Governments should not be allowed to pick VCs
The interim government’s first priority might include strengthening UGC’s organisational role from a simple granting funds job to a regulating authority. First and foremost, the UGC’s should be made responsible for appointing VCs to various PUs through search committees
When it comes to reforms necessary in public universities (PU), we need to take into account issues concerning the Vice-Chancellor (VC) selection.
The VC is a critical leadership role in all universities. A university cannot achieve its mission and vision without an honest and efficient VC, because their role is similar to that of a Chief Executive Officer (CEO) in a company.
The PUs' performance has worsened since independence, more rapidly over the past few decades. It is widely believed that the fundamental cause of this performance decay is the unacademic and irrational policy behind selecting VCs.
Keep updated, follow The Business Standard's Google news channel
On 26 July 1972, Bangladesh's post-independence government established a National Education Commission, headed by Dr Qudrat-i-Khuda, the eminent educationist and scientist of the country. This committee's fundamental term of reference was to recommend a blueprint for governing the country's education sector in light of the four state principles: nationalism, democracy, socialism, and secularism.
Based on its recommendations, the government issued ordinances, called the President's Orders of 1973, describing rules and regulations for managing and administering four out of six PUs. The four universities in which the ordinance was implemented are Dhaka, Rajshahi, Chittagong and Jahangirnagar University.
As a result, two distinct administrative systems evolved to govern six PUs. In the four universities above, VCs are selected through the Senate elections, while the Ministry of Education, with the PM's consent, appoints VCs of all other PUs.
None of these systems has worked efficiently. Accordingly, in this monsoon of governance reforms, concerned citizens from all walks of life have shown interest in identifying appropriate organisational measures to resolve PUs' management and administrative issues.
The first two issues we must underscore include the dual systems of governance and the PUs' Chancellorship, whose respondents/defendants are the teaching community of these universities, the Federation of Bangladesh University Teachers' Association (FBUTA) to be more specific.
Is there any academic or organisational logic behind practising two governance systems in public universities? FBUTA has never raised this question, meaning they are damn happy with this governance policy.
The President's primary function as the Chancellor is to sign the files forwarded by the education ministry. Another job is to attend their convocations if and when they occur. Thus, the President has little or no responsibility to discharge in his role as the Chancellor. His job is entirely ceremonial. Even if assigned some duties, he cannot perform them simply because the number of universities is enormous.
The President is currently the chancellor of all public and private universities, which total 163: PU: 53, private universities: 107, and international universities: 3. The President's primary function as the Chancellor is to sign the files forwarded by the education ministry. Another job is to attend their convocations if and when they occur.
Thus, the President has little or no responsibility to discharge in his role as the Chancellor. His job is entirely ceremonial. Even if assigned some duties, he cannot perform them simply because the number of universities is enormous.
Political governments have excellent reasons to retain this chancellorship system. This organisational link allows them to interfere in PU activities. However, a critical mind cannot fail to raise questions about FBUTA's morale and motive in sustaining this chancellorship system.
Finally, we all seem to be beating around the bush when discussing and debating PU problems. We blame university students for tarnishing their glorious past by aligning their organisations with different political parties. We also blame PU teachers for being directly involved in party politics.
All these are true. However, what we fail to see is that all that is happening because political governments are directly or indirectly in control of appointing VCs. If the government's influence in the VC appointment is curtailed, all the problems of PU management and administration will gradually vaporise.
To achieve this goal, the interim government's first priority might include strengthening UGC's organisational role from a simple granting funds job to a regulating authority. First and foremost, the UGC's should be made responsible for appointing VCs to various PUs through search committees.
But its full time duties and responsibilities would include allocating funds and monitoring each PU's performance regarding the quality and quantity of graduates produced, the quality of research carried out by different teaching departments, and the selection of VCs for various universities.
The interim government aims to change the system that creates corruption and discrimination in public institutions. This goal can be effectively achieved if all avenues by which the government influences the VC selection are permanently closed.
Khandakar Qudrat-I Elahi is a retired faculty member of the Bangladesh Agricultural University.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and views of The Business Standard.
