employing the holders of such degrees and unwitting parents from marrying off their daughters to them.

On the other hand, the far more serious problem is when people without the requisite credentials take over our national universities and run them with their fake professorships. They rapidly infect the system and everything falls apart as has happened.

Consider the appointment of the present UGC Chairman in 2006 for services to the President in his 2005 election campaign and in drafting his manifesto. To be UGC Chairman, the only process is lobbying without any formal announcement, application, nomination or even a CV.

Now put politicians who need not have ever been to a university making that appointment – and we have the broad decay of universities we see today and appointments of unqualified stooges and ‘tail-holders,’ embezzlers, and party men from ministry lists without open advertisements, etc..

Our politicians’ only consideration is promoting the party, not the university system. Good academics whom we badly need, flee in horror.

The Chairman was a mere Associate Professor then without any academic lustre. At the UGC his reputation is that letters that he needs to write take a long time coming because he cannot write, but the Secretary’s (a career appointment) come out quickly.

In 2006 March the Chairman had already been appointed as VC Rajarata despite being only an Associate Professor and then was appointed to oversee the university system as UGC Chairman, making the rules for promotions, nominating persons to professorial selection committees, etc.

It was a wrong appointment when there were many more accomplished persons at the rank of professor and especially when he himself would have a conflict of interest in going through a promotion he would have a say on. No one dared to protest because we in the system rely on political favours or at least the favours of the politically favoured like our VCs. We got what we deserve.

The UGC website presently lists him as a Senior Professor at Peradeniya. In between he was listed as Professor, Rajarata. That is, if the claims are true, he has gone through a double promotion from Associate Professor in 2006 when he became Chairman to Professor and Senior Professor, and two changes of employer too (rather than a release from Peradeniya to be VC at Rajarata).

Circular 838 of 26 Jan. 2004 specifies for Senior Professor only two routes: A Professor who has completed a total of eight years of service as Professor (counting also the steps given at the time of appointment as service) or someone with a higher doctorate. A mysterious amendment through Circular 897 dated 8 July 2008 under this Chairman also allows steps at promotion to Professor to be counted.

The public has a right to know from where he got the 8 years as professor. Did he as UGC Chairman persuade some university to promote him to Professor with steps? If so would those on the selection committee including the VC of the relevant university have dared to say no to the UGC Chairman who determined grants to that university?

Did he nominate the UGC nominees to his own selection committees for his two promotions and two appointments as Professor at Rajarata and then back to Peradeniya? Indeed, was Circular 897 written by the UGC specifically for the Chairman’s promotion? Any explanation, whatever it may be, would have ugly connotations.

The UGC website also lists its Chairman’s degrees as “BA (Hons.), MA, Ph.D. (St. Andrews)”. The convention is that when multiple degrees are listed with only the name of one university at the end, then all the degrees listed are from the one named university. When then did he earn his BA and MA from St. Andrews?

I say he has no BA (Hons) from St. Andrews as claimed and I believe no MA either.

The UGC website also lists Commission Member Subramaniam Mohandas [sic., really Mohanadas] as “Professor in Chemistry, University of Jaffna.” His also was a classic political appointment as VC Jaffna in 2003 at the behest of Minister Douglas Devananda while an Associate Professor of Agricultural Chemistry there. Even that promotion to Associate Professor was dubious because, from my recollection of his CV which I read as a member of the UGC at one time, he hardly has any journal publications.

Unlike the Chairman, he as VC did not put himself through a promotion with conflicts of interest. When he retired from University of Jaffna, he lost all rights to his title of Associate Professor because the Emeritus Professorship is given, if at all it is, only to those retiring at the full rank of Professor.

How then did he acquire the rank of Professor, let alone of Professor of Chemistry, after he retired?
Was he rehired by the University of Jaffna to the Department of Chemistry for him to be listed as he is?
Under the Act, the UGC has no powers to confer degrees or professorships.

‘Dr.’ Mohanadas is good and beautiful. ‘Professor’ is a university title and is not necessarily higher than ‘Dr.’ when outside a university. But in our vanity we seem to want to strut around with every title we can add, legitimate or not.

If just two of the UGC listings I am personally familiar with are either fake or manipulated, how about the rest?

This is what happens when high appointments are made to reward political cronies and hangers on rather than on merit. A couple of people buying doctorates to strut around in society for a little status, might cheat a few.

But when former Vice Chancellors and UGC Members and the Chairman misuse the system to claim high titles for themselves, they destroy the very academic fabric of the nation, just as appointing the unqualified as VC and UGC Chairman for the sake of the ruling party began that process of decay – for such unqualified persons need to cook up fake qualifications to show themselves to be qualified to justify their undeserved high offices.

The President must take note!

Under threat of trumped up criminal charges for an article he wrote in The Sunday Leader on election malpractices by Minister Douglas Devananda, the author fled Sri Lanka where he and his wife had been terminated from their permanent academic positions and refused appointments even as Senior Lecturer. Both were quickly absorbed at full-professor’s rank at Michigan State University, a top-50 national research university in the US. courtesy: The Sunday Leader

Don’t fiddle with free education

Daily Mirror, 13/06/2012, 

Editorial

With the gradual and now extensive privatisation of the health sector, the cost of warded treatment in private hospitals is so high that it is beyond the reach of more than 85 per cent of our people. In addition to five-star hotels, we now have five-star hospitals where helpless unsuspecting patients are plundered and their families lose most of their savings.

We need to take a lesson from what has happened in the health sector and act fast before some vested interests backed by arrogant politicians privatise the equally–important sector of education to such an extent that it causes serious damage to the free education service which has been one of the precious blessings for Sri Lanka in a country plagued by rampant corruption and fraud, deception and hypocrisy.



The attack on free education began with the setting up of international schools. Indeed there were loads of faults and failures in public schools with hundreds of them lacking even basic facilities. The root cause of it was the inadequacy of the budgetary allocation for education. During the thirty–year war a huge allocation had to be made for defence, but even after the end of the war, the allocation for education has not been significantly increased while Education Minister Bandula Goonewardene often talks of cheese but gives chalk. Higher Education Minister S.B. Dissanayake has virtually declared war on those who are opposing his plans to set up private universities and to give official status to the private medical college which was set up at Malabe in a subtle if not deceptive way. Minister Dissanayake who had his roots in the Communist Party seems to have turned full circle and often talks like an outright capitalist with a tone that is arrogant and unwilling to come to some middle path of accommodation. As a result, he has antagonised thousands of university students, academic and non-academic staff on issues ranging from privatisation to salary anomalies.

If Sri Lanka has a high literacy rate today with a high degree of intelligence, creativity, initiative and imaginative skills especially among the young people, free education is responsible for it.

Instead of trying to privatise education, the two ministers need to focus more attention on changing the aims, goals and attitudes in education. Passing examinations by fair means or foul and through the scourge of private tuition must not be the priority. Instead we need to create a spirit of inquiry in children, making them interested to find out why various things happen as they do. Then the children will see education as a blessing and not as a burden.

New breed of institutional leaders for internationalising Lankan universities

June 4, 2012, 7:15 pm

By S. Ratnajeevan H. Hoole

I am happy to see Professor Ranjith Senaratne, Vice Chairman of the UGC, taking an interest in the welfare of universities and coming up with sound ideas (29, 30, 31 May, 2012).

In our system of patronage appointments, the most unsuitable persons – embezzlers, womanizers, drunkards, political stooges and the down-right lazy – are put up for high appointments. Occasionally, however, a suitable person comes up. Professor Senaratne is one such person, a rare Sri Lankan professor who has really earned the title professor and wears it with distinction. He has been recognized through an honorary higher doctorate from University of Durham. I take pride in having been part of the UGC that rooted for his reappointment as VC in 2004. As Vice Chairman of the UGC, he is vested with immense powers to change the system as he wishes.

Senaratne advocates, rightly, changes to the way VCs are presently appointed under Circular 880, saying 1) The advertisement presently used by the universities calling for applications does not adequately describe the candidate and does not define the role and responsibilities of the VC and the attributes an applicant should possess; 2) The Search Committee to identify suitable candidates is improperly constituted under the chairmanship of the incumbent VC who might be a candidate; 3) The advertisement ought to be widely placed.

These problems with VC appointments were widely recognized by the UGC under Prof. Ranjith Mendis when I too was a member. A crisis was precipitated in 2003 when the Peradeniya VC sought renewal and its Council (which included a present member of the UGC) conspired to throw out a highly qualified foreign academic and a civil servant who had applied and substituted the names of two Council members after the closing date (See S. R. H. Hoole, "Peradeniya’s Shame," The Island, 29 Nov. 2003. I complained widely and, when no one listened, took it to The Ombudsman, Justice R .B. Ranaraja, who gave a scathing report and asked the UGC to change the rules. The result was UGC Circular 839 of 26 Jan. 2004. It provided for much of what Senaratne suggsts: 1) The advertisement shall be disseminated as widely as possible within and outside the University System and specify the qualifications desired of the VC. 2) The advertisement shall specify the desired qualification of any applicant (which included research accomplishments as a first); 3) That selection shall be by objective criteria agreed to before the advertisement and 4) The search committee appointed by several authorities shall include persons from outside the university system and 5) No related meeting should be chaired by a candidate.

The OU was in a mess at the time as the old scheme had attracted only 2 applications, outsiders not having applied as only internal candidates had a chance, leaving them without the 3 names to be forwarded to the President. When Circular 839 was applied, the only time it was, there were some 17 applicants! The university system was aghast. The Committee of Vice Chancellors and Directors consisting of many unqualified VCs appointed under patronage, panicked. They mounted such a vociferous protest that Prof. Mendis unilaterally cancelled 839. Senaratne was on the CVCD then and surely knows of 839’s provisions which he now advocates.

In measure of how unmindful of the law the system is, 839 upon promulgation had cancelled preceding Circulars 670 and 765 on the appointment of VCs. Even if the chairman had the power to nullify Circular 839 passed by the UGC, which did not give new life to the now dead Circulars 670 and 765, which were not specifically revived. The system thereafter operated until 08/2006 without any ordinance on the appointment of VCs, believing that 670 and 765 were in force! When I pointed this out, the episode was so embarrassing that no one wanted to touch VC appointments.

Mendis knew exactly what was wrong with VC appointments and persuaded us on the UGC to push hard for the appointment of Embuldeniya – neither an academic nor an insider – whose successes Senaratne has recounted. We could do it because Uva Wellassa was being just founded and the UGC had a big say on who would be the first VC.

But why did Embuldeniya decide to manage with so few non-academic staff members? Shortly after he became VC, the UGC, too, got a new Executive whose first circular was the obnoxious Circular 876: "[H]aving considered a request made by the Hon. Deputy Minister of Higher Education on the instructions given by the Minister of Education, [the UGC] decided that all external recruitments to the minor employee grades … be made from a list of candidates compiled by the Ministry of Education." (While the Minister cannot instruct the UGC, note how his instructions to his Deputy are stated as if he were instructing the UGC to cover up UGC cowardice and escape responsibility). Accordingly you and I as citizens cannot apply for these posts which are only for the minister’s stooges, hangers on and "tail-holders." Thus in Jaffna, one must go to suck up to the Minister of Traditional Industries & Small Enterprise Development who sends a list to the Minister of Higher Education. These recruits will not obey the orders of their superiors. Embuldeniya was better off without such stooges.

Good foreign scholars as VCs, like in Singapore, would be good indeed as Senaratne wants. They would be above influence peddling. But would they be left to run the university without interference as in Singapore? Would they be willing to appoint the minister’s stooges as under 896? Would the minister allow them to survive if they stood up to him? How would the Councils select them as specified by the Universities Act? Before we take that bold step of bringing in outsiders, these ordinances need to be revised.

As UGC Vice Chairman Prof. Senaratne can fix many of the problems plaguing our universities – the widespread corruption by some VCs as the UGC looks the other way, the appointment as VC of persons against whom there are stringent indictments from the AG, the fraudulent appointment of professors by counting conference papers as journal papers etc. Even at the UGC we have those appointed while Associate Professor to run the universities and then mysteriously are listed a Senior Professor without the required 8 years as professor and, in another case, after retirement promoted to professor in the UGC website.

I am not sure Professor Senaratne can surmount the forces of lethargy and privilege he faces, forces invested in the status quo and using obscurantist speeches of high principles while running an oligarchic university system. He is a product of that system and therefore obliged to the patronage that pervades it and I am sure he has favours to return as when he kept quiet on the CVCD and I, too, had to on numerous occasions while on the UGC. Overcoming this is his challenge. I wish him well.

*Under threat of criminal charges for an article on election malpractices, the author fled Sri Lanka, where he and his wife had been terminated from their permanent positions and refused appointments even as Senior Lecturers. Both were quickly absorbed at full-professor’s rank at Michigan State University, a top-50 national research university in the US.

Original Article on The Island

Internationalising SL universities and appointing vice chancellors

June 4, 2012, 7:35 pm 

By O. A. I. Ileperuma

Reading through the series of articles on the above matter by my friend Prof. Ranjith Senaratne (The Island May 30, 2012) was like reading through a fantasy novel. Nevertheless he should be congratulated on bringing in a burning issue which continuously frustrates the academic community in Sri Lanka on the appointment of their Vice Chancellor. Finding the right person to the position of Vice Chancellor of a University is important; not only in the interest of the university, but also in national interest because thousands of students and the general public view this leadership with high expectations as somebody who can truly contribute to their future.

Prof. Senaratne’s particular emphasis was on the role of the Vice Chancellor and how they are appointed in the top Universities of the World like Harvard, Oxford and Cambridge. However, I would have liked him to talk about the intricacies we in Sri Lanka follow in appointing Vice Chancellors. Let me quote from his article, " Vice Chancellors are treated differently from all other Heads of Public Institutions as reflected for instance in the totally different procedures that apply to the appointment of Vice Chancellors as compared with other senior public administrators" This is absolutely true! However, he should have elaborated on these "totally different procedures". This is where the pathetic state of affairs with respect of the appointment of Vice Chancellors becomes apparent. Let me explain the current procedure adopted in the selection of a Vice Chancellor. The University advertises this post where in impressive academic credentials are called for the coveted post of Vice Chancellor. Aspiring applicants who are sure that they can get the necessary political support do not care for the high academic standards called for while the more serious applicants who think they have the required qualifications and experience also apply with lengthy dossiers of publications, vision statements etc. Unlike any other post such as a Lecturer or a Professor, the application for the Vice Chancellor only goes to the Council of the University where the majority is political appointees of the minister. The applicants are not ranked according to academic merit but by a secret vote! This is part of the "different procedure" adopted in the selection of the Vice Chancellor. The vote too depends on how much the candidate influences the Council members through the political authorities and not on the curriculum vitae submitted. Interestingly, canvassing may be a disqualification for many other jobs but not this particular one!

Influence peddling

The one who works well in advance to get this job on political merit, makes sure that he signs election lists at the right time, shows his face at election meetings or other social gatherings. Often they tap someone influential close to the highest political authorities to pass a word on his/her behalf. Once these links are established and if the appointing authority is also convinced about the candidature of this person, it is just a matter for the higher ups to inform the appointed members of the council to vote for their favourite. Many respectable senior academics do not even consider applying for this post because they do not want to go down on knees to politicians to get this position. Application to any other post like a Lecturer or a Professor involves facing an interview panel of eminent academics in the same area of specialisation and the evaluation of academic credentials such as research publications, books written and dissemination of knowledge. Can Prof. Senaratne elaborate more on whether such credentials are evaluated and if not what other criteria are considered in making Vice Chancellor appointments?

In Prof. Senaratne’s article, many examples such as Harvard and Cambridge are given where people from outside the University system have been appointed as Vice Chancellors. These Universities look for the best qualified persons with proven track records who can carry the Universities forward enabling them to survive in an increasingly competitive and challenging environment. This is the case even in our region. When the Vice Chancellor for the post of University of Madras, a highly prestigious university, which is one of the oldest in India fell vacant, Chief Minister Jayalalitha entrusted the task of finding a suitable person to three eminent scientists in India. One of these members personally told me that there was no influence by her or any other politicians in making this appointment and the best person was selected. Politicians and the members of this particular selection panel love their country and care for the well-being of this educational Institution founded in 1839, that they do not want it ruined by an under-qualified political henchman. Many Universities in India follow similar procedures but there have also been cases of abuse by certain corrupt Governors in appointing Vice Chancellors of smaller Universities. For universities in India, the mandatory requirements are that the applicant should be a Professor with over 10 years of experience and a proven track record of academic and administrative leadership. In contrast, Sri Lanka does not have any requirement except political affiliation and we have senior lecturers appointed as Vice Chancellors overlooking many senior academics.

Advertising Vacancies

Prof. Senaratne mentions advertisements to appoint Vice Chancellors, Deputy Vice Chancellors and Deans of Universities in Bangladesh, Pakistan and Vietnam and "fishing in global waters" to select high calibre professionals. It is not impossible to imagine that in Sri Lanka, if such a scheme is adopted, our Universities will be filled by defeated political candidates and other political stooges.

We in Sri Lanka are still in the dark ages as regards the appointment of Vice Chancellors. The University academic community and academic bodies like the Senates have no say in appointing their leader and no one really knows on what basis the Vice Chancellor is selected from among the three names submitted to the President. Clearly we are 50 years backward compared to other universities even in this region. No wonder that none of our Universities are ranked in the first 1500 in the world ranking of universities.

Appointing Vice Chancellors on the basis of political affiliation generally results in him/her as more accountable to the government than to the university. This can lead to major conflicts between the academic staff and students on the one hand and also with the University administration on the other. Appointment on the basis of pure academic merit can at least ensure that the Vice Chancellor selected has some sort of credibility in the eyes of the academic staff and the students.

In the last of the series Prof. Senartane talks about the unsatisfactory procedures adopted in the advertisement for the post of Vice Chancellor and stress the need to look beyond the confines of the university in attracting best qualified people. This point is well taken. He also quite correctly argues that "Circular no. 880 of 15.08.2006 concerning the appointment of a Search Committee to identify suitable candidates is in this respect faulty and self-defeating". This committee consists only of academics from the same university to which a Vice Chancellor is appointed and does not have teeth to make any impact. For example, in the recent selection of three names for the post of Vice Chancellor at the University of Peradeniya, this committee made no recommendations. These concepts of head hunting are common in highly developed countries and it is the best procedure available. However, it is doubtful whether our politicians will allow this to happen. For them, universities need to be under their central control and even if the UGC is serious about such a procedure it will not happen in Sri Lanka for the obvious reasons mentioned above.

Unsatisfactory Process

What Prof. Senaratne has not mentioned is the procedure adopted after the nominations reach the UGC and then the President. Would he be candid about the unsatisfactory nature of the current process for appointing Vice Chancellors at the highest level? The whole exercise which Prof. Senaratne is trying to promote is useless unless those who are at the highest authority feels that Vice Chancellors should be appointed according to pure academic merit and experience. In any case, Prof. Senaratne should be thanked for bringing into light the shortcomings of the procedure and the need to appoint good mangers to head our higher educational Institutions.

Sri Lanka is not the only country where the Head of State appoints the Vice Chancellor. Considering the immense responsibilities attached and the importance of this post, it is always the Head of State or the Governor of a Province who appoints Vice Chancellors. It is my belief that this practice should continue in Sri Lanka but not the the way it is done. Many Asian Universities also follow similar procedures. However, their initial screening involving a powerful search committee involving those outside the university concerned recommends only the most suitable person to this post and certainly the kind of political manipulation as happening in Sri Lanka is by and large absent. Hong Kong University Council appoints the Vice Chancellor on the recommendation of the Senate and there is no interference from the Head of State. This explains why the University of Hong Kong is ranked number one in Asia and there are only a few universities in the Asian region in the top 100 Universities in the world. In developed countries such as Canada, a professional Human Resources firm is recruited to select the most qualified candidate and in consultation with the Board of Trustees recommends a single name to the Governor of the Province.

According to Prof. Senaratne, we spend Rs. 20 billion annually to maintain our Universities, and the public of this country has a right to demand much more from our universities such as new degree programmes, life-long education, to serve as knowledge hubs and contribute to economic prosperity. The appointment of the Vice Chancellor on a political basis greatly reduces the ability to harness the full potential of the University community to move forward.

Original Article in The Island

Quebec's student protesters give UK activists a lesson

www.guardian.co.uk, 1/06/2012,

• • 
    Peter Hallward
  • guardian.co.uk, Friday 1 June 2012 12.23 BST

In the face of a systematic assault on education, the Classe group has hit on a strategy that has the power to succeed


Students protest against tuition fee increases on 31 May in Montreal, Quebec. Photograph: Rogerio Barbosa/AFP/Getty Images
The extraordinary student mobilisation in Quebec has already sustained the longest and largest student strike in the history of North America, and it has already organised the single biggest act of civil disobedience in Canadian history. It is now rapidly growing into one of the most powerful and inventive anti-austerity campaigns anywhere in the world.

Every situation is different, of course, and Quebec's students draw on a distinctive history of social and political struggle, one rooted in the 1960s quiet revolution. Support for the provincial government that opposes them, moreover, has been undermined in recent years by allegations of corruption and bribery. Nevertheless, those of us fighting against cuts and fees in other parts of the world have much to learn from the way the campaign has been organised. It's time that education activists in the UK, in particular, started to pay the Quebecois the highest compliment: when in doubt, imitate.

The first reason for the students' success lies in the clarity of both their immediate aim and its links to a broad range of closely associated aims. Students of all political persuasions support the current "minimal programme", to block the Liberal government's plan to increase tuition fees by 82% over several years. Most students and their families also oppose the many similar measures introduced by federal and provincial governments in Canada in recent years, which collectively represent an unprecedented neoliberal attack on social welfare (new user fees for healthcare, elimination of public sector services and jobs, factory closures, wanton exploitation of natural resources, an increase in the retirement age, restrictions on trade unions and so on).

A growing number of students now also support the fundamental principle of free universal education, long defended by the more militant student groups (loosely co-ordinated in the remarkable new coalition Classe), and back their calls for the unconditional abolition of tuition fees, to be phased out over several years and compensated by a modest and perfectly feasible bank tax, at a time of record bank profits. "This hardline stance," the Guardian's reporter observed, "has catapulted Classe from being a relatively unknown organisation with 40,000 members to a sprawling phenomenon that now numbers 100,000 and claims to represent 70% of striking students." Growing numbers, too, can see how such a demand might help to compensate for the most obvious socioeconomic development in Canada over the last 30 years: the dramatic growth in income inequality, reinforced by a whole series of measures that have profited the rich and very rich at the expense of everyone else.

In Quebec, student resistance to these measures hasn't simply generated a contingent "chain of equivalences" across otherwise disparate demands: it has helped to create a practical, militant community of interest in the face of systematic neoliberal assault. "It's more than a student strike," a Classe spokesman said in April. "We want it to become a struggle of the people." At first scornfully dismissed in the corporate media, this general effort to make the student movement into a social movement has borne fruit in recent weeks, and it would be hard to describe the general tone of reports from the nightly protest marches that are now taking over much of Montreal in terms other than collective euphoria.

Nothing similar has yet happened in the UK, of course, even though the British variant of the same neoliberal assault – elimination of the EMA, immediate trebling of fees, systematic marketisation of provision – has been far more brutal. But the main reasons for this lie less in some uniquely francophone propensity to defend a particular social heritage than in the three basic elements of any successful popular campaign: strategy, organisation and empowerment.

As many students knew well before they launched their anti-fees campaign last summer, the best way to win this kind of fight is to implement a strategy that no amount of state coercion can overcome – a general, inclusive and "unlimited" boycott of classes. One-day actions and symbolic protest marches may help build momentum, but only "an open-ended general strike gives students maximum leverage to make their demands heard", the Classe's newspaper Ultimatum explains. So far, it has been 108 days and counting, and "on ne lâche pas" (we're not backing down) has become a familiar slogan across the province. So long as enough students are prepared to sustain it, their strike puts them in an almost invincible bargaining position.

Ensuring such preparation is the key to Classe as an organisation. It has provided new ways for students previously represented by more cautious and conventional student associations to align themselves with the more militant Assé, with its tradition of direct action and participatory democracy. Activists spent months preparing the ground for the strike, talking to students one at a time, organising department by department and then faculty by faculty, starting with the more receptive programmes and radiating slowly out to the more sceptical.

At every pertinent level they have created general assemblies, which have invested themselves with the power to deliberate and then make, quickly and collectively, important decisions. Actions are decided by a public show of hands, rather than by an atomising expression of private opinion. The more powerful and effective these assemblies have become, the more active and enthusiastic the level of participation. Delegates from the assemblies then participate in wider congresses and, in the absence of any formal leadership or bureaucracy, the "general will" that has emerged from these congresses is so clear that Classe is now the main organising force in the campaign and able to put firm pressure on the other more compromise-prone student unions.

Week after week, assemblies have decided to continue the strike. In most places, this has also meant a decision to keep taking the steps necessary to ensure its successful continuation, by preventing the minority of dissenting students from breaking it. Drawing on his experience at McGill University, strike veteran Jamie Burnett has some useful advice for the many student activists now considering how best to extend the campaign to other parts of Canada: don't indulge in "soft pickets" that allow classes to take place in spite of a strike mandate, and that thus allow staff to isolate and fail striking students. "Enforcing strikes is difficult to do, at least at first," he says, "but it's a lot less difficult than failing a semester. And people eventually come around, building a culture of solidarity and confrontational politics in the process."

The main result of this process so far has been one of far-reaching collective empowerment. Resolved from the beginning to win over rather than follow the more sceptical sectors of the media and "public opinion", the students have made themselves more powerful than their opponents. "[We] have learned collectively," Classe spokesperson Gabriel Nadeau-Dubois said last week, "that if we mobilise and try to block something, it's possible to do it." From rallies and class boycotts, in April the strike expanded to include more confrontational demonstrations and disruptive nightly marches through the centre of town. Soon afterwards, solidarity protests by groups like Mères en colère et solidaires started up in working-class districts of Montreal.

In a desperate effort to regain the initiative by representing the conflict as a criminal rather than political issue, the panicked provincial government rushed through its draconian Bill 78 to restrict the marches, discourage strike enforcement and consolidate its credentials (in advance of imminent elections) as a law-and-order administration. In the resulting escalation, however, it's the government that has been forced to blink. On 23 May, the day after an historic 300,000 people marched through Montreal in support of the students, police kettled and then arrested more than 700 people. But the mobilisation has become too strong to contain, and after near-universal condemnation of the new law it is already unenforceable. Since 22 May, pro-student demonstrations have multiplied in ways and numbers the police can't control, and drawing on Latin-American (and older charivari) traditions, pot-clanging marches have mushroomed throughout the province of Quebec. On Thursday night tense negotiations with the government again broke off without resolution, and business and tourist sectors are already alarmed by the prospect of a new wave of street protests continuing into Montreal's popular summer festival season.

There is now a very real chance that similar mobilisations may spread. Recent polls suggest that most students across Canada would support a strike against tuition increases, and momentum for more forceful action may be building in Ottawa and across Ontario; in Quebec itself they also show that an initially hesitant public is beginning to swing behind the student demands and against government repression. On 30 May, there were scores of solidarity rallies all over Canada and the world. In London around 150 casserolistas clanged their way from Canada House to the Canadian embassy at Grosvenor Square.

If enough of us are willing to learn a few things from our friends in places like Quebec and Chile, then in the coming years such numbers may change beyond all recognition. After much hesitation the NUS recently resolved that education should be "free at all and any level", and activists are gearing up for a massive TUC demonstration on 20 October. After a couple of memorable springs, it's time to prepare for a momentous autumn.