VC, stop threatening students, staff and act on their concerns

An American political philosopher and public intellectual Robert P. George in his essay on ‘Five Pillars of a Decent and Dynamic Society’ puts a person, the family, the law and government, the university, and the market at the centre of a decent and dynamic society. George argues that it is only through moral living in the first three pillars (person, family, law and government) that society can achieve a measure of happiness and relative harmony. The latter two (university and the market) only promise additional opportunities for individual development and promotes intellectual, economic and social progress of society.

The functional argument being fronted here is that the health of institutions largely depends on the education of its citizens and the morality of its leadership. For example, if staff and students were given ingredients that help them in making a flourishing society, they would be better able to make better choices in their public life. Unfortunately, the imparting of these ingredients can only be achieved through systematic administration of fair rules and not by autocratic and unfair administration of rules.

I want to use the extracts of George’s essay and those of his proponents above to challenge Prof Barnabas Nawangwe on the emerging autocratic methods of managing a university in the pretext of dealing with hooliganism among students and staff discipline. Straight away, if not checked, such methods have potential to undermine elements of academic freedom and could stifle open discourses among students and staff. In the management of a community of Makerere University’s stature, useful progress can only be made if its members are enabled to embrace moral leadership, rule of law, open discussion and accommodation of dissenting views from staff and students as a matter of education. Don’t forget also that staff and students in a normal university community constantly validate the extent to which Makerere University Council and Management act in the best interest of the university community and public and whether their actions are morally embracing and reflective of a decent and dynamic society.

For example, to what extent are decisions of Council and Management incorrupt and what are their levels of accountability in reality? Are decisions arrived at through open discussions and in a convincing manner? If decisions made in public interest and in the management of students and staff affairs lack fairness and do not promote a decent society, then, resistance should always be expected from a normal university community. Let me also remind the vice chancellor about the history of a university and what actually shapes it. When the first university in the world, University of Bologna in Italy opened its doors in 1088, it purposed to absorb the demands of elite education across Europe among those defending the right of incipient nations against empire and church.

As such, its operations were independent of the authority of kings and the church and structured as such to protect the freedoms of speech of its scholarly community on which dynamic and progressive societies are built. This is fundamentally a typical difference between university and vocational education. This is also what a university academic leader should always strive to promote and defend in words and in actions while also upholding lawful disciplinary measures against wrong doing by any member of the community.

However, autocratic leadership sentiments devoid of moral authority, usually point to a possibility that such could be utopia insisting on effecting radical disciplinary measures. The counter argument is that may be, this can possibly work where leaders effect radical changes while standing on a higher moral ground and that they are acting purely in the best interest of the community. I don’t know whether the vice chancellor believes that the latter is the situation in our case.

The vice chancellor has since his inauguration, resorted to writing threatening letters to staff who question his work methods, including leaders of Muasa, especially when we cite slow on bad Appointments Board operations. Suspensions of students opposing fees policies have since also started and such could threaten tranquillity in the medium-term. I believe that Prof Nawangwe is convinced that such threats will secure him a peaceful tenure in office of the vice chancellor, but actually forgets that his actions will be properly validated against our desire as a university community to achieve an open and accountable university to all in the first place.
Therefore, on MUASA’s side and in light of all the Council and Management malpractices that we often highlight, the least we can settle for is accountability and lawful actions befitting a university.

Dr Muhwezi is the chairman, Makerere University Academic Staff Association.
[email protected]