Dear Editor,

Ms Chandarpal’s recent comments (SN, February 4) should go down as the iconic moment in the debate concerning the termination of Freddie Kissoon’s contract. As a member of the Council she sees no contradiction in her actions and insists that Mr Kissoon must go. She apparently forgot that as a politician, on no less than two occasions (1992 and 1995), she sat in Parliament and participated in changing the Acts and Statutes of the University to provide for the wishes of her party. That party then turned around and made her a member of the University Council. And here is the rub. Our juridical principles and political traditions come from our British history. And since the 17th century (John Locke) we have gradually come to accept the view, now part of our political catechism, that in order for the rule of law to prevail we must observe the separation of powers as a necessary condition – though not always a sufficient one. In other words, the persons who make the law cannot, at the same time, be the ones who administer it nor the same ones who seek to enforce it. To do otherwise is to corrupt a juridical principle to serve political ends – especially in this case where one person assumes the authority for all three acts.

Similarly, after Max Weber (1920), the sum of public and private interests agreed that in order  for the civilian bureaucracy to function in a fair, equitable and just manner it must be protected from outside interference, while making a clear distinction between the public and private It also agreed that autonomy and fairness can only be maintained by professional associations/standards, acquired through specialized training, that are instituted to provide access and regular assessment. The component body at the university for the regulation of access and assessment is the Academic Board, delegated to the Appointments Committee and then, on occasion, the Vice-Chancellor. How, when and where was that professional authority transferred to the University Council – a political-civilian body with only one criterion for access: political association? The Council has no minimum requirements for belonging – degrees, years of experience in teaching at post-secondary institutions, minimum number of published academic papers/books, etc. From where then does it cull its now strident and abrasive claim to authority for hiring and firing?

It is not without irony to note, in conclusion, that there is nothing new here. In recent memory and at least on two occasions the Council objected to and overturned the recommendations of the Faculty of Social Sciences and the Appointments Committee and insisted on the retention of Mr Kissoon – precisely on the grounds now refused by the very Council. Such information is not only public knowledge at the university but readily available in any one of the following offices – Personnel, Registrar, Faculty of Social Sciences, Vice- Chancellor and the Council.

Yours faithfully,
Rishee Thakur