UNIVERSITIES IN FEAR OF AN ARTIST

 

Some of our universities, including those described as apex universities appear to be in the grip of a fear that free speech may grow on their campuses. The source of their fear is an artist named Fahmi Reza (image above).

In actions repeated in several universities, the authorities acted to shut down student forums that were being conducted by Fahmi Reza. In at least one case, auxiliary police were summoned to assist the authorities in shutting down the forum.

It all started when Fahmi attempted to conduct his popular online forums on electoral politics in person on university campuses. Fahmi’s Kelas Demokrasi forum was conceived by the artist when Parliament was dissolved on 10 October this year. The aim of the forum was to educate emerging young voters on the complexities of electoral politics to help them understand and exercise their electoral rights in the forthcoming general elections. In elections that will see the participation of a large number of the young reaching the voting age, these forums clearly serve an important need.

However, those controlling our universities seem to think that such activities are averse to the purposes of the university and to the education of students enrolled in them. The interruptions of such forums in universities are so bizarre that they may well have been scripted by the artist himself.

Universities are meant to create the space for free speech and robust debate. University administrators and academics are duty-bound to uphold these ideals of the university. The free expression and exchange of different views without fear of punishment or interference, as in this case, goes to the very heart of democratic principles which are a vital part of higher education.

It will be naïve, however, to think that the interruptions of these forums are rare and an exception to the general environment of freedom in our universities. The truth is that our higher education laws have progressively scraped away almost all the essential attributes of a university, leaving in its wake bland statutory bodies that bear no resemblance to a university. Universities in this country are universities because that is how they are described by the law. Shapes without substance.

The tedious bureaucratic explanation that prior permission was not obtained for the Fahmi forums is nothing compared to the statutory mutilations that have been inflicted on academic freedom by the Statutory Bodies (Discipline and Surcharge) Act 2000 (605). Disciplinary rules make it an offence for an academic in a public university to criticize the government or the university. 

How cool is that for a university?

The High Roost of Vice-Chancellors by Hazman Shah

 

Quite some time ago, a Professor who is an architect from UTM observed that it is easy to identify where the VC and his top management team of the university rule from. It is the highest building or it is in the central zone or it is fabulously decored or something to that effect. His point was that the power within the university is symbolized in the physical campus which militates against the collegial leadership culture that is still claimed in public universities. Granted each VC brings his or her own style to the office but generally, the VC office and the chancellory tend to project the power and the privilege of the VC’s office. This is probably their job, orientation, and training. But is this collegial leadership that we often associate with universities?

The culture comes to the fore when the VC receives a title or when his birthday comes by, then his or her office goes into high gear. The celebration often gets a bit uncomfortable with every key academic leader expected to put out messages of congratulations which are sometimes followed by gifts. These days it is social media that carries a flood of felicitations. This practice gets replicated for the DVCs too. Is this an indication of common courtesy or a reflection of something more fundamental - the reification of leaders? You can make the argument both ways.

One obvious case of the reification of leaders was when the chancellory in one public university insisted on the portrait of the VC being placed beside those of the King, Queen, PM, and MB. The chancellory staff even went around checking if the portraits were up as instructed! One of the deans of the university got an earful for not abiding by the dictate. The announcement of the arrival of the VC at official functions could be easily mistaken for the arrival of the King! Overzealous staff or culture of reification of the office?

In comparison, the Presidents and provosts of private universities and international branch campuses are less reified. Their offices are much less ostentatious and are not in the center of their campuses. In fact, on some campuses, it is difficult to guess where the CEO’s office is located. The office, the references to them, and communication with them are much more reflective of a collegial culture. The VC is a colleague, albeit an important one!

Are there two noticeably different types of leadership in higher education as I have remarked? Is it historical, cultural, institutional, or simply individual? Which one is more amenable to the concept and idea of a university? Is the reference to VCs as CEO (like in a private company) in fact even appropriate? AKEPT may have some observations on these as it develops and conducts leadership courses for higher education.