Dear Editor,
I refer to a letter written by Professor Seelochan Beharry in Stabroek News, captioned; ‘UG does not contribute to national debates on any issue,’ dated September 20, 2007. In his letter the professor commented on a letter I wrote arguing that essentially UG should conduct a social impact assessment on VAT. Prof Beharry outlined very eloquently the conditions that obtain on campus and his opinion as to why he believes Guyana’s only university is in a dysfunctional state and incapable of contributing to debates on national issues.
Unfortunately, Prof Beharry has been among a very few moral and consistent voices that have been vocal on issues concerning the conditions on the campus, Dr Anand Daljeet included. The society at large seems unconcerned about the state of the university. On this issue no one can claim ignorance since Mr Freddie Kissoon consistently raised these concerns in his columns and in letters to the editor. Yet the opposition political parties and other interest groups are largely unconcerned and complacent about the deteriorating state of the university. The recent PNC statement denouncing the expected commission of inquiry into the UG vice-chancellor issue is pathetic and hardly enough. UG has to be made a national issue. Interestingly the Prof implores upon me the need to investigate the reason for the dysfuntionality on campus. I must assure the Prof that I am not totally ignorant about the state of UG, having been a student there within the last ten years, and having served as a student representative in the UGSS. Most of my time at UG was spent as a student activist.
Prof Beharry opined that the dysfunctional state of the university is due to the fact that consistent political interference creates a climate of fear, which precludes the university from functioning like a normal university. Both the PNC and the PPP have been guilty of this malpractice. Political interference is the chief reason for UG not developing a culture of national participation on important issues. The University of Guyana should be an autonomous body, independent of government interference, respected in the society, and, as a body of academics and experts should be looked upon to influence national policies. This does not mean that the university will be devoid of partisan individuals. But primarily, outside of producing future leaders for the society, the university’s role is to engage in national debates, conduct scientific and social research, produce academic studies of the existential state of society and region in which it operates, etc.
The Jagdeo administration’s interference in the governance of the university is hurting the campus and the society in the most brutal manner. It contributes to the mismanagement and ineptitude of the governance of UG by the arbitrary and repeated appointment of the current vice-chancellor. Besides, one would think that the concern with who runs the university would translate into how generously the government contributes to the university’s coffers. This is absolutely not the case. UG is one of the most under funded institutions of higher learning. This is the most shameful act the PPP government engages in, in a democratic Guyana. The Jagdeo administration has shown a total disrespect and disregard for the University of Guyana.
The question that needs to be asked, however, is why students are so passive concerning the governance of UG. Students must begin to value the money they pay for their education. They are major stakeholders and should concern themselves vehemently with the manner in which UG is governed. The university must depend on students’ tuition for a considerable portion of its operating expenses. Therefore students must demand better accountability. It is a natural part of university life that students are activists for change, not only on campus, but in the wider society.
I am reminded of the case of Gallaudet University in Washington DC last year, one of the premiere universities for the hearing and speech impaired in the US. The Board of Trustees appointed a President that the students felt was not fluent in American Sign Language (was not part of the deaf culture per se) among other concerns, and therefore could not represent their interest. The result was that students engaged in massive protest action for six months, eventually shutting the university down until the Board of Trustees was forced to withdraw the President.
This also reminds me of our own activism while I was a student at UG. I recently came across an article written by then student and now Prof Nigel Westmaas in Dayclean of April 1, 1996. Nigel recorded the largest protest in the history of the university as follows: “Thursday 21st March 10 a.m.: Students many of them wearing the symbolic colour of the day, black, begin massing. By 10.30 am the students in a noisy procession made their way around the campus. First treated to protest action was the University library, source of many woes. The students entered the building despite attempts by guards, like the previous day, to stop them
